Indian

Skies
THE HOWARD HODGKIN
COLLECTION OF INDIAN
COURT PAINTING

The Metropolitan
Museum of Art Bulletin
Winter 2024
Indian Skies
THE HOWARD HODGKIN
COLLECTION OF INDIAN
COURT PAINTING
John Guy & Navina Najat Haidar

The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

Director's Note

indian court painting has always attracted This Bulletin was prepared in conjunction with the
discerning connoisseurs, including artists from diverse exhibition Indian Skies: The Howard Hodgkin Collection of
global traditions. The British painter Howard Hodgkin Indian Court Painting, on view from February 6 to June 9,
(1932–2017) built an extraordinary collection of 122 2024. The exhibition is made possible by the Florence
Indian paintings over a sixty-year period. As Hodgkin’s and Herbert Irving Fund for Asian Art Exhibitions and
own artistic output continued alongside his collecting, his the Friends of Islamic Art, while the Bulletin benefited
life was interwoven with his experiences of India and rela- from the Florence and Herbert Irving Fund for Asian
tionships with scholars, painters, and collectors in the field Art Publications and the Friends of Islamic Art. We are
of Indian art. He pursued works with the passionate eye of grateful to Purnendu and Amita Chatterjee for the
an artist rather than formal art-historical considerations. generous loan of Hodgkin’s oil painting In Mirza’s Room
The result is an exciting and individualistic assemblage of (1995–98), which will be shown alongside Hodgkin’s
Indian court paintings, reflecting Hodgkin’s deep journey Small Indian Sky (1990), a work that came to the Museum
into the subject. In 2022, The Met acquired eighty-four as a gift of Antony Peattie, in memory of his partner.
works from this collection to further enhance its strong The exhibition was organized by John Guy, Florence and
holdings of outstanding art from the Mughal, Deccani, Herbert Irving Curator of the Arts of South and Southeast
Rajput, and Pahari courts, becoming one of the main Asia, and Navina Najat Haidar, Nasser Sabah al-Ahmad
repositories of Indian painting of this time. To celebrate al-Sabah Curator in Charge of the Department of
this monumental acquisition, these works will be shown Islamic Art.
together with the remaining paintings from the artist’s The quarterly Bulletin program is made possible,
collection, on loan from The Howard Hodgkin Indian in part, by the Lila Acheson Wallace Fund for The
Collection Trust, thus keeping intact Hodgkin’s unique Metropolitan Museum of Art, established by the
vision of one of the world’s great pictorial traditions. cofounder of Reader’s Digest. The acquisition of the works
Court painting, both devotional and secular, has a by the Museum was made possible by the Gift of Florence
long history in India. From the sixteenth century, the and Herbert Irving, by exchange; Florence and Herbert
imperial Mughal rulers became keen patrons of art, Irving Acquisitions and 2020 Benefit Funds; Howard S.
drawing talented artists from all over the empire trained in and Nancy Marks, Lila Acheson Wallace, and Friends
different styles, some of which reflected older aesthetics of Islamic Art Gifts; Louis V. Bell, Harris Brisbane Dick,
of the region, such as exquisite mural paintings and sensi- Fletcher, and Rogers Funds and Joseph Pulitzer Bequest;
tively rendered manuscript covers created for palm-leaf The Mossavar-Rahmani Fund for Iranian Art; and funds
rather than paper books. These foundations led to the from various donors.
blossoming of court painting across the subcontinent
for the next three hundred years. While many individual
styles and idioms developed in the hands of Mughal,
Deccani, Rajasthani, and Pahari painters, there was also
a vibrant exchange across their kingdoms, expressed in MAX HOLLEIN
shared themes and aims, some of it facilitated by the Marina Kellen French Director and CEO
circulation of artists. The Metropolitan Museum of Art
Reflecting Mirrors:
Indian Court Painting
and Howard Hodgkin
NAVINA NAJAT HAIDAR

the richness and diversity of indian culture are level and with a unique eye. Hodgkin’s collection of
expressed in its painting traditions, especially during the Indian paintings challenges conventional ideas about this
golden era that dawned from the sixteenth century in the material. With his appreciation for scale, he demonstrates
Mughal age (1526–1858). The Mughal rulers were refined that Indian painting breathes large, not “miniature.” He
and elegant patrons, attracting remarkable talents to proves that elephants can be as majestically portrayed
their glittering court. Their cultural sway extended to the as kings (fig. 18) and with almost greater human char-
sultanate centers of the Deccan region in the south and acteristics. He amuses us by finding a family of caressing
to the Rajput courts of Rajasthan and the Punjab hills to pachyderms (fig. 21) and delights us with a detailed
the northwest. The workshops in these kingdoms often bazaar scene from Mandi (fig. 32). The spirit is stirred
followed the imperial courtly model but also retained by a resplendent Bijapuri king in gold, heroically shooting
their own unique cultural identities. Painters, calligra- an arrow (fig. 23), and moved by a tender young bride
phers, and illuminators developed styles (qalams) that carried into a mystical dark night (fig. 24). Color speaks
became characteristic of the court, period, or artistic its own language, from the cool minty green of Mughal-
family with which they were associated, and by which the inspired backgrounds (fig. 33) and the natural shades
study of Indian painting is often organized. This was also of tan paper upon which a fine portrait is drawn (fig.
the age of the artist as, for the first time, the names of 12) to the brilliant blocks of “Indian yellow” and blazing
individual painters were recorded in inscriptions and their vermilion that evoke the esoteric goddess of the Basohli
hands identified by contemporary and later connoisseurs. hills (fig. 48). Hodgkin is firmly committed to the Indian
Painters broke new ground as they illustrated ancient aesthetic, for when Indian painters begin to paint in
and modern texts with fresh visions; created finely more European styles for British patrons of the Raj
observed portraits and nature studies; evoked gods, (1858–1947), he loses interest. His collection more or
goddesses, mythological scenes, and musical modes in less ends there.
devotional spirit; and developed virtuosic techniques In acquiring the majority of the Hodgkin collec-
shared with the artists of Iran and Turkey, and even China tion, The Met has imported multiple, layered stories
and Europe. into its own deep fold. During the course of its
For any serious collector to engage with such a wealth formation, this collection has had the benefit of
of artistic and cultural expression requires supreme extensive scholarly study, provenance research, exhi-
confidence, good knowledge, and the decisiveness to bition, and publication, which has enriched the inves-
seize rare opportunities. And what their collection ulti- tigation of Indian and South Asian painting and
mately amounts to reveals as much about them as it culture. 1 Each piece has its own tale of discovery
does about Indian court painting. In the case of Howard and acquisition for the collector and carries meaning
Hodgkin (1932–2017), we find a collector who approaches from the past into the present for the artist, patron,
this material foremost as an artist, on a deep emotional and viewer.

5
 Howard Hodgkin
and India
JOHN GUY

the british artist howard hodgkin was introduced became a necessary part of Hodgkin’s life; he returned
to the world of Indian court painting long before he there annually like a migratory bird needing to feed from
ventured to India. While at Eton, he took art classes with its cacophony of sound and color. His relationship to India
Wilfrid Blunt (brother of the eminent art historian and was as complex as it was constant. He immersed himself
infamous Soviet spy Anthony), who shared some Indian in the country as an impassionate observer, simply experi-
paintings that he owned with his students and organized encing what he termed his “somewhere else.” In 1982, he
an exhibition at the school of works borrowed from the co-curated the exhibition Six Indian Painters at the Tate
nearby library at Windsor Castle, which contains some Gallery, London, his tribute to modern Indian art.5
of the greatest Indian paintings known, preserved in Reflecting on the importance of India to Hodgkin,
the Royal Collection. This early exposure undoubtedly the British travel writer Bruce Chatwin wrote:
fostered Hodgkin’s passion for Indian art. He bought his
first Indian painting at this time, a work he later sold as India became an emotional lifeline. Each winter he
he built his collection and honed his connoisseurship, trav­elled all over the subcontinent, sopping up impres-
learning, as he later phrased it, that in collecting, “the sions—of empty hotel rooms, the beach at Mahab­
best was the enemy of the good.”2 alipuram, the view from a railway carriage, the colour of
These early interests were reignited in 1959 by a cow dust in the evening, or the sight of an orange sari
chance meeting with Stuart Cary Welch, a scholar and against a concrete balustrade—and storing them for
curator at Harvard and a premier collector of Indian pictures he would paint at home, in Wiltshire. The influ-
paintings, in the office of Robert Skelton, a young curator ence was India herself, not the India of Indian painting.6
of Indian art at the Victoria and Albert Museum, London,
who was rapidly establishing a reputation as a leading As the American writer Susan Sontag famously reported,
authority in the field. Welch’s eloquent championing of Hodgkin never sketched or took photographs in India;
Indian painting (Hodgkin described it as his “celestial gift instead, he concentrated on allowing his eyes to commit
of the gab”) resonated with Hodgkin and escalated his to memory all that he saw.7 These momentary experi-
passion for collecting.3 Welch and Hodgkin became the ences formed a storehouse of imagery upon which the
closest of friends and, on occasion in the auction rooms, painter drew in his own work.
the fiercest of rivals. Hodgkin did not paint in India until relatively late in
Hodgkin first visited India in 1964, accompanied by his career, and then only rarely. A major exception is the
Skelton, who introduced him to leading collectors and suite of works on paper titled Indian Leaves, commis-
contemporary artists. The collector Asha Sheth joined sioned by Anand Sarabhai in 1978 and completed during
them in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, introducing a two-week artist’s residency at the Sarabhai family
them to the court cultures of Kishangarh and Bikaner; compound, The Retreat, in Ahmedabad, Gujarat. During
these experiences later inspired a number of paint- this time, he worked in a garden studio in the grounds of
ings, including a portrait of Asha.4 Hodgkin built lasting the Villa de Madame Manorama Sarabhai, a Le Corbusier–
friendships with artists Tyeb Mehta (1925–2009) and designed house commissioned in the early 1950s by
Bhupen Khakhar (1934–2003), among others, and such Manorama Sarabhai. Wet-rag paper was delivered to him
famed collectors as the Sarabhai family in Ahmedabad each morning, and he worked intensely, completing each
and Jagdish Mittal in Hyderabad (fig. 1). India quickly composition before the sheet dried (fig. 2).8 Hodgkin

6
1. Howard Hodgkin visiting the home of Jagdish Mittal, Hyderabad, 1964. 2. Howard Hodgkin working on Indian Leaves while artist-in-residence at
Photo by Robert Skelton. Courtesy Howard Hodgkin archive The Retreat, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 1978. Courtesy Suhrid Sarabhai

later described this as among the most prolific periods in

his artistic life. He characterized the resulting pictures as
“a kind of anthology of Indian images.” 9
Small Indian Sky, from 1990, is one of the many
works Hodgkin created in homage to the country he
loved (fig. 3). Evoking his memory of India’s landscapes
of radiant red earth, exuberant greenery, and skies filled
with the looming darkness of rain-laden monsoon clouds,
it demonstrates his oft-repeated maxim that he was “a
representational painter, but not a painter of appear-
ances.” In his words, he produced “pictures of emotional
situations.” 10
Much of Indian painting is also concerned with evoking
an emotional landscape. Palaces and hilly landscapes can
equally serve as the setting in which the emotions of the
protagonists are acted out. Each element, be it a prince
or the cushion upon which he reclines, is assigned picto-
rial and chromatic value equal to those of the others;
ornament is as infused with feeling as the face of the
nobleman engaged in a dalliance with his lover. Hodgkin
used the phrase “amazing actuality” to characterize 3. Howard Hodgkin (British, 1932–2017). Small Indian Sky, 1990. Oil on wood, 13 1/8 ×
the essential power and appeal of these compositions. 10 3/4 in. (25.7 × 27.3 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Gift of
By this he meant that Indian paintings are not romanti- Antony Peattie, in memory of his partner, Howard Hodgkin, 2022 (2022.316)
cized visions of a place abstracted from reality but rather
are imagery firmly rooted in the reality of that place—
intense, tangible, sensory, and palpable. The emotive The Hodgkin collection is distinguished by its strict
power of Indian color dynamics resonated with Hodgkin adherence to his highly personal collecting criteria: quality
and his own work. This undoubtedly drew him deeper into over condition, radiant beauty over typology, and an
the world of collecting Indian art. almost irreverent disregard for schools and styles. These
As Hodgkin acknowledged repeatedly, his own paint- criteria dictated that a fragment of a masterpiece was
ings were enriched enormously by India and the idea of deemed superior to a complete secondary example, and
India. Indian paintings are a part of that, but they are not a highly developed study more rewarding than a labored
the whole story. Hodgkin’s encounter with India ran deep finished work. “I never bought paintings or drawings on
and left an indelible mark on him, his art, and his collec- the tempting but distracting basis of their topography,
tion. As Chatwin noted in 1982, “[h]is collection is an their school of art, their theme, period or style. I just
essential part of his life’s work.”11 India and Indian painting wanted great art.”12 This, then, is an artist’s collection,
were inseparable parts of Hodgkin’s creative endeavor for shaped by his distinctive taste and eye for quality as well
over fifty years. as for the idiosyncratic.

