Isabella Hofmann 01263781

a01263781@univie.ac.at

isabella.hofmann@drei.at

Exchange of art between Mughal India and the Dutch

Empire in the 17th century.

With a closer look on Rembrandt's drawings

after Indian miniatures.

Seminar / Bachelor Thesis I – 2019S

Rembrandt and the Golden Age of Dutch Art (n.k.)

Stephanie Dickey

2

Table of contents

1. Introduction………………………..…………………………...…………………………..3

2. State of research…………………………………………………………………………….3

3. Historic background…………………………………………………………...…………...4

3.1. The Dutch East India Company – VOC…………………………………………….4

3.2 India in the 16th, 17th and 18th century……………………………………………….5

3.3. Trade relations between India and the VOC………………………………………..6

4. Mughal Art………………………………………………………………………………….7

4.1. European Art at the Mughal court………………………………………………….7

5. European encounters with Mughal art…………………………………………………..10

6. Rembrandt……………………………………………………………………...…………11

6.1 Rembrandt’s art chamber………………………………………………………….11

6.2. Rembrandt’s drawings after Indian miniatures…………………………………...12

6.2.1. How did Rembrandt gain access to the original Mughal miniatures?......12

6.2.2. The drawings…………………………..………………………………..16

6.3.3. The purpose………………………………………………… ………….20

7. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………21

APPENDIX

Bibliography………………………………………………………….……………………….23

Illustration Credits ………………………………………………...………………………….25

Plates…..……………………………………………………………………………………...27

3

1. Introduction

When we think about art the first thing we do is to divide it into different scholars or in its

countries of origin for example Italian, Asian, Indian, Japanese, Flemish or Dutch art. But with

the beginning of the globalization, which started with the first big explorations we also have to

look at art in a global context. Not only material goods, such as fabrics, gold or spices travelled

around the globe, but also art, culture and traditions were exchanged. And it were not only the

Europeans who were fascinated with south-east Asian cultures, the interest on the other side

was big as well.

In this essay I explore the relationship between Mughal India and the Dutch Empire. First I give

a brief insight into the historical conditions and write about the history of the Dutch East India

Company (VOC), as well about the emergence of the Mughal Empire and its trade relations

with the VOC. Afterwards I will discuss the origin of Mughal painting and show some

examples of how Mughal artists used and remodelled European, primarily Dutch art. The

second part deals with the influences of Mughal art on European art. I focus mainly on

Rembrandt's drawings after Indian miniatures. I attempt to find possible answers to the

questions "How did Rembrandt gain access to the miniatures?", "What happened to the

miniatures afterwards?" and "What were his motivations to copy the miniatures?

2. State of research

The German art historian Friedrich Sarre was one of the first to study Rembrandt's drawings

after Indian miniatures in 1904.1 Since then, a lot has been achieved in this field of research

which deals with the interconnection of Indian and European art. In her book "Im Reich der

1 Friedrich Sarre, Rembrandts Zeichnungen nach indisch-islamischen Miniaturen, in: Staatliche Museen zu

Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz (Ed.), Jahrbuch der Königlich Preussischen Kunstsammlungen, 25. Bd., 3.H,

p. 143 – 185, Berlin 1904.

4

Großmogulen" Annemarie Schimmel writes about history, religion and art and deals with

European influences on the art of the Mughal Empire.2 A very detailed dissertation from 2009

by Corinna Forberg is entitled "Die Rezeption indischer Miniaturen in der europäischen Kunst

des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts".3 She covers works of Rembrandt and Schellinks after Mughal

paintings.

The most recent publication on this topic was published as a part of the exhibition "Rembrandt

and the Inspiration of India", which took place in 2018 at ‘The J.Paul Getty Museum’. In this

exhibition for the first time all known 23 drawings of Rembrandt after Indian miniatures were

exhibited together and compared with original Mughal paintings. Additionally, European

influences on Indian art were examined.4

For the Indian miniatures in the "Million Room" at Schönbrunn Palace, it is recommended to

read Dorothea Duda's essay entitled "Die Kaiserin und der Großmogul. Untersuchungen zu den

Miniaturen des Millionenzimmers im Schloss Schönbrunn" from 1997.5

3. Historic background

3.1. The Dutch East India Company - VOC

The prerequisite for Rembrandt’s access to the Indian miniatures was the establishment of the

Dutch East India Company (Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie, VOC) 6 which made

Amsterdam a world trade metropolis and the broad religious acceptance7 helped the city to a

cultural flowering.8

2 Annemarie Schimmel, Im Reich der Großmoguln. Geschichte, Kunst, Kultur, München 2000. 3 Corina Forberg, Die Rezeption indischer Miniaturen in der europäischen Kunst des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts,

Band 1, Wien 2009. 4 Stephanie Schrader (Ed.), Rembrandt and the Inspiration of India, Los Angeles 2018. 5 Dorothea Duda, Die Kaiserin und der Großmogul. Untersuchungen zu den Miniaturen des Millionenzimmers

im Schloß Schönbrunn, in: Karin K. Troschke (Ed.), Malerei auf Papier und Pergament in den Prunkräumen des

Schlosses Schönbrunn, p. 33 – 55, Wien 1997. 6 Forberg 2009, p. 10. 7 Persecuted by the Inquisition in Spain, France and Portugal fled to the Netherlands, among them scholars and

artists. Forberg 2009, p. 11. 8 Forberg 2009, p. 11.

5

The VOC was established on March 20th, 1602 as a union of various Dutch merchants to trade

with India and other South East Asian countries.9 The main reason for the association was to

get rid of the rivalry between single companies. Between 1559 and 1601 fifteen different

companies set out for South East Asia, bringing home ship loads of spices which led to an

enormous price fell on the market.10 The solution was a trade monopoly supported by the Dutch

state.

