Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

Nathaniel · 4th May 2012, 04:26 AM

The article then goes on to say:

"This well-known cabinet has conventionally been thought to represent Louis XIV (reigned 1643–1715) and the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb (reigned 1658–1707), and to date from the reign of King Narai (1656–1688), who exchanged ambassadors with both. 1

Western scholars are divided in their opinions. One has recently accepted the attribution to Narai’s reign. Another thinks it possible that while the woodcarving may date from that period, the fi gures and designs in gold must be later. 2 Neither believes the identifi cations of the two fi gures have been established convincingly; one suggests that “if the European fi gure really is Louis XIV … his companion could well be Shah Sulaiman of Persia (reigned 1666–1694) … rather than Aurangzeb.” 3

Leaving aside the date of the cabinet and its designs in gold for the moment, a few additional observations can be offered on the identifications of the figures. The European wears what looks like a Thai interpretation of seventeenth-century European armor, complete with surface decoration of foliate scrolls (some of which seem to have escaped to swirl around the figure’s elbows4). Then, the pose of the figure – with proper right foot pulled back and left foot forward, left hand at waist and right holding a vertical weapon – recalls that of Louis XIV in court portraits by such artists as Hyacinthe Rigaud. 5 A full-length portrait of the Sun King is known to have been present in Narai’s secondary capital of Lopburi6 (together with large numbers of French luxury goods bought by the Thais or given by the French as gifts to the king and court) and presumably the French ambassadors and missionaries had with them illustrated books or engravings that might have depicted their monarch.

As for “Aurangzeb,” no doubt a portrait of him – either a Mughal miniature or a European copy of one – might have reached the eyes of a Thai artist. But the features of the figure do not resemble those of Aurangzeb in his Mughal portraits. In them he is shown having a rather long, straight nose and a full beard tapering to a point. 7 Perhaps, though, the question is whether, for the Thais, this exotic figure stood for Aurangzeb (or the shah of Persia), not whether it resembled him.

Can we clarify further whether the figure was supposed to be an Indian or a Persian? Merchants and envoys of both nationalities were present in Siam to be looked at, and King Narai is said to have dressed in Persian style, so there must have been aspects of clothing that for Thais signaled “Indian” (or “Mughal”) as opposed to “Persian.” The robe of the figure on the cabinet could be a Thai rendition of either Indian or Persian dress. A puzzling feature is that on the lower body the sides of the robe seem to meet in the middle at the front, rather than one side wrapping all the way over the other as is shown on the upper body. The trousers seem too short for either Indians or Persians, both of whom are usually depicted in their own paintings with tight trousers long enough to gather at the top of the foot. The belt looks suspiciously Thai, and does not resemble the sash worn by both Persians or Indians in the seventeenth century – usually wound around and tucked into itself by Persians or knotted in front with long ends hanging down by Indians. The turban, by comparison with those shown in Persian and Mughal paintings of the second half of the seventeenth century, seems closer to Indian types, but if an Indian monarch is represented, where are the necklaces one would expect? And why would either a Persian or an Indian wear an Indonesian kris? 8

The gesture made by the Indian or Persian figure calls attention to itself, and may reward further study. In Indonesian art a related gesture seems to be associated with admonishing or berating; the gesture may have similar associations in South Asian Muslim contexts. 9 The possibility that here “Aurangzeb” is scolding “Louis XIV” is tantalizing.

Hiram Woodward has proposed a thought-provoking interpretation of the small figures in the sky above the main figures. He associates them deities of thunder and lightning, as well as the planet Rahu, who causes eclipses by swallowing the sun and moon. In Thai cosmology, such sky deities hover near the summit of Mt. Meru, the central mountain of the universe. Below them, on the upper slopes of Mt. Meru, reside the four guardian kings of the directions – two of whom may be represented here as the French and Indian or Persian monarchs. 10

European and Indian or Persian figures similar in type to those on this cabinet are found on the lacquered and gilded window shutters of a building at Wat Saket, Bangkok, that is thought to date from the reign of Rama I (1782– 1809). 11 These shutters could have been reused from an older building (as seems to have been fairly common). If they were indeed made in the reign of Rama I, however, then showing how the related figures on the cabinet could be more than 100 years earlier will require much more detailed analysis of the evolution of painting in Siam from 1650 to 1800 than has so far been undertaken.