7
Paintings of the Mughal
and Deccani Courts
NAVINA NAJAT HAIDAR

the art of painting bloomed into vibrant freshness The rich and unpredictable fusions of Indian aes­
at northern India’s Mughal court during the sixteenth thetic ideals are implicit in the Hodgkin collection and
century. The dynamism of Mughal painting was new, perhaps most evident in the fertile experimentations of
just like the nascent empire, and set into motion the the period of Emperor Akbar (r. 1556–1605), when artists
development of diverse styles that were to flower at from diverse backgrounds and training were engaged for
the subcontinent’s many royal courts over the next projects at the Mughal court.13 These included painters
three centuries. The preceding sultanate rulers of the from the Safavid court of Shah Tahmasp (r. 1539–43)
north and early Rajput and Jain patrons had also supp­ in Tabriz, Iran, from where Mir Sayyid ʿAli and ʿAbd
orted painters, although far less of their work survives. al-Samad joined the Mughal atelier in 1555, ushering in
These traditions played a role in shaping the Mughal a wave of Persian émigrés for several decades to come.
qalam, or style, as artists in the royal workshop (kārkhānā) Indian artists such as Basawan, Daswant, Govardhan,
were recruited from a wide range of backgrounds. Mughal and Kesu Das were among those talents with whom
painters combined Indian, Persianate, and European Persian-trained masters interacted and whose names
visual sources into powerful expressions largely char- are known from mention in the chronicles of the time
acterized by a shift toward a softly modeled naturalism and from inscriptions in the margins of painted folios.
alongside a retention of profile figures (particularly The reign of Akbar also saw increased contact with
those of women in formal poses with stylized hand Europe after the emperor welcomed Portuguese Jesuits
gestures) and areas of flat color—two aspects of and established trade links with the West, eventually
previous styles. Embracing many new subjects, Mughal paving the way for Dutch and later English merchants,
painting included illustrations of literary, historical, and travelers, and adventurers, among others. Gifts, rarities,
poetic tex­ts; albums of portraits and genre scenes; prints of biblical imagery, and engravings of mytholog-
represen­tations of gods and musical modes; and orna- ical subjects arrived at the court through these visitors,
mental dra­wings and paintings. The Mughal imperial impacting Mughal painting throughout the sixteenth and
style greatly influenced contemporary and later Rajput seventeenth centuries.
and Pahari court artists, but each center also devel- One of Hodgkin’s earliest acquisitions was a folio
oped its own idioms, leading to a delightful variety from the Hamzanāma, a foundational series of large
of imagery and subjects, such as battle scenes, animal Mughal paintings on cloth made for Akbar (only about
hunts, divine images, landscape studies, and poetic ten percent of the original 1400 folios survive). The
abstractions. By the nineteenth century, Indian artists Hamzanāma (Story of Hamza) is a fictional account of
had come to work for British patrons, mastering diff­ the adventures of the Prophet Muhammad’s uncle Amir
erent subject matter, representations of scale, and styles. Hamza, who fought the enemies of Islam with his band of
Exploring works drawn from the former collection of the adventurers. Mihrdukht Aims Her Arrow at the Ring pres-
British artist Howard Hodgkin, this essay focuses ents the beautiful archeress in an atmospheric garden
on the painting styles of the Mughal and Deccani setting where she seeks to repel unworthy suitors by
worlds of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, shooting her arrow through a ring that is suspended from
which laid foundations for the artistic evolutions at the mouth of a golden bird mounted on a tall pole (fig.
the Rajput and Pahari courts in the eighteenth and 4). She desires a husband who can match her prowess:
nineteenth centuries. Hamid, the son of Hamza, meets this challenge and wins

8
4. Mihrdukht Aims Her Arrow at the Ring, folio from the Hamzanāma (Story of Hamza).
Basawan (active ca. 1556–1600) and Jagan (active ca. 1550). India, Mughal, ca. 1570

9
 court at the new city of Fatehpur Sikri in the early 1570s
(fig. 6). The subject is a procession of warriors, court-
iers, elephants, and horses setting out on an expedition
from the gate of a crowded palace, which appears in the
upper section of the painting, now in the Indian Museum,
Kolkata. In this work, the individuality of each person and
animal is apparent, in contrast to later more formulaic
Mughal compositions. The merit of the image lies not just
in the sense of reportage it conveys but in the joyous
representation of the scene, right down to the lively baby
elephant. Other superbly painted pachyderms, including
the main elephant at center, and animated figures popu-
late the scene. Hodgkin’s special interest in elephant
portraits is evident from the many single elephant studies
and group images he collected. Although the main rider
is almost entirely lost, it has been suggested that it could
represent Akbar himself.15
Akbar’s enlightened rule is demonstrated in the
interest and respect he showed toward the spiritual
traditions and culture of his Hindu subjects. His policies
led to the creation of an inclusive and diverse nobility,
the establishment of deep personal bonds across the
kingdom through intermarriage with Rajput princesses,
and an active engagement with the mythological and
literary heritage of ancient India. The Harivamsa (Story
of Hari) is an illustrated manuscript of about 1590–95
and one of several Hindu epics and mythological texts
translated from Sanskrit to Persian and exquisitely illus-
trated by leading artists as part of an important trans-
lation program established by the emperor at Fatehpur
Sikri. Krishna Subduing Kaliya depicts the blue god dancing
5. Khwaja ʿUmar Saved from Pursuers, folio from the Hamzanāma (Story of Hamza). upon the multiple heads of the serpent king Kaliya; the
Attributed in part to Kesu Das (active 1570–ca. 1602). India, Mughal, ca. 1565–70
painting also provides a glimpse of Indian village life
through the rural setting of Braj and its inhabitants
her hand in marriage. Like many Mughal paintings, the (fig. 7). Krishna’s figure is presented as an individual
work is not signed or inscribed; however, it has been icon in a pose almost translated from sculpture but with
attributed by one leading scholar to the artists Basawan a lightness and brilliant coloring (including the striking
and Jagan, important figures in the early Mughal atelier.14 “Indian yellow” of his garments) that come from the
Another dynamic Hamzanāma scene—Khwaja ʿUmar sophisticated palette of this anonymous painter. The
Saved from Pursuers—depicts ʿUmar, a loyal helper upper part of the composition is dominated by the
of Hamza, being rescued from his pursuers by a heav- kadamba tree from which Krishna has launched himself
enly hand that reaches out to pull him skyward (fig. 5). into the Yamuna River to vanquish Kaliya, whose presence
It has been attributed in part to Kesu Das, who would had threatened the villagers and their cows. This victory
have been young at the time and may have collab- of good over evil, as well as the recording of Krishna’s
orated with another anonymous artist, as was often miracle, is expressed by a Mughal artist for the first time.
the case in early Mughal painting. Unusually for the Notably, it is during this period that Hindu iconography
Hamzanāma, this folio displays European influence, seen expanded the subject of paintings. Therefore, painters
in the billowing clouds, the impressionistic, blue-tinted must have relied on their own innovations or unidenti-
forest, and the scattered bones. Kesu was known for fied models for their detailed accounts of the episodes.
adapting features from European prints and engravings The narrative of this ancient tale is communicated in
that were circulating at court. As with other painted the expressively posed figures, and the iconography
folios of the Hamzanāma, the Persian text appears on represents the artist’s understanding of the drama and
the reverse. details of the story. While the image of Krishna relates to
A Prince Riding an Elephant in Procession, a fragment earlier carvings and perhaps wall paintings (now largely
from a large work executed on cloth, was evidently lost), the representations of the villagers and the setting
painted for Akbar at the time he established his are drawn from Mughal conventions, which included

10
 6. A Prince Riding an Elephant in Procession. India, Mughal, ca. 1570

European influences, evident particularly in the rendering reign, birds, animals, and insects were meticulously docu-
of the background and architecture. The page size and mented and played an important role in the symbolism of
figures are smaller than those found in earlier examples poetry and storytelling, appearing as decorative or illumi-
from Akbar’s reign, but the composition retains the dyna- nation elements in manuscripts and albums.
mism that was introduced in the Hamzanāma. The painting Two Orioles is characteristic of the bird
Works from the period of Akbar’s successor, Jahangir and flower studies of the first quarter of the seventeenth
(r. 1605–27), who is regarded as the greatest aesthete century (fig. 8). Harmoniously composed, it places the
for painting among the Mughal rulers, are somewhat two birds in diagonal symmetry against a plain ground
underrepresented in the Hodgkin collection. Perhaps this interspersed with blossoms. The carefully observed crea-
reflects the collector’s preference for experimentation, tures can be identified from their unique markings as a
because under Jahangir’s keen patronage, painting settled golden oriole keenly eying an insect (upper right) and
down to a supremely refined and unified idiom after the a black-hooded oriole (lower left). They appear alive
emperor whittled down the imperial studio to the painters and energetic but also poetically decorative. In another
he regarded as the best (departing artists took the painting, two mynahs stand silhouetted against a strong
Mughal style to the Rajput and other courts). Jahangir red ground; this chromatic feature is unusual for the
was also interested in the study of nature. During his time, as the Mughal palette was softening into blended

11
 Under Emperor Shah Jahan (r. 1628–58), the art of
painting crystalized to yet a greater degree of perfec-
tion, particularly in the service of the imperial image and
the documentation of the courtly world. Attendants at
an Imperial Durbar is a fragment of the right-hand side
of a double-page composition related to the Windsor
Pādshāhnāma, or illustrated chronicle of Shah Jahan’s
reign (fig. 11).16 In the left-hand page (still unidentified),
the emperor would have been receiving the Persian
ambassador in full durbar assembly. On the right-hand
page are lesser grandees and court attendants, including
members of the Persian ambassador’s retinue (iden-
tifiable by their large turbans), Mughal courtiers, and
grooms and attendants for the magnificently painted
horses and elephants. An animated group of musicians
welcome the party from the naqqār khāna (drum house)
above the gate, an important feature of Mughal court
ritual. The painting contains a small inscription to the
artist Hunhar, one of several talents employed at Shah
Jahan’s atelier, which has been accepted by most scholars
as a convincing attribution. Hunhar’s careful documenta-
tion is a key to Mughal courtly life and history at one of
its most glittering times. Of the fifty-two human figures
in this scene, many are scaled quite large and rendered
without much modeling in a relatively spare setting.
Hunhar reserved his most lavish attention for the horses
and elephants, which are filled with personality.
Finely observed portraits of royal figures and nobility
are an artistic innovation brought about by Akbar in the
late sixteenth century, when he flouted religious ortho-
doxy by directing his artists to create portraits based on
the likenesses of individuals rather than on the idealiza-
tions of past tradition. From those beginnings, the art
of portraiture rapidly developed into various idioms,
including highly sensitive head-and-shoulder images, such
as a life-size study of Iltifat Khan, son of Mirza Rustam of
Kandahar (fig. 12). Well-connected to the Mughal elite
through his own marriage and those of his daughters,
7. Krishna Subduing Kaliya, folio from the Harivamsa (Story of Hari). India, Mughal, ca. 1590–95 Iltifat Khan is mentioned in Mughal sources as a noted
courtier who took early retirement and died in Patna in
1657. The artist is not known but was clearly one of the
talents of the imperial workshops. They perhaps made this
image in preparation for a larger durbar scene in which
colors and pale settings and might have been added later the subject would be standing in a court assembly looking
(fig. 9). The birds have the animated manner, large eye upward at the emperor (as suggested by his raised gaze)
area, and inquisitive expression characteristic of mynahs, or for an imperial album in which he would have been
which are known for their ability to copy human voices. shown in full body. Facing right, Iltifat Khan has an aqui-
This freshness suggests the painting was likely created at line nose and a shaped beard relieved by tiny curls in the
this moment of focus on the natural world. Two Imperial sideburns, the latter a convention borrowed from imperial
Pigeons is a lovely and detailed depiction of the creatures portraits. His turban is tied in the prevailing fashion, flat
from about the middle of the seventeenth century (fig. topped and close to the head, with a broad headband.
10). Skillful brushwork gives the humble pigeons a slightly The face is delicately modeled, with a carefully articu-
mystical touch. One of them wears golden anklets, indi- lated ear and shadows around the eyes and nose. This
cating that it belongs to the imperial pigeon cote, where rare Mughal study conveys a sense of the sitter’s serious
such birds were used in the sport of kabutar ishq-bazi, or character, with attentiveness and alacrity writ large upon
pigeon flying. his visage. He wears no jewels or adornments, and it is

12
8. Two Orioles. India, Mughal, ca. 1610 9. A Pair of Mynahs. India, Mughal, ca. 1620 10. Two Imperial Pigeons. India, Mughal, ca. 1650

the deceptive simplicity of the image and penetrating important genres of painting at this time, especially
focus on the face that lend great power to the portrait. the depiction of landscape and setting. Images of the
Corrections and reworkings by the artist are visible in emperor are known, although far fewer of them were
the outline of the head, the ear, and the profile edge. produced than those of his forebears. One rare profile
A Devanagari inscription above identifies the subject and portrait of Prince Aurangzeb was executed by a Mughal-
indicates that the drawing was in a Rajput collection at trained artist in the palace workshop at Aurangabad,
some point in its history. likely during one of his terms as viceroy of the Deccan
By about 1640, a distinctive floral style had come (fig. 14). Aurangzeb was stationed in this region as
to pervade Mughal art and architecture—the image prince and later ruler as part of a long-standing Mughal
of a single flower naturalistically depicted from root to ambition to seize the kingdoms of the Deccan plateau
blossom and often enclosed in repeating cusped arches. to the south after the dream of conquering into central
This enchanting motif appears in the relief decoration of Asia was abandoned. Seizure of the Deccan territories
Shah Jahani buildings, in manuscript illumination, in tent became something of an obsession for the emperor,
and textile designs, and in single observational studies. A who by 1687 succeeded in subduing the kingdoms of
practice sheet of ink sketches from nature by an unidenti- Bijapur and Golconda but at the expense of the stability
fied artist reveals the meticulous attention that went into of his own empire. This portrait from an earlier period
such botanical works (fig. 13). Some of the nineteen skill- of Aurangzeb’s life forms an important bridge between
fully rendered flowers can be identified as lily, narcissus, the Mughal and Deccani worlds. The style of the portrait
iris, tulip, Persian violet, carnation, poppy, anemone, is Mughal, seen in the detailed descriptions of his
trillium, and campion. The page reveals the practice of garments, accoutrements, and figure, down to the hint
Mughal artists, who went on to create magnificent botan- of eyelashes and whirl of hair at the base of his neck. Yet
ical paintings and inlaid pietre dura stonework on edifices it has been produced on cloth, a medium more typical
such as the Taj Mahal tomb complex. of the Deccan during this period. In the clean delinea-
Shah Jahan’s third son and successor, Aurangzeb tion of his determined facial features, this painting
(later Emperor ʿAlamgir, or “World Holder,” r. 1658– foresees the catastrophic ambition of Aurangzeb,
1707), was a less-active patron of the visual arts. His who was to depose his father, Shah Jahan, in 1658 and
long tenure as prince and emperor is partly character- execute his elder brother Dara Shikoh in the fratricidal
ized by a drift toward austerity and orthodoxy, leading war of succession in 1659. Similar poetic profile portraits
him to eventually banish painting and music at the court. of a ruler at a jharokhā (presentation window) were later
Some have argued, however, that this imperial disinterest produced at the Rajput court, such as an image of Bakhat
spelled a new freedom for artists, who innovated several Singh of Nagaur holding a blossom (see fig. 38).

