Death in the Glass - A New View of Holbein's 'Ambassadors'

Edgar R. Samuel

The Burlington Magazine, Vol. 105, No. 727. (Oct., 1963), pp. 436-441.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0007-6287%28196310%29105%3A727%3C436%3ADITG-A%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P

The Burlington Magazine is currently published by The Burlington Magazine Publications, Ltd..

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtainedprior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content inthe JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/journals/bmpl.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. Formore information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www.jstor.orgFri May 18 16:42:25 2007

O N T H E M E A N I N G O F F R A N S H A L S ' ( M A L L E B A B B E Y

his owls are falcons) is an old one. Jacob Cats, who found his principal inspiration in folk sayings, quotes it - good testi- mony that it was popular in seventeenth-century Holland. I t probably dates back to a time long before Frans Hals' day when falconry was a favourite sport. English equivalents of the proverb are: 'Every mother thinks her sprats are her- rings' and 'Everyone thinks his own geese are swans'.

The owl perched on the shoulder of the grimacing man in Bartolomaeus Maton's highly finished painting is prob- ably meant to be a personification of foolishness. This inter- pretation is supported by the verse inscribed on the piece of paper held by the man. I t reads:

'N7ijse lui siet totldats raer Een geck een uylleen klughtich/paerY (Wise people, look, this is rare, A fool, an owl, a ridiculous pair).

Perhaps some wits of Leiden who had close contact with the distinguished university of Maton's native town preferred to view the fool's owl as an attribute of Pallas Athena. For them, Maton's couplet would still be appropriate: a fool's search for wisdom is preposterous. Carolus Tuinman, who made the first extensive compilation of Dutch proverbs, wrote in I 726 that to call a person an owl ('t is een uil') is an opprobrious saying used by the Dutch to characterize an ignoramus.10 And like many of us Tuinman wondered why

10 CAROLUS TUINMAN: D e Oorsprong en Uitlegging van dagelijks gebruikte Nederduit- sch Spreekworden . . ., Middelburg [I 7261, p.205: "t Is een Ui l . Di t i s een smaad- naam, dien men aan een weetniet gee)'.

this was the fate of the bird used by the ancients as an attri- bute of Athena, the goddess of wisdom.

The man leaning out of the oval stone porthole in Maton's picture is dressed in a fancy actor's costume. He may have been a member of a theatrical company who played the part of the popular character 'Peeckelhaering' or 'Hanswurst' in Dutch farces (a similar Falstaffian type appears in Hals' so-called Merry Company11 at the Metropolitan Museum), or perhaps he belonged to a local group of rhetoricians who put on amateur performances. Hals himself was an associate, from I 616 until 1625, of the Haarlem society of rhetoricians called 'De Wijngaertranken'. The composition and strong diagonal axis - both unusual in a Dutch painting which can be dated around 1675 - suggest Maton had a chance meeting with Hals' Malle Babbe, but little else in his contrived picture recalls Hals' explosive masterpiece. Maton also found it imperative to add an inscription to explain the meaning of his model's owl. Frans Hals, of course, did not. He never found reason to carry owls to Athens.

11 The merry makers are, in fact, Shrovetide celebrants. Old copies of Hals' Shrovetide picture, as well as the Metropolitan's painting itself, suggest the work was cut on all four sides. One of the copies (published by TANCRED

BoRENrus: ' ''A Merry Company at Table" by Frans Hals', Pantheon, VI [1g30], p.572) shows an owl perched in a circular niche in a high wall behind the revellers. Whether this composition actually shows 'the master's own concep- tion of the group in its entirety' as Borenius assumes, or whether the copyist made the addition is moot. What is relevant here is the presence of the owl (not a very friendly one - he is shown befouling some of the merry makers) in a copy of Hal's painting of festivities on a day traditionally dedicated to fools and foolishness.

EDGAR R.SAMUEL

Death in the Glass - A New View of Holbein's 'Ambassadors'"

[An article on this subject by Mr Samuel appeared in the July 1962 issue of The Optician (without the illustrations here published). There is a great deal of fresh material in the present article which was not used in the earlier one. - ED.]

H A N S H O L B E I N the Younger is reputed a master of balanced composition and one of the most direct and realistic of all great painters. Yet sprawled across the foreground of his magnificent double portrait of The Ambassadors, disturbing the design and almost unrecognisable, lies the strange distor- tion or 'anamorphosis' of a human skull.

