The Castle Howard Portrait of Henry VIIIAuthor(s): Paul GanzReviewed work(s):Source: The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs, Vol. 64, No. 371 (Feb., 1934), pp. 80-81+84-86Published by: The Burlington Magazine Publications Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/865714 .Accessed: 09/05/2012 12:30

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Burlington Magazine Publications Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend accessto The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs.

http://www.jstor.org

The Artist as Critic

experience of the pitfalls which await a hasty judgment and a reliance on first limpressions.

Nor is the record of artists in this respect a very brilliant one. We know how many of the greatest artists in this country have been misjudged by the Royal Academy; we know how entirely French official artists misjudged almost all the great painters of the nineteenth century; how the Caillebotte Collection, which is one of the glories of the Louvre, was strenuously refused by the artists of the Ecole des Beaux Arts. So much for the artist as a judge of his contemporaries. As a judge of old masters his record is even worse, for, up to about sixty years ago, almost all the picture galleries of Europe had artists as Directors and these had done little or nothing to correct the chaotic and capricious attributions which obtained. It is only since the advent of the

trained art-historian that something like order has been slowly evolved, that, for instance, a credible Leonardo da Vinci has been discovered by elimination from the hundred and fifty works which then went under his name.

With all these considerations tin view, it would surely be a very retrograde step to erect once more the professional artist as a judge of authenticity in the works of the older masters. By all means let us welcome the assistance of the professional artist in solving the extremely difficult problems of art-history, just as we welcome the aid of the scientist, but we must ask him to apply his powers in the right way and to the relevant facts only; and he cannot do this unless he is helped by the critic who has made a special study of the period of the work in question.

THE CASTLE HOWARD PORTRAIT OF HENRY VIII BY PAUL GANZ

N this article I propose to recapitu- late once more ' my reasons for attributing the Castle Howard Portrait of Henry VIII to Hans Holbein, to enlarge upon them and,

at the same time, to reply to the adverse views published by the press.

I think no one will question that the last group of portraits of the King, four of which we reproduce on PLATE I, were inspired by an original composition by Holbein; in spite of the differences in artistic merit, they all betray their spiritual affinity with some superior original. This original I believe to have found in the Castle Howard picture, and I base my belief on its excellent composition, its perfectly balanced proportions and its well-considered outlines, all of which are very evident in spite of three overpaintings. It was no easy task to represent the King, at that time disfigured by age and illness, in his bell-shaped robe. Comparison with the portrait in St. Bartholo- mew's Hospital [PLATE I, A], depicting him in a similar dress, clearly shows the ingenious way in which the author of the Castle Howard picture solved the problem by fitting the King's massive figure into a hiigh and narrow frame. The mastery of the colourist in this composi- tion more than corresponds with that of the draughtsman, as shown by the counter-balanc- ing of the brilliant red of the mantle and the deep blue of the background. Moreover, the bright gold embroidery with which the garment

is richly ornamented is balanced by the velvet and silk materials with their vivid reflexions. It is owing to this full comprehension of the artistic problems involved that the head pro- duces such a dominating effect on the beholder without, however, departing from the peculiar reserve characteristic of Holbein's portraits.

The execution is worthy of the composition. The King's appearance is portrayed with an exactitude which reveals the most profound observation; even accessories have been care- fully studied and rendered. The thorough handling of the head, in spite of the lack of modelling in some places, *is yet so expressive that, not only does the surface show every characteristic feature as is usual with Holbein, but even the muscles and the structure of the skull are perceptible. Observe the power of expression in the sharply drawn brows, tin the shape of the deformed nose set vigorously between the eyes, which are drawn with equal firmness; observe the assurance with which the pupils are inserted into the eyes, corre- sponding absolutely with the reproduction by Dr. Laurie of the eyes of the Duchess of Milan; note also the sharp line of the mouth, the cheeks, the double chin, the slight moustache, the small tufts of hair beneath the underlip, the scanty whiskers and the outline of the face --everything, in spite of imperfect modelling, still betrays the living power of a masterly creation. The ears have been criticized on account of their formlessness. On all copies known, they appear as shapeless lobes; where- as here they are more firmly handled, but have lost their more delicate finish. With regard to

1 See " Henry VIII and his Court Painter, Hans Holbein."

THE BURLINGTON MAGAZINE, Vol. LXIII, p. 145, October, 1933; and also the letter by the same author on page 234, November, 1933.