Between the years 1600 and 1795 4.720 ships where sent to Asia by the VOC, which made

them the largest shipping company in the world.11 From 1641 on the Dutch traders where the

only Europeans allowed to trade with Japan, but they were restricted to a small island called

Deshima in the harbour of Nagasaki. This also led to the great profit of the VOC.12

3.2 India in the 16th, 17th and 18th century

In the 16th century an Indo-Muslim empire arose in the north of the Indian subcontinent. Until

the end of the 17th century it expanded south into the Vijayanagar empire13, occupying almost

the whole continent. The term “Mughal Empire” was made up by the Europeans as they thought

the rulers were Mongols. The emperors referred to themselves as “Gurkani”. Patriarch of this

dynasty was Timur (1336 – 1405)14, but founder of the empire was Babur who died in 1530.

The 16th and 17th century was the golden age for the Mughal Empire. Under the four emperors

Akbar (reign 1556 – 1605), Jahangir (r. 1605 – 1627), Shah Jahan (r. 1627 – 1658) and

Awrangzeb (r. 1658 – 1707) economy, art and culture were flourishing. In the 18th century

various political opponents, such as the British or the Rajputs gained dominance which led to a

collapse of the administration and caused a fragmentation of the empire into smaller districts

9 Gaastra 2003, p. 20. 10 Gaastra 2003, p. 19. 11 Bruijn/Gaastra/ 1993, p. 182. In Comparison the East India Company by the British sent only 2.676 ships to

Asia during the same time period. 12 Gaastra 2003, p. 53. 13 Gaastra 2003, p.50. 14 Forberg 2009, p. 5.

6

who were fighting for supremacy. With help of the British East India Company the British could

finally prevail their dominance and in 1876 Queen Victoria was named “Empress of India”.15

3.3. Trade relations between India and the VOC

Even though the VOC had the supremacy on the spice trade in the Indonesian Archipelago it

was also important to gain access to the Indian market, as Indian textiles were indispensable as

barter goods for the purchase of spices16 in Indonesia. The Portuguese concentrated their power

on the west coast in Goa, therefore in 1605 the Dutch merchant Van der Haghen sent a ship to

the Coromandel coast on the east side where the Portuguese were less powerful. They soon

gained permission by the local authorities17 to establish factories and beneficial trading

agreements were made. Only five years later they were already able to set up independent

managements with offices in Masulipatnam in the north and Plaeacatte in the south.18 The start

of the trade relations with the Mughal Empire in Surat was less fortunate. Gaastra writes that

the first Dutch Merchants, Hans de Wolf and Lafer, who visited Surat in 1602, were intercepted

by Portuguese as they left town and executed. David van Deynsen another Dutch trader was so

persecuted that he found no other way out than committing suicide.19

Anyway the VOC managed to establish a flourishing post in Surat after 1616 through the

endeavours of Pieter van den Broecke. Femme S. Gaastra is questioning himself why the Indian

governments allowed the VOC and other trading companies such easy access to the market and

even gave them trading privileges such as lowering of import and export duties. His answer is

that their centres of power were inland, so they had little interests to protect the merchants in

15 Conermann 2006, p. 7 – 8.

For detailed information read: Stephan Conermann, Das Mogulreich. Geschichte und Kultur des muslimischen

Indien. München 2006. 16 Gaastra 2003, p. 50. 17 In the north there was the kingdom of Golconda and in the south a number of areas under the control of the

Vijayanagar empire. Gaastra 2003, p. 50. 18 Gaastra 2003, p. 50. 19 Gaastra 2003, p. 50.

7

the coastal towns and they were hoping for a political and financial advantage in encouraging

foreign traders. 20

4. Mughal Art

“There are many who hate painting, but I don't like people like that. It seems to me that a

painter has very special possibilities to recognize God, because when a painter sketches

something alive and draws its limbs, one by one, he has to realize that he cannot instill

individual life into his work, and so he is forced to think of God who gives life, and so he

will become wiser.”21

This quotation was made by ruler Akbar. It shows the great importance of painting at the court

of the mogul emperors. The typical Mughal style originated in the middle of the 16th century

and consists of a mixture of Hindu and Persian art. The refined fineness of the Persians met the

virtuosic liveliness of the Hindu artists. The first work to combine these two styles is the

Tutinama, with over 250 illustrations. Shortly thereafter followed the large-format Hamzanama

- the actual Mughal style was born. From different representations (plate 1) we know how

Mogul artists were working. They were sitting on the floor, one knee bend, on which they could

place a sheet of paper. Around them stood small bowls of pigments, their brushes were made

of bird feathers or fine hair. 22

4.1. European Art at the Mughal court

In Akbar's time, however, something new appeared. Missionaries of the Jesuit Order brought

European art, for example the Royal Polyglott Bible, to the court of the Mughal Emperor as

20 Gaastra 2003, p. 50 – 51. 21 Schimmel 2000, p. 332. 22 Schimmel 2000, p. 333 – 334.

8

early as 1550. Much sooner than Indian miniatures arrived in Europe. Not only biblical themes

but also European techniques such as perspective were adopted.23

Annemarie Schimmel writes that one of the first works to emerge from this symbiosis of

European and Indian art is an illustration from the handwriting of Nizamis Khamsa. Plato is

depicted in front of a small portable organ, surrounded by various animals. The organ is

decorated with all sorts of European pictures and from the side a man dressed with a European

hat glances out.24

Not only European themes and techniques were imitated, but whole works were copied and

‘mughalized’. For example, a work by the artist Farrukh Beg (plate 2), dated around 1615, is

painted after a print by Flemish artist Maerten de Vos (plate 3).25 The scene was transformed

from an interior into an exterior. Instead of wall and ceiling, a tree with artistically designed

leaves is depicted. In addition, the artist has supplemented various animals.