The purpose of this distorted skull is not by any means self-evident and it has given rise to many theories. I t has been suggested that it represents a pun on Cranmer's name (crcine mire - empty skull) or on that of the artist (hohl bein - hollow bone)l but the most generally accepted hypothesis is that of Mary Hervey.2 She noticed a skull medallion in the hat worn by Jean de Dinteville, the principal subject of the picture,

* I should like to acknowledge the very useful help given tome by the L i b r q staff of the Warburg Institute, and of the British Optical Association. 1 J. H. VILLIERS: 'Hans Holbein the Younger - The Ambassadors', Gallerv Books, London [n.d.]. 2 MARY F. S. HERVEY: Holbein's 'Ambassadors' - the Picture and & Mm, London [~gool.

and suggested that the skull represented his personal heraldic badge 'distorted by reflection in a curved mirror'. She also took the view, as have most other critics, that the anamorphic skull was designed to be observed from the extreme right hand edge of the picture frame.

I t is the purpose of this article to challenge these theories and to submit yet another explanation which it is hoped will prove more satisfactory than those suggested hitherto.

The notion that the distorted skull is designed to be seen from the side of the picture is open to the following objec- tions: first, the parietal part of the cranium is too greatly distended; second, no allowance has been made for per- spective; and third, even when seen at the most oblique angle, the residual distention is still substantial.

There is another possible method of viewing the ana-morphic skull which has received little attention but which deserves to be considered.

In 1602 a young German nobleman visited the Court of Queen Elizabeth I and briefly described the sights and wonders of London in his diary. One of the things which impressed him was a ort trait of King Henry VIII in the Queen's apartments at Whitehall Palace which was 'painted in such a cunning manner that the face, when looked at

(.uyzaa 'urnasn~ sayssinaa) .lauad XESI paiea (.UOPUO~ 'hralp3 ~euo!ia~) .ampd ayi 30 iuo13 u! .~aSunoh ayi u!aqIoH sua~ dq 'azv~ aZ~oa3 Jo ??VL~LO~ urog I!eTaa -91 pawnow aqnl ssa1S e yl!~ uaas sv .Iaued .EEC;I palep puv pa&!g .zaZunoh ay, uIaqIoH sueH Aq ‘s~opvs~~,g~lv ayl .SI

2 $ 2 'ti pl-

0'0 s b 4 r

through a peculiar optic ('eine sonderliche opticam') seemed longer than the whole body'.3 I t is clear from this description that the painting of Henry VIII at Whitehall was no ordin- ary one, but that it had been designed for use in conjunction with a particular trick lens, the nature of which it is not possible to guess. The existence of such a picture presumably dating from the time of Holbein immediately suggests the possibility that the distorted skull in The Ambassadors might likewise have been designed for use in conjunction with a trick lens. If so the observer would look at the skull from a standpoint directly in front of the picture and not from the extreme right-hand edge of the frame.

The distorted skull and its shadow are some ten times greater in length than in width. Ifthe correcting lens was one which enlarged the image in the shorter meridian it would have to have a magnifying power of about eleven times. To produce a clear image a lens system of this strength would need to be achromatic and made to a high standard of optical precision. In Tudor times when the relevant prob- lems of refraction and chromatism were still unsolved,4 such a lens could hardly have been constructed. The possibility of a magnifying system can therefore be excluded.

On the other hand, the correcting lens could have been one which diminished the size of the image in the longer meridian. The ideal reducing system would be an afocal telescope of Galilean type with cylindrical surfaces in place of spherical ones. This would be equally effective at any distance from the obs$ver or the painting. However it is exceedingly unlikely that such a lens could have been made at this date, when the laws of refraction were not fully under- stood and optical grinding was somewhat limited in scope. This means that we must find a lens which would function as a meridional reducing lens but which could be produced by a glass blower rather than by a lapidary.

The most likely answer is a thick walled blown glass tube. I t is simple to manufacture and is used for many everyday purposes. Its fire polished surfaces are of relatively high optical quality, and we know that such an article existed in the early sixteenth century from - inter alia - Holbein's 1532 portrait of George Gisze (detail, Fig.16),5 which shows a flower vase of blown glass (probably Venetian cristallo6), with a tubular stem.