8o

A-THE VERSION AT ST. BARTHOLOMEW'S HOSPITAL B-THE VERSION AT THE NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY

C-THE MARQUESS OF BUTE'S VERSION D-THE WARWICK CASTLE VERSION

PLATE I. THE CASTLE HOWAIRD PORTRAIT OF HENRY VIII

.1-THE CASTLE HOWARD IVERSION (DETAIL) B-THE WARWICK CASTLE VERSION (DETAIL)

C-THE CASTLE HOWARD VERSION (DETAIL) D-THE WARWICK CASTLE VERSION (DETAIL)

PLATE II. THE CASTLE HOWARD PORTRAIT OF HENRY VIII

The Castle Howard Portrait of Henry VIII the hands, the left which holds the stick is worthy of Holbein, in spite of certain smudged places. The thumb must have been deformed by the King's illness, like the tindex and the middle-finger, which are of unusual size. Moreover, a piece of the thumb was chipped off and replaced later. From 1537 onwards the King's body grew abnormally obese, and thfis must be taken seriously into consideration when judging his portraits. All these deformities are to be seen on the copies.

The rendering of the dress, designated by the critics as the work of a mediocre assistant, is, apart from everything else, an extraordinary achievement, presenting as it does such a large surface of material, and this came to light only after the removal of the overpainting. The difference between the heavy velvet with its design in relief and the silk material of the same hue is emphasized everywhere in the drawing as well as in the handling of the sur- face and in the light reflexions. The pattern worked in gold thread, with which both velvet and silk are ornamented, shows such sharp differences that the assertion of their having been drawn stiffly and mechanically is certainly not justified. On the contrary, they show up all the technical details of the tailoring. The same precision may be seen in the fur trimming and in the jewellery. The fur objected to by the critics as badly painted ermine Is the excel- lently rendered fur from the underside of the snow-leopard. The chain, also, which encircles the body stiffly is absolutely correctly repro- duced; the links are connected by means of metal pins passed through loops. The chain of the Golden Fleece is constructed in the same way; it is usually fastened on the dress by the pins already mentioned, which are specially fitted with points for this purpose.

The under-drawing whtich shows through in the face is sketched in with a reed on a chalk ground, as was Holbein's custom. This was also the case with the ornamentation of the dress; in the places which are well preserved the modelling shows the master's well-known fine technique with transparent colours, and the background Holbein's azure blue.

On the brown wood of the staff which the King holds in his hand is a signature: an H and the figure 42. The figure 42 and the right side of the letter are certainly authentic. The beginning of the date of the year, 15, and the left side of the H, on the other hand, had been rubbed off at some time and later replaced. This inscription, however, can only be the signature of the artist himself and cannot refer to the name of the King as some have asserted. For his initial would never have been put in such a place and in such a form. It would have been inserted by the goldsmith in the jewellery

and certainly completed by an R, as was the case on the sword in the picture in the Barber's Hall. Nor is it admissible to regard 'it as an abbreviation for Horebout or for Hans Eworth, as some have suggested, because, with regard to the first, no known work exists and, as to the second, his style is utterly different from that of our picture. It can, therefore, only refer to Holbein. It is not improbable that, originally, there was a double H instead of a single one, a cross stroke being drawn between the two uprights forming the letter; this supposition is, however, not indispensable in establishing the authenticity of the picture. For, during Holbein's third stay

,in England,

he only signed two of the portraits known to us to-day besides the picture under discussion, and both of these were signed in different ways. On the Portrait of a Member of the Wedigh Family of Cologne he placed two single H's on the prayer-book by way of ornament, while he signed the large picture representing the Two French Ambassadors with his full name: " Johannes Holbein pinxit."

The superlative quality of the Castle Howard picture is made evident by a comparison with the copies and replicas, above all with that of the Warwick Castle portrait [PLATE I, D], considered by some of the critics as the original. In general :it may be said that the later the copy the more colouristic and ingratiating its effect becomes, but at the same time all the further removed from the cool and shy reserve of Holbein's art. It is, therefore, no chance circumstance that it is just the Warwick portrait, where this development has been carried furthest, which appeals so strongly to the public taste of the present day. While in the Marquess of Bute's picture [PLATE I, C] Holbein's comprehension of the contours is still adhered to, there is no margin left on either side of the form in the Warwick version, so that the figure appears in all its bloated sick- liness-an impression strengthened still more by its unpleasing proportions. In the latter picture, the under-drawing is done for effect and lacks entirely the astounding precision of Holbein's portraiture. The modelling of the head is superficial and wanting in force [PLATE II, B] and the material of the costume sketchily rendered [PLATE II, D]. The chain which, in the opinion of some of the critics, is laid naturally around the body, is, in reality, drawn in such a manner that it would inevitably have slipped off the shoulders. This design is taken over from the portrait of 154o; but while in that case the design is purposive, the chain resting on the fur and being brought 'into that position by the lift of the shoulders, in the Warwick picture the want of any definite intention on the part of the copyist is clearly