Some European originals were not only repainted but also overpainted. In addition, one must

know that it was usual in Mughal studios to create works in two steps. First there was a designer

who made the basic drawing in black or brown ink. This drawing was then forwarded to a

colourist to be colorized. The same method was used on an engraving by Dutch artist Jan

Sadeler which depicts Dialectica (plate 4/5).26

In the original picture (plate 5) Dialectica sits in front of a wall with two columns. Two toads

sit at her feet. In the overpainting by Abu'l Hasan (plate 4) the columns were replaced by a tree

trunk and the wall was removed and replaced by a meadow. The artist extended the picture to

the left and right to embed Dialectica in a beautiful landscape. In a bushy branch of the tree sits

23 Schimmel 2000, p. 336 24 Schimmel 2000, p. 336. Unfortunately, I could not find a picture of this illustration. 25 Schimmel 2000, p. 342. 26 Rice 2018, p. 65.

9

an owl with outstretched wings. The toads at her feet were replaced by a cat and a dog. To the

right, the artist has added another mammal.27

Another Indian illustration attributed to Keshav Das (plate 6), which is based on the Roman

series by Hendrick Goltzius (plate 7) shows us a Roman hero. He mainly orientated himself on

posture, hand movement, gaze direction and martial costume of the warrior.28 The biggest

difference between the two representations lies in their colourfulness. The Mughal artist has

opted for a splendid coloration of the clothing (red, yellow, blue), while in Goltzius' work the

black-and-white shades emphasize the muscles and physique of the hero.29

Arts also conveyed Dutch traditions. This shows us a miniature after Adriaen Brouwer (plate

8/9) depicting an elderly lady making pancakes. The composition was adopted almost one to

one. Only in the vases and in the decoration of the door the artist let Mughal elements and

pictures flow in.

Around 1600 a new form of the book developed - the album.30 Illustrations and calligraphic

sheets were put together in such a way that each image page was opposite one page with

letters.31 Not only Mughal paintings were used but also European prints, which were

supplemented and decorated with writing and ornamental borders.32

For example, in the Dara Shikoh Album we can find a page where European engravings of the

saints Margaret and Catherine of Siena are paired with a poem in calligraphy (plate 10). The

prints find themselves on a page, which was usually reserved for a text. The artist was

27 Comp. Rice 2018, p. 65. 28 Rice 2018, p. 62 – 63. 29 Comp. Rice 2018, p. 63. 30 Likewise, in Europe it was common to stick and collect etchings and prints in albums. 31 Schimmel 2000, p.344. 32 Rice 2018, p.64.

10

apparently of the opinion that the delicate black and white prints fit better to the calligraphy

than they stand on a separate page.33

The Indian rulers also seemed to have a great interest in angels. Depictions of angels can be

found in many imperial chambers, for example of Jahangir or Shah Jahan, but also in various

portraits of rulers.34 In Bichitr’s painting of Jujhar Singh Bundela who knees in Submission to

Shah Jahan (plate 11) we see two angels holding up a crown above Shah Jahan’s head. On the

left and on the right are two clouds with two choirs of people standing on them. This is

reminiscent of representations of the Last Judgment where apostles and saints are lined up on

clouds to the left and right of Jesus Christ.

In the portrait of Jahangir by Muhammad Mushin (plate 12) there are also two small angels

depicted. One is holding a saber, the other one three arrows.

5. European encounters with Mughal art

Mughal artist copied European works a while before European artist encountered Mughal

miniatures. The first Indian miniatures with portraits of Jahangir and Shah Jahan probably came

to London around 1620, where they were copied by an unknown engraver for Samuel Purcha’s

'Purchas His Pilgrims' (1625). Yael Rice writes that the same portrait of Jahangir may have

served the English engraver Renold Elstack as a model in the preceding decade. Otherwise there

is very little evidence of Mughal miniatures circulating in Europe in the first quarter of the 17th

century.35

Rembrandt was of course not the only artist dealing with Mughal art. The Dutch artist Willem

Schellinks painted at least four oil paintings including themes from Indian miniatures.

Otherwise we have very less artistic experiments with Mughal art. Instead, the book trade

33 Rice 2018, p. 64. 34 Schimmel 2000, p. 342. 35 Rice 2018, p. 62.

11

picked up this topic and published travel literature, atlases or books on the history of religion

with copper engravings after Indian paintings. For example Athanasius Kircher China Illustrata

was published in the year 1667 by Johannes Jansonius van Waesberge and the widow

Weyerstraet in Amsterdam.36

6. Rembrandt

6.1 Rembrandt’s art chamber

Even though Rembrandt never left the Netherlands for his entire life, he was very much

interested in foreign cultures and goods. He owned a large art chamber where he collected

antique statues, drawings, all kinds of weapons and armoury, sea shells and other curiosities.

The inventory list which was drawn up after his bankruptcy in 1656 gives us detailed

information about his possession. The list below shows a small excerpt of what kind of goods

from the south-east he owned. The full list can be viewed in ‘The Rembrandt documents” by

Walter L. Strauss or online at RemDoc by the Radboud Universitiy Nijmegen37.

- Two East Indian cups

- An East Indian Powder Box

- A Japanese helmet

- 47 specimens of land and sea animals

- A great quantity of shells, coral branches, casts from life and many other curios

- 60 pieces of Indian hand weapons, arrows, shafts, javelins and bows

- 13 pieces of arrows, bows, shields, etc.

- One ditto (book) filled with curious drawings in miniature as well as woodcuts and

engravings on cooper of various [folk] costumes. 38

36 Forberg 2009, p. 95. 37 http://remdoc.huygens.knaw.nl/ (13.08.2019) 38 (Ed.) Walter L. Strauss, The Rembrandt Documents, New York 1979.

12

One of Rembrandt’s famous etchings shows a shell, precisely a marbled cone (conus

marmoreus) from his collection (plate 13). The species originates in the Indian Ocean and the

western parts of the Pacific Ocean.39 Stephanie Schrader writes that “Rembrandt artistically

transformed the shell, giving it a counterclockwise twist, contrary to its natural clockwise

spiral.”40 I hardly doubt Rembrandt had any artistic thoughts on the spin of the shell. The

counter clockwise twist can be easily explained by the technique Rembrandt had chosen.

