The Salon du Tapis d'Orient is a moderated discussion group in the manner of the 19th century salon devoted to oriental rugs and textiles and all aspects of their appreciation. Please include your full name and e-mail address in your posting.
by Pierre Galafassi
Italian artists often included rugs in paintings with religious themes (mostly "Virgin and Child enthroned"), more rarely in portraits of cardinals, popes, rich merchants, upper class bureaucrats of city states and of (minor) local dynasts. The carpets were sometimes laid at the feet of the Virgin, but usually decorated a table, chest or wall, according to the actual usage of the time. Rugs were much too expensive during the Italian Renaissance to be routinely walked upon; indeed, they carried price tags similar to those of bronze statues or paintings from top artists (1).
English painters used rugs nearly exclusively in
standing portraits of royalty and high ranking nobility. The immensely
wealthy Cardinal-Chancellor Wolsey, arguably the greatest rug collector of the
time, was never shown with any of his cherished carpets: he died shortly
before Hans Holbein launched the fashion in England. This is most unfortunate;
how much would you have enjoyed a painted catalogue of Wolsey’s unique
collection?
In most cases, in English painting the rug was laid on the floor as a show of power and wealth. Only a few leaders of the Church of England granted themselves the privilege of a rug, but with fitting modesty had it decorating their armchair or table instead. Again, in daily life rugs were much too expensive to be floor coverings.
The painters of the Dutch Golden Age (seventeenth century) used rugs as studio props much more frequently than earlier painters from Renaissance Italy, Spain, Flanders (fourteenth- to early sixteenth centuries), and England (second third of sixteenth century to first half of seventeenth century). As mentioned by Onno Ydema (2), even if we consider only rugs of the Lotto type, there are at least 190 of them featured in extant Dutch paintings (3)!
In seventeenth century Holland, rugs were prevalently represented in portraits of rich merchants and officials of civil- or military associations, in "genre" painting, in paintings of interiors of Dutch burger’s homes, in a few paintings with mythologic themes and in a number of still-lives. Given the canons of the Protestant Church, there were hardly any religious paintings and therefore no rugs under the feet of any "enthroned Virgin".With the notable exception of a few standing portraits of Oranje-Nassau Stadholders, rugs in Dutch paintings were rarely featured on the floor, but nearly always as table covering; showing off too much wealth was not politically correct at the time (again, the Protestant ethic at work) and even though cheaper rugs became available on the market, especially during the second part of the seventeenth century (judging from the low knot-count and limited palette of many rugs used as studio props), one would still not boast of wasting good money by walking on one’s rugs. In fact, rugs started to be used in that "wasteful" way much later, during the eighteenth century, only after they had lost most of their prestige as luxury objects reserved to the moneyed upper classes. This change was probably due to larger and more frequent shipments of cheaper imports from India and Persia (4) and perhaps to the existence of Dutch weaving workshops as well. By then, even the Dutch painters had long lost interest in them.
During
the Golden Age, rugs were probably still too expensive for painters to own (5)
and were mostly provided by the sitter. It has been argued that the fact that
the same rug was sometime featured in paintings of different contemporaneous painters
might indicate that the Saint Luke painter’s guilds may have owned a few rugs
and rented them out to guild members. A painting by J.De Bray, featuring the
governors of the Saint Luke Guild of Harleem could be used as evidence for its
ownership of rugs (FIG 144).
Fig. 144: 1675. J. de Bray. Governors of the Guild of Saint Luke in Harleem. Rijksmuseum. Amsterdam.
Another
quite credible possibility is that by the end of the century the rug export
business from Persia or India became large enough for some weavers to "mass-produce" identical rugs featuring popular motifs.
O. Ydema distinguishes the following main categories of rugs in seventeenth century Dutch paintings:
A
Ottoman rugs from Anatolia, Egypt, Syria: They
were nearly always woven in geometric style, but Ydema attributes a few
rugs with floral, curvilinear style to the Ottomans. Cairene workshops
did produce such types of motifs during this century. Ottoman sultans
apparently thought that the ornate Persian style was more fitting than
the geometric style to their
exalted glory. Accordingly, they also created some
workshops working for the court in Anatolia and Istanbul. They were staffed,
in part, by displaced Cairene weavers (6) as well as by Persian artisans
displaced after Ottoman victories over the Safavid and were using the
asymmetric knot. Ottoman rugs in geometric style were frequent in Dutch
painting, especially during the early part of the Golden Age, while Ottoman
curvilinear floral style was seldom represented by Dutch painters and hardly
ever by other European painters.
