Hans Holbein the Younger, Volume 2 (of 2)Chamberlain, Arthur B. (Arthur Bensley)
History
Hans Holbein the Younger, Volume 2 (of 2)
Chamberlain, Arthur B. (Arthur Bensley)
Holbein, Hans, 1497-1543 -- Criticism and interpretation; Painters -- Germany -- Biography
persons, who played their instruments as the procession went by, while
the white marble fountain splashed its Rhenish wine.
Footnote 67:
Woltmann, 175. Reproduced by Ganz, _Hdz. von H. H. dem Jüng._, Pl. 30,
and in _Holbein_, p. 178; Davies, p. 146; His, Pl. 51.
The sketch is a very hasty one, but would be quite sufficient to
indicate to the Steelyard the artist’s intentions. Holbein himself, no
doubt, superintended the erection of the archway. Slight as it is, it is
masterly in draughtsmanship, displaying Holbein’s delicacy and certainty
of touch in every stroke. The two seated figures, more particularly the
one on the right, are rapidly drawn with the greatest grace and charm.
According to Woltmann the Imperial eagle on the summit has only one
head; the drawing is rubbed at the top, but there seem to be indications
that the split or two-headed bird, which was then customary, was
intended. Mr. W. F. Dickes denies that this drawing was intended for the
Steelyard arch; he considers it to be a sketch for one of the Apollo
musical festivals of Holbein’s Guild “zum Himmel” at Basel, and uses it
as a proof that the painter had returned to his adopted city in
1533.[68] He bases this on an entry in the Banner Book of the Guild,
dated November 23rd, 1533, which he reads as a payment to Holbein for
banners painted for some festivity.[69] The symbol of the Basel
Painters’ Guild was a pigeon with outstretched wings, within a wreath or
bower, and Mr. Dickes sees in the eagle of the Berlin drawing, which is
not within a bower, the pigeon of the Guild. He states, too, that as the
Hanseatic League included merchants of other than German nationality
they would have been unwilling to use an emblem so limiting as the
Imperial bird. This statement is, however, incorrect. No doubt exists as
to the use of the eagle on this particular occasion. It was, indeed,
viewed with extreme distaste by the new Queen. Eustace Chapuys, writing
to Charles V on July 11th, less than six weeks after the event, says: “I
understand the lady (_i.e._, Anne) complains daily of the Easterlings,
who on the day of her entry had set the Imperial eagle predominant over
the King’s arms and hers.... This may serve as an indication of her
perverse and malicious nature.”[70] And again, on the 30th of the same
month, he returns to the same subject: “... the Lady who, as I am told,
was not at all pleased with the Easterlings and other Germans for
bringing me to see their fleet, which is greater than any that has been
seen here for a long time; or that, at a solemn banquet which they made,
the ships did march with their artillery. She is in a still worse humour
because this was done near Greenwich park; and this has renewed the
regret she felt for the eagle which the Easterlings carried in triumph
the day of her entry here.”[71] These letters afford additional evidence
that Holbein made this drawing for the occasion of Anne’s coronation,
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account