85

The Castle Howard Portrait of Henry VIII

demonstrated. The reason for the borrowing is obvious; it is quite ,in harmony with the endeavour to soften down the severity of the original and with the tendency towards a more plastic rendering, which also led the artist to place a shadow on the background-a thing Holbein never did in a portrait painted " en face. "

In the Castle Howard picture, we have, in

my opinion, the most expressive Portrait of Henry VIII in existence, and I consider the artistic quality of the work to be so character- istic that its author can be none other than the master to whom I have attributed it.2

2 The recent discovery of an exact copy after the Castle Howard portrait (the Bridewell version at Bethlem Royal Hospital, Beckenham) shows very convincingly the genuine plastic effect of the heavy body of Henry VIII, which is partly lost in the original.

THE YOUNG TIEPOLO-I BY ANTONIO MORASSI

HE preconceived ,idea

that Tiepolo became perfect all at once is due to most of his modern biographers- Modern, Molmenti and Sack-and this explains why so little import-

ance has been attached to the study of those years during which his talent developed, and also why his early works are so frequently misunderstood. By these remarks, we wish in no wise to undervalue the merit of these enthusiastic students, but only to set forth some unknown facts relating to this vast sub- ject, which could not then have been worked out, given the embryonic condition of the study of baroque art a quarter of a century ago.

Meanwhile, every contribution, however small, should be of value tin elucidating the art of the master, and this is the object of the following observations and identifications.

It may be affirmed that the most valuable contributions to the subject-after the volu- minous monographs on the artist mentioned above-are some of those dealing with the clarification of the origin of Tiepolo's art. We are indebted to Voss 1 for having definitely ascribed to his early years a group of pictures which, until then, bore the names of Piazzetta, Ricci or Guarana, and for having thus laid the foundations-often disputed-for further attri- butions. Another valuable contribution to our knowledge of the beginnings of Tiepolo's art has been furnished by Fuiocco 2 in his work on Venetian Baroque painting; and, finally, we have to thank Mrs. A. de Vito Battaglia S for her study of the pictures in the Church of the Ospedaletto in Venice, in which she describes the first stages of the evolution of the Master. Nor must the critical essays by Fogolari,

Modigliani and other students be forgotten which have notably enlarged the field of enquiry.

I-Tullia in her Chariot passing over the Body of her Father. This little canvas [PLATE I, A] (35 by 70 cm.) belonged to the well- known collection of Dr. James Simon and was sold by auction in Berlin in December last. I have not been able to discover where it is now. It iis evidently a work of the artist's early years, very closely related in style to the Prophets painted about 1716 for the Church of the Ospedaletto in Venice. The composi- tion, vivacious and full of movement, is markedly horizontal. It seems as though the young Giambattista had a special predilection for breadth; as may be seen in the paintings in the Ospedaletto and, to mention a few others which come first to mind, in the Brera Madonna del Carmelo, The Sacrifice of Iphigenia, belong- ing to the Counts Giustiniani Recanati of Venice, and the Ulysses of Count Giovanni da Schio in Vicenza. But this one trait does not prove Tiepolo's authorship '; the impetuous pictorial style; the patches of colour, now in heavy impasto, now thin, with strong contrasts of chiaroscuro; the exaggerated drawing, vigorously expressive, even when incorrect, due to the directness in registering and the grandeur of the forms which it suggests, all point to him.

This preliminary sketch must be placed chronologically among the very first works of the artist, at the commencement of the career of its fanciful author. If a date of about 1716 may be assigned to the Prophets' of the Ospedaletto with some degree of certainty, our painting must also have been produced during this time, or perhaps a very little later, but, in any case, not later than I720.

In order to give further proof of the correct- ness of the attribution to Tiepolo, we would point out its iconographical connexion with other

SDr. Voss was the first to attribute the sketch to Tiepolo in an assertion to this effect to the owner of the painting. This was communicated to me by Dr. Voss himself, to whose courtesy I am indebted for the reproduction of the picture.

1 H. Voss: " Uber Tiepolos Jugendentwicklung," in " Kunst und Kinstler," XX, 1922, p. 423-433.

S G. Fiocco: " La Pittura Veneziana del Seicento e Settecento." Ed. Apollo, Verona, 1929. 3 S. de Vito Battaglia: " Le Opere di G. B. Tiepolo nella Chiesa dell' Ospedaletto a Venezia," in " Rivista del R. Istituto d'Archeologia e Storia deli' Arte," III, Fasc. 1-2, Rome, 193'. Concerning the pictures in the "Ospedaletto," see also the notes of E. Modigliani, in " Dedalo," March, 1933.

86