13
 11. Attendants at an Imperial Durbar. Hunhar (active dates unknown). India, Mughal, ca. 1645

14
12. Portrait of the Courtier Iltifat Khan. India, Mughal, ca. 1640

14. Prince Aurangzeb. India, Mughal, ca. 1653–55

13. Nineteen Flower Studies. India, Mughal, ca. 1650

15
 15. Music Party on a Riverside Terrace. India, Mughal, ca. 1670

16
 16. Prince ʿAzam Shah Enters Ahmedabad. Attributed to Chitarman II (Kalyan Das, born ca. 1680, active ca. 1700–45). India, Mughal, ca. 1701

Despite the austerity under Aurangzeb, culture in India Shah, who ruled as governor of Gujarat from 1701 to
continued to flourish at various regional and provincial 1705, was the third son of Aurangzeb and the first patron
courts, and to some extent at the Mughal court. Artists of the Mughal artist Chitarman II, who later went on to
and musicians from around the country and beyond were serve Emperor Muhammad Shah (r. 1719–48). A majestic
drawn to these centers, and lifestyles evolved to allow drawing attributed to Chitarman II captures ʿAzam Shah’s
for the enjoyment of the arts unified with environment historic entry into the city of Ahmedabad along with his
and setting. Artists excelled at capturing the nuance son Wala Jah in 1701 (fig. 16). Hundreds of figures convey
of this ceremonial splendor, conveying the talents of the drama of the moment, including an unruly mob who
their musical compatriots and the advanced appreci- scramble to gather the coins that have been tossed to
ation of their common patron, the ruler. In one scene, them. Shopkeepers, holy men, and various townspeople
a musical party is hosted by the nobleman depicted at amass in a thick cluster along the length of the frieze-
center, leaning against a large bolster, entertaining a like building that stretches across the page. Clarity of
guest who sits directly across from him. Attendants sit line and detailed reportage are greatly valued in Mughal
in a row behind the host, while musicians play stringed art, and here we see them at full strength, not covered
instruments and drums at lower right (fig. 15). The up by color. Many figures are rendered with a particular
opulent carpet and attractive objects are somewhat stiffly sense of individuality, reflecting close observation and the
arranged to create a formal atmosphere. Perhaps cut growing interest in ordinary men, women, and children by
down from a larger composition, the scene might have certain Mughal artists at this time. Unique in size, subject
been set on the Yamuna River at Agra, offering a view matter, and immersive detail, the image offers a view
of the riverside mansions that are now almost entirely into the lives and reactions of the people who watch the
lost. The two principal figures who face each other and princely parade.
share a floor-spread have a distinctive darkening on the Central to Indian culture and ceremony, the elephant
upper portion of their robes, sometimes interpreted as played an important role in the courtly world and became
a stylized marking of fragrant unguents upon clothing. a celebrated subject in Mughal and Rajasthani painting.
As the eighteenth century dawned, the Mughal impe- Hodgkin’s affinity for these majestic creatures is apparent
rial authority ruled an enormous state, including newly in his collection; indeed, he saw their portraiture as equal
conquered Deccan territories, and powerful governors to that of human beings: “my pictures of men and of
were key to the Mughal administration. Prince ʿAzam elephants are almost entirely portraits of individuals, or

17
 17. Elephant and Rider. India, Mughal, ca. 1640

18. The Elephant Khushi Khan. Indian, Mughal, ca. 1650

18
variations on the idea of a portrait.”17 Elephants were
recorded by name in Mughal court documents and other
sources, including paintings, and their individual histo-
ries are often known or traceable. Mughal elephant
portraits are distinguished for their outstanding obser-
vation of these animals, dignifying them to the level of
high courtiers by recording every feature with sensitivity.
Elephant and Rider, from the Shah Jahan period, depicts
an imperial elephant in profile surmounted by his rider
(fig. 17). The artist has captured the animal’s frayed ear
and wrinkled trunk, including the gentle spiral of its tip,
with care. The body is modeled to convey its volume
and texture, contrasting with the flatness of the floral-
brocade saddlecloth. The fine detail contributes to the
stateliness and seriousness of the representation as an
acme of the genre.
Often elephant portraits of the Shah Jahan period
were inscribed with the name of the subject, typically
19. Elephant and Keeper. India, Mughal, ca. 1650–60
in large letters between the animal’s legs. We see this
in the portrait of the elephant Khushi Khan (Lord of
Happiness) (fig. 18). This mottled pachyderm is ornately
decorated, and his image is set against a rich verdigris
ground, which is a departure from the minty shade that
Mughal artists often used for the background in human
portraits. The splendid image Elephant and Keeper shows
an imperial elephant tethered in open grassland, close to
a Mughal army encampment (fig. 19). He waits patiently
as his keeper strips cane and prepares other greens for
his meal. The animal’s large form is set against a mellow-
colored sky and detailed background. Tiny groups of foots
soldiers and cavalry are visible in the distance, as are
elephants, camels, and a noblewoman’s purdah carriage
drawn by bullocks. These elements have led to the attri-
bution of this work to the artist Ilyas Khan Bahadur.18
The now-flaked inscription below the image may have
been written by Shah Jahan himself and has been read
speculatively as giving the name of the elephant as Firuz
Jang (Victorious in War), a known pachyderm at court.
Mughal elephant portraits of this type contrast with the
more action-filled images of elephants produced at the
Rajasthani court of Kota, which do not aim to capture
individual animals but rather to convey a dynamic theme.
Elephant Fight, for example, depicts a dramatic encounter
between two elephants in darkly inked lines with almost
no color (see fig. 42). When considered together, the
elephant pictures in the Hodgkin collection highlight the
multiple approaches and styles that were employed to
bring out the character, behavior, and personalities of
individual elephants at court, as well as more fantastical
evocations of their power and actions.
The Deccan plateau was home to five important and
highly cultured kingdoms—Ahmadnagar, Berar, Bidar,
Bijapur, and Golconda—with a rich artistic legacy from 20. Sultan Ibrahim ʿAdil Shah II in Procession. School of ʿAli Riza
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.19 Deccani (active ca. 1600–1650). India, Deccan, Bijapur, mid-17th century
painters developed a refined and poetic style, partic-
ularly under the inspiration of Bijapur’s leading artist,

19
 21. Composite Album Page with Three Paintings: Standing Figure of Jahangir; Princely Figure Holding
Flowers; and An Elephant Family. India, Mughal and Deccan, early to mid-17th century

20
 22. Sultan Muhammad ʿAdil Shah and Ikhlas Khan Riding an Elephant. Haidar ʿAli (active dates
unknown) and Ibrahim Khan (active dates unknown). India, Deccan, Bijapur, ca. 1645

Farrukh Husain. The Deccani courts established their own together in the Safavid-style gold illuminated margins in
connections to Iran and other parts of the Middle East, Iran later in the century (fig. 21). On the upper left is
and along coastlines where Europeans and others were a standing portrait of the Mughal emperor Jahangir. On
making inroads. These points of contact, in addition to the upper right is an unidentified courtier also from the
the position of the region between the influences of the Mughal world. Below, executed in a grisaille technique
Mughal court to the north and the opulent art of the and probably made at the Deccani court of Bijapur, are
deep south, gave Deccani art its unique otherworldly and a pair of adult elephants with mahout riders atop and an
imaginative character, in contrast to Mughal naturalism. elephant calf. This image of an elephant family is prob-
The Hodgkin collection is especially strong in Deccani ably the most significant element in terms of artistic
painting, of which far less survives than Mughal painting. importance. While the exacting observation of individual
The Deccani and Mughal worlds meet in a composite elephants was a hallmark of Mughal painting, Deccani
album page that contains three separate early to artists were much more interested in their behavior and
mid-seventeenth-century compositions, likely mounted emotions. The calf reaches its trunk up to its father, while

21
 its mother gently caresses its back with hers; the three
elephants are thus interlocked in a circle of familial care
and connection to which any human family can relate. The
portraits are of the high quality associated with Mughal
painting. Jahangir’s familiar facial features are recogniz-
able, although the study of his turban is somewhat inac-
curate. He wears the double patka, or waistband, typical
of his period and holds a tall sword, probably European.
In the second Mughal image, the courtier clasps narcissus
flowers, a long-standing symbol of refinement. It is not
clear where this album was made, but its various ingre-
dients demonstrate the permeable boundaries between
the Mughal, Deccani, and Safavid empires, and the active
circulation of luxury goods.
Sultan Ibrahim ʿAdil Shah II in Procession, another deli-
cately tinted scene with elephants, was made for Bijapur’s
23. Sultan ʿAli ʿAdil Shah II Slays a Tiger. Attributed to the Bombay Painter (probably most artistically sensitive ruler, Ibrahim II (r. 1580–1627)
ʿAbdul Hamid Naqqash, active dates unknown). India, Deccan, Bijapur, ca. 1660 (fig. 20). This small painting depicts Ibrahim in a royal
parade, seated on the back of an elephant surrounded
by attendants riding beside him. The sultan appears in
finery, while his attendants carry royal emblems, including
a Deccani-style rounded parasol, banners, scarves, and
metalwork objects. This miniature is attributed to the
school of ʿAli Riza, an important seventeenth-century
Deccani artist who was a master of stippling and shading.
Filled with movement and a sense of regal gaiety, it
powerfully conveys the spirit of Bijapuri painting, partic-
ularly in the rendering of the characterful elephants,
whose balloonlike bodies are dressed in jewels, bells, and
colorful trappings.
Ibrahim’s son, Sultan Muhammad ʿAdil Shah (r. 1627–
56), and his Abyssinian prime minister, Ikhlas Khan, are
pictured in a large double portrait (fig. 22). They sit
together on a striding elephant, with Ikhlas Khan riding
behind the sultan, positioned in an emblematic display
of the actual power behind the throne. Ikhlas Khan was
born enslaved and called Malik Raihan ʿAdil Shah. He
served at the court of Bijapur from a young age, and
when Muhammad assumed the throne in 1627, Malik
Raihan rose alongside him, presenting petitions and later
24. Wedding Procession of Sultan Muhammad Quli Qutb Shah.
becoming a commander of troops, before eventually
India, Deccan, Golconda, ca. 1650
being named governor of a province near Golconda. In
1635 he received the title Ikhlas Khan (from the Arabic
term for “sincerity”), and he is one of the best-known
Africans in the Deccan who ascended from servitude into
an official position at court. His portraiture documents
the important presence of African and other enslaved
people in the Islamic and Indian courts. Notably, the two
artists who completed the work, Haidar ʿAli and Ibrahim
Khan, signed their names at left.
The Bombay Painter was a powerful force in a later
phase of painting at Bijapur, when he captured his patron
Sultan ʿAli ʿAdil Shah II (r. 1656–72) in several sump-
tuous works. The artist has been identified as ʿAbdul
Hamid Naqqash based on the style of a small, inscribed
work in the Musée Guimet, Paris.20 In one fragmentary

22
painting, ʿAli II is resplendent in gold as he draws his bow
to discharge a second arrow on a tiger crouching on the
rocks (fig. 23). The rising golden finial below is thought
to be either from the tail of a griffin or lion stand or an
element from a royal barge. Either case would indicate
an unusual iconography for such a subject. Sultan ʿAli’s
opulent facial features include a large and heavy-lidded
eye, betelnut-reddened lips, and a dusky skin tone, all
characteristic of this artist’s vision of his patron. The small
size of the tiger suggests hierarchical scaling rather than
distant perspective, while the hidden grotesques in the
rocks are a throwback to an earlier Persian convention.
The work is one of only a few known portraits of ʿAli II.
While the painting depicts the ruler engaged in a demon- 25. Elephant Trampling a Horse. India, Deccan, Bijapur, mid-17th century
stration of his hunting prowess—iconography meant to
illustrate his strength as a leader—in reality the sultan’s
government was continually infiltrated and undermined
by the rival Mughals and Marathas, and eventually he left
the affairs of the state to his minister.
The painting Wedding Procession of Sultan Muhammad
Quli Qutb Shah is one of the Deccan’s most romanti-
cally charged visions (fig. 24). The pair is thought to be
Muhammad Quli Qutb Shah (r. 1580–1612) and Bhagmati,
Golconda’s legendary lovers. The attendants appear to
glow against the dark ground as they carry royal umbrellas
above the couple. The sultan and his bride are seated
together on a horse—a departure from Indian conven-
tion, in which a bride is typically brought to her new home
in a doli, or separate litter, after the wedding. Perhaps the
cart drawn by running cows in the background was meant
to carry her; her female attendants certainly ride within it
while others follow on foot in the procession.
In the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, mainly
at the courts of Bijapur and Golconda, Deccani artists
practiced the rarefied technique of marbling in their album
and book making. This technique involved manipulating
floating pigments on the surface of a liquid bath to form
designs, which were then transferred to a sheet of paper
carefully laid on top. Two craftspeople collaborated on
this energetic rendering of an elephant trampling a horse:
the artist used the shading technique of nīm qalam (half
pen) to create the figures, and the marbler employed
the technique known as kāghaz-i ābri, or just ābri, for the
background (fig. 25). The artist also skillfully blocked
off the areas of the elephant, rider, and horse from the
vibrant marbled background before finishing the details
of the animals and mahout with fine black ink shading and
gold highlights. Works of this type are among the most
distinct of Deccani creations.
Illumination in the Form of a Vase is another marvel
of Bijapuri painting (fig. 26). The shape of the vase is
principally outlined by serrated-edged sāz leaves, while
Turkmen-style blossoms and other more conventionally
styled flowers, such as lotuses and peonies, complete the
26. Illumination in the Form of a Vase. India, Deccan, Bijapur, early 17th century
composition. Sāz ink drawings, executed with a reed pen
and incorporating the outlines of sāz leaves in curving

23
 27. Album Page with Découpé Calligraphy. Muhammad Hasan 28. Album Page with Découpé Vase of Flowers, Insects, and Birds.
(active dates unknown) and ʿAli (active dates unknown). India, Muhammad Hasan (active dates unknown). India, Deccan,
Deccan, Bijapur or Golconda, 1630–40 Bijapur or Golconda, 1630–40

29. Book Cover with Tree, Birds, and Insects. India, 30. Book Cover with Tree, Birds, and Insects. India, Deccan,
Deccan, Bijapur or Golconda, ca. 1700 Bijapur or Golconda, ca. 1700

