.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
Several portraits of ‘Abdullah Qutb Shah (r. 1626-72) were painted during and after his long reign. He ascended the throne at twelve, with his mother, Hayat Bakhshi Begum, steering the Golconda kingdom for the boy-sultan with his ministers. The earliest portraits of him are in the British Museum (1974,0617,0.6.1 and 1937,0410,0.1) and dated circa 1630 at which point he was sixteen. A portrait dated circa 1635 in the Cleveland Museum of Art (2013.287) was sold in these Rooms, 15 October 1996, lot 10.
The present painting brilliantly depicts a fierce sultan whose kingdom is divinely sanctioned by heavenly sunrays. There is a strikingly similar portrait of him in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London (I.S.18-1980); illustrated above. They are described by Mark Zebrowski as “basically the mirror of each other” (Mark Zebrowski, Deccani Painting, London, 1983, p.183). Not only are there obvious comparisons in composition, facial features and iconography, but there are also similarities in the finer details, such as the similar costume, indigo katar scabbards and purple inner knuckle guard of his firangi khanda hilt. Zebrowski believed they were almost certainly produced by the same anonymous Deccani artist, and faced each other in the same royal album (as illustrated in Zebrowski, op.cit., figs.150-1). In both portraits, ‘Abdullah Qutb Shah wears jewellery of a type new in Golconda portraits, with open-work ornaments studded with rubies and pearls. These became fashionable following the increased mining of diamonds in the kingdom (Navina Najat Haidar and Marika Sardar, Sultans of Deccan India 1500-1700: Opulence and Fantasy, pp.238-40).
The Deccani invasion of Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan (r. 1628-58) forced upon ‘Abdullah Qutb Shah the Deed of Submission in 1636 which included an increase in tribute and the replacement of Shiism with Sunnism as the official creed. This lead Golconda artists to incorporate a Mughal style in their portraits (Zebrowski, op.cit., p.178). Mughal attire, as worn by ‘Abdullah Qutb Shah here, were depicted, and subjects were placed against an empty background, as seen in the famous Shah Jahan Album paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (inv.no.55.121.10).
Mark Zebrowski describes what he sees as a non-indigenous “Mughalizing” style mostly of documentary value (Zebrowski, op.cit., p.178). However, he himself notes our the striking visual properties of our painting and that in the V&A, distinguishing them from Mughal painting, with their thick paint creating a porcelain-like crackle and the rich use of gold and lapis lazuli (Zebrowski, op.cit., p.183). To our painting in particular, one may add the illuminated trees at the feet of the heavier armed ‘Abdullah Qutb Shah, and the stronger sunrays. One may speculate whether it was the first to be painted of the two, as it would’ve been read as the first in an album. Another fine, similar portrait of a mature ‘Abdullah Qutb Shah is in the Musee National des Artes Asiatiques - Guimet, Paris (MG 9183) which is attributed to circa 1660, following his mother’s negotiations with the Mughal Prince Aurangzeb in 1656 which spared Golconda from further siege (Haidar and Sardar, op.cit., p.238, cat.131).
Portraits didn’t just project strength from the ruler to its subjects, but in ‘Abdullah Qutb Shah’s case also carried an important symbolic weight before Shah Jahan. After the 1635 invasion, Shah Jahan sent ‘Abdullah Qutb Shah his jewel-studded portrait, to which ‘Abdullah Qutb Shah defiantly responded with a portrait of himself (Zebrowski, op.cit., p.178). Perhaps our portrait and that in the V&A can be placed in the same decade as that in the Guimet, when a more assertive ‘Abdullah Qutb Shah, by then in his thirties, would have taken over the reins of the state from Hayat Bakhshi Begum (Haidar and Sardar, op.cit., p.238). Three more youthful portraits of him more consistent with the Deccani style and dated circa 1640-5 support this proposed dating for our portrait (Museum Reitberg EA1960.203, see J.P. Losty, Mughal and Deccani Paintings: Eva and Conrad Seitz Collection of Indian Miniatures, Zurich, 2010, cat.35; Ashmolean Museum; National Museum of India, inv.no.61.1004, see Daljeet Kaur, Mughal and Deccani Paintings: From the Collection of the National Museum, 1999, p.155).
There are many posthumous portraits of ‘Abdullah Qutb Shah on account of the numerous album portraits of Mughal and Deccani rulers produced for of his successor and the final sultan of the Qutb Shahi dynasty, Tana Shah (r. 1672-87) (Robert Skelton, ‘South Asian Art’, Steven Hooper (ed.), Catalogue to the Robert and Lisa Sainsbury Collection, Norwich, 1997, p.251). One that might have drawn on our painting is in the V&A (IS.55-1949). Others include one sold in Sotheby’s London, 27 October 2020, lot 434, and one in the Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts, University of East Anglia, Norwich (UEA 764), and another in the San Diego Museum of Art (1990.494).