On the back of the cabinet are two more figures painted in a style that appears unrelated to that of the figures on the front. The figure on the right has three (visible) heads, and so may represent Brahma; the figure on the left has no attributes that would identify him clearly, but the deity usually paired with Brahma in Thailand is Indra, the king of the gods, and this may well be who the left-hand figure represents.

The “Brahma,” however, stands on a short pedestal supported on the back of a crouching animal that seems to be a bear, and the “Indra’s” pedestal is supported by a monkey. Monkeys and bears figure prominently in the epic Ramayana (known in Thai as the Rammakian), and if the “Indra” were not paired with a three-headed figure, we might have identified it as Rama, the hero of the Ramayana, who is sometimes shown supported by the monkey hero Hanuman.

Paired guardians standing on short pedestals supported by giants, demons, or other creatures are found fairly commonly on window shutters, doors, and the backs of manuscript cabinets, but they usually have few distinguishing features, and seldom can be identified by name. 12

If the figures on the back of the cabinet are indeed Brahma and Indra, then they, together with the two figures on the front, might conceivably be construed as the four guardian kings of the directions. Brahma is not usually thought of as a king, however, and Indra resides not on the slopes of Mt. Meru but in the Heaven of the Thirty- Three Gods at its summit. Only one other cabinet is known to bear four large princely figures, and it does not aid in identifying the figures here. 13

Michael Wright has suggested that the panels decorated by the figures on the back of the cabinet – so different in style and treatment from those on the front – may have been rescued from an older cabinet (or other context) and reused. He also points out their resemblance to figures painted on the back of the doors of the ordination hall of Wat Yai Suwannaram, Phetburi, the date of which is, unfortunately, quite uncertain. 14 Also comparable in their stances and elongation are standing celestials in the murals of Wat Prasat, Nonthaburi, which have been assigned dates ranging from the mid-1600s to the mid-1700s. 15

Both sides of the cabinet are decorated with landscapes filled with real and fantastic creatures such as deer, phoenixes, a tiger, and a Chinese lion. Through the foliage-filled sky on one side fly a male celestial and a garuda grappling with serpents. 16

1 This view is expressed, for instance, in Somdet phra narai lae phra chao lui thi 14, 61. See also Wright, “Gilt-lacquer Painting,” 32–34. Wright is cautious, but “can find nothing about the cabinet to contradict the tradition.”

2 Woodward, “Structures,” 3; Listopad, “Phra Narai,” 311–312.

3 Woodward, “Structures,” 3.

4 Calling to mind Woodward’s discussion of the playful element in the cabinet painter’s approach, “Structures,” 5.

5 Two well-known portraits by Rigaud of Louis XIV in a similar pose date from 1701 (in regal robes) and about 1702 (in armor); Burke, Fabrication, fig. 1; Maumené and d’Harcourt, Iconographie, 98–99 and pl. 14. Th e pose was established as appropriate for royal portraits by Van Dyke in his Charles I Dismounted of approx. 1635. An anonymous French portrait from about 1670 shows Louis XIV in armor, standing in a related pose (but reversed); Maumené and d’Harcourt, Iconographie, 57–59 and pl. 8. To make progress in identifying other possible models for the “Louis XIV” on the cabinet will require checking portraits of the monarch by such artists as Pierre Mignard, Henri Testelin, and Robert Nanteuil. Early copies of such portraits will also need to be checked, as will engravings after them. The odd hat with two feathers worn by the fi gure on the cabinet remains puzzling. Louis XIV is sometimes shown wearing a vaguely similar hat, but decorated with floppy plumes rather than two erect feathers; Burke, Fabrication, figs. 18, 24. The little dog also does not seem to appear in portraits of Louis XIV, though it was an accessory in other aristocratic portraits.

6 Van Der Cruysse, Siam and the West, 340; also 265.

7 Gascoigne, Great Mughals, 214, 239.

8 The answer to this question may be simply that krises were fairly frequent attributes of door guardians. Krises are brandished by the Chinese-Thai guardians on the doors of a late- Ayutthaya cabinet in the National Museum Bangkok, for instance. See No. na Paknam, Wiwatthanakan lai thai (1st ed.), figs. 248–249. On the other hand, wearing a kris seems to have been the style for Thai courtiers in Narai’s period. See Jacq-Hergoulac’h, “Dessins de Charles LeBrun,” 30–35.

