Portrait of a ‘Sultan’
Described as a ‘Portrait of a Sultan’, bearing a stamp and inventory number on the reverse and estimated at 2,000 – 4,000 euros, this portrait generated serious interest earlier this year when it came up for sale in Belgium.
The work went on to sell for 3,000,000 euros (plus that all important buyers’ premium). This definitely won’t be the last time this is seen, but Marco Corazzi from the excellent Instagram account ARTidbits looks into the attribution, and why it could still be a bargain at that price…. Here’s how the investigation played out over a couple of days when the researchers went into overdrive.
Before the auction the following was added to the provenance on the auction house website - Formerly in the collection of William III King of England, Scotland, and Ireland formerly known as William of Orange-Nassau, Stadtholder of Holland, and suggested that it formed part of the decoration at the palace of Honselaarsdijk, demolished in 1814
Here is some text from the auctioneer’s website, added after the auction. Personally, I don’t buy the ‘auction houses shouldn’t conduct scientific research’ line. That is precisely what they SHOULD be doing. When a full attribution comes forward, I wonder what the seller will think then…
- Charlie Moore
“Portrait of a Sultan. But is he really a Sultan? I think he looks more Persian or Indian…
Furthermore: is this a Rembrandt? If you pay so much there must be serious evidence of a big name behind because ‘fashion’ alone doesn’t explain this sensational price.
Left: Collection stamp on the reverse
Right: William III, King of England, Scotland and Ireland, by Godfrey Kneller - historicalportraits.com
What is culture? For me culture is the regular exercise of curiosity. A curious man will always find a path in the labyrinth of chaos…and he will enjoy the trip!
Laurens van der Hem was a curious man and he enjoyed geography; he owned Blaeu’s Atlas Maior but this majestic work wasn’t sufficient for him. Therefore, this curious Amsterdam lawyer created his own Atlas adding to Blaeu’s masterpiece new maps, annotations, topographical drawings, cityscapes and PORTRAITS. Today this astonishing result is considered one of the most prized possessions of the @nationalbibliothek in Vienna and the scans are easily accessible online.
If we jump to the pages dedicated to India we can find a now familiar face on this page: emperor Jahangir, ruler of the Moghul Empire between 1605 and 1627.
Now please let’s all praise @adrianagianna for this discovery. She deserves all the credit for finding this little image in that gigantic work. Yesterday she posted it in a story and then has revealed it to a stranger like me: thanks again and BRAVA!!!!
Portrait of Jehangir, sold by Bonhams, London in 2011
The etching was made by Johannes Vingboons - a post dedicated to him and the island of California on this page has the negative record of likes and visualisations - and is 100% related to the painting sold for 3M€! The painting was part of the collection of William III who was Prince of Nassau and Stadtholder in his native Netherlands before accepting the crowns of England and Scotland after the Glorious Revolution.
So let’s try to make some chronological order:
- Blaeu’s Atlas Maior was published in 1662
- Laurens van der Hem lived between 1621 and 1678, he therefore dedicated his last 16 years to his magnum opus.
- Johannes Vingboons died in 1670
- Willem III was born in 1650 and left the Continent for his new Kingdom in 1689. William’s father died one week before his birth in November 1650.
Therefore, this painted portrait of Jahangir was already part of the Orange-Nassau Collection when Vingboons copied it between 1662/1670 because a 12-year-old boy wouldn’t usually care about an art collection even in the Medici Family... Or, it must have been acquired in the 1660s. I’m sure there are many specialists of the Orange-Nassau Collection that will be happy to discuss this detail.
What we know is that this panel must have been painted by an artist before 1670. Therefore, all the ‘suspected artists’ of the Dutch Golden Century could be guilty: Rembrandt (1606/1669), Jan Lievens (1607/1674), and also Willem Schellinks (1627/1678) who may not sound so popular at first but was rather fond of Indian culture.
WHODUNIT?
I’m not [Rembrandt expert] Werner Sumowski or Seymour Slive, but I don’t think the portrait is by Rembrandt. We know that he was fascinated by Indian art and made Moghul drawings, but this panel lacks profundity. When you observe a painting by Rembrandt you’re staring at the sky - it’s an infinite vision.
This is a fantastic historical piece and has an enormous cultural value, but it doesn’t possess such characteristics. It’s a bloody good work, but it lacks that magic touch. Schellinks was a generation younger and I don’t understand why he would have painted Jahangir when Shah Jahan or the great Aurangzeb were alive during his lifetime. Jan Lievens therefore? He’s my suspect but, dear members of the Jury, I lack concrete evidence.”
Marco Corazzi, 2024