However, such rugs are featured in Ottoman miniatures (FIG 145).
Fig. 145: 1568. Miniature by Nakkas Osman. Sultan Selim II receives the Safavid ambassador. Topkapi Museum, Istanbul
B
Persian and Indian rugs with curvilinear floral
patterns, of which nearly 300 appear in seventeenth century Dutch
painting, some as early as 1615. According to Ydema, about 70-75% of these rugs
were woven in Persia, the remainder in Moghul India. Both became increasingly
frequent during the second half of the century.
Not many seem to achieve the standard of upper class Safavid or Moghul
production as we know them from extant museum pieces. Many appear to be of a
rather ordinary quality with medium knot count and despite their familiar
motifs, they frequently feature less "horror vacui syndrom" and a more limited
number of colors than generally expected from this origin, as seen for example
in FIG 146.
Fig. 146: 1659-1660. F. van Mieris the Elder. Young women in the
morning. Hermitage. St Petersburg
Although import of Persian/Indian rugs via Istanbul by land is also documented (7), their relative importance in Dutch homes of the golden age was probably due to the extensive ship lanes of the VOC (The Dutch East India Company) (8) to the spice islands of Indonesia and beyond to China and Japan, via Persian and Indian stopovers and trading posts. Rugs were not listed as one of the most frequent official ship cargoes (spared for the more lucrative spice, silk, chinaware, precious wood or silver VOC businesses). Nevertheless, some large orders are documented (9). In addition, one can assume that senior ship and military officers as well as traveling VOC functionaries would buy them at the Indian or Persian stopovers for the limited private business which the rules of the company allowed them to do or as souvenirs.
C
Some rather remarkable rugs, which Ydema calls "Scheunemann rugs": Not particularly densely woven, in curvilinear
style but with some touches of geometric motifs, and a palette that is neither
typically Persian nor Anatolian, they featured rather spectacular floral
central medallions and a variety of borders of which some can be met in extant
Anatolian, northwest Persian, or south Caucasian rugs. Their weavers did
not suffer from "horror-vacui syndrom", unlike too many Persian and Indian rugs
(FIG 147).
Fig. 147: 1669. J. de Bray. The de Bray family. Manchester, New Hampshire. Style and palette related to "Scheunemann rugs"
Except for a couple of rather similar, but not identical and perhaps unrelated extant examples which somehow surfaced in Kyoto, "Scheunemann rugs" do not have extant counterpart and their representations are exclusively found in Dutch painting. These rugs were rare before 1650 and became frequent between 1660 and 1690, a total of about 150 pieces being referenced by Ydema (13). This could imply that the rugs were either a recent creation or that their source only became accessible for European trade during this later period. The fact that these rugs were featured only in Dutch painting could support the hypothesis of their weaving either in Holland or near one of the VOC stopovers on the Asian southern shores. None of the mentioned Asian sources completely satisfies the experts, though. At the risk of seeming obsessed by my quest of the elusive Caucasus rug in old masters paintings, I would suggest that those composite influences and a "je-ne -sais-quoi-de-Caucasien" (10) could also mean that the origin was perhaps somewhere near Armenia, South Caucasus or Tabriz, a hypothesis that Ydema does not even consider worth mentioning (:-). C.G. Ellis, who analyzed the Kyoto pieces, hesitated between Dutch and Japanese production, while not fully excluding Persian. Ydema cautiously agrees that the hypothesis of European production could have some merit (11, 12).
D
A fourth type, also with unclear geographical
attribution, was called "Unbekannte Gattung" ("unknown type") by
Ydema and tentatively linked to the "Scheunemann" type because of some
similarities of the palette (mainly because of a frequent juxtaposition of
large orange and red areas, for example) and despite a more anarchic disposition
of the motifs. It was characterized by curvilinear floral patterns, a low
knot count and a rough design. Ydema mentions that many motifs were again
borrowed from rugs from various Asian origin, but somehow look odd to her.
Ellis and Ydema, both give a slight preference to India as possible origin of
this "unknown type", of which about 80 were identified by Ydema in Dutch
painting(14). To my unexperienced eyes, some of these rugs look like low quality Indian weavings with messy motifs,
(cheap, made-for-export and for "tourists"?).