9 Natasha Reichle proposed this interesting possibility, citing the use of gesture as a warning by door guardians and other protective figures in East Javanese art, and in East Javanese narrative reliefs. See Fontein, Sculpture of Indonesia, 130; Kinney, Worshipping Siva, figs. 127, 146, 154, 247, 258, 259. Information on the implications of this gesture in present-day Pakistan was provided by Altaf Bhatti.

10 Woodward, “Structures, Names,” typescript, 3–6. I appreciate Hiram Woodward’s kindly sharing this unpublished paper.

11 Wannipha, Chittrakam samai rattanakosin, 65, 73–74.

12 For example, Wannipha, Chittrakam samai rattanakosin, 21 (Phutthaisawan Chapel); 29 (ordination hall of Wat Dusitdaram); 55 (ordination hall of Wat Ratchasittharam). For such figures on cabinets, see Kongkaeo, Tu lai thong, Part One, 32-34, 100, 156–158 and Part 2, Vol. 3, 216–218 (a cabinet with an inscribed date equivalent to 1784).

13 Kongkaeo, Tu lai thong, Part One, 70–75. Two of the figures on this cabinet are fairly easy to identify: one is carried by Garuda, and is Vishnu or perhaps Rama; another, carried by a monkey warrior – probably Hanuman – would seem to be Rama again. The other two figures are carried by a demon and a lion.

14 Wright, “Siamese Gilt Lacquer Painting,” 33. The painted doors are illustrated in Samut phap sinlapakam wat yai suwannaram, fig. 16.

15 Santi and Kamol, Chittrakam faphanang samai ayutthaya, 99, fig. 74; Chittrakam faphanang sakun chang nonthaburi, 15 (English text) and fig. 12.

