.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
This candlestick, hammered and spun from thick sheet brass, is of classic proportions, with completely straight slightly tapering cylindrical body, and a mouth of identical reduced form. The profile of the body is very vertical, a feature that is more typical of candlesticks from Mosul than elsewhere, and the mouth is angled in a little more than the body. The form, with its sharply extruded shoulder and mouth and gently raised chevron bands is very similar indeed and the size is almost identical to that of a little-known candlestick at one time displayed in the Çinili Kösk Museum in Istanbul (TKS . inv.2628; Kühnel 1938, p.24, pl.30). When its extraordinary pictorial roundels, clearly deriving from Western manuscript prototypes, were published by Rice, he noted that it was anonymous, although it appears to have the title ghiyath al-dunya wa al-din on the body (Rice, 1954, p.35 and pl.18). Many other features indicate that the Istanbul and our candlesticks are a part of the group that was highlighted in the recent exhibition in London, centering on the Courtauld Bag (Ward, 2014, esp.pp.76-99). While earlier scholars had reasoned that the metalwork industry had been finished in Mosul by the Mongol conquest in 1262, the authors presented a very coherent and convincing argument for its continuation long after the Mongol invasion. The appearance of the present candlestick serves to reinforce this argument, as we will demonstrate.
That this candlestick is a part of the group is clear. The quality of the metalworking is fabulous, as is particularly shown where the silver is worn or rubbed, and has left traces caught by the brass body rather than just pulling away as is frequently the case. The edges of the letters in the major inscription are recessed, bevelled down towards the edges, a technical feature of the group (Ward 2014, p.70). The drawing is excellent, and very well controlled. There are also many features that connect it very closely to other members of the group. Around the neck it contains the paired birds in roundels noted on many examples, and the lozenges around the base are paralleled by those on a number of vessels, notably the spherical incense burner made for Sultan Abu Sa’id, now in Florence (Ward 2014, no.30, pp.154-5). These are divided by the roundels inlaid with angled gold arms that are such a prominent feature on a number of related pencases such as those in the British Museum, the Louvre, and Berlin (ME 1881,0802.19; Koechlin Collection 3439; MMA 17.190.822; Ward, 2014, no.28, p.149 and figs 43-45, pp.72-3) and also appear as dividers on the magnificent candlestick by `Ali bin `Umar bin Ibrahim al-Sankar al-Mawsili in 1317-18, now in the Benaki Museum (Inv.no.13038; Ballian 2010, pp.128-135). The precision of the background scrollwork is also typical, with its spirals never mechanical, always with energy, that are found on many other examples.
There is one feature however that makes this candlestick stand out amongst all other examples. That the roundels depict mounted warriors is not unusual at all; in contrast to all other examples, wearing helmets or turbans, here however the warriors are clearly Arabs, with the additional cloth extending from the turban to form a band under the chin. What is more, they are clearly mounted on camels. This is remarkable, especially in a world which had recently been conquered by the Mongols, one of whose biggest advantages was their control of their small horses.
This is by no means the only time that inlaid metalwork has depicted people mounted on camels. However that normally only seems to be the case when the camel is supporting the palanquin for a lady, as in a Fars basin in the Victoria and Albert Museum (Melikian-Chirvani, 1982, no.93, pp.202-207, esp. pl.93A), on the related basin in Berlin (Enderlein, 1971, pp.1-40, esp. Abb.16), and on a Mosul tray in Cleveland (45.386; Baer, 1985, pl.123, p.146). Camels are also found as the mounts for depictions of Bahram Gur hunting, with Azada mounted behind, also on the V basin (Melikian-Chirvani, 1982, pl.93D), as well as in tilework from Takht-i Sulayman (V inv.no.1841-1876; Komaroff and Carboni, 2002, no.97, fig.108). Both these subjects appear on the Blacas ewer at the British Museum, dated 1232 AD (Pope, 1938, vol.VI, pl.1329 and esp. pl.1330C; Ward, 1993, pl.60, p.82). Camels are occasionally the subject, on their own, of Kashan lustre tiles such as one in Boston (06.1896; Komaroff and Carboni, 2002, no.118, fig.117). Occasionally camels are found in metalwork as mounts, but as subsidiary motifs, as on a Mosul tray in Tehran (Pope, 1938, vol.VI, pl.1331). The camels on our candlestick are an integral part of the main pictorial focus. They are also very clearly carrying Arab warriors, each armed not just with a spear but also with a sword hanging from the waist. One has to look to Arab painting of the 13th century, as in the Maqamat al-Hariri of 1237 (BN, MS arabe 5847 (cf. f.138r); Ettinghausen, 1977) to find such prominent proud Arabs on their native mounts.
It raises the question of who the patron could have been for this remarkable candlestick. The inscriptions are generic good wishes and give no indication. What it does however reveal is the willingness of the best workmen in Mosul to work for all patrons. The exhibition of the Courtauld bag beautifully drew attention to the accuracy of the depiction of the patron, a Mongol lady, and the way the individual items were depicted pictorially. Here we observe exactly the same skill being employed, but depicting people who were almost certainly the other side of any political divide. As Rachel Ward noted in the heading to her own chapter heading in that catalogue, “Il-Khanid Mosul [was] more Craft than Court”.