They also could have been rough Dutch copies of course, although, to me,
their anarchic design does not quite fit with the rational and organized
mentality for which the Dutch are known.
Rugs
of Likely Anatolian Origin:
The most frequent Anatolian rugs with
geometric style in seventeenth century Dutch painting was the so-called Lotto
type . A darling of Italian, Spanish and Portuguese painters and their patrons
since about 1525 (15), Lotto rugs were rare in Netherland paintings until
about 1615, then remained in fashion for at least the next 60 years (3). Ellis
popularized three main subtypes of Lotto field style, called "Anatolian" (FIG
148), "Kilim" (FIG 149), and an intermediary style called "ornate" . Ydema
notes that both Anatolian and Kilim styles were present from 1540 onwards
in Netherland paintings, a point that does not support the common
wisdom (on which dating of extant Lotto rugs is in part based) that the former
style was the oldest.
Fig. 148: Turkish. Ushak. Lotto. «Anatolian» field &
«kufesque» border. XVI. St Louis.
Fig. 150: Turkish. Ushak Lotto. «Anatolian field &
«cartouche» border. XVI.Tappeti classici d’Oriente del XVI e XVII secolo. M
Tabibnia.
These
rugs came with a number of borders, the most frequent being grouped in
three categories, dubbed "kufesque" (FIG 148), "cartouche" (FIG 150) and "cloudband" (FIG 149).
The
relative rarity in Dutch painting of the "kufesque" border (which was quasi-
mandatory in earlier paintings of the Renaissance) is conspicuous (16).
On the
other hand "cartouche" borders, which were the most frequent in Dutch
representation of Lotto rugs and in extant rugs, never appeared in sixteenth
century Italian painting, according to Ydema (17).
The frequent "cloudband" border is generally considered a marker for a western
Anatolian, especially Ushak origin.
Fig. 151: 1615. A. Bloemaert. The four evangelists. Detail. Princeton Art Museum.
Fig. 153: 1618. J. Brueghel the elder. The sense of Touch.
Detail. Prado. Madrid.
Fig. 154: 1622. W. J. van den Valckert. Regents of the
Groot-Kramergild. Detail. Berlin.
Fig. 155: 1623.
G. van
Honthorst. The merry fiddler. Detail. Rijksmuseum. Amsterdam.
Fig. 156: 1625-1630. W. Duyster. Playing tric-trac . Detail.
Nat. Gal. London
Fig. 157: 1630-1650. Anonymous (Dutch?). Still-life.
Fig. 158: 1650. G. Coques. Family portrait. Detail. Budapest
Fig. 159: 1660-1690. J. van Geel. A Dutch interior.
Ydema states that a fourth border (FIG 160) was
specific for a rare and lovely type of blue field Lotto carpets. One of C. de
Vos’ patrons probably owned such a blue Lotto, of which the painter represented
frustratingly small portions in at least two portraits, including in one of his
many portraits of his own large family (in an ostentatiously luxurious and
hardly credible setting, by the way).
Fig. 160: Turkish. Ushak.
Lotto. Blue ground. XVIII.Turkish
handwoven carpets. Vol 5.
Fig. 161: 1620 ca. C. de Vos. The painter and his family. Brussels.
The second most frequent Anatolian rug type in
Dutch painting of the time was the so-called "Transylvanian" Ushak (FIG 163)
or Manisa carpet (FIG 162). They were not represented by earlier European
artists, which supports the hypothesis that these rugs appeared on the European
market by the end of the sixteenth century, when most European painters and
their patrons (except English and Dutch) had already largely lost interest
in carpets.
Fig. 162: Turkish. Manisa Transylvanian prayer rug. XVII. Ottoman Turkish carpets of the MAA Budapest. F. Batari.
Fig. 164: 1620. C. de Vos. Abraham Grapheus. Detail. RMFA
Antwerp.
Fig. 165: 1627. T. de Keyser. Portrait of C. Huygens.
Detail. Nat.Gal. London.
Fig. 166: 1630-1645. P.J. Codde. Dame à sa toilette. Louvre.
Paris.
Fig. 167: 1632.
T. de Keyser.
Portrait of a lady. Berlin.
Fig. 168: 1664. C. Netscher. Lady with a parrot. Detail.
Columbus.