16 The sides are illustrated in Kongkaeo, Tu lai thong, Part One, 248, 250."

4th May 2012, 04:26 AM	#24
Nathaniel Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 865	The article then goes on to say: "This well-known cabinet has conventionally been thought to represent Louis XIV (reigned 1643–1715) and the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb (reigned 1658–1707), and to date from the reign of King Narai (1656–1688), who exchanged ambassadors with both. 1 Western scholars are divided in their opinions. One has recently accepted the attribution to Narai’s reign. Another thinks it possible that while the woodcarving may date from that period, the fi gures and designs in gold must be later. 2 Neither believes the identifi cations of the two fi gures have been established convincingly; one suggests that “if the European fi gure really is Louis XIV … his companion could well be Shah Sulaiman of Persia (reigned 1666–1694) … rather than Aurangzeb.” 3 Leaving aside the date of the cabinet and its designs in gold for the moment, a few additional observations can be offered on the identifications of the figures. The European wears what looks like a Thai interpretation of seventeenth-century European armor, complete with surface decoration of foliate scrolls (some of which seem to have escaped to swirl around the figure’s elbows4). Then, the pose of the figure – with proper right foot pulled back and left foot forward, left hand at waist and right holding a vertical weapon – recalls that of Louis XIV in court portraits by such artists as Hyacinthe Rigaud. 5 A full-length portrait of the Sun King is known to have been present in Narai’s secondary capital of Lopburi6 (together with large numbers of French luxury goods bought by the Thais or given by the French as gifts to the king and court) and presumably the French ambassadors and missionaries had with them illustrated books or engravings that might have depicted their monarch. As for “Aurangzeb,” no doubt a portrait of him – either a Mughal miniature or a European copy of one – might have reached the eyes of a Thai artist. But the features of the figure do not resemble those of Aurangzeb in his Mughal portraits. In them he is shown having a rather long, straight nose and a full beard tapering to a point. 7 Perhaps, though, the question is whether, for the Thais, this exotic figure stood for Aurangzeb (or the shah of Persia), not whether it resembled him. Can we clarify further whether the figure was supposed to be an Indian or a Persian? Merchants and envoys of both nationalities were present in Siam to be looked at, and King Narai is said to have dressed in Persian style, so there must have been aspects of clothing that for Thais signaled “Indian” (or “Mughal”) as opposed to “Persian.” The robe of the figure on the cabinet could be a Thai rendition of either Indian or Persian dress. A puzzling feature is that on the lower body the sides of the robe seem to meet in the middle at the front, rather than one side wrapping all the way over the other as is shown on the upper body. The trousers seem too short for either Indians or Persians, both of whom are usually depicted in their own paintings with tight trousers long enough to gather at the top of the foot. The belt looks suspiciously Thai, and does not resemble the sash worn by both Persians or Indians in the seventeenth century – usually wound around and tucked into itself by Persians or knotted in front with long ends hanging down by Indians. The turban, by comparison with those shown in Persian and Mughal paintings of the second half of the seventeenth century, seems closer to Indian types, but if an Indian monarch is represented, where are the necklaces one would expect? And why would either a Persian or an Indian wear an Indonesian kris? 8 The gesture made by the Indian or Persian figure calls attention to itself, and may reward further study. In Indonesian art a related gesture seems to be associated with admonishing or berating; the gesture may have similar associations in South Asian Muslim contexts. 9 The possibility that here “Aurangzeb” is scolding “Louis XIV” is tantalizing. Hiram Woodward has proposed a thought-provoking interpretation of the small figures in the sky above the main figures. He associates them deities of thunder and lightning, as well as the planet Rahu, who causes eclipses by swallowing the sun and moon. In Thai cosmology, such sky deities hover near the summit of Mt. Meru, the central mountain of the universe. Below them, on the upper slopes of Mt. Meru, reside the four guardian kings of the directions – two of whom may be represented here as the French and Indian or Persian monarchs. 10 European and Indian or Persian figures similar in type to those on this cabinet are found on the lacquered and gilded window shutters of a building at Wat Saket, Bangkok, that is thought to date from the reign of Rama I (1782– 1809). 