The present painting brilliantly depicts a fierce sultan whose kingdom is divinely sanctioned by heavenly sunrays. There is a strikingly similar portrait of him in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London (I.S.18-1980); illustrated above. They are described by Mark Zebrowski as “basically the mirror of each other” (Mark Zebrowski, Deccani Painting, London, 1983, p.183). Not only are there obvious comparisons in composition, facial features and iconography, but there are also similarities in the finer details, such as the similar costume, indigo katar scabbards and purple inner knuckle guard of his firangi khanda hilt. Zebrowski believed they were almost certainly produced by the same anonymous Deccani artist, and faced each other in the same royal album (as illustrated in Zebrowski, op.cit., figs.150-1). In both portraits, ‘Abdullah Qutb Shah wears jewellery of a type new in Golconda portraits, with open-work ornaments studded with rubies and pearls. These became fashionable following the increased mining of diamonds in the kingdom (Navina Najat Haidar and Marika Sardar, Sultans of Deccan India 1500-1700: Opulence and Fantasy, pp.238-40).
The Deccani invasion of Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan (r. 1628-58) forced upon ‘Abdullah Qutb Shah the Deed of Submission in 1636 which included an increase in tribute and the replacement of Shiism with Sunnism as the official creed. This lead Golconda artists to incorporate a Mughal style in their portraits (Zebrowski, op.cit., p.178). Mughal attire, as worn by ‘Abdullah Qutb Shah here, were depicted, and subjects were placed against an empty background, as seen in the famous Shah Jahan Album paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (inv.no.55.121.10).
Mark Zebrowski describes what he sees as a non-indigenous “Mughalizing” style mostly of documentary value (Zebrowski, op.cit., p.178). However, he himself notes our the striking visual properties of our painting and that in the V&A, distinguishing them from Mughal painting, with their thick paint creating a porcelain-like crackle and the rich use of gold and lapis lazuli (Zebrowski, op.cit., p.183). To our painting in particular, one may add the illuminated trees at the feet of the heavier armed ‘Abdullah Qutb Shah, and the stronger sunrays. One may speculate whether it was the first to be painted of the two, as it would’ve been read as the first in an album. Another fine, similar portrait of a mature ‘Abdullah Qutb Shah is in the Musee National des Artes Asiatiques - Guimet, Paris (MG 9183) which is attributed to circa 1660, following his mother’s negotiations with the Mughal Prince Aurangzeb in 1656 which spared Golconda from further siege (Haidar and Sardar, op.cit., p.238, cat.131).
Portraits didn’t just project strength from the ruler to its subjects, but in ‘Abdullah Qutb Shah’s case also carried an important symbolic weight before Shah Jahan. After the 1635 invasion, Shah Jahan sent ‘Abdullah Qutb Shah his jewel-studded portrait, to which ‘Abdullah Qutb Shah defiantly responded with a portrait of himself (Zebrowski, op.cit., p.178). Perhaps our portrait and that in the V&A can be placed in the same decade as that in the Guimet, when a more assertive ‘Abdullah Qutb Shah, by then in his thirties, would have taken over the reins of the state from Hayat Bakhshi Begum (Haidar and Sardar, op.cit., p.238). Three more youthful portraits of him more consistent with the Deccani style and dated circa 1640-5 support this proposed dating for our portrait (Museum Reitberg EA1960.203, see J.P. Losty, Mughal and Deccani Paintings: Eva and Conrad Seitz Collection of Indian Miniatures, Zurich, 2010, cat.35; Ashmolean Museum; National Museum of India, inv.no.61.1004, see Daljeet Kaur, Mughal and Deccani Paintings: From the Collection of the National Museum, 1999, p.155).
There are many posthumous portraits of ‘Abdullah Qutb Shah on account of the numerous album portraits of Mughal and Deccani rulers produced for of his successor and the final sultan of the Qutb Shahi dynasty, Tana Shah (r. 1672-87) (Robert Skelton, ‘South Asian Art’, Steven Hooper (ed.), Catalogue to the Robert and Lisa Sainsbury Collection, Norwich, 1997, p.251). One that might have drawn on our painting is in the V&A (IS.55-1949). Others include one sold in Sotheby’s London, 27 October 2020, lot 434, and one in the Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts, University of East Anglia, Norwich (UEA 764), and another in the San Diego Museum of Art (1990.494).