Fig. 169: 1670. C. de Man. Interior of townhouse.
Fig. 170: 1675. J. Verkolje. Mother and baby. Louvre. Paris.
Fig. 171: 1678. E. de Witte. Family in an interior. Detail.
Munich.
Anatolian "Medallion Ushak" rugs (FIG 172)
were somewhat less frequently represented in paintings. Perhaps they
were less popular in Dutch homes because their usual large dimensions weren't adaptable to the Dutch usage as table cover.
Fig. 172: Turkish. Ushak medallion . XVI XVII.
Fig. 173: 1646. G. van Honthorst. Amalia van Solms-Nassau and
daughters. Detail. The Hague.
Fig. 174: 1656.
J. Vermeer. The
Procuress. Detail. Dresden.
Fig. 175: 1667-1668. G. Ter Borch. Woman playing the theorbo. National Gallery London.
Browsing through Dutch painting one occasionally meets other "Anatolian" rugs. Most are quite plausible, but some are rather strange. T. Rombouts, for example, committed a couple of carpets, apparently related to each other, that are illustrated below. Not only the musician in FIG 176 but the rug as well looks a little Spanish to me.
Fig. 176: 1620-1625. T. Rombouts. Lute player. Philadelphia.
Fig. 177: 1620-1625. T. Rombouts. Card game. Hermitage.
Fig. 178: 1667. G. Dou. Young woman at her toilet. Detail.
Boijmans van Beunigen Mus. Rotterdam.
Fig. 179: 1663-1665. P. De Hooch. Merry company. MNAA Lisbon.
Curvilinear,
floral rugs of Persian or Indian origin
The Moghul rulers staffed their first rug
workshops with imported Persian weavers. Distinguishing seventeenth century
Persian from Indian carpets is, therefore, a task for real experts. I would
rather not have a serious try at it and leave it to the Turkotek specialists.
It is only my wildest guess (protected by the first amendment) that the rugs
featured in FIG 180 to 190 might be Persian (or, maybe not).
Fig. 180: 1616-1618. P.P. Rubens. Portrait of Nicolas de
Respaigne. Kassel.
Fig. 181: 1630. T. de Keyser. Portrait of a silversmith.
Fig. 182: 1631. T. de Keyser. A gentleman. Mauritshuis. The
Hague.
Fig. 183: 1642. P.J. Codde. Detail of a familly group.
Rijksmuseum. Amsterdam.
Fig. 184: 1654. G. Ter Borch. Messenger. Hermitage. St
Petersburg.
Fig. 185: 1655. A. van den Hecken. Portrait of C. J. Meyer.
Rijksmuseum. Amsterdam.
Fig. 186: 1660. F. van Mieris the Elder. The cloth shop. Vienna.
Fig. 187: 1663. J. de Bray. Regents of the of the orphanage.
Haarlem.
Fig. 188: 1668. P.de Hooch. Couple with parrot. Detail. Köln.
Fig. 189: 1670-1674. P. de Hooch. Card players.
The rugs in FIG 191 to 198
have a rather Indian look to me, but don’t bet the house cat on it.
Fig. 191: 1656. C. Fabritius. Wilhelm van der Helm. Detail.
Rijksmuseum. Amsterdam.
Fig. 192: 1666. E. van der Neer. Portrait of man and woman in
interior. detail. Boston.
Fig. 193: 1669. C. Netscher. Lady playing the guitar. Detail.
Wallace Collection.
Fig. 195: 1670. J. van Rossum. Portrait of J. W. Verbrugge and
wife. Detail. Rotterdam.
Fig. 197: 1700-1720 W. van Mieris. Dutchman and wife. Detail. Leamington S.A.M.
Fig. 199: 1652. B. van der Helst. Mary of Orange. Detail.
Rijksmuseum. Amsterdam.
Fig. 200: 1655. G. Ter Borch. Woman washing hands. Dresden.
Fig. 201: 1658. G. Ter Borch. Woman playing the theorbo and
cavalier. Detail. MET. New York.
Fig. 202: 1660. G. Ter Borch. Lady at her toilette. Detail.
Detroit.
Fig. 203: 1667. P. de Hooch. Lady with a cittern. Detail. Taft
museum. Cincinnati.
Fig. 204: 1665-1670. J. Steen. Esther before Ahasuerus.
Detail. Hermitage. St Petersburg.