If one views The Ambassadors through the walls of a suitable transparent tube held at arm's length - (a one-foot length of extruded 'Perspex' tube of one inch overall diameter and one eighth of an inch wall thickness works very well) the skull appears correct in size and unmistakably clear and free of distortion (see Fig.15). The extreme distension of the parietal part of the cranium is overcome by the greater optical power of the outer portion of the tube and the light is seen to fall on the skull from the same direction as on the

Transactions Royal Historical Society,New Series, VI, p.25. VITELLO: Optica, Nuremberg [1536]. This book is dedicated to Philip, son of

Charles V (afterwards Philip I1 of Spain) and has an introduction by Peter Apian. It is in Latin, and written in the form of Euclidian theorems. I t repre- sents a summary of the state of optical knowledge at the time, from which it appears that, while the laws of reflection were well understood and those of refraction at plane surfaces partly so, refraction at curved surfaces was not com- prehended at all. 5 In the Deutsches Museum, Berlin.

EDWARD DILLON: G l u s , London [1907] Cristallo, which was the first glass to be made free of colour, was very popular in the early sixteenth century. If a glass Iens was used to view the distorted skull in The Ambassadors it would have had to be of this material.

rest of the picture. The very slight residual astigmatic blurring of the image is overcome by the bold contrast of light and shade and by the firm delineation.

Another advantage is gained by observing the skull through the walls of a glass tube. The composition of the ~a in t ingis altered for the better. The skull and the terrestial and celestial globes together form a series of spherical objects in vertical line down the centre of the painting. The tube is seen to form an integral part of the picture. I t passes across the distorted skull between its nasal socket and its left ocular orbit. I t intersects the floor mosaic at the apex of its pattern and the table leg at its angle with the lower shelf. Its line balances that of the anamorphosis, leading the eye of the observer upwards and towards the head of De Dinteville, which becomes a focal point in the picture.

Even if we assume that Holbein possessed a glass tube and designed the distorted skull in The Ambassadors to be seen through it, we still have to consider what manner of working he would have adopted when depicting this anamorphosis.

Any notion that the artist viewed his model directly while working on the painting through the distorting glass can be discarded, because this exercise would be so difficult as to be quite impracticable. The simplest, and therefore most likely, method of painting an anamorphic picture is as follows: first, a preliminary drawing is prepared in which the subject is portrayed with precision. Second, a net or a grid of lines is placed over the drawing. Finally, a fresh grid - incorporat-ing whatever distortion is wanted - is prepared and the drawing is copied across square by square.'

From about 1516 onwards there was a vogue on the Continent for distorted pictures of princes, which were so distended as to be recognisable only when viewed from the extreme edge. Erhard Schon of Nuremberg, a pupil of Diirer, executed a set of engravings of this sort (see Fig. I 7).8

The well-known distorted picture of King Edward VI in the National Portrait Gallery is a late example of this fashion.

Whereas for false perspectives, like these distorted pictures of princes, the horizontal lines of the grid are splayed out- wards and the spacing between the verticals is progressively increased (see Fig.A); for a simple directional distention, such as Holbein used, the spacing between the verticals only would be expanded by a uniform amount. Some critics have suggested that Holbein used a net as an aid when preparing his portraits.9 I t is reasonable to assume that he was familiar with the current fashion of using a grid to produce distorted perspectives. I t would not take an expert draughtsman long to observe that objects viewed through a glass tube held at arm's length are compressed in the meridian perpendicular to the axis of the tube. No expert knowledge of optical principles would be needed to deduce from this observation that an anamorphic picture could be designed to compensate for this compression - though to do so would require an un- usually high standard of observation and intelligence, both of which Holbein manifestly possessed. The actual painting of such a picture would present no great difficulty to a master draughtsman.

Holbein chose to tilt his anamorphosis at an angle. This makes the image more difficult to recognize without the

7 JURGIS BALTRU~AITIS: Ammorphoses - ou perspectives curieuses, Paris [1g55]. 8 H. ROTTINGER: Erhard Schiin und Niklaus St&, Strasburg [1921]. 9 Dictionary of National Biography, article on 'Hans Holbein'.