24
and broken forms, are a hallmark of sixteenth- and seven-
teenth-century Ottoman art. The Deccani illuminator
must have known this genre, for he successfully produced
many of the same effects, such as the thickened line in
some strokes and the treatment of the leaves, which
weave and interlock in stiff tension. To create a sense of
opulence, the illuminator enriched the surface with color
and gold that has been pricked and worked. A small, fron-
tally facing mask is visible on the neck of the vase. At the
base of the vase, a row of rocks with some plants growing
out of them pays a deferential nod to realism, from which
this fanciful composition is otherwise far removed. An
inscription above the lower border, reading “gul-i hazār
gulhā (?)” (flower of a thousand flowers[?]), hints at the
artistic objective of this virtuosic exercise. This folio may
have formed the opening or end of a Bijapuri album of
paintings and calligraphy.
A similar sense of fantasy is found in a pair of découpé
album pages, one of which contains calligraphy and the
other a floral vase (figs. 27, 28). The calligraphic folio,
composed of cut-out letters, floral motifs, and sinuous
arabesques, is a masterful creation of two artists
who have signed their work: ʿAli, the calligrapher, and
Muhammad Hasan, the paper cutter. The calligraphy also
contains a saying attributed to ʿAli ibn Abi Talib (cousin
and son-in-law of the Prophet Muhammad) upon freeing
his slave Qanbar, which became a well-known Shiʿa
phrase. Here the letters are interwoven with a simple but
strong S-shaped arabesque scroll bearing blossoms. The
text reads:

yā Qanbar kunta bi’l-amsi lī / wa sirta al-yawma mithlī

/ wahabtuka li-man wahaba lī / katabahu ʿAlī ʿAlī / 31. Company Officer Receiving a Nobleman. Eastern India,
qati ʿuha Muḥ ammad Haṣ an (O Qanbar, yesterday Murshidabad or Patna, ca. 1760–65
you were mine / And today you have become like me
[free] / I donate you to He who had donated you to
me / Written by ʿAli, ʿAli / The cutter of the calligraphy
is Muhammad Hasan). flowers upon which a kingfisher swoops. An odd sense
of scaling pervades the compositions: insects appear the
In the vase folio, the cut paper, originally brighter, was same size as birds, and flowers grow to great heights.
colored and pressed to shape the springing flowers, buds, Although Hodgkin claimed he did not like Company
thorns, and leaves. Gold leaf was applied to the collar of painting, a depiction of an East India Company officer with
the fantastical vase, below which is a family of marbled an Indian nobleman crept into his collection (fig. 31).21
ducks. These folios were most likely created for an album Paintings commissioned by officers of the British East
made for Muhammad ʿAdil Shah and have been reunited India Company were completed by artists who were often
at The Met after being in two different private collections, trained in traditional Mughal techniques. In this case, the
one of them Hodgkin’s. artist seems to have been from eastern India, possibly
A pair of book covers decorated with opulent flow- Murshidabad or Patna. An unidentified British officer
ering scenes on lacquer was made for a manuscript or seated at center seems to be receiving two guests—
album that has since been disseminated (figs. 29, 30). possibly an Indian nobleman and his son—who sit across
Each cover is decorated with a tree filled with plump from him. A group of attendants surround the central
birds and flanked by auspicious, flower-filled vases. In figures. In the foreground, gardeners and other workers
one panel, blue-patterned urns burst with hillocks of carry out their business. This detailed tableau lends insight
cabbagelike leaves topped with sprouting grass and vari- into the hierarchies of colonial India during this period and
eties of ferns and flowers including tulips and lilies, while stands as an end marker of sorts to the historical extent of
in the other, oversize vases brim with long-stemmed leafy Hodgkin’s collection.

25
Paintings of the Rajput
and Pahari Courts
JOHN GUY

r ajput and pahari court painting make up by the completion around 1577 of the Hamzanāma (Story
two-thirds of Howard Hodgkin’s collection. These of Hamza), under direction of the young emperor Akbar
paintings embody within them imagery evoking the (see figs. 4, 5).25
blinding light and deep shadows of the Indian subcon- Over the course of the seventeenth century, the
tinent, as well as its heat, dust, and lush vegetation. Mughals extended their power deeper into the terri-
From the suffocating humidity to the ecstatic relief of tories of the Raput kingdoms of Rajasthan, and their
the mon­soon rains, all the forces of nature found expres- Persian-inspired culture was increasingly emulated by
sion in the concentrated intensity of ink drawing and those under their political sway. The mobility of Mughal-
the emotive power of color and dramatic composition in trained artists in search of patronage was a major
which this art excels.22 catalyst for this change, along with the Mughal practice
The corpus of paintings made between the sixteenth of holding hostage in their capital senior nobles from
and nineteenth centuries at the courts of Rajasthan and conquered courts as political ransom. These hostages
the Punjab—often termed Pahari (“hill”) painting— later brought back knowledge of the culture of their
constitutes an artistic high point of Indian court painting. captors to their own kingdoms. This process of assim-
Assertively original in both their inspiration and pictorial ilation and fertilization is vividly illustrated in Marriage
constructions, these works are also, in part, the prod- Procession in a Bazaar, a painting produced at the
ucts of an intense cross-fertilization that took place Pahari court of Mandi in about 1640–50 (fig. 32). Here,
between competing loci of power in the later history a Mughal-inspired palace scene has been relocated to
of South Asia. From the late sixteenth century onward, a hill town bazaar. The ordered procession of courtiers
Indian court painting was impacted in profound ways and musicians, observed by bystanders, set against
by the incursions of the Mughals, with their highly a lime green ground, strongly echoes Mughal compo-
Persianate court culture. Mughal paintings prized refined sitions, suggesting it may be by an artist trained at
modeling and verisimilitude, conveyed with a subdued a Mughal atelier.
palette and linear precision. By contrast, the painting As Mughal power lessened in the following century,
style practiced in western Indian Hindu and Jain settings those at the peripheries of the empire gradually reas-
emerged from older indigenous sources embedded serted greater cultural autonomy. The maintenance
in mural and manuscript traditions, characterized by of a court workshop-cum-atelier (kārkhānā), even for
an emphasis on non-perspectival treatment of picto- minor fiefdoms, became an important means through
rial space and a greater focus on chromatic values. This which those people under Mughal rule could assert their
style in turn had been touched by the first waves of Islamic royal status and give expression to their cultural iden-
culture coming from the Arab lands early in the second tity. While such ateliers represented no overt challenge
millennium.23 The codex format, inspired by Qur’an book to the status quo that suzerainty under Mughals repre-
illumination, had by the fourteenth century displaced the sented, they simultaneously allowed artists to draw upon
miniaturized landscape format dictated by painting on conventions from both traditions. The court paintings
palm leaf and later mimicked on paper.24 The arrival of presented here reflect centuries of both strident local
Persian-style painting at the court of the Mughal emperor innovation and artistic exchange, much of it fueled by
Humayun in the 1550s, along with émigré artists from the mobility of artists as patronage and political fortunes
Iran, marked a moment of radical departure, represented waxed and waned.

26
 32. Marriage Procession in a Bazaar, folio from a Rāmāyana or Bhāgavata Purāna series. India, Himachal Pradesh, Mandi, ca. 1640–50

PEOPLE AND PORTRAITS code of honor. Equestrian portraits in outdoor settings

were especially popular. A pioneer of this genre was
Portraiture was a favored genre of Rajput artists the so-called Stipple Master, active at the Mewar atelier
and their patrons. Maharaja Dhiraj Singh Riding, of about in the capital of Udaipur from about 1690 until 1715 under
1700, memorializes the second ruler of Raghugarh, in the patronage of both Amar Singh II (r. 1698–1710) and
Madhya Pradesh, a lesser Rajput court established in 1673 his successor, Sangram Singh (r. 1710–34).26 Sangram
(fig. 33). Dhiraj Singh (r. 1697–1726) was largely respon- Singh Hawking, of about 1705–10, reveals much about
sible for the construction of the fort there and nurtured the working manner of this artist: the action is presented
a cultivated court culture within. The reputation of the in a continuous narrative across the composition, with
young ruler extended well beyond his domain, and he the prince’s bird of prey depicted at four moments in
was favored by the rulers of Mewar and Jaipur, entering time (fig. 34). A subdued use of color in soft tonalities
into marriage alliances with both their families. In this applied with a stippling technique, most evident in the
painting, he is seen seated upright on his beautiful gray treatment of the horse, strongly evokes the European
stallion, wearing a bright orange turban tied in the Central grisaille technique introduced to India via Mughal art.
Indian manner. Both rider and horse are in strict profile, Maharaja Raj Singh and His Elephants, of about
with their elegant contours silhouetted against a mono- 1710–15, is an understated yet magnificent study of a
chromatic pale green ground, a device commonly found royal outing with elephants (fig. 35). Fourteen pachy-
in Mughal portraiture. derms are depicted, from the grand bull who carries the
The Rajputs were quick to make the profile portrait maharaja in his howdah to young calves who trot
their own, not only scaling it up into large paintings but alongside. This highly finished and sensitively rendered
also transposing it into depictions that celebrated their drawing exemplifies the idiosyncratic style of Sawar
marital prowess, bravery, and chivalry—their veritable painting, with its predilection for beautifully controlled

27
 33. Maharaja Dhiraj Singh Riding. Madhya Pradesh, Raghugarh, ca. 1700

28
34. Sangram Singh Hawking. Attributed to the Stipple Master (active ca. 1690–1715). India, Rajasthan, Udaipur, ca. 1705–10

35. Maharaja Raj Singh and His Elephants. India, Rajasthan, Sawar, ca. 1710–15

29
 line and a restrained use of color that sets off a quiet
chromatic interplay. The quality of the brush drawing is
exemplary, among the very best to be seen anywhere in
the Rajput schools. The fiefdom (thikana) of Sawar was
created within Ajmer in central Rajasthan during the reign
of the Mughal emperor Jahangir (r. 1605–27) as a reward
for service to the Mughal court. Undoubtedly the work of
the artists of nearby Kota and Bundi in eastern Rajasthan
had an impact on the treatment of the elephants seen
here, but the exceptional linear quality must be credited
to an unnamed artist in the Sawar court.
Portraiture was used to record memorable moments
that could be reflected upon at leisure and shared with
the patron’s more intimate circle. Those depicting the
sitter in a palace and/or garden setting were the most
private images. In Maharaja Raj Singh in a Garden Arcade,
of about 1710–15, we again witness a fusion of Mughal
36. Maharaja Raj Singh in a Garden Arcade. India, Rajasthan, Sawar, ca. 1710–15 and Rajput aesthetics at Sawar (fig. 36). The distinc-
tive painting style associated with Sawar is directly
linked to the reign of Raj Singh (r. 1705–30), who was
renowned for his love of art, music, and the sensory
pleasures of his gardens. He was also a trained singer of
some accomplishment. Here the arcaded terrace from
which Raj Singh overlooks his garden is set against a
lime green ground. The spandrels of the arcade are
painted in a pink-and-green floral design emulating
Mughal inlaid pietra dura; the balcony is draped with a
red velvet and gold Mughal-style carpet. The picture’s
subject is that of the inner world of an aesthete. Another
painting close in date shows the splendor of Raj Singh’s
palace garden into which he has received a spiritual
teacher during the festival of Diwali, in 1714 (fig. 37).
With its inventive use of scale and perspective, this
large drawing is a singular composition that stands apart
from mainstream conventions of eighteenth-century
picture-making.
The popularity of profile portraiture can in large part
be traced to the Mughal emulation of European cameo
portraits favored as court gifts.27 Maharaja Bakhat Singh,
of about 1735, is a direct descendant of that tradition
(fig. 38). It is one of the finest Rajput portraits of the
early eighteenth century from the Nagaur court of
the Marwar kingdom of Rajasthan. When appointed
governor of Nagaur fort in 1739, Bakhat Singh (1706–
37. Maharaja Raj Singh Receives a Yogi in a Garden. India, Rajasthan, Sawar, 1714. 1752) constructed a walled pleasure palace within.
Here he is seen seated at a projecting audience window
(jharokhā), with a small flower raised in his hand as a
signifier of his sensibilities and connoisseurship. Such
large-scale portraits were likely painted in multiple
versions to serve as gifts to neighboring Rajput courts.
Portrait paintings from other courts routinely appear
in the princely collections, supporting the notion
that pictures circulated between courts as diplo-
matic gifts and perhaps as aids to marriage proposals.
No doubt they also contributed to the cross-fertilization
of styles.

30
38. Maharaja Bakhat Singh. India, Rajasthan, Marwar, Nagaur, ca. 1735

31
 39. Maharaja Kirpal Pal of Basohli Smoking a Hookah. India, Himachal Pradesh, Mankot, ca. 1690

While the Mughal artists and their patrons sought the private chambers of the palace, the maharaja and
realism and naturalism, the Rajput and Pahari painters his inner circle would marvel at his display of bravery,
built on traditions that prized formal abstraction and recorded for posterity. After being denied the autonomy
spatial freedom achieved using flat washes of intense to conduct warfare independent of their Mughal over-
colors in dramatic juxtapositions. This is witnessed in lords, the Rajput rulers in particular channeled their
two closely related works from the same atelier, created martial skills into the hunt, elevating it into a ritualized
just a few years apart. Maharaja Bhupat Pal of Basohli activity that served as a surrogate for displays of valor
Smoking, of about 1685,28 and Maharaja Kirpal Pal of in combat.
Basohli Smoking a Hookah, of about 1690 (fig. 39), were Maharao Madho Singh Hunting Wild Boar, of about
painted at the small hill court of Mankot. They provide 1720, celebrates the fearless Madho Singh (r. 1631–48),
insights into the nature of studio production and painter the founding ruler of the kingdom of Kota, in a painting
lineages. Each exemplifies the sophisticated confidence executed nearly a century after his death (fig. 40).
of these artists to employ passages of concentrated Representing the embodiment of the upmost Rajput
pigment that dominate the flat, linear composition and virtues, he is shown dressed in hunting greens, pursuing
modulate the mood (bhāva) of the picture through the boars through rugged woodland. He leans precariously
emotive power of color. from the saddle to thrust his punch dagger (katar) into a
fleeing boar while another one turns to attack him. This is
ON ELEPHANT AND HORSE— a dangerous pastime, captured by a Kota painter as high
THE ROYAL HUNT drama. The rugged terrain is rendered in deft brushwork,
with tree varieties and plant life distinguished skillfully
Painters at the courts of the Rajput kingdoms were by an artist intimately familiar with the landscape he
assigned a special role—to “shadow” their patrons, is describing. However, while the distinctive terrain was
recording their daily activities, pastimes, and pleasurable clearly known to the artist, the composition appears to
pursuits, sometimes even their lovemaking. Moreover, have been derived from a mural in the painted rooms
they were routinely required to participate in and record (citrasāli) of the raja’s private quarters in the Badal Mahal
military campaigns and royal hunts. As a result of this at Bundi.29
firsthand experience, their images of hunts, animal Hodgkin the collector had a passion for paintings
combats, and war are unrivaled for their immediacy of Indian elephants. Some, especially those produced
and compelling drama. Viewing these pictures back in in Mughal and sultanate ateliers, often assume the