Because it is an etching the final image is mirrored causing the shell to spin in the other

direction.

6.2. Rembrandt’s drawings after Indian miniatures

6.2.1. How did Rembrandt gain access to the original Mughal miniatures?

According to Corinna Forberg, the last bullet point on the list above “one ditto (book) […] with

curious drawings in miniature […]” could have been an album which included the original

Indian miniatures Rembrandt copied, stating that it could be possible he owned them himself.41

She writes that collecting Indian miniatures got quite common in the 17th century in the

Netherlands, but Rembrandt’s collection must have been one of the first.42 Therefore, it is

possible that the official who recorded the inventory list was not aware of the exact designation

of those paintings.43

The fact that Rembrandt’s drawings are all dated between 1656 to 1661 – the years after his

bankruptcy – corroborate this theory. He probably did not want to lose them completely, so it

is possible that he made some copies before he lost access to the originals.

39 Meerwasser-Lexikon.de (https://www.meerwasser-lexikon.de/tiere/7545_Conus_marmoreus.htm)

(13.08.2019) 40 Schrader 2008, p. 10. 41 Forberg 2009, p.34. 42 The market for trading with Indian miniatures was only opened in the last three decades of the 17 th century.

Before that the acquisition was more complicated. Forberg 2009, p. 35. 43 Forberg 2009, p.35.

13

In the newer publication “Rembrandt and the inspiration of India” Stephanie Schrader calls

for more caution on the term ‘curious drawings’ as there are no specific records of Mughal

paintings in Rembrandt’s inventory. She claims that in other inventories from the 17th century

‘Mughal works on paper were commonly referred to as “Mogolse”, “Ostindise” or “Suratse

tekeningen” (Mughal, East Indian, or Surat drawings)’.44

But as mentioned by Corina Forberg in the middle of the 17th century such a collection of Indian

miniatures was rather rare and the above-named terms came into general use only later.45

Another possible explanation how he gained access to the paintings is over his clientele or

friends who were connected to the VOC. For example, the VOC director Abraham van

Wilmerdoncx who had a comprehensive collection of Asian art, commissioned Rembrandt to

do a portrait of him and his wife.46 Either he saw the miniatures in the collection of an

acquaintance and asked for permission to copy them or he purchased them for himself from one

of the VOC officers. Since we do not have any documents as solid evidence we can only

speculate.

As we can see scholars are very much divided on how Rembrandt got access to those Mughal

paintings and whether he owned them himself or not.

Another question we have to ask ourselves is when did the miniatures arrive in Europe and

which one could have served Rembrandt as a template? 47

Catherine Glynn states that the Mughal paintings Rembrandt saw were among the first to reach

Europe, but she does not explain further how she comes to this conclusion and how they arrived

here.48

44 Schrader 2018, p. 10. 45 Forberg 2009, p. 35. 46 Schrader 2018, p. 13. 47 Schrader 2018 p.11. 48 Glynn 2018, p. 29.

14

An early group of paintings were brought to Europe by Jesuit missionaries and have been a gift

to Pope Urban VIII (1623 – 1644) which are now in the Vatican and another group was given

to the Bodelian Library at Oxford University by the archbishop of Canterbury in 1639.49 Thus

it is excluded that Rembrandt saw one of these works.

For many of Rembrandts drawings we also have more than one miniature with a similar picture

theme. Mughal artists would save original drawings to use them later as samples for younger

artists or rework them. Those drawings where then passed down through generations.50

Therefore two, three or more paintings with the same subject are nothing exceptional.

One example is a drawing by Rembrandt showing the emperor Akbar and Jahangir in

Apotheosis (plate 14). We have two examples of Indian miniatures with a similar depiction.

One was part of the St. Petersburg album and ascribed to Bichitr (plate 15), the other is in the

Bodleian Library in Oxford by an unknown Mughal artist (plate 16). The version by Bichitr

(ca. 1640) was part of an album that was compiled in Iran in the eighteenth century. It was

brought there in 1739 after the plunder of imperial Delhi. It is therefore excluded that

Rembrandt saw it in Amsterdam around 1650.51

A comparison between the two pictures underpins this. We can see that the position of the hand

of the figure on the left and how he holds the book is different in the two depictions. In

Rembrandt’s drawing he holds the book up on the spine, right in the middle of the two people.

In the version by Bichitr the book lies on his lap.

The Oxford version (plate 16) is dated to ca. 1650 and also shows a different positioning of the

hand. The same composition can as well be found in a painting by Dutch artist Willem

49 Glynn 2018, p. 29 – 30. 50 Glynn 2018, p. 34. 51 Glynn 2018, p. 34.

15

Schellinks (plate 17).52 Thus there had to be a third version which served Rembrandt and

Schellinks as a template.

Just as we don't know how Rembrandt gained access to the miniatures, we don't know exactly

what happened to them afterwards. At least two53 (plate 18 /19) of them found its way into

Maria Theresa’s Millionenzimmer in Schloss Schönbrunn in Vienna which she furnished

around 1740. It is uncertain whether the main part of the miniatures came there through direct

trade relations with India or if they have been purchased from older European collections.54

There are two albums in the Viennese manuscript collection with more Indian miniatures and

the fact, that on the backsides of some, Dutch inscriptions were found support the second

thesis.55 We know about two collections the miniatures in Vienna could stem from. One

belonged to the mayor of Amsterdam Nicholaas Witsen. He had 450 Indian miniatures in his

possession which were auctioned after his death in 1728. It is possible that this collection also

included Rembrandt’s miniatures if he really had owned them.56 The other eligible miniatures

belonged to an Italian diplomat named Conte Giovanni Baldini who lived in Amsterdam for a

while and whose collection was auctioned in 1725.57

When we ask ‘How did Rembrandt get access to the Indian miniatures?’ we have various

hypothesis but the answer remains uncertain since we have not found solid evidence for any of

the theses.