Fig. 205: 1672. F. van Mieris the Elder. François Sylvius and
wife. Detail. Dresden.
Fig. 206: 1670-1675. J. Ochtervelt. Young lady trimming her
fingernails. Detail. National Gallery. London
This essay is the last of the series, since the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were, from a ruggies' point of view, as bare
and dry as the Takla Makan. Carpets were rarely featured in
painting during these centuries and even when one was shown, it was,more
likely than not degraded to an indistinct splash of color, fully bastardized,
or worse still, it was an awful wall-to-wall product of a European carpet
factory.
There was a notable
exception though: nineteenth century Orientalist painting, to which
Filiberto Boncompagni dedicated an outstanding Salon in
2004-2005, which triggered a huge number of interesting
posts. These are at http://www.turkotek.com/salon_00105/salon.html
and its follow-up http://www.turkotek.com/misc_00024/orientalist.htm I thank my accomplices, Steve Price and Filiberto Boncompagni, for their help in preparing these essays.
Notes
(3) O.
Ydema, page 29
(4) Checking the import documents of Dutch ships active during the 1600’s, Jonathan Johnson found little mention of rug cargo. One can suppose that the imports were initially mainly made on a small scale by individuals.
(5) Even
in the inventory of a successful painter like Vermeer, who commanded relatively
high prices for his work and was comparatively well-to-do during most of his
life, there was neither a rug nor any of the other luxury items like virginals
(small harpsicord), tapestry or silver trays which appear so frequently in his
paintings. (Sources: "Essential Vermeer" http://www.essentialvermeer.com/inventory.html and
http://www.essentialvermeer.com/clients_patrons.html).
Although a few Dutch painters, especially
C. de Vos, represented their families or themselves in a richly furnished
environment, with rugs, silverware musical instruments etc.., one can
suspect that these objects belonged to their patrons.
(6) O. Ydema, page 20 . After the 1517 defeat of
the Mamluk to the Ottomans and the annexation of their empire, the Sultans kept the Cairene weaving workshops active. (Ndr. It is likely that most extant
so-called "Mamluk" rugs were woven long after the hanging of the last Mamluk ruler). From
the second part of the sixteenth century onwards, part of the Cairene production
was inspired by contemporaneous Persian curvilinear floral designs and, according
to Mrs Ydema, used the asymmetric knot, perhaps because it was better suited than
the symmetric knot for this kind of job. The same thing happened at about the same
time in royal workshops in Anatolia and Istanbul. Ydema mentions that around 1580,
Sultan Murad III displaced Cairene weavers to Anatolian workshops to help develop the production of these more prestigious carpets, which we can see
represented in several Ottoman miniatures.
(7) O.
Idema, pages 124-125
(8) The
Dutch East India Company (VOC) eclipsed all of its rivals in the Asia trade. Between 1610 and 1798 the VOC sent
almost a million Europeans to work in the Asia trade on 4,785 ships (about twice as
many as English ships), and netted for their effort more than 2.5 million tons of Asian
trade goods. (source, Wikipedia)
(9) O.
Ydema, pages 78-79: Around 1625 the VOC started
importing some carpets from India. In 1624, for example, they ordered
from their trading post in Suratte (Northwestern India) 540 high quality
Persian rugs and, conditionally, 300 additional India-made ones "should they be
of comparable quality and lower cost than the Persian production".
(10) By the
standards of Rugdom Science a "je-ne-sais-quoi" usually qualifies as robust proof (:-)).
(11) O.
Ydema, page 104.
(12) At
the time, rug-weaving workshops were indeed active in several European countries including northern
Netherlands, Flanders, France, England, Italy, Poland and,
of course, in Spain, where this activity was important and dating back at least half a millennium. It is also documented
that emigrated Flemish weavers started a rug weaving activity in
England.
(13) O.
Ydema, pages 106, 120
(14) O.
Ydema, page 120
(15) Arguably,
the first lotto rug appeared in Gregorio Lopes’ "Salome" in 1525. http://www.turkotek.com/old_masters/salon_3.html
(16) Which
has been tentatively explained by a ban imposed by Ottoman religious
authorities during the sixteenth century,
of the export to non-believers of rugs featuring motifs with symbolic religious
significance, as is perhaps the case with kufic borders in rugs. Such a ban has
been suggested in carpet literature but seems purely speculative.