32
 40. Maharao Madho Singh Hunting Wild Boar. Attributed to Kota Master A
(active dates unknown). India, Rajasthan, Kota, ca. 1720

character of a portrait, and on occasion the animals are Spectacular in scale, Elephant Fight, of about 1655–
even named by inscription. But it was in images of the 60, is arguably the finest extant drawing of this genre
elephant in action, as exemplified in the art of Bundi and and was undoubtedly a template for a mural painting
Kota, that this subject found its quintessential expres- (fig. 42). Staged elephant fights were an integral part of
sion. Indeed, these two courts elevated the celebration court life in Rajasthan: more than entertainment, these
of the hunt to high art. Kota was created in 1624 by the fights ensured that the royal herd and their trainers were
ruler of Bundi, Rao Ratan Singh, who gifted the district in a constant state of readiness for war. Capturing these
of Kota to his son as a separate principality as a reward mighty animals in drawings and paintings was a task
for military service to the Mughals. During the reign of regularly assigned to the court artists. Here we see two
Rao Chattersal of Bundi (r. 1631–59), an extraordinary mighty elephants locked in combat, their heads butting
flowering of painting occurred at both courts. A Royal together and their massive bodies straining to prevail.
Lion Hunt, of about 1640, is a tour de force of the Bundi All is achieved with fine brushed line work and minimal
school, animated and bold (fig. 41). While the artists tonal rendering. That this was a staged event is clear: the
of Bundi and Kota drew directly on Mughal studies rider at left wears princely attire, and a foot attendant
of elephants, a much-favored subject, they went far thrusts a forked pole with a spinning firecracker (charkha)
beyond these grand, if somewhat subdued, depictions close to both beasts to agitate and excite them in a ploy
to make this the most vibrant genre in seventeenth- designed to prepare them for the atmosphere of the
century Rajput painting. The present scene appears to be battlefield.
the central portion of a larger ink-and-wash study that The Elephant Hunt, of about 1730–40, is a dramatic
served as a template for a portion of the interior murals account of capturing elephants in the wild to be tamed
of the palace at Kota.30 and trained for service (fig. 43).31 The professional

33
 41. A Royal Lion Hunt. India, Rajasthan, Bundi, ca. 1640

42. Elephant Fight. Attributed to the Kota Master (active dates unknown). India, Rajasthan, Kota, ca. 1655–60

34
43. The Elephant Hunt. Attributed to Niju (active 1730–40). India, Rajasthan, Kota, ca. 1730–40

35
 devoted to the adventures of the youthful Krishna). So
universal were these Hindu epics in their appeal that the
Mughal emperor Akbar (r. 1556–1605) commissioned
their translation into Persian—the court language of the
day—in lavish illustrated editions (see, for example, fig.
7). It was the Hindu courts of the Punjab Hills, however,
that most routinely celebrated these epic narratives in
paintings, some spectacular in scale.
Vibhishana in the Camp of Rama, of about 1700, is
a rare surviving folio of a codex-style painted edition
of the Rāmāyana, attributed to Sawar (fig. 44). It was
likely created by an artist trained in a Mughal atelier with
access to imperial illustrated manuscripts housed in the
royal library, which likely inspired the vertical format. This
highly original envisioning of events described in book six
of the Rāmāyana recounts Rama’s siege of the palace of
the demon-king Ravana on the island Lanka, from where
the hero hopes to secure the release of his wife Sita, who
has been abducted by Ravana. At his war encampment
on a hilltop overlooking the island fortress, Rama receives
Vibhishana, the virtuous brother of Ravana, who kneels
before him.
The Siege of Lanka series, which illustrates further
episodes from book six of the Rāmāyana, is perhaps
the most ambitious commission in the history of Pahari
painting.33 It was produced at the court of Guler in
Himachal Pradesh during the reign of Raja Dalip Singh
(r. 1695–1741), the principal patron of the painter Manaku,
to whom the series has been attributed. Along with his
younger brother Nainsukh, Manaku dominated Guler
court painting in the second quarter of the eighteenth
century, and the Siege of Lanka is regarded as his master-
piece. Each folio in the series has the relevant passages
of text written in ink on the reverse to facilitate narration
44. Vibhishana in the Camp of Rama, folio from a Rāmāyana series. of the epic by a storyteller, recalling the Hamzanāma,
India, Rajasthan, Sawar, ca. 1700 discussed earlier. In The Monkey Prince Angada Delivers
Rama’s Message to Ravana, a large-scale unfinished folio
of about 1725 from the Siege of Lanka series, the gran-
elephant hunters all wear foliage camouflage. Such deur of Ravana’s formidable golden fortress on Lanka is
grand-scale works were intended for display within the evoked using multiple vantage points (fig. 45). This inno-
palace at Kota, where the nobility of the elephants and vative representation of architectural perspective allowed
the heroism of the hunters could be admired in equal the artist to accommodate the complex narrative in his
measure. A Kota artist, probably the painter Niju, evokes composition.
all the excitement—and dangers—of taking wild While employed at the court of Guler in the 1760s,
elephants captive in order to induct them into the royal Nainsukh was commissioned to produce a series depicting
stables.32 This painting represents the culmination of scenes from the Mahābhārata. The Disrobing of Draupadi
nearly a century of elephant painting at the Kota court. is one of the few surviving pages and an unrivaled work of
art (fig. 46). In this disturbing human drama, Dushasana,
EPICS AND DEVOTION a prince of the Kaurava clan, has won a game of dice and
claims as his prize all that belongs to the Pandava clan,
Exploring the human condition and emotional states including Draupadi, the beautiful and virtuous wife of the
has always been a central concern of Indian painters. This five Pandava brothers.34 The shameless prince attempts
focus found its most powerful expression in narrative to disrobe Draupadi; but, as each robe is torn from her,
paintings, especially those associated with the two great another one magically replaces it, so protecting her
Indian religious epics, the Rāmāyana and the Mahābhārata modesty. The sea of discarded robes at her feet is a tour
(together with its popular appendix the Harivamsa, de force of painting.

36
 45. The Monkey Prince Angada Delivers Rama’s Message to Ravana, folio from the Siege of Lanka series.
Manaku (active ca. 1725–60). India, Himachal Pradesh, Guler, ca. 1725

46. The Disrobing of Draupadi. Attributed to Nainsukh (active ca. 1735–78). India, Himachal Pradesh, Guler, ca. 1760–65

37
47. Harihara Sadashiva. India, Himachal Pradesh, Mandi, ca. 1710–20 48. Bhadrakali, Destroyer of the Universe, from the Tantric Devi series.
India, Himachal Pradesh, Basohli, ca. 1660–70

Hodgkin rarely acquired purely devotional paintings, This painting allows a worshipper to enter a full visual-
but there are two singular examples in his collection. ization of the goddess and is a tour de force of experi-
Harihara Sadashiva, of about 1710–20, is an extraordi- ential drama. The small, square format and wide border
nary visualization of Shiva in his syncretic ascetic form of intense red are two signature features of the Pahari
as Harihara Sadashiva, which combines the attributes of schools of Basohli and neighboring Nurpur.
Shiva (Hara) and Vishnu (Hari) (fig. 47). His ascetic nature
is signaled by a necklace of severed human heads, a leop- PLACE AND LANDSCAPE
ard-skin cloth, braided dreadlocks, and a garland of leaves
of the highly hallucinogenic datura plant, sacred to Shiva. During the eighteenth century, artists responsible
His eyes are cast upward in a yogic trance. His distinctive for chronicling royal life at the Mewar capital of Udaipur
physique likely mirrors that of the image’s patron, Raja devised new ways of evoking place and mood (bhāva).
Sidh Sen (r. 1684–1727) of the hill kingdom of Mandi. Representations using aerial perspective and multiple
Sidh Sen was renowned as a devotee of Shiva and favored vantage points allowed spaces to open in new ways,
yogic meditative practices in his daily worship. This in‑ providing a bird’s-eye view into a private world. Images
tense personal identification with Shiva, along with other of the wondrous interiors of the palace at Udaipur Lake,
known portraits of the ruler, allows us to suggest that this such as Maharana Amar Singh Enjoying the Company
Sadashiva occupies the bodily form of Sidh Sen himself.35 of Women of the Court, of about 1708–10, are classic
The second great devotional painting belongs to the examples of this new genre: they are unprecedentedly
so-called Tantric Devi series, painted about 1660–70. It large in scale, complex, and celebratory (fig. 49). Amar
originally included about seventy folios, of which less than Singh II was an avid patron of the arts and in his twelve-
half are known today.36 These paintings would have been year reign was responsible for contributing a substantial
secured in a portfolio and used during private media- corpus of paintings to the Udaipur palace inventory.
tions on the goddess. Though small in size, Bhadrakali, Here, he is shown in three sequential scenes: in the
Destroyer of the Universe has the intensity of a monu- upper section, he is entertained by dancers; at center,
mental artwork (fig. 48). Bhadrakali is a form of the he bathes with women of the court in a saffron-scented
great goddess Devi and the supreme expression of divine pool; and in the lower register, he immerses himself in
power to her devotees. Her foundational text, the Devī the Gulab Bari (Rosewater Garden), where a multitude
Māhātmya, concludes, “I meditate upon Bhadrakali, of figures dissolve into the densely flowered landscape,
glowing like new clouds, standing upon a corpse.” 37 as if subsumed by its sensory power.38

38
 By the mid-eighteenth century, large panoramic
paintings were the norm at Udaipur. For the first time
they appear to have been intended for mounting on a
wall in the manner of European pictures, a function that
no doubt influenced their scale. In the unmistakably grand
Maharana Jagat Singh in a Lake Palace Garden, of about
1750, Jagat Singh II (r. 1734–51) is seen taking pleasure
in the water gardens at the Jagniwas Palace, a private
residence he built on a man-made island in Pichola Lake
(fig. 50). Completed in 1746, the lake palace became his
favorite retreat, offering a temporary respite from the
troubling affairs of state. He appears three times in this
painting recording a day of royal pastimes. The palace
is shown in aerial perspective in an attempt to accom-
modate the multiple events depicted. On the reverse is
a clerical inscription in Devanagari script stating that it
was created by the artists Jiva and Jugarsi and inventoried
into the Mewar royal collection in 1751. Paintings such as
this one signal a retreat into private moments devoted to
aesthetic enjoyment, and so celebrate—and record—
the patron’s refined connoisseurship.
As seen in the lake palace painting, the arcading of
the walkways and terraces at Rajput palaces were hung
with roller blinds to shield the interiors from the blistering
heat of the sun. A rare survivor of this genre of painting is
A Court Beauty, of 1805–10 (fig. 51). Attributed to
the Mewar painter Chokha, son of the renowned
Mewar painter Bagta (discussed later), it is both witty
and alluring. The young woman stands provocatively,
stretching her hands above her head in a gesture of
longing. Her disproportionately large lotus-shaped
eye, drawing on a mannerism developed in the nearby
Rajput court of Kishangarh, adds to her overt appeal.
This painting on cloth was likely produced at the request
of Maharana Bhim Singh (r. 1778–1828), probably for a
room or a terrace in which he received his courtesans.
Bhim Singh was renowned for his hedonistic lifestyle and
for fathering a hundred or more children. The boy clinging
to the courtesan’s skirt, distinguished by rich jewelry and
a crescent-moon mark of rank on his forehead, was thus
likely one his progeny. The painting is simply inscribed
phutadya, or “a beauty.”39
An altogether more refined and restrained depic-
tion of female beauty is seen in A Lady Singing, of about
1740–45 (fig. 52). While it has all the qualities of a
portrait and was likely modeled after a young woman 49. Maharana Amar Singh Enjoying the Company of Women of the Court.
of the court at the small kingdom of Kishangarh, it was India, Rajasthan, Udaipur, ca. 1708–10
intended to serve as a depiction of idealized beauty.
Under the patronage of Maharaja Raj Singh (r. 1706–48)
and his son Savant Singh (r. 1748–64), this mannered and
stylized figure-type emerged as the signature image of
this school. The Mughal-trained artist Bhavani Das was
responsible for laying the foundations of this innovation,
which was continued by his son Dalchand.40 Bhavani Das
had arrived at Kishangarh in 1719 after the death of his
patron the Mughal emperor Farrukh Siyar (r. 1713–19) and

39
 50. Maharana Jagat Singh in a Lake Palace Garden. Jiva (active dates unknown) and
Jugarsi (active dates unknown). India, Rajasthan, Udaipur, ca. 1750

40
51. A Court Beauty. Attributed to Chokha (active 1799–ca. 1826). 52. A Lady Singing. Attributed to Bhavani Das (active 1700s–ca. 1748).
India, Rajasthan, Udaipur, 1805–10 India, Rajasthan, Kishangarh, ca. 1740–45

quickly developed a style that overlaid Mughal fidelity to private, secluded lake palace Singh Sagar, near Deogarh,
nature with a romantic flavor drawn from Vaishnava devo- in July 1806 (fig. 53). The aerial perspective employed by
tionalism. Presented in profile following Mughal conven- the artist was informed, in part, by access to European
tions, this portrait is far removed from Mughal taste. The cartography and topographic depictions in circulation in
woman’s features are highly stylized, with a pronounced India at this time.42 The resulting landscape rendering is
silhouette, a large tapering lotus-shaped eye, and an both lush and at one with the human presence; harmo-
arching eyebrow. She conforms to a category of ideal niously scaled, it enhances the painting’s pleasurable
heroine known as a nāyikā, celebrated primarily in the mood. It is assigned by inscription to the eminent Mewar
poetic tradition. She is poised in song, lips slightly parted artist Bagta (or Bakhta). The raja appears four times,
and one hand raised in the gesture of recitation; with her finally firing his musket at waterfowl in flight over the
other she holds a stringed drone instrument, the tambūrā, reservoir. The silvered water has tarnished to a dark gray,
providing her own accompaniment. She may represent but it once would have shimmered with reflected light.
a lady of the court role-playing as a nāyikā (as a scribal Massive rock formations dominate the lower landscape,
note on the reverse suggests), or perhaps she was under- and richly detailed woodlands are populated with birds,
stood as Radha in a love-match play with Krishna.41 monkeys, crocodiles, and tortoises, all deftly described.
Rawat Gokul Das at the Singh Sagar is a unique The pictorial solutions arrived at by Mewar painters
masterpiece of Mewar painting. It records a hunting in the mid-eighteenth century had a lasting impact
excursion of Rawat Gokul Das (r. 1786–1821) to his on Rajasthani painting, as witnessed a century later in

41
 53. Rawat Gokul Das at the Singh Sagar. Bagta (or Bakhta, active ca. 1761–1814). India, Rajasthan, Deogarh, 1806

Maharao Ram Singh’s Marriage Procession at Udaipur,

produced at Kota in about 1851 (fig. 55). This spec-
tacular painting, over three feet in height, represents
the culmination of a long tradition of grand composi-
tions that record aspects of royal life in and around
the Udaipur palace. It depicts the opening events of a
wedding ceremony between the Rajput royal house-
holds of Kota and Mewar, performed on March 9,
1851. The mesmerizing composition is rich in observa-
tional details, some whimsical in nature, which impart
a humanizing quality to this record of a marriage
alliance. Palace musicians above the fort gateway
strike their kettle drums (naqqāra) and blow their shrill
trumpets (shehnais), adding a high-pitched musical
accompaniment to the occasion. The elevated vantage
point and multiple perspectives allow the artist to repre-
sent several events within a single composition and to
capture the true complexity of the layered architecture.
54. View of Baadi Mahal facade of the City Palace, Udaipur, with principal gate in the Indeed, a photograph from about 1895–1905 demon-
foreground, ca. 1895–1905. Gelatin silver print. City Palace Museum, Udaipur strates just how successful the artist has been in his
task (fig. 54).
Maharao Ram Singh’s Marriage Procession at Udaipur
stands at the cusp of a rapidly disappearing tradition,
signaled by the recent arrival of photography in India,
which was taken up with enthusiasm by the princely
states and marked the demise of the court painting
ateliers. The Indian painting collection of Howard Hodgkin,
now under the care of The Met, will undoubtedly continue
to engage us as we look longingly to an age when
paintings served to mirror both the ideals and realitié
of Indian court life in equal measure.

