E Cosi Desio Me Mena

E cosi desio me mena
Author(s): Burton B. Fredericksen

Source: The J. Paul Getty Museum Journal, Vol. 10 (1982), pp. 21-38
Published by: J. Paul Getty Trust
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4166458 .
Accessed: 29/04/2013 17:09
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 of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
J. Paul Getty Trust is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The J. Paul Getty
Museum Journal.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 151.100.101.138 on Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:09:12 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
21
E C O S I D E S I O M E M E N A
Burton B. Fredericksen
E ven in this day of proliferating art historical literature,
many well-known and important paintings remain poorly
understood, and some works seem to escape successful in-
terpretation no matter how much attention is given them.
A t the same time, there can be little doubt that one of the
attractions of working in the history of art-as opposed to
the critical study of literature-lies in the fact that there is
more to be discovered. A t the very least, almost all works
of literature are still known by their original title, though
one may interpret and reinterpret their meaning. O ne
does not identify a new work by A riosto or S chiller; at best
one might find an unknown letter. But what a luxury to
have so many paintings that carry no title at all! N ot to
men)tion all of those whose author remains unknown, or
uncertain. S een in this light, yet another incompletely
understood painting will only serve to improve our lot. I
have very little doubt that the next few years will reveal
more about the function as well as about the author of the
painting I intend to introduce here, but at the same time it
does not seem premature to discuss it now, to relate the
progress of initial research, and to voice the hope that we
are at least on the right track.
THE PA I N TI N G
The painting is a small (45 cm., 17 in. square) lozenge-
shaped panel-patently from the sixteenth century-
depicting a scantily clad man riding bareback on a white
horse (fig. 1).I He wears a red cloth around his waist and
over one shoulder which flies out behind him as a flutter-
ing cape. A round his head is tied a thin, white ribbon, also
whipped by the wind and suggesting the speed with which
he rides. His lower legs are covered by golden leggings with
a cord at the top that also flies free. He sits on a dark,
yellow cloth or blanket that is fastened under the neck of
the horse and is cinched with a gray strap that goes com-
pletely around the horse's belly. The horse itself is seen in
full stride-or at least what the sixteenth century con-
ceived to be full stride-with his two front legs extended
and the two rear hooves firmly planted on the ground.
Thanks to the benefits of photography, we now know that
horses do not run this way, but it was a convention of the
time-and also perhaps an expression of the allegorical
function of the animal-to show them with the two rear
legs in virtually the same position.2
Under the horse is a patch of bright green grass. The
background is of azurite, originally very bright but now
thin from cleaning and therefore more grayish and sub-
dued in tone.3 A tondo of gold leaf encircles the painting;
the inner edge is recessed, giving it some relief, and the
outer edge casts some shadow. The corners of the lozenge
are red with gold filigree. This ornament is highly delicate
in character and very skillful, clearly the work of someone
with experience in this genre and with a very strong decor-
ative sense.
O ver the patch of grass, just under the hooves of the
horse, is a large gold cartouche with an inscription in gold
letters on a black field. The words read simply: E C O S I
D E S I O M E M E N A .4 The sense of the allegory derives from
this inscription, and with some license it can be inter-
preted in E nglish as, "A nd so desire carries me along."5
This fits well the image of the horse and rider: a white
horse-traditionally a symbol of passion-in full stride
with a half-naked man barely holding on to the mane. The
rider himself fixes his gaze on the viewer; he is not fright-
ened nor "impassioned," but almost bemused; intent upon
his goal, but under control.
The sentiment itself is very beautiful. I t is, however, a
motto that does not seem to have achieved any sort of cur-
rency; I am not aware of its having been used on other
occasions, and so far I have not found any record of its
1. A cc. no. 80.PB.72.
2. The tradition of showing galloping horses with their two rear legs
planted on the ground is found already in Greek and Roman art and is
maintained throughout the Renaissance and into the nineteenth cen-
tury. O ne interesting parallel in I taly, pointed out to me by John Fletcher,
is the relief of a man on a horse by A ndrea Pisano on the Florentine cam-
panile. He also wears a cape such as worn by the man in the Getty
painting.
3. The color was analyzed by the M cC rone Laboratories in C hicago
and determined to be azurite.
4. I n the sale catalogue of 1979 at C hristie's, the inscription was read as
E C O S I D E S I O M A RFI S A which was in turn related to Boiardo's O rlando
I nnamorato or A riosto's O rlando Furioso. The misreading was due to the
fact that part of the inscription was obscured by dirt and there is also a
loss of paint between the last two words.
5. Variations on this reading would be "A nd so desire carries me
away," or even "A nd so desire leads me on."
22 Fredericksen
Figure 1. Hans Holbein the Younger (attributed to), A llegory of Passion. M alibu, the J. Paul Getty M useum.
E C O S I D E S I O M E M E N A 23
connection with any individual or group. A possible
source of the motto has been identified, however, and it
should come as no great surprise that it is from Petrarch's
writings.6 The phrase, or one very nearly the same, is
found in his C anzoniere (or Rime), and specifically the one
hundred twenty-fifth canzone which begins with the line:
"S e '1 pensier che mi strugge...." The complete stanza in
which one finds the motto reads as follows:
C ome fanciul ch'a pena
volge la lingua e snoda,
che dir non sa ma '1 piui tacer gli e noia,
cosf '1 desir mi mena
a dire, e vo' che m'oda
la dolce mia nemica anzi ch'io moia.
S e forse ogni sua gioia
nel suo bel viso e solo,
e di tutt'altro e schiva,
odil tu, verde riva,
e presta a' miei sospir si largo volo
che sempre si ridica
come tu m 'er amica.
This can be translated as follows:
Like a child who can hardly
move his tongue to