There is one last issue to draw attention to in this candlestick. The figures have been deliberately but very carefully defaced. Even the birds in the roundels on the neck have not been allowed to survive. We can see from a close inspection that this was very careful and purposeful; the inscriptions and the patterned areas are not touched. Even some of the scrolls around the edges of the figural roundels remain. The pattern of defacing is exactly the same as that which was meted out to the magnificent candlestick by `Ali bin `Umar bin Ibrahim al-Sankar al-Mawsili in the Benaki already discussed, that was donated to the Prophet’s shrine in Madina relatively shortly after it was made, a donation that is assumed to have given the impetus for the defacing of the figures. The present candlestick, with its clear Arab heritage, would have been an appropriate gift for a major shrine. Was the defacing done in the same place? Whatever the answer to this question, as with the Benaki candlestick, the task was done sufficiently elegantly that the design remains clearly visible, the majority of the decoration is in very good condition, and the Arabs on their camels remain clear, attesting to the most unusual patronage of this magnificent work of art.
That this candlestick is a part of the group is clear. The quality of the metalworking is fabulous, as is particularly shown where the silver is worn or rubbed, and has left traces caught by the brass body rather than just pulling away as is frequently the case. The edges of the letters in the major inscription are recessed, bevelled down towards the edges, a technical feature of the group (Ward 2014, p.70). The drawing is excellent, and very well controlled. There are also many features that connect it very closely to other members of the group. Around the neck it contains the paired birds in roundels noted on many examples, and the lozenges around the base are paralleled by those on a number of vessels, notably the spherical incense burner made for Sultan Abu Sa’id, now in Florence (Ward 2014, no.30, pp.154-5). These are divided by the roundels inlaid with angled gold arms that are such a prominent feature on a number of related pencases such as those in the British Museum, the Louvre, and Berlin (ME 1881,0802.19; Koechlin Collection 3439; MMA 17.190.822; Ward, 2014, no.28, p.149 and figs 43-45, pp.72-3) and also appear as dividers on the magnificent candlestick by `Ali bin `Umar bin Ibrahim al-Sankar al-Mawsili in 1317-18, now in the Benaki Museum (Inv.no.13038; Ballian 2010, pp.128-135). The precision of the background scrollwork is also typical, with its spirals never mechanical, always with energy, that are found on many other examples.
There is one feature however that makes this candlestick stand out amongst all other examples. That the roundels depict mounted warriors is not unusual at all; in contrast to all other examples, wearing helmets or turbans, here however the warriors are clearly Arabs, with the additional cloth extending from the turban to form a band under the chin. What is more, they are clearly mounted on camels. This is remarkable, especially in a world which had recently been conquered by the Mongols, one of whose biggest advantages was their control of their small horses.
This is by no means the only time that inlaid metalwork has depicted people mounted on camels. However that normally only seems to be the case when the camel is supporting the palanquin for a lady, as in a Fars basin in the Victoria and Albert Museum (Melikian-Chirvani, 1982, no.93, pp.202-207, esp. pl.93A), on the related basin in Berlin (Enderlein, 1971, pp.1-40, esp. Abb.16), and on a Mosul tray in Cleveland (45.386; Baer, 1985, pl.123, p.146). Camels are also found as the mounts for depictions of Bahram Gur hunting, with Azada mounted behind, also on the V basin (Melikian-Chirvani, 1982, pl.93D), as well as in tilework from Takht-i Sulayman (V inv.no.1841-1876; Komaroff and Carboni, 2002, no.97, fig.108). Both these subjects appear on the Blacas ewer at the British Museum, dated 1232 AD (Pope, 1938, vol.VI, pl.1329 and esp. pl.1330C; Ward, 1993, pl.60, p.82). Camels are occasionally the subject, on their own, of Kashan lustre tiles such as one in Boston (06.1896; Komaroff and Carboni, 2002, no.118, fig.117). Occasionally camels are found in metalwork as mounts, but as subsidiary motifs, as on a Mosul tray in Tehran (Pope, 1938, vol.VI, pl.1331). The camels on our candlestick are an integral part of the main pictorial focus. They are also very clearly carrying Arab warriors, each armed not just with a spear but also with a sword hanging from the waist. One has to look to Arab painting of the 13th century, as in the Maqamat al-Hariri of 1237 (BN, MS arabe 5847 (cf. f.138r); Ettinghausen, 1977) to find such prominent proud Arabs on their native mounts.
It raises the question of who the patron could have been for this remarkable candlestick. The inscriptions are generic good wishes and give no indication. What it does however reveal is the willingness of the best workmen in Mosul to work for all patrons. The exhibition of the Courtauld bag beautifully drew attention to the accuracy of the depiction of the patron, a Mongol lady, and the way the individual items were depicted pictorially. Here we observe exactly the same skill being employed, but depicting people who were almost certainly the other side of any political divide. As Rachel Ward noted in the heading to her own chapter heading in that catalogue, “Il-Khanid Mosul [was] more Craft than Court”.
There is one last issue to draw attention to in this candlestick. The figures have been deliberately but very carefully defaced. Even the birds in the roundels on the neck have not been allowed to survive. We can see from a close inspection that this was very careful and purposeful; the inscriptions and the patterned areas are not touched. Even some of the scrolls around the edges of the figural roundels remain. The pattern of defacing is exactly the same as that which was meted out to the magnificent candlestick by `Ali bin `Umar bin Ibrahim al-Sankar al-Mawsili in the Benaki already discussed, that was donated to the Prophet’s shrine in Madina relatively shortly after it was made, a donation that is assumed to have given the impetus for the defacing of the figures. The present candlestick, with its clear Arab heritage, would have been an appropriate gift for a major shrine. Was the defacing done in the same place? Whatever the answer to this question, as with the Benaki candlestick, the task was done sufficiently elegantly that the design remains clearly visible, the majority of the decoration is in very good condition, and the Arabs on their camels remain clear, attesting to the most unusual patronage of this magnificent work of art.