52 Glynn 2018, p. 34. 53 In complete ten of Rembrandts drawings match with miniatures found in the Millionenzimmer, but only those

two have not been found anywhere else. Schrader 2018, p. 11. 54 Duda 1997, p. 34. 55 Duda 1997, p. 34 – 35. 56 Dorothea Duda states that Rembrandt owned these miniatures and that they were auctioned in 1656 and then

somehow came in the collection of Nicholaas Witsen. She makes an assumption here that cannot be proven.

Duda 1997, p. 34. 57 Duda 1997, p. 34.

16

6.2.2. The drawings

In 1747 a “book of Indian Drawings, 25 in Number” was offered at the auction of the collection

Jonathan Richardson jun.,58 23 are still existing today. One of them is part of the Albertina

collection in Vienna (plate 20).

It depicts a Mughal ruler and is drawn with brown ink and brown wash on Asian paper.59 Such

as the other drawings it is dated to around 1656 – 61. The emperor is shown in profile with the

body slightly slanted into the direction of the viewer. The background is washed with dark brush

strokes, with an empty space above the figures head, giving it the look of a glow. Except for

the head it is drawn with very fast lines, more like a sketch. The man is wearing an ankle-length

cloak or skirt with a small cape. He has his arms crossed in front of his body and holds a sword

in his hands. Around his waist he has wrapped a scarf and/or a belt which is tied together in the

front. A knife is pinned into it. Around his neck he is wearing some sort of jewellery or a collar.

The head and covering are drawn the most detailed. As mentioned before, we see his head in

profile. His eyes are pictured with a little dark spot and a small stroke for his eyebrows. His

nose is quite big and his mouth is framed by a moustache. He is wearing a turban, made out of

different kinds of cloth. It has various stripes for decoration and a tuft of feathers on top. The

turban is accentuated with various dark brush strokes. We can see a sideburn at the side of his

face and he is wearing an earring. The rest of his clothing is implied by various light strokes

and a little bit of shading. The figure is wearing sandals which are wrapped around its feet. The

58 Forberg 2009, p.33. 59 The term Asian paper refers to different papers shipped from south-east Asia to Europe. 22 of Rembrandts

drawings after Indian miniatures are done on these oriental papers. (Forberg 2009, p. 33.) He started using them

around 1647. We have records about Japanese papers that were shipped from Japan to Europe in 1643 and 1644.

Rembrandt mostly used “China” and “Japan” papers. But the names refer not necessarily to its origin rather than

its appearance. There is also the name “Indian papers” mentioned but that mostly refers to the East India

Company that brought it to the Netherlands. In China they used a wild variety of materials for paper making, for

example hemp, jute, flax, rattan, bamboo, rice, bast fibres etc. The Japanese mostly used the three bast fibres,

kozo, gampi and mitsumata. (Van Breda, 1997)

For more information on Rembrandts use of oriental papers read: Jacobus van Breda, „Rembrandt Etchings on

Oriental Papers: Papers in the Collection of the National Gallery of Victoria, in Art Bulletin of Victoria 38, 25 –

38, Melbourne 1997.

17

person depicted in this picture is looking quite wealthy due to his prestigious, upright posture

and precious garments. He has a proud look into the distance. Due to the dark wash the figure

stands out from the background. The small “R” in the lower right corner refers to the Jonathan

Richardson jun. collection.

As for the ruler, there are two different opinions who might be represented. The Albertina

believes it is emperor Jahangir, according to Stephanie Schrader it is Shah Shuja.60 I fail to

understand how Schrader comes to this conclusion. When we compare the facial features in the

drawing with a painting of Jahangir by Mughal artist Muhammad Mushin (plate 12) the

similarities cannot be overlooked. The profile view and the form of the head is almost the same.

In both depictions they have the same form of the nose, eyes and beard. Even the body form

and clothing look almost the same. Only the body posture is different. In my opinion it could

likely be, that Rembrandt had a similar version of this miniature as a template for his drawing.

As mentioned earlier two further drawings by Rembrandt are based on miniatures that can also

be found in the Millionenzimmer at Schloss Schönbrunn in Vienna.

The first one is showing Emperor Jahangir receiving an Officer (plate 21). We see a man

kneeling on a chair while another man is standing in front of him bringing him a letter or a

document. It is striking that Rembrandt was only interested in the figures and not in their

surroundings.

In the Indian painting (plate 18) we see that there are some problems regarding perspective

which Rembrandt corrected. There is no central perspective in the original miniature. The

pictorial space seems to have been opened up into a two-dimensional surface. The armchair

does not have a single vanishing point, which reminds us of medieval depictions from the 14th

century.61 The messenger was supposed to be standing right in front of the chair. But if we put

60 Schrader (Ed.) 2018, p. 92. 61 For example: Giotto, frescos in the Cappella degli Scrovegni, ca. 1305, Padua, Italy.

18

ourselves mentally into the picture and position ourselves behind him, we recognize that he is

not standing in front of it but slightly on the right. One can recognize this also by the position

of his feet. These are standing on the whitish outline of the carpet while the chair legs are still

standing on the green surface.

In Rembrandt’s drawing perspective and vanishing point are almost correct if one disregards,

that the drawing is rather sketched. The man is actually standing in front of the chair and he

added shading to create depth.