A. The technique of anamorphic draughtsmanship. Plate from Les Perspectives C u r k e s , by J. B. Niceron, Paris, 1646.

correcting lens, and it serves to prevent the tube from ob- truding onto the central area of the picture.

A painting produced in this manner would have just one defect. The extreme limits of the longer meridian of the distorted skull would be viewed through the more powerful peripheral portion of the correcting lens and would prove to be insufficiently distended. Some modification of the picture at the extremes of the longer meridian would be required.

There is some internal evidence to suggest that Holbein did in fact use the technique outlined above when painting the distorted skull in The Ambassadors. As has been mentioned previously, the parietal portion of the skull is more distended than the rest of it. Inspection of this part of the skull with a glass tube held near to the picture shows that the extension of the cranium has been achieved by painting on an extra protrusion which is separately high-lighted and shaded and which, though smoothly blended into the rest of the skull, seems to have been added by the artist as an afterthought.

If, as Mary Hervey suggested, Holbein intended the ana- morphosis to represent the image of a skull as seen in a curved mirror, he would have had no reason to spoil the accuracy of the picture by adding this extension to the cranium. I t there- fore seems unlikely that her explanation is the true one.

Having discussed the possible types of viewing lens and

the probable technique employed by the artist in painting the anamorphosis, we are now faced with the problem of its purpose. Mary Hervey noticed the skull medallion on De Dinteville's cap and concluded that he must have adopted the death's head as his personal device. This is an ingenious supposition, but Diirer's and Holbein's use of a skull as the 'Arms of Death' in their respective engravings (see Figs.20, 21) seems to show that it was not a charge used in normal heraldry. I t may be that the two skulls in The Ambassadors, the one on De Dinteville's cap medallion and the distorted one in the foreground of the picture, prove nothing more than that De Dinteville - like those of his contemporaries who bought copies of the Dance of Death - was attracted to the idea of the Memento Mori, or reminder of Death.

In The Ambassadors Holbein portrayed the two men, the French Ambassador Jean de Dinteville, Lord of Polisy and Governor (Bailly) of Troyes and his friend, Georges de Selve, Bishop of Lavaur- almost heraldically-as supporters of higher learning. They stand on either side of a double-decked table bearing emblems of the four subjects of the higher arts10 -

10 MARY HERVEY: ibid., pointed out that the objects on the double decked table in the picture are emblems of the Quadrivium, but the celestial globe which she allotted to 'Geometry' seems to belong - like the other objects on the upper shelf - to 'Astronomy'.

D E A T H I N T H E G L A S S - A N E W V I E W O F H O L B E I N ' S ' A M B A S S A D O R S y

Music, Arithmetic, Geometry and Astronomy, which made up the Master's course in the Arts Faculty of a medieval university.11 They were known as the Quadrivium, or 'Four Ways' in contrast to the more elementary Trivium (hence 'trivialYl2)or 'Three Ways' -Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric- of the Bachelor's course.11

Mr J. Baltruiaitisl3 has drawn attention to two marquetry panels in the Louvre entitled Vanite' scientijque and Vanite' des puissances terrestres eccle'siastique et laique (Figs. I 8, 1g), which portray a collection of emblems strikingly similar to those painted by Holbein in The Ambassadors. The panels were executed by Fra Vincenzo dalle Vacche for San Benedetto Novello of Padua in about 1520. Each shows a half open cupboard strewn with assorted objects. In one are a papal cross, a bishop's mitre, some pieces of ecclesiastical plate, a crown, and a canopy - or cloth of state, together with an hour-glass, a bellows, a flower in a vase and a human skull. In the other are a celestial globe, a sextant, a book open at a geometrical calculation, a sheet of music, a lute, a bow, a viol with one string broken, and two tapers.

I n the first panel, the brevity of life is suggested by the hour- glass, the bellows, the flower and the skull; in the second, by the two tapers and the broken viol string.

If we regard the two Ambassadors as representatives of worldly wealth and power in State and Church - which is not unflattering to the artist's patrons - the symbolism of the picture seems very similar to that of Vincenzo dalle Vacche's marquetry panels. In both works the mundane glories of " 2-71~Encyclopedia Britannica, I ~ t hEd., Cambridge [ I ~ I O ] , VIII, p.955. 'Educa- tion -The mediaeval curriculum'. 12 Oxford English Dictionay, definition of 'trivial'. 13J. BALTRU~AITIS, ibid.

the State and the Church and of secular learning are con- trasted with the brevity of life and inevitability of death, represented in the Holbein by the sundials, the broken lute string and - more strikingly - by the distorted skull.

