Szilágyi András (szerk.): Ars Decorativa 22. (Budapest, 2003)
Iván SZÁNTÓ: Reflections on the Origins of the Persian Appliqué from the Esterházy Treasury
it was the opposite, since while on the appliqué Tabriz rationalism still reigns, in Mashhad this spirit was abandoned for a refined chaoticism. //. 3. The table spreader and the copying techniques The third protagonist also known from elsewhere is the courtier proceeding at the head of the servants in the lower right-hand corner of the mirror (///. 7). He is clearly superior to those lined up behind him, since he is instructing them turning back, and while the others bear vessels that are fully the same, vessels of the same kind as those already stacked up around them, he carries a more distinctive dish covered with an inscribed cloth. 35 Only one person is higher than he in official rank: this is the nobleman armed with a sword and dagger raising a staff of office with his right hand and the lid of one of the dishes with his left. This was the chief steward (tosmälbäsi), who answered for the king's health with his tongue and his sword alike. His helper was the table spreader (sofrecî). Both were tried and tested confidants of the ruler, and while the ruler's trust in them lasted, they partook amply of the benefits of court life. A portrait of a sofrecî, supplied with a name even, survives in the British Museum, London (1930.11-12.02, ///. S). 36 The full-length portrait depicting Sarkan (or Markan) Beg connects with the Budapest figure in many ways. It is primarily the posture and the attire that are similar, their bodies are bent in a double S-shape, and they are looking back over their left shoulder in a gesture that is the same. The clothing is a long jâme reaching to the ankles and buttoned down to the waist and a belt fastened by a long, lobular buckle. It will probably never be known whether the two figures are one and the same person - especially since they were depicted not as individuals but as types -, but the two compositions do clearly stand in close connection. The London work is a masterpiece of textural illusionism; the painter was interested not so much by the figure of the courtier as by his turban wound some fifty times, by the diffused pattern in the refined fault lines on it 37 and by his coat embroidered with gold. On an appliqué this kind of painterly virtuosity is impossible, and superfluous also, since here the silk is something given and does not need to be imitated. Nevertheless, there is a striking similarity in the technique, more specifically the duplication procedure. Sarkan Beg, albeit namelessly reappear on an album leaf at the British Museum (1930.1112.01, ///. 9). 38 The colour of his clothing has changed, he has no identity, and a fine landscape background places this otherwise exact copy in an entirely new context. The similarly depersonalised young man placed next to him also indicates that here again it is not portraits that we see, but freely changeable compositional variations that take shape sometimes as a sofrecî and sometimes as an unsuspecting youth. The means for copying was a pouncing needle: the artist would place transparent paper or thin lambskin on the image he wanted to copy and would carefully punch holes around it. He would then put a blank leaf under the lambskin, on which he would sprinkle fine graphite powder. After this only the reworking of the form remained to be done and the duplication was complete. The patterns for the Budapest appliqué must have been made using a similar method, since, having been created, the figures on a product of this kind could be reproduced time and again (this has assisted in the replacement of details lost during the Second World War). 39 The parallel is significant, therefore, because the technique of the appliqué is unique in the period, while the similar principle of the London works is an early example of copying semi-mechanically in the graphic arts. These sofrecî figures in the two media clearly emanate a chronological agreement. Of the two paintings, neither is dated. On the other hand, Sarkan Beg is signed: in the bottom right-hand corner the inscription "Picture by Mïr Mosavver" (surat-e Mir Mosavver) can be read, in connection with which Stchoukine has voiced reservations, 40 although recently most have regarded it as genuine. 41 Stchoukine has dated it to the middle of the century; while those who acknowledge the Mïr's authorship