The other drawing after a miniature in the Millionenzimmer illustrates four Mullahs seated

under a tree (Plate 22). Shown are four elderly men with beards, sitting on the ground. They

have small glasses or cups and books in their hands or standing in front of them and they seem

to be talking. In the middle of the picture is a large tree. In the original miniature this tree seems

to have been painted over. In the upper right corner, you can still see some branches with leaves

on them. This overpainting probably happened during the integration of the miniature into the

Millionenzimmer.62

The drawing is often compared to an etching by Rembrandt with the title ‘Abraham

Entertaining the Three Angels’ from 1656 (plate 23). Schrader writes that scholars typically

date Rembrandt’s drawings after Mughal miniatures to around 1656 because of the purported

similarity of this print and the Four Mullahs seated under a Tree.63

A total of six people are depicted. Three of them sit - as in the drawing of the four mullahs - on

a carpet which seems to be on a terrace. On the far right Abraham is pictured, he seems to be

standing on the floor in front of the terrace, as we see only his upper body. He is holding a jug

in his left hand. This jug can also be found in the drawing of the three mullahs. Rembrandt has

inserted it on the left as a hasty sketch. In front of the three people sitting on the floor, lies a flat

62 Schrader 2018, p. 11. 63 Schrader 2018, p. 18.

19

plate with bread. In the drawing after the miniature there are glasses standing on the plate. Both

drawings have a similar composition. The people are arranged in such a way that their heads

describe a bow. Instead of the tree in the middle, Rembrandt inserted a boy who targets

something with bow and arrow. To his left we see part of a house with an open door. An elderly

lady observes the events through the gap in the door. As in the four mullahs, a mountain and a

little forest can be seen in the background on the left.

Another drawing that can also be compared to the ‘Four Mullahs seated under a Tree’ is the

‘Profile Portrait of Andrea Doria in the Round’ from 1556 – 58 (plate 24). Facial features as

well as nose and beard strongly resemble the figure on the far right in the picture.64

The drawing of ‘Shah Jahan and His Son’ (plate 25) shows Rembrandt's special interest in the

depiction of headgear. As in the drawing from the Albertina, the turban is worked out the most

detailed.

The ruler is depicted in profile from the chest upwards. To his left we see the head of his son.

Shah Jahan is drawn very detailed while his son is sketched with fast strokes. Rembrandt shows

us a much more intimate scene than the one in the original painting (plate 26). The son is moved

closer to his father. It almost seems as if the ruler is embracing his son with his left arm, which

we cannot see. Additionally, he has a very friendly, warm facial expression. In the miniature

the son stands respectfully in front of the throne on which his father sits. Shah Jahan's gaze

seems serious and worthy of that of a ruler. Rembrandt has made use of an excerpt of the

original and transformed it. He doesn't show us the scene of a court ceremony, but an intimate

relationship between father and son.

64 Robinson 2018, p. 44 – 46.

20

6.3.3. The purpose

Another question that art historians have been pondering for some time now is what purpose

did those drawings serve in his career?65 And I asked myself why we do not have any etchings

or prints, only drawings after Indian miniatures? Anyway Rembrandt must have thought of

them as something very exceptional as he used expensive Asian papers for almost all of them.66

Robinson writes that Rembrandt never quoted directly from these works, but he might have

used them as a source of inspiration.67 He also states that the art historian Friedrich Sarre

“developed the idea that Mughal art offered him insights into the clothing and costumes of the

Near East, such as the correct wrapping of a turban or the practice of kneeling during meals.”68

It is hard to say whether this is true or not. He did paintings and drawings of men in oriental

costumes long before he did the drawings after Mughal Miniatures.69 For example he painted

‘Belshazzar’s Feast’ (plate 27) and ‘Man in oriental Costume’ (plate 28) around the year 1635.

We don't know if the Indian miniatures were already familiar to him at that time. But if we

compare the turban of the Oriental man with the turban of the Indian ruler from the Albertina

drawing (plate 20) we find some striking similarities. In both depictions the feather tuft is very

prominent and the turban is wrapped around the head very similar in several layers and consists

of various striped and patterned fabrics. The small circle in the front and on top of the turban in

the drawing could be a jewellery. The question here is what was depicted on the original

miniature and if the miniature influenced Rembrandt when he did the painting or if the painting

influenced Rembrandt when he did the drawing.

65 Robinson 2018, p. 43. 66 Robinson 2018, p. 48. 67 Robinson 2018, p. 54. 68 Robinson 2018, p. 53. 69 Robinson 2018, p. 54.

21

The drawing of the four Mullahs and Abraham entertaining the Angels are the only two works

with a similar composition we know about.70

Since we do not have any etchings of the drawings, I assume that he made them for solely

private study purposes and not to share them with the public. And as I have mentioned before

maybe he created them as copies before he lost access to the originals due to his bankruptcy in

1656.71

The circumstances surrounding Rembrandt's acquisition or possession of the miniatures, or how

he gained access to them, and what ultimately motivated him to make drawings based on them,

remains a subject for speculation as long as research finds no new evidence.

7. Conclusion

As it turns out, in India half a century earlier than in Europe people have been engaged with the

art of other cultures. Thereby, Mughal artists have dealt much more with European prints and

graphics. In Indian albums we find engravings combined with calligraphies, overpainted and

extended engravings, as well as copies after European works, which were, however, given new

life with colorations and minor changes in motifs.

In Europe around 1600 there were very few Indian miniatures in circulation, and later only two

artists, Rembrandt and Schellinks, artistically engaged with them. Otherwise, prints after

Mughal miniatures were only published in books for information purposes.

The miniatures that served Rembrandt as a model most likely came to Amsterdam through the

VOC. Whether he acquired them there for himself or he had seen them at a friend who worked

for the VOC remains a mystery to us. Researchers have also been speculating for years whether

the "curious drawings" listed in the inventory list are actually Indian miniatures. In older

70 See page 18. 71 See page 12.

22

publications this is already accepted as a fact, in more recent treatises on contrary more caution

is called regarding this assumption.

What happened to the miniatures afterwards is also uncertain. Some researchers, such as

Dorothea Duda, assume that they were auctioned off after Rembrandt's bankruptcy. Possibly

several miniatures found their way to Vienna via detours to Maria Theresa, where she used

them as wall decorations in the Millionenzimmer at Schloss Schönbrunn.

Rembrandt's motives for copying the miniatures also inspire speculation. He probably created

them for purely private study purposes and used them as a source of inspiration for his paintings.

Since we have no etchings of the drawings, a commercial purpose is unlikely. In any case,

Rembrandt's 23 drawings of Indian miniatures raise more questions than answers.