The only symbol which remains unexplained is the tiny crucifix - in the top left corner of the picture -which possibly suggests the idea of Eternal Life. This stands half revealed by the curtain which separates it from the emblems of worldly glory and of Death.

Indeed Holbein's Ambassadors could almost as well be called by the same title as Dalle Vacche's two marquetry panels - Vanite' scientijque and Vanite' des puissances terrestres eccle'siastique et laique.14

Given a suitable glass tube, the solution to the problem of the distorted skull is characteristic of the artist who painted it. I t is direct, though symbolical it is devoid of mysticism, and it has been achieved with an uncanny degree of ingenu- ity and craftsmanship.

If we look at the picture through the walls of a glass tube, we see at the point where the tube and the anamorphosis intersect, a clearly imaged and undistorted skull. We see the magnificent young Governor of Troyes and his sad, pale friend, the Bishop of Lavaur, both in the prime of life and at the height of their powers. Between them stand the emblems of higher learning and below, in the glass, is the skull of Death, at once a reminder of the transience of worldly glory, a brilliant demonstration of artistic skill and a fascinating scientific toy.

14 The reader is referred, for general discussion of Holbein's Ambassadors, to P. GANZ: The Paintings of Hans Holbein, London 119561; MICHAEL LEVEY:

National Gallery Catalogues - The German School, London [1959].

A T S O N

A Bust of Fiammingo by- Rysbrack Rediscovered In Memory of Marjorie Isabel Webb I N 1954 when the late Mrs Webb published her Michael Rysbrack, Sculptor, she illustrated and discussed a signed terra-cotta bust of a man in seventeenth-century costume, dated 1743.1 At that time this bust was on the London art market but the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto,z acquired it shortly afterwards (Fig.25). Mrs Webb was easily able to show that the traditional description of the sitter as George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, could not possibly be correct and argued that it really represented the Flemish sculptor Frangois du Quesnoy known as I1 Fiammingo, thus identify- ing it with a terra-cotta bust of him which had appeared as lot 43 in the catalogue of a sale of Rysbrack's sculpture held on 20th April 1765. This attribution has never been questioned and, in fact, there is a certain amount of subsidiary evidence, unused by Mrs Webb, to reinforce her arguments.

I t is known that a marble bust of Fiammingo by Rysbrack, presumably corresponding to the terra-cotta, had once existed, for it appeared as lot 65 in the same sale in 1765.

1 Fig.qrl-and pp.111, 112.

2 Royal Ontario Museum, Annual Report for 1959, pp.43, 44 and Plate VI; GERARD BRETT: English Portrait Sculptures. I am indebted to Mr Brett both for supplying a photograph and for allowing it to be reproduced here.

But since that time all trace of it seemed to have been lost and Mrs Webb recorded it in her catalogue of Rysbrack's works as missing. Good fortune, however, brought it to my attention during a recent visit to the Museo di Capodimonte at Naples (Figs.22 and 24).3 I t was standing unidentified as to either author or subject between Sale 82 and 83 amongst the Collezione De Ciccio. This large assemblage of majolica, porcelain, enamels, metal-work, sculpture, textiles, etc., brought together by successive generations of the De Ciccio family in their Neapolitan palace, was bequeathed to the museum in 1958 by Commendatore Mario De Ciccio in memory of his brother Giuseppe and his son Francesco4 and only put on display late in 1959.

Although unsigned and undated the intimate resemblance of the Naples bust to the terra-cotta at Ontario leaves no doubt whatever that it is Rysbrack's missing marble of the same subject. Every feature of the terra-cotta appears, the

3 I am grateful to Dr Raffaello Causa for having the bust photographed, and for allowing two views of it to be reproduced here. The bust bears the accession number 1346 in the De Ciccio collection. 4 For the De Ciccio collection see BRUNO MOLAJOLI, [1g58],Bollettino d'Arte p p . ~ g o - - ~ g ~ It is not and Not i r k su Capodimonte [~vth edn, 19601, pp.89-log. known where the bust was acquired but the De Ciccios purchased much of their majolica, for instance, in London.