42
55. Maharao Ram Singh’s Marriage Procession at Udaipur. India, Rajasthan, Kota, ca. 1851

43
NOTES

1. Andrew Topsfield and Milo Cleveland Beach, 16. The Windsor Pādshāhnāma was completed by 26. For the artist’s biography, see Catharine Glynn,
Indian Paintings and Drawings from the Collection the author Abdul Hamid Lahori in about 1657. “The ‘Stipple Master’,” in Milo C[leveland]
of Howard Hodgkin, exh. cat. (Washington, It contains 239 folios and forty-four illustrations. Beach, Eberhard Fischer, and B[rjindra] N[ath]
DC: Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Now part of the royal collection at Windsor Castle, Goswamy, eds., Masters of Indian Painting,
Institution; New York: Thames and Hudson, it was presented to King George III by the ruler of Artibus Asiae Supplementum 48, vol. 2,
1991); Andrew Topsfield, Visions of Mughal Avadh in 1799.Approximately twenty-seven related 1650–1900 (Zurich: Artibus Asiae Publishers,
India. The Collection of Howard Hodgkin, exh. illustrations are no longer thought to be dispersed 2011), pp. 515–30; Guy and Britschgi, Wonder
cat. (Oxford: Ashmolean Museum, 2012). folios from this copy but rather works from earlier of the Age, p. 131. For another work attributed
versions of the chronicle or individual representa- to the Stipple Master, see The Metropolitan
2. Hodgkin Hodgkin, “About My Collection,” Asian Art tions of historical episodes in a similar vein, some Museum of Art (hereafter cited as MMA)
4, no. 4 (Fall 1991), p. 11. of which would have been included in the Windsor 2002.177, published in Guy and Britschgi,
manuscript. Altogether, these works relate episodes Wonder of the Age, pp. 132–33, no. 65.
3. Howard Hodgkin, “On Indian Drawing,” in of the emperor’s reign.
Howard Hodgkin and Terence McInerney, 27. This occurred most notably in the early seven-
Indian Drawing, exh. cat. (London: Arts 17. Howard Hodgkin, “Notes on the Collection,” teenth century during the reigns of Jahangir and
Council of Great Britain, 1983). in Topsfield and Beach, Indian Paintings and Shah Jahan; see Andrew Topsfield, "Paintings
Drawings, p. 9. and the Arts of the Book," in, The Indian
4. Indian Subject (Blue), 1965–69, recalls an evening Heritage. Court Life and Arts under Mughal Rule,
music recital by the court musician Amar Lal at 18. John Seyller, “A Rediscovered Mughal Master,” exh. cat. (London: Victoria and Albert Museum,
Kishangarh palace arranged for Hodgkin, Skelton, Ananda Coomaraswamy Annual Lecture, Museum 1982), p. 120.
and Sheth; Asha and Ketaki Sheth, email message to of Fine Arts, Boston, May 13, 2021, video, 55:43,
the author, October 19, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8Yk1WrePdE. 28. MMA 2022.241. See also entry in Topsfield,
Visions of Mughal India, pp. 148–49, no. 62.
5. Alan Bowness, Howard Hodgkin, and Geeta 19. Some of the observations on the Deccani works
Kapur. Six Indian Painters: Rabindranath are drawn from my previous writing about them in 29. Joachim Bautze, “Portraits of Rao Ratan and
Tagore, Jamini Roy, Amrita Sher-Gil, M.F. Navina Najat Haidar and Marika Sardar, Sultans of Madho Singh Hara,” Berliner Indologische Studien,
Husain, K.G. Subramanyan, Bhupen Khakhar, Deccan India, 1500–1700: Opulence and Fantasy, exh. vol. 2 (Reinbek: Verlag für Orientalistische
exh. cat. (London: Tate Gallery, 1982). cat. (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art; Fachpublikationen, 1986), pp. 87–106.
New Haven: Yale University Press, 2015), esp.
6. Bruce Chatwin, Howard Hodgkin: Indian Leaves pp. 133–34, 136, 138, 148–51, and 234–37. 30. The central elephant with princely rider seen
(London and New York: Petersburg Press, 1982), p. 14. here is directly echoed in the mural program
20. Haidar and Sardar, Sultans of Deccan India, of the Chattar Mahal royal apartments of
7. Susan Sontag, “About Hodgkin,” in Where the Stress p. 149; and Mark Zebrowski, Deccani Painting Kota palace; see Milo Cleveland Beach, Rajput
Falls: Essays (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, (London: Sotheby’s; Berkley: University of California Painting at Bundi and Kota (Ascona: Artibus
2001), p. 156. Press, 1983), p. 143, ill. no. 112. Asiae Publishers, 1974), plates, p. CIV, fig. 114.

8. The handmade paper came from Kalamkush, 21. Hodgkin, “Notes on the Collection,” p. 10. 31. Abu’l Fazl, the biographer of Akbar’s reign, writ-
Gandhi Ashram, Ahmedabad; Suhrid Sarabhai, email ing in the 1590s, provides a vivid description
messages to the author, August 5–14, 2023. For the 22. Milo Cleveland Beach wrote of the collection: of the capturing and taming of wild elephants,
technique, see Howard Hodgkin, “Artist’s Notes,” “[I]t is undoubtedly one of the most individual and which is mirrored in the scenes described in this
in Chatwin, Indian Leaves, pp. 51–53. Most of the visually exciting. Its main strength lies in the Rajput painting from the 1730s. Abu’l Fazl Allami, The
resulting works were exhibited in London in 1982. schools, especially in those intriguing areas where Ain-i Akbari, trans. Heinrich Blochmann, vol. 1
the robust Rajput ethos and the imperial Mughal (1873; repr. Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal,
9. Hodgkin, “Artist’s Notes,” p. 52; see also Shanay aesthetic overlapped and interfused.” Topsfield and 1993), p. 295.
Jhaveri, “Like as the Waves,” in Howard Hodgkin: Beach, Indian Paintings and Drawings, p. 14.
Indian Waves (London: Gagosian Gallery, 2014), p. 12. 32. The Elephant Hunt is not inscribed or dated,
23. B[rjindra] N[ath] Goswamy, A Jainesque Sultanate but a closely related work in the State Museum
10. Quoted in Sontag, “About Hodgkin,” p. 156. Shahnama and the Context of Pre-Mughal Painting Lucknow bears the artist’s name “Niju” and the
in India, Rietberg Series on Indian Art 2 (Zurich: year “1725,” which may be taken as a reasonable
11. Chatwin, Indian Leaves, p. 11 Museum Rietberg, 1988); John Guy and Jorrit attribution for the work in The Met collection;
Britschgi, Wonder of the Age. Master Painters of India, see Beach, Rajput Painting, fig. 126. Topsfield,
12. Howard Hodgkin, “Notes on the Collection: 1100–1900, exh. cat. (New York: The Metropolitan Visions of Mughal India, pp. 246–47, no. 106.
Postscript,” in Topsfield, Visions of Mughal India, p. 12. Museum of Art; New Haven: Yale University Press,
2011), pp. 29–31. 33. Some forty works survive from this ambitious
13. Topsfield and Beach, Indian Paintings and project, of which only eight are fully finished.
Drawings, p. 15. 24. John Guy, “From Palm-leaf to Paper: Manuscript Why the series remained unfinished is
Painting, 1100–1500,” in Guy and Britschgi, Wonder unknown. It is curious that no confirming doc-
14. John Seyller, The Adventures of Hamza: Painting and of the Age, pp. 22–25. umentation appears to have survived, despite
Storytelling in Mughal India, exh. cat. (Washington, searches of the palace archives by Goswamy
DC: Freer Gallery of Art and Arthur M. Sackler 25. For more on the artwork, see Seyller, The Adventures and others; see B[rjindra] N[ath] Goswamy,
Gallery, Smithsonian Institution; London: Azimuth of Hamza. Nainsukh of Guler: A Great Indian Painter from
Editions Limited, 2002), p. 230, no. 76. a Small Hill-State (Zurich: Artibus Asiae, 1997),
pp. 11–13.
15. Terence McInerney, Indian Painting, 1525–1825, exh.
cat. (London: David Carrit, 1982), p. 17. 34. The story of Draupadi recounts one of the few
instances of polyandrous marriages in ancient
Indian history.

44
35. This interpretation was first suggested by 5. Khwaja ʿUmar Saved from Pursuers, folio from the 11. Attendants at an Imperial Durbar. Hunhar (active
William George Archer in Indian Paintings from Hamzanāma (Story of Hamza). Attributed in part to dates unknown). India, Mughal, ca. 1645. Opaque
the Punjab Hill. A Survey and History of Pahari Kesu Das (active 1570–ca. 1602). India, Mughal, color and gold on paper, 14 1/2 × 10 9/16 in. (36.8 ×
Miniature Painting (London and New York: ca. 1565–70. Opaque color and gold on cotton 26.9 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New
Sotheby Parke Bernet, 1973), vol. 1, Text, cloth, 25 13/16 × 19 5/8 in. (65.5 × 49.8 cm). The York, Howard Hodgkin Collection, Purchase, Florence
pp. 356–57, esp. nos. 15, 18, 20, 21; vol. 2, Plates, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Howard and Herbert Irving Acquisitions, Harris Brisbane
pp. 267–68. Hodgkin Collection, Purchase, Florence and Herbert Dick, and 2020 Benefit Funds; Howard S. and Nancy
Irving Acquisitions, Harris Brisbane Dick, and 2020 Marks, Lila Acheson Wallace, and Friends of Islamic
36. Each folio has a Sanskrit text written in black Benefit Funds; Howard S. and Nancy Marks, Lila Art Gifts; Louis V. Bell, Harris Brisbane Dick, Fletcher,
ink on the reverse; this folio is numbered “47” on Acheson Wallace, and Friends of Islamic Art Gifts; and Rogers Funds and Joseph Pulitzer Bequest; and
the left margin. Terence McInerney, “Mysterious Louis V. Bell, Harris Brisbane Dick, Fletcher, and funds from various donors, 2022 (2022.180)
Origins: The Tantric Devi Series from Basohli,” Rogers Funds and Joseph Pulitzer Bequest; and
in Vidya Dehejia, ed., Devi: The Great Goddess. funds from various donors, 2022 (2022.171) 12. Portrait of the Courtier Iltifat Khan. India, Mughal,
Female Divinity in South Asian Art, exh. cat. ca. 1640. Brush drawing with pigment on paper,
(Washington, DC: Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, 6. A Prince Riding an Elephant in Procession. India, 16 15/16 × 12 7/16 in. (43 × 31.6 cm). The Metropolitan
Smithsonian Institution, 1999), pp. 119–35. Mughal, ca. 1570. Opaque color and gold on cotton Museum of Art, New York, Howard Hodgkin
cloth, 13 3/8 × 15 11/16 in. (34 × 39.8 cm). The Collection, Purchase, Florence and Herbert Irving
37. Translation by Vidya Dehejia, in Dehejia, Devi: Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Howard Acquisitions, Harris Brisbane Dick, and 2020 Benefit
The Great Goddess, p. 269, no. 38. Hodgkin Collection, Purchase, Florence and Herbert Funds; Howard S. and Nancy Marks, Lila Acheson
Irving Acquisitions, Harris Brisbane Dick, and 2020 Wallace, and Friends of Islamic Art Gifts; Louis
38. Description adapted from Topsfield, Visions of Benefit Funds; Howard S. and Nancy Marks, Lila V. Bell, Harris Brisbane Dick, Fletcher, and Rogers
Mughal India, p. 230, no. 98. Acheson Wallace, and Friends of Islamic Art Gifts; Funds and Joseph Pulitzer Bequest; and funds from
Louis V. Bell, Harris Brisbane Dick, Fletcher, and various donors, 2022 (2022.181)
39. Topsfield, Visions of Mughal India, p. 260, no. 112. Rogers Funds and Joseph Pulitzer Bequest; and
funds from various donors, 2022 (2022.173) 13. Nineteen Flower Studies. India, Mughal, ca. 1650.
40. Navina [Najat] Haidar, “Bhavanidas,” in Beach, Ink on paper, 8 3/16 × 10 9/16 in. (20.8 × 26.8 cm).
Fischer, and Goswamy, Masters of Indian 7. Krishna Subduing Kaliya, folio from the Harivamsa The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Howard
Painting, pp. 531–46. (Story of Hari). India, Mughal, ca. 1590–95. Opaque Hodgkin Collection, Purchase, Florence and Herbert
color and gold on paper, 11 7/16 × 12 11/16 in. (29 × Irving Acquisitions, Harris Brisbane Dick, and 2020
41. As art so often mirrors life, so Maharaja Savant 32.2 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New Benefit Funds; Howard S. and Nancy Marks, Lila
Singh, who was deeply committed to the York, Howard Hodgkin Collection, Purchase, Florence Acheson Wallace, and Friends of Islamic Art Gifts;
Vallabhacharya cult of Krishna, abdicated in and Herbert Irving Acquisitions, Harris Brisbane Louis V. Bell, Harris Brisbane Dick, Fletcher, and
order to live with his devoted mistress, the Dick, and 2020 Benefit Funds; Howard S. and Nancy Rogers Funds and Joseph Pulitzer Bequest; and
singer Bani Thani, in Vrindavan, the holy town Marks, Lila Acheson Wallace, and Friends of Islamic funds from various donors, 2022 (2022.192)
of Krishna’s childhood, near Mathura. Art Gifts; Louis V. Bell, Harris Brisbane Dick, Fletcher,
and Rogers Funds and Joseph Pulitzer Bequest; and 14. Prince Aurangzeb. India, Mughal, ca. 1653–55.
42. The decade of this painting also belongs to the funds from various donors, 2022 (2022.175) Opaque watercolor and gold on cloth, 14 11/16 ×
Great Trigonometrical Survey project under 10 3/4 in. (37.3 × 27.2 cm). The Metropolitan
the direction of Colonel Colin Mackenzie, 8. Two Orioles. India, Mughal, ca. 1610. Opaque color Museum of Art, New York, Howard Hodgkin
the first surveyor general of India of the East on paper, 6 × 3 3/8 in. (15.1 × 8.6 cm). The Howard Collection, Purchase, Florence and Herbert Irving
India Company. For another painting that Hodgkin Collection, on loan from the Howard Acquisitions, Harris Brisbane Dick, and 2020
displays topographic rendering, see Fortified Hodgkin Indian Collection Trust Benefit Funds; Howard S. and Nancy Marks, Lila
City of Ranthambhor (MMA 1996.100.6). Guy Acheson Wallace, and Friends of Islamic Art Gifts;
and Britschgi, Wonder of the Age, p. 181, no. 98; 9. A Pair of Mynahs. India, Mughal, ca. 1620. Opaque Louis V. Bell, Harris Brisbane Dick, Fletcher, and
see also Dipti Khera, The Place of Many Moods. color on paper, 5 3/4 × 3 3/4 in. (14.6 × 9.5 cm). The Rogers Funds and Joseph Pulitzer Bequest; and
Udaipur’s Painted Lands and India’s Eighteenth Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Howard funds from various donors, 2022 (2022.182)
Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, Hodgkin Collection, Purchase, Florence and Herbert
2020), p. 43, fig. 1.16. Irving Acquisitions, Harris Brisbane Dick, and 2020 15. Music Party on a Riverside Terrace. India, Mughal,
Benefit Funds; Howard S. and Nancy Marks, Lila ca. 1670. Opaque color and gold on paper, 14 1/4 ×
Acheson Wallace, and Friends of Islamic Art Gifts; 10 1/2 in. (36.2 × 26.7 cm). The Metropolitan Museum
CAPTIONS Louis V. Bell, Harris Brisbane Dick, Fletcher, and of Art, New York, Howard Hodgkin Collection,
Rogers Funds and Joseph Pulitzer Bequest; and Purchase, Florence and Herbert Irving Acquisitions,
4. Mihrdukht Aims Her Arrow at the Ring, folio funds from various donors, 2022 (2022.178) Harris Brisbane Dick, and 2020 Benefit Funds;
from the Hamzanāma (Story of Hamza). Howard S. and Nancy Marks, Lila Acheson Wallace,
Basawan (active ca. 1556–1600) and Jagan 10. Two Imperial Pigeons. India, Mughal, ca. 1650. and Friends of Islamic Art Gifts; Louis V. Bell, Harris
(active ca. 1550). India, Mughal, ca. 1570. Opaque Opaque color on paper, 8 11/16 × 4 15/16 in. (22 × Brisbane Dick, Fletcher, and Rogers Funds and
color and gold on cotton cloth, 26 11/16 × 12.5 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New Joseph Pulitzer Bequest; and funds from various
20 1/2 in. (67.8 × 52 cm). The Metropolitan York, Howard Hodgkin Collection, Purchase, Florence donors, 2022 (2022.184)
Museum of Art, New York, Howard Hodgkin and Herbert Irving Acquisitions, Harris Brisbane
Collection, Purchase, The Mossavar-Rahmani Dick, and 2020 Benefit Funds; Howard S. and Nancy
Fund for Iranian Art, 2022 (2022.170) Marks, Lila Acheson Wallace, and Friends of Islamic
Art Gifts; Louis V. Bell, Harris Brisbane Dick, Fletcher,
and Rogers Funds and Joseph Pulitzer Bequest; and
funds from various donors, 2022 (2022.179)