23

APPENDIX

Bibliography

Bruijin/Gaastra 1993

Jaap R. Bruijn/ Femme S. Gaastra, The Dutch East India Company, in: Jaap R. Bruijn/

Femme S. Gaastra (Ed.), Ships, Sailors and Spices. East India Companies and their shipping

in the 16th, 17th and 18th Centuries, p. 177 – 208, Amsterdam 1993

Conermann 2006

Stephan Conermann, Das Mogulreich. Geschichte und Kultur des muslimischen Indiens,

München 2006.

Duda 1997

Dorothea Duda, Die Kaiserin und der Großmogul. Untersuchungen zu den Miniaturen des

Millionenzimmers im Schloß Schönbrunn, in: Karin K. Troschke (Ed.), Malerei auf Papier

und Pergament in den Prunkräumen des Schlosses Schönbrunn, p. 33 -55, Wien 1997.

Forberg 2009

Corina Forberg, Die Rezeption indischer Miniaturen in der europäischen Kunst des 17. und

18. Jahrhunderts, Band 1, Wien 2009.

Gaastra 2003

Femme S. Gaastra, The Dutch East India Company. Expansion and Decline, Zutphen 2003.

Glynn 2018

Catherine Glynn, Mughal Masterworks in Rembrandt’s Hand, in: Stephanie Schrader (Ed.),

Rembrandt and the Inspiration of India, p. 29 – 41, Los Angeles 2018.

Rice 2018

Yael Rice, The Global Aspirations of the Mughal Album, in: Stephanie Schrader (Ed.),

Rembrandt and the Inspiration of India, p. 61 - 77, Los Angeles 2018.

Robinson 2018

William W. Robinson, „A book of Indian Drawings, by Rembrandt, 25 in number”, in:

Stephanie Schrader (Ed.), Rembrandt and the Inspiration of India, p. 43 - 59, Los Angeles

2018.

Schimmel 2000

Annemarie Schimmel, Im Reich der Großmoguln. Geschichte, Kunst, Kultur, München 2000.

24

Schrader 2018

Stephanie Schrader, Rembrandt and the Mughal Line: Artistic Inspiration in the Global City

of Amsterdam, in: Stephanie Schrader (Ed.), Rembrandt and the Inspiration of India, p. 5 -27,

Los Angeles 2018.

Strauss, 1979

(Ed.) Walter L. Strauss, The Rembrandt Documents, New York 1979.

Van Breda, 1997.

Jacobus van Breda, „Rembrandt Etchings on Oriental Papers: Papers in the Collection of the

National Gallery of Victoria, in Art Bulletin of Victoria 38, 25 – 38, Melbourne 1997.

25

Illustration Credits

Plate 1: Digitalisierte Sammlung, Staatsbibliothek Berlin: https://digital.staatsbibliothek-

berlin.de/werkansicht?PPN=PPN71774034X&PHYSID=PHYS_0041&DMDID=DMDLOG_

0041 (12.08.2019)

Plate 2: http://storage.canalblog.com/00/42/119589/68453212.jpg (12.08.2019)

Plate 3: Online Collection, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Object Number 44.62.6

Plate 4: Stephanie Schrader (Ed.), Rembrandt and the Inspiration of India, Los Angeles 2018,

p. 65.

Plate 5: Online Collection, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Object Number

49.95.1494

Plate 6: Online Collection, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, Object Number RP-T-1993-33

Plate 7: Online Collection, Harvard Art Museum, Cambridge, Object Number R2028

Plate 8: Stephanie Schrader (Ed.), Rembrandt and the Inspiration of India, Los Angeles 2018,

p. 125.

Plate 9: Online Collection, The British Museum, London, Object Number S.6265

Plate 10: Stephanie Schrader (Ed.), Rembrandt and the Inspiration of India, Los Angeles

2018, p. 64.

Plate 11: Online Collection, The Chester Beatty Library, Dublin, Object Number CBL In

07A.16

Plate 12: Stephanie Schrader (Ed.), Rembrandt and the Inspiration of India, Los Angeles

2018, p. 101.

Plate 13: Online Collection, Städel Museum, Frankfurt am Main, Object Number 5905 D

Plate 14: Online Collection, Museum Boijmans vann Beunigen, Rotterdam, Object Number

R 36 (PK)

Plate 15: Stephanie Schrader (Ed.), Rembrandt and the Inspiration of India, Los Angeles

2018, p. 111.

Plate 16: Digital Library, Bodleian Library, Oxford, Object Number: Ms. Douce Or. A.1,

fol.19

Plate 17: Wikimedia Commons:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shah_Jahan_and_his_four_sons_by_Willem_Schell

inks_end_of_17th_century.jpg

Plate 18: Stephanie Schrader (Ed.), Rembrandt and the Inspiration of India, Los Angeles

2018, p. 99.

Plate 19: Stephanie Schrader (Ed.), Rembrandt and the Inspiration of India, Los Angeles

2018, p. 106.

26

Plate 20: Online Collection, Albertina Museum, Vienna, Object Number 24471

Plate 21: Online Collection, British Museum, London, Object Number PD Gg,2.263

Plate 22: Online Collection, British Museum, London, Object Number 1895,0915.1275

Plate 23: Online Collection, Harvard Art Museum, Cambridge, Object Number G3223

Plate 24: http://www.rembrandt-van-rijn.com/bust-of-andrea-doria/

Plate 25: Online Collection, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, Object Number RP-T-1961-83

Plate 26: Online Collection, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC, Object Number

S1986.406

Plate 27: Online Collection, National Gallery, London, Object Number NG6350

Plate 28: Online Collection, National Gallery of Art, Washington DC, Object Number

1940.1.13

27

Plates

Plate 1: Unkown Indian (Mughal) artist, folio from the Jahangir Album, Detail, ca. 1610, watercolour,

ink, and gold on paper, 42.2 x 26.5 cm, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin.

28

Plate 2: Farrukh Beg, A Sufi sage, after the European personification of melancholia, Dolor. Mughal

court at Agra,1615. Opaque watercolour, ink and gold on paper.: 38.2 x 25.6 cm, Museum of Islamic

Art, Doha.