11 These shutters could have been reused from an older building (as seems to have been fairly common). If they were indeed made in the reign of Rama I, however, then showing how the related figures on the cabinet could be more than 100 years earlier will require much more detailed analysis of the evolution of painting in Siam from 1650 to 1800 than has so far been undertaken. On the back of the cabinet are two more figures painted in a style that appears unrelated to that of the figures on the front. The figure on the right has three (visible) heads, and so may represent Brahma; the figure on the left has no attributes that would identify him clearly, but the deity usually paired with Brahma in Thailand is Indra, the king of the gods, and this may well be who the left-hand figure represents. The “Brahma,” however, stands on a short pedestal supported on the back of a crouching animal that seems to be a bear, and the “Indra’s” pedestal is supported by a monkey. Monkeys and bears figure prominently in the epic Ramayana (known in Thai as the Rammakian), and if the “Indra” were not paired with a three-headed figure, we might have identified it as Rama, the hero of the Ramayana, who is sometimes shown supported by the monkey hero Hanuman. Paired guardians standing on short pedestals supported by giants, demons, or other creatures are found fairly commonly on window shutters, doors, and the backs of manuscript cabinets, but they usually have few distinguishing features, and seldom can be identified by name. 12 If the figures on the back of the cabinet are indeed Brahma and Indra, then they, together with the two figures on the front, might conceivably be construed as the four guardian kings of the directions. Brahma is not usually thought of as a king, however, and Indra resides not on the slopes of Mt. Meru but in the Heaven of the Thirty- Three Gods at its summit. Only one other cabinet is known to bear four large princely figures, and it does not aid in identifying the figures here. 13 Michael Wright has suggested that the panels decorated by the figures on the back of the cabinet – so different in style and treatment from those on the front – may have been rescued from an older cabinet (or other context) and reused. He also points out their resemblance to figures painted on the back of the doors of the ordination hall of Wat Yai Suwannaram, Phetburi, the date of which is, unfortunately, quite uncertain. 14 Also comparable in their stances and elongation are standing celestials in the murals of Wat Prasat, Nonthaburi, which have been assigned dates ranging from the mid-1600s to the mid-1700s. 15 Both sides of the cabinet are decorated with landscapes filled with real and fantastic creatures such as deer, phoenixes, a tiger, and a Chinese lion. Through the foliage-filled sky on one side fly a male celestial and a garuda grappling with serpents. 16 1 This view is expressed, for instance, in Somdet phra narai lae phra chao lui thi 14, 61. See also Wright, “Gilt-lacquer Painting,” 32–34. Wright is cautious, but “can find nothing about the cabinet to contradict the tradition.” 2 Woodward, “Structures,” 3; Listopad, “Phra Narai,” 311–312. 3 Woodward, “Structures,” 3. 4 Calling to mind Woodward’s discussion of the playful element in the cabinet painter’s approach, “Structures,” 5. 5 Two well-known portraits by Rigaud of Louis XIV in a similar pose date from 1701 (in regal robes) and about 1702 (in armor); Burke, Fabrication, fig. 1; Maumené and d’Harcourt, Iconographie, 98–99 and pl. 14. Th e pose was established as appropriate for royal portraits by Van Dyke in his Charles I Dismounted of approx. 1635. An anonymous French portrait from about 1670 shows Louis XIV in armor, standing in a related pose (but reversed); Maumené and d’Harcourt, Iconographie, 57–59 and pl. 8. To make progress in identifying other possible models for the “Louis XIV” on the cabinet will require checking portraits of the monarch by such artists as Pierre Mignard, Henri Testelin, and Robert Nanteuil. Early copies of such portraits will also need to be checked, as will engravings after them. The odd hat with two feathers worn by the fi gure on the cabinet remains puzzling. Louis XIV is sometimes shown wearing a vaguely similar hat, but decorated with floppy plumes rather than two erect feathers; Burke, Fabrication, figs. 18, 24. The little dog also does not seem to appear in portraits of Louis XIV, though it was an accessory in other aristocratic portraits. 6 Van Der Cruysse, Siam and the West, 340; also 265. 7 Gascoigne, Great Mughals, 214, 239. 8 The answer to this question may be simply that krises were fairly frequent attributes of door guardians. Krises are brandished by the Chinese-Thai guardians on the doors of a late- Ayutthaya cabinet in the National Museum Bangkok, for instance. See No. na Paknam, Wiwatthanakan lai thai (1st ed.), figs. 248–249. On the other hand, wearing a kris seems to have been the style for Thai courtiers in Narai’s period. See Jacq-Hergoulac’h, “Dessins de Charles LeBrun,” 30–35. 9 Natasha Reichle proposed this interesting possibility, citing the use of gesture as a warning by door guardians and other protective figures in East Javanese art, and in East Javanese narrative reliefs. See Fontein, Sculpture of Indonesia, 130; Kinney, Worshipping Siva, figs. 127, 146, 154, 247, 258, 259. Information on the implications of this gesture in present-day Pakistan was provided by Altaf Bhatti. 10 Woodward, “Structures, Names,” typescript, 3–6. I appreciate Hiram Woodward’s kindly sharing this unpublished paper. 11 Wannipha, Chittrakam samai rattanakosin, 65, 73–74. 12 For example, Wannipha, Chittrakam samai rattanakosin, 21 (Phutthaisawan Chapel); 29 (ordination hall of Wat Dusitdaram); 55 (ordination hall of Wat Ratchasittharam). For such figures on cabinets, see Kongkaeo, Tu lai thong, Part One, 32-34, 100, 156–158 and Part 2, Vol. 3, 216–218 (a cabinet with an inscribed date equivalent to 1784). 13 Kongkaeo, Tu lai thong, Part One, 70–75. Two of the figures on this cabinet are fairly easy to identify: one is carried by Garuda, and is Vishnu or perhaps Rama; another, carried by a monkey warrior – probably Hanuman – would seem to be Rama again. The other two figures are carried by a demon and a lion. 14 Wright, “Siamese Gilt Lacquer Painting,” 33. The painted doors are illustrated in Samut phap sinlapakam wat yai suwannaram, fig. 16. 15 Santi and Kamol, Chittrakam faphanang samai ayutthaya, 99, fig. 74; Chittrakam faphanang sakun chang nonthaburi, 15 (English text) and fig. 12. 16 The sides are illustrated in Kongkaeo, Tu lai thong, Part One, 248, 250."