45
16. Prince ʿAzam Shah Enters Ahmedabad. Attributed to 22. Sultan Muhammad ʿAdil Shah and Ikhlas Khan Riding 27. Album Page with Découpé Calligraphy. Muhammad
Chitarman II (Kalyan Das, born ca. 1680, active an Elephant. Haidar ʿAli (active dates unknown) Hasan (active dates unknown) and ʿAli (active dates
ca. 1700–45). India, Mughal, ca. 1701. Color and gold and Ibrahim Khan (active dates unknown). India, unknown). India, Deccan, Bijapur or Golconda,
on paper, 14 1/8 × 24 3/8 in. (35.9 × 61.9 cm). The Deccan, Bijapur, ca. 1645. Ink, opaque watercolor, 1630–40. Gouache on black paper with colored and
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Howard and gold on paper, 11 1/4 × 12 5/8 in. (28.6 × 32 cm). white decoupage, 16 3/4 × 12 5/8 in. (42.5 × 32 cm).
Hodgkin Collection, Purchase, Florence and Herbert The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Howard The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Howard
Irving Acquisitions, Harris Brisbane Dick, and 2020 Hodgkin Collection, Purchase, Florence and Herbert Hodgkin Collection, Purchase, Florence and Herbert
Benefit Funds; Howard S. and Nancy Marks, Lila Irving Acquisitions, Harris Brisbane Dick, and 2020 Irving Acquisitions, Harris Brisbane Dick, and 2020
Acheson Wallace, and Friends of Islamic Art Gifts; Benefit Funds; Howard S. and Nancy Marks, Lila Benefit Funds; Howard S. and Nancy Marks, Lila
Louis V. Bell, Harris Brisbane Dick, Fletcher, and Acheson Wallace, and Friends of Islamic Art Gifts; Acheson Wallace, and Friends of Islamic Art Gifts;
Rogers Funds and Joseph Pulitzer Bequest; and Louis V. Bell, Harris Brisbane Dick, Fletcher, and Louis V. Bell, Harris Brisbane Dick, Fletcher, and
funds from various donors, 2022 (2022.194) Rogers Funds and Joseph Pulitzer Bequest; and Rogers Funds and Joseph Pulitzer Bequest; and
funds from various donors, 2022 (2022.198) funds from various donors, 2022 (2022.203)
17. Elephant and Rider. India, Mughal, ca. 1640. Opaque
color and gold on paper, 12 5/8 × 15 15/16 in. (32 × 23. Sultan ʿAli ʿAdil Shah II Slays a Tiger. Attributed to the 28. Album Page with Découpé Vase of Flowers, Insects, and
40.5 cm). The Howard Hodgkin Collection, on loan Bombay Painter (probably ʿAbdul Hamid Naqqash, Birds. Muhammad Hasan (active dates unknown).
from the Howard Hodgkin Indian Collection Trust active dates unknown). India, Deccan, Bijapur, India, Deccan, Bijapur or Golconda, 1630–40.
ca. 1660. Ink, opaque watercolor, gold, and probably Gouache on black paper with colored and white
18. The Elephant Khushi Khan. Indian, Mughal, ca. 1650. lapis-lazuli pigment on paper, 8 7/16 × 12 3/8 in. decoupage, 7 7/8 × 3 7/8 in. (20.1 × 9.9 cm). The
Opaque color and gold on paper, 10 5/16 × 13 7/8 in. (21.5 × 31.5 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Purchase,
(26.2 × 35.3 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Howard Hodgkin Collection, Purchase, Bequest of Henrie Jo Barth and Friends of Islamic
New York, Howard Hodgkin Collection, Purchase, Florence and Herbert Irving Acquisitions, Harris Arts Gifts, 2022 (2022.27)
Florence and Herbert Irving Acquisitions, Harris Brisbane Dick, and 2020 Benefit Funds; Howard S.
Brisbane Dick, and 2020 Benefit Funds; Howard and Nancy Marks, Lila Acheson Wallace, and Friends 29. Book Cover with Tree, Birds, and Insects. India, Deccan,
S. and Nancy Marks, Lila Acheson Wallace, and of Islamic Art Gifts; Louis V. Bell, Harris Brisbane Bijapur or Golconda, ca. 1700. Lacquer, opaque water-
Friends of Islamic Art Gifts; Louis V. Bell, Harris Dick, Fletcher, and Rogers Funds and Joseph Pulitzer color, and gold on leather, 9 1/16 × 6 7/16 in. (23 ×
Brisbane Dick, Fletcher, and Rogers Funds and Bequest; and funds from various donors, 16.3 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New
Joseph Pulitzer Bequest; and funds from various 2022 (2022.199) York, Howard Hodgkin Collection, Purchase, Florence
donors, 2022 (2022.185) and Herbert Irving Acquisitions, Harris Brisbane
24. Wedding Procession of Sultan Muhammad Quli Qutb Dick, and 2020 Benefit Funds; Howard S. and Nancy
19. Elephant and Keeper. India, Mughal, ca. 1650–60. Shah. India, Deccan, Golconda, ca. 1650. Opaque Marks, Lila Acheson Wallace, and Friends of Islamic
Opaque color and gold on paper, 7 1/16 × 8 11/16 in. watercolor and gold on paper, 9 9/16 × 12 11/16 in. Art Gifts; Louis V. Bell, Harris Brisbane Dick, Fletcher,
(18 × 22 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New (24.3 × 32.3 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, and Rogers Funds and Joseph Pulitzer Bequest; and
York, Howard Hodgkin Collection, Purchase, Florence New York, Howard Hodgkin Collection, Purchase, funds from various donors, 2022 (2022.205)
and Herbert Irving Acquisitions, Harris Brisbane Florence and Herbert Irving Acquisitions, Harris
Dick, and 2020 Benefit Funds; Howard S. and Nancy Brisbane Dick, and 2020 Benefit Funds; Howard 30. Book Cover with Tree, Birds, and Insects. India, Deccan,
Marks, Lila Acheson Wallace, and Friends of Islamic S. and Nancy Marks, Lila Acheson Wallace, and Bijapur or Golconda, ca. 1700. Lacquer and gouache
Art Gifts; Louis V. Bell, Harris Brisbane Dick, Fletcher, Friends of Islamic Art Gifts; Louis V. Bell, Harris with gold on leather, 9 3/16 × 6 5/8 in. (23.4 ×
and Rogers Funds and Joseph Pulitzer Bequest; and Brisbane Dick, Fletcher, and Rogers Funds and 16.9 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New
funds from various donors, 2022 (2022.187) Joseph Pulitzer Bequest; and funds from various York, Howard Hodgkin Collection, Purchase, Florence
donors, 2022 (2022.200) and Herbert Irving Acquisitions, Harris Brisbane
20. Sultan Ibrahim ʿAdil Shah II in Procession. School Dick, and 2020 Benefit Funds; Howard S. and Nancy
of ʿAli Riza (active ca. 1600–1650). India, Deccan, 25. Elephant Trampling a Horse. India, Deccan, Bijapur, Marks, Lila Acheson Wallace, and Friends of Islamic
Bijapur, mid-17th century. Opaque watercolor and mid-17th century. Gold and opaque watercolor on Art Gifts; Louis V. Bell, Harris Brisbane Dick, Fletcher,
gold on paper, 5 5/16 × 4 1/8 in. (13.5 × 10.5 cm). The marbled paper, 6 11/16 × 10 1/16 in. (17 × 25.5 cm). and Rogers Funds and Joseph Pulitzer Bequest; and
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Howard The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Howard funds from various donors, 2022 (2022.206)
Hodgkin Collection, Purchase, Florence and Herbert Hodgkin Collection, Purchase, Florence and Herbert
Irving Acquisitions, Harris Brisbane Dick, and 2020 Irving Acquisitions, Harris Brisbane Dick, and 2020 31. Company Officer Receiving a Nobleman. Eastern India,
Benefit Funds; Howard S. and Nancy Marks, Lila Benefit Funds; Howard S. and Nancy Marks, Lila Murshidabad or Patna, ca. 1760–65. Opaque color
Acheson Wallace, and Friends of Islamic Art Gifts; Acheson Wallace, and Friends of Islamic Art Gifts; and gold on paper, 20 1/2 × 14 7/8 in. (52 × 37.8 cm).
Louis V. Bell, Harris Brisbane Dick, Fletcher, and Louis V. Bell, Harris Brisbane Dick, Fletcher, and The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Howard
Rogers Funds and Joseph Pulitzer Bequest; and Rogers Funds and Joseph Pulitzer Bequest; and Hodgkin Collection, Purchase, Florence and Herbert
funds from various donors, 2022 (2022.207) funds from various donors, 2022 (2022.202) Irving Acquisitions, Harris Brisbane Dick, and 2020
Benefit Funds; Howard S. and Nancy Marks, Lila
21. Composite Album Page with Three Paintings: Standing 26. Illumination in the Form of a Vase. India, Deccan, Acheson Wallace, and Friends of Islamic Art Gifts;
Figure of Jahangir; Princely Figure Holding Flowers; and Bijapur, early 17th century. Ink, opaque watercolor, Louis V. Bell, Harris Brisbane Dick, Fletcher, and
An Elephant Family. India, Mughal and Deccan, early and gold on paper, 10 1/16 × 6 5/8 in. (25.5 × 16.8 cm). Rogers Funds and Joseph Pulitzer Bequest; and
to mid-17th century. Opaque watercolor and gold The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Howard funds from various donors, 2022 (2022.195)
and silver paint on paper, 12 15/16 × 7 9/16 in. Hodgkin Collection, Purchase, Florence and Herbert
(32.8 × 19.2 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Irving Acquisitions, Harris Brisbane Dick, and 2020 32. Marriage Procession in a Bazaar, folio from a
New York, Howard Hodgkin Collection, Purchase, Benefit Funds; Howard S. and Nancy Marks, Lila Rāmāyana or Bhāgavata Purāna series. India,
Florence and Herbert Irving Acquisitions, Harris Acheson Wallace, and Friends of Islamic Art Gifts; Himachal Pradesh, Mandi, ca. 1640–50. Opaque
Brisbane Dick, and 2020 Benefit Funds; Howard Louis V. Bell, Harris Brisbane Dick, Fletcher, and watercolor and gold on paper, 12 5/8 × 19 5/16 in.
S. and Nancy Marks, Lila Acheson Wallace, and Rogers Funds and Joseph Pulitzer Bequest; and (32 × 49 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art,
Friends of Islamic Art Gifts; Louis V. Bell, Harris funds from various donors, 2022 (2022.204) New York, Howard Hodgkin Collection, Purchase,
Brisbane Dick, Fletcher, and Rogers Funds and Gift of Florence and Herbert Irving, by exchange,
Joseph Pulitzer Bequest; and funds from various 2022 (2022.240)
donors, 2022 (2022.208)