Plate 3: Raphael Sadeler I after Maerten de Vos, Dolor, 1560 – 1628, engraving, 22.2 x 26 cm,

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

29

Plate 4: Abu’l Hasan, page from the St. Petersburg Album (Detail), Painting Overlaying Dialectica

Engraving by Jan Sadeler, ca. 1615, Ink and opaque watercolour on paper, 14.5 x 16.3 cm, Institute of

Oriental Studies, St. Petersburg.

Plate 5: Johann Sadeler I after Maerten de Vos, Dialectica from Seven Liberal Arts, 16th Century,

engraving, 14.6 x 10.8 cm, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

30

Plate 6: Attributed to Keshav Das, Roman Hero, ca. 1590 – 95, opaque watercolour on paper, 18.2 x

10.7 cm, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam.

Plate 7: Hendrick Goltzius, Titus Manilus Torquatus, 1586, engraving 37.2 x 24 cm. Harvard Art

Museum, Cambridge.

31

Plate 8: Unknown Indian (Mughal) artist after Adriaen Brouwer, Pancake Woman, ca. 1640 – 80,

opaque watercolor with gold on paper, 16.4 x 19.2 cm, Private Collection: Fiona Chalom and Joel

Aronowitz.

Plate 9: Unkown artist, after Adriaen Brouwer, Pancake Woman, 1650 – 1680, engraving, 18.1 cm

diameter, The British Museum, London.

32

Plate 10: Antonio Caranzano, unkown European artist, unkown calligrapher, page from the Dara

Shikoh Album, Saint Margaret and Saint Catherine of Siena with Chagatai Calligraphy, 1585 – eartly

17th century, engravings, ink and gold on paper, 32 x 22 cm, British Library, London

33

Plate 11: Bichitr, Folio from Minto Album, Juijhar Singh Bundela Kneels in Submission to Shah

Jahan, ca. 1630 – 40, opaque watercolor and gold on paper, 39 x 27 cm, The Chester Beatty Library,

Dublin.

Plate 12: Muhammad Mushin, Jahangir, ca. 1630 – 35,, opaque watercolor and gold on paper, 31.1 x

21 cm, Private Collection.

34

Plate 13: Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn, The seashell, 1650, etching, engraving, 11 x 14.6 cm, Städel

Museum, Frankfurt am Main.

Plate 14: Rembrandt Harmensz. Van Rijn, The Emperor Akbar and Jahangir in Apotheosis after a

Mughal Miniature, ca. 1656 – 61, Brown ink with brown wash with white opaque watercolor and

scratching out on Asian paper toned with light brown wash, 21.2 x 17.6 cm, Museum Boijmans van

Beuningen, Rotterdam.

35

Plate 15: Attributed to Bichitr, Folio from the St. Petersburg Album, Akbar and Jahangir in

Apotheosis, ca. 1640, 48.4 x 33cm, opaque watercolor, ink and gold on paper, Private collection.

36

Plate 16: Unkown Indian artist, folio from the Douce Album, Akbar and Jahangir in Apotheosis, ca.

1650, opaque watercolor, ink, and gold on paper, 22.2 x 14.6 cm, Bodleian Library, Oxford.

37

Plate 17: Willem Schellinks, Emperor Shah Jahan and his four Sons, ca.1665 – 70, Oil on panel, 40 x

60 cm, Musée national des Arts Asiatiques-Guimet, Paris.

Plate 18: Unkown Indian and Viennese artists, Emperor Jahangir receiving an Officer, ca. 1650,

opaque watercolor and gold, from panel of miniatures from the Millionenzimmer, Schloss

Schönbrunn, Vienna.

38

Plate 19: Unkown Indian and Viennese artists, Four Mullahs, 1627-28, opaque watercolor mounted on

a wood panel, from panel of miniatures from the Millionenzimmer, Schloss Schönbrunn, Vienna.

Plate 20: Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn, Indian Ruler, ca. 1656 – 61, Brown ink and brown wash on

Asian paper toned with light brown wash, 23 x 18 cm, Albertina Museum, Vienna

39

Plate 21: Rembrandt Harmensz. Van Rijn, Emperor Jahangir Receiving an Officer, ca. 1656 – 61,

Brown ink with brown and grey wash white opaque watercolor lightly toned with light brown wash

and scratching out on Asian paper, 21 x 18.4 cm, British Museum, London

40

Plate 22: Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn, Four Mullahs seated under a tree, ca. 1656 – 61, brown ink

and brown and grey wash with scratching out on Asian paper, 19.4 x 12.4 cm, The British Museum,

London.

Plate 23: Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn, Abraham Entertaining the Three Angels, 1656, etching and

drypoint, 16.2 x 13.4 cm, Harvard Art Museum / Fogg Museum, Cambridge.

41

Plate 24: Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn, Profile Portrait of Andrea Doria in the Round, ca. 1656 –

58, brown ink, brown wash, red chalk, 11.8 x 20.2 cm, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin,

Kupferstichkabinett, Berlin.

Plate 25: Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn, Shah Jahan and His Son, ca. 1656 – 61, brown ink and

brown wash with scratching out on Asian paper toned with light brown wash, 6.9 x 7.1 cm,

Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam.

42

Plate 26:’Abid, Folio from the Late Shah Jahan Album, Shah Jahan Enthroned with Mahabbatr Khan

and Sheikh, (Detail on the left), ca. 1629 – 30, Opaque watercolor, ink, and gold paper, mounted on

board, 36.9 x 25.1 cm, Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

43

Plate 27: Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn, Belshazzar’s Feast, ca. 1636 – 38, oil on canvas, 167.6 x

209.2 cm, The National Gallery, London.

Plate 28: Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn and Workshop (Probably Govaert Flinck), Man in Oriental

Costume, ca. 1635, oil on linen, 98.5 x 74.5 cm, National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC.

44

Detail: Plate 28 Detail: Plate 20