46
33. Maharaja Dhiraj Singh Riding. Madhya Pradesh, 42. Elephant Fight. Attributed to the Kota Master (active 50. Maharana Jagat Singh in a Lake Palace Garden. Jiva
Raghugarh, ca. 1700. Opaque watercolor and gold dates unknown). India, Rajasthan, Kota, ca. 1655–60. (active dates unknown) and Jugarsi (active dates
on paper, 22 1/16 × 13 3/4 in. (56 × 35 cm). The Opaque watercolor, ink, and gold on paper, 13 7/16 × unknown). India, Rajasthan, Udaipur, ca. 1750.
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Howard 27 3/16 in. (34.2 × 69 cm). The Metropolitan Museum Opaque watercolor, gold, and tin on paper, 27 × 27 in.
Hodgkin Collection, Purchase, Gift of Florence and of Art, New York, Howard Hodgkin Collection, (68.6 × 68.6 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art,
Herbert Irving, by exchange, 2022 (2022.239) Purchase, Gift of Florence and Herbert Irving, by New York, Howard Hodgkin Collection, Purchase,
exchange, 2022 (2022.210) Gift of Florence and Herbert Irving, by exchange,
34. Sangram Singh Hawking. Attributed to the Stipple 2022 (2022.227)
Master (active ca. 1690–1715). India, Rajasthan, 43. The Elephant Hunt. Attributed to Niju (active
Udaipur, ca. 1705–10. Opaque watercolor, gold, and 1730–40). India, Rajasthan, Kota, ca. 1730–40. 51. A Court Beauty. Attributed to Chokha (active
ink on paper, 12 3/16 × 17 1/8 in. (31 × 43.5 cm). The Opaque watercolor and gold on paper, 18 × 20 1/4 in. 1799–ca. 1826). India, Rajasthan, Udaipur, 1805–10.
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Howard (45.7 × 51.4 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Opaque watercolor, gold, and tin on cotton cloth,
Hodgkin Collection, Purchase, Gift of Florence and New York, Howard Hodgkin Collection, Purchase, 48 7/16 × 24 in. (123 × 61 cm). The Metropolitan
Herbert Irving, by exchange, 2022 (2022.224) Gift of Florence and Herbert Irving, by exchange, Museum of Art, New York, Howard Hodgkin
2022 (2022.217) Collection, Purchase, Gift of Florence and Herbert
35. Maharaja Raj Singh and His Elephants. India, Irving, by exchange, 2022 (2022.228)
Rajasthan, Sawar, ca. 1710–15. Opaque watercolor, 44. Vibhishana in the Camp of Rama, folio from a
ink, and charcoal on paper, 20 1/2 × 24 in. (52 × Rāmāyana series. India, Rajasthan, Sawar, ca. 1700. 52. A Lady Singing. Attributed to Bhavani Das (active
61 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New Opaque watercolor and gold on paper, 26 3/8 × 1700s–ca. 1748). India, Rajasthan, Kishangarh,
York, Howard Hodgkin Collection, Purchase, Gift 17 11/16 in. (67 × 45 cm). The Metropolitan Museum ca. 1740–45. Opaque watercolor and gold on paper,
of Florence and Herbert Irving, by exchange, of Art, New York, Howard Hodgkin Collection, 14 9/16 × 10 1/16 in. (37 × 25.5 cm). The Metropolitan
2022 (2022.220) Purchase, Gift of Florence and Herbert Irving, by Museum of Art, New York, Howard Hodgkin
exchange, 2022 (2022.218) Collection, Purchase, Gift of Florence and Herbert
36. Maharaja Raj Singh in a Garden Arcade. India, Irving, by exchange, 2022 (2022.237)
Rajasthan, Sawar, ca. 1710–15. Opaque watercolor, 45. The Monkey Prince Angada Delivers Rama’s Message to
gold, and silver on paper, 11 7/16 × 15 7/16 in. (29 × Ravana, folio from the Siege of Lanka series. Manaku 53. Rawat Gokul Das at the Singh Sagar. Bagta (or
39.2 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New (active ca. 1725–60). India, Himachal Pradesh, Guler, Bakhta, active ca. 1761–1814). India, Rajasthan,
York, Howard Hodgkin Collection, Purchase, Gift ca. 1725. Opaque watercolor and gold on paper, Deogarh, 1806. Opaque watercolor with gold and
of Florence and Herbert Irving, by exchange, 23 5/8 × 32 1/2 in. (60 × 82.5 cm). The Metropolitan silver on paper, 21 5/8 × 31 1/2 in. (55 × 80 cm). The
2022 (2022.219) Museum of Art, New York, Howard Hodgkin Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Howard
Collection, Purchase, Gift of Florence and Herbert Hodgkin Collection, Purchase, Gift of Florence and
37. Maharaja Raj Singh Receives a Yogi in a Garden. India, Irving, by exchange, 2022 (2022.246) Herbert Irving, by exchange, 2022 (2022.234)
Rajasthan, Sawar, 1714. Opaque watercolor, gold, and
tin on paper, 18 7/8 × 20 7/8 in. (48 × 53 cm). The 46. The Disrobing of Draupadi. Attributed to Nainsukh 54. View of Baadi Mahal facade of the City Palace,
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Howard (active ca. 1735–78). India, Himachal Pradesh, Guler, Udaipur, with principal gate in the foreground,
Hodgkin Collection, Purchase, Gift of Florence and ca. 1760–65. Opaque watercolor and gold on paper, ca. 1895–1905. Gelatin silver print. City Palace
Herbert Irving, by exchange, 2022 (2022.221) 9 11/16 × 13 7/16 in. (24.6 × 34.2 cm). The Museum, Udaipur
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Howard
38. Maharaja Bakhat Singh. India, Rajasthan, Marwar, Hodgkin Collection, Purchase, Gift of Florence and 55. Maharao Ram Singh’s Marriage Procession at Udaipur.
Nagaur, ca. 1735. Opaque watercolor and gold Herbert Irving, by exchange, 2022 (2022.247) India, Rajasthan, Kota, ca. 1851. Opaque watercolor
on paper, 17 1/8 × 12 in. (43.5 × 30.5 cm). The and gold on cotton cloth, 36 7/16 × 27 3/8 in. (92.6 ×
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Howard 47. Harihara Sadashiva. India, Himachal Pradesh, Mandi, 69.5 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New
Hodgkin Collection, Purchase, Gift of Florence and ca. 1710–20. Opaque watercolor and ink on paper, York, Howard Hodgkin Collection, Purchase, Gift
Herbert Irving, by exchange, 2022 (2022.238) 13 × 10 5/8 in. (33 × 27 cm). The Metropolitan of Florence and Herbert Irving, by exchange, 2022
Museum of Art, New York, Howard Hodgkin (2022.229)
39. Maharaja Kirpal Pal of Basohli Smoking a Hookah. Collection, Purchase, Gift of Florence and Herbert
India, Himachal Pradesh, Mankot, ca. 1690. Opaque Irving, by exchange, 2022 (2022.245)
watercolor, gold, and silver on paper, 8 7/8 × 13 in.
(22.5 × 33 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 48. Bhadrakali, Destroyer of the Universe, from the
New York, Howard Hodgkin Collection, Purchase, Tantric Devi series. India, Himachal Pradesh, Basohli,
Gift of Florence and Herbert Irving, by exchange, ca. 1660–70. Opaque watercolor, gold, silver, and
2022 (2022.242) beetle-wing cases on paper, 9 1/16 × 8 1/4 in.
(23 × 21 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art,
40. Maharao Madho Singh Hunting Wild Boar. Attributed New York, Howard Hodgkin Collection, Purchase,
to Kota Master A (active dates unknown). India, Gift of Florence and Herbert Irving, by exchange,
Rajasthan, Kota, ca. 1720. Opaque watercolor, tin, and 2022 (2022.243)
gold on paper, 19 5/8 × 24 1/2 in. (49.8 × 62.3 cm).
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Howard 49. Maharana Amar Singh Enjoying the Company of
Hodgkin Collection, Purchase, Gift of Florence and Women of the Court. India, Rajasthan, Udaipur,
Herbert Irving, by exchange, 2022 (2022.216) ca. 1708–10. Opaque watercolor and gold on paper,
16 1/4 × 8 13/16 in. (41.3 × 22.4 cm). The Metropolitan
41. A Royal Lion Hunt. India, Rajasthan, Bundi, ca. 1640. Museum of Art, New York, Howard Hodgkin
Opaque watercolor, ink, and charcoal on paper, Collection, Purchase, Gift of Florence and Herbert
14 3/4 × 40 7/16 in. (37.5 × 102.7 cm). The Irving, by exchange, 2022 (2022.226)
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Howard
Hodgkin Collection, Purchase, Gift of Florence and
Herbert Irving, by exchange, 2022 (2022.209)

47
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

For their steadfast support of the acquisition and This publication is issued in conjunction with the exhibi- Published by The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
exhibition of the Howard Hodgkin collection of Indian tion Indian Skies: The Howard Hodgkin Collection of Indian Mark Polizzotti, Publisher and Editor in Chief
court painting, our thanks go to Marina Kellen French Court Painting, on view at The Metropolitan Museum of Peter Antony, Associate Publisher for Production
Director and CEO Max Hollein, Douglas Dillon Chair of Art, New York, from February 6 through June 9, 2024. Michael Sittenfeld, Associate Publisher for Editorial
the Department of Asian Art Maxwell K. Hearn, Curator
Emerita Sheila R. Canby, and Trustees Howard Marks The exhibition is made possible by the Florence and Editor of the Bulletin: Anne Blood Mann
and Bijan Mossavar-Rahmani. Many individuals assisted Herbert Irving Fund for Asian Art Exhibitions and the Production by Lauren Knighton
with the study, preparation, assessment, documentation, Friends of Islamic Art. Designed by Brian Johnson and Karuna Gangwani, Polymode
and presentation of the materials in the exhibition. Image acquisitions and permissions by Jenn Sherman
We are grateful to Quincy Houghton and Gillian M. The Bulletin is made possible by the Florence and Herbert Typeset in Azer and Zarid Text by 29Letters Type Foundry
Fruh in the Exhibitions Office, and Sharon Cott and Irving Fund for Asian Art Publications and the Friends Separations by Professional Graphics, Inc., Rockford, Illinois
Rebecca Noonan Murray in the Counsel’s Office. Our of Islamic Art. Printed and bound by GHP Media, Inc., West
helpful colleagues in Development include Whitney W. Haven, Connecticut
Donhauser, Matt Quam, and Christa Sundell. From the The Metropolitan’s quarterly Bulletin program is sup-
Department of Paper Conservation, we acknowledge ported, in part, by the Lila Acheson Wallace Fund for
Rachel A. Mustalish, Sherman Fairchild Conservator The Metropolitan Museum of Art, established by the
in Charge; Yana van Dyke; Marina Ruiz-Molina; and cofounder of Reader’s Digest.
FPO FSC
Martin A. Bansbach. From the Department of Islamic
Art, we are grateful to Ria Breed, Annick Des Roches, The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, Winter 2024 Cover: Elephant and Keeper, ca. 1650–60 (fig. 19). Inside front
James Dill, Helen Goldenberg, Shane Morrissey, and Volume LXXXI, Number 3 cover: Maharao Ram Singh’s Marriage Procession at Udaipur,
Courtney Stewart. From the Department of Asian Art, Copyright © 2024 by The Metropolitan Museum of ca. 1851 (fig. 55). Page 2: A Lady Singing, ca. 1740–45
we thank Alison Clark, Stephanie Kwai, and Hwai-ling Art, New York (fig. 52). Page 4: Iltifat Khan, ca. 1640 (fig. 12). Inside back
Yeh-Lewis. The Design Department’s Alicia Cheng, cover: Mihrdukht Aims Her Arrow at the Ring, ca. 1570 (fig. 4).
Daniel Kershaw, Mortimer Lebigre, and Harrison Rubin The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin (ISSN 0026-
Carter helped create a wonderful installation. Douglas 1521) is published quarterly by The Metropolitan Photographs of works in The Met collection are by Katherine
C. Hegley, Paul Caro, and their teams in the Digital Museum of Art, 1000 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10028- Dahab, Imaging Department, The Metropolitan Museum of
Department developed the exhibition website. A talented 0198. Periodicals postage paid at New York NY and Art, unless otherwise noted. Additional photography credits:
team produced this Bulletin. We are grateful to Mark additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address Image © Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford: p. 2,
Polizzotti, Peter Antony, Michael Sittenfeld, Lauren changes to Membership Department, The Metropolitan figs. 32–53, 55; Courtesy The City Palace Museum, Udaipur,
Knighton, Jenn Sherman, and Katherine Dahab, as well Museum of Art Bulletin, 1000 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY © MMCF: fig. 54; Image © The Metropolitan Museum of Art,
as Brian Johnson and Karuna Gangwani at Polymode. 10028-0198. Four weeks’ notice required for change of photo by Juan Trujillo: fig. 3; Photo by Suhrid Sarabhai:
We have been fortunate to work with Anne Blood Mann, address. The Bulletin is provided as a benefit to Museum fig. 2; Photo by Robert Skelton, courtesy The Estate of
to whom we express our enduring gratitude. Our thanks members and is available by subscription. Subscriptions Howard Hodgkin: fig. 1.
go to the Florence and Herbert Irving Fund for Asian Art $30.00 a year. Back issues available on microfilm from
Exhibitions and the Friends of Islamic Art for supporting National Archive Publishing Company, 300 N. Zeeb Road, The Metropolitan Museum of Art endeavors to respect copy-
this beautiful exhibition, and to the Florence and Herbert Ann Arbor, MI 48106. Volumes I–XXXVII (1905–42) right in a manner consistent with its nonprofit educational
Irving Fund for Asian Art Publications and the Friends available as a clothbound reprint set or as individual mission. If you believe any material has been included in
of Islamic Art for making possible this issue of the yearly volumes from Ayer Company Publishers, Suite this publication improperly, please contact the Publications
Bulletin. As ever, The Met’s quarterly Bulletin program B-213, 400 Bedford Street, Manchester, NH 03101, or and Editorial Department.
is supported, in part, by the Lila Acheson Wallace Fund from the Metropolitan Museum, 66–26 Metropolitan
for The Metropolitan Museum of Art, established by the Avenue, Middle Village, NY 11381-0001. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be
cofounder of Reader’s Digest. reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording,
Note to the Reader or any information storage and retrieval system, without
Transliterations of the Sanskrit and other Indic lan- permission in writing from the publishers.
guages follow the conventions used in the International
Standards Organization (ISO 15919) (2001). Arabic and Every effort has been made to track object provenances as
Persian transliterations follow a simplified version of that thoroughly and accurately as possible based on avail-
used in the International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies. able scholarship, traceable transactions, and the existing
archaeological record. Despite best efforts, there is often an
absence of provenance information. Provenances of objects
in The Met collection are continuously updated as additional
research comes to light; readers are encouraged to visit met-
museum.org and to search by an object’s accession number
for its most up-do-date information.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art

1000 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10028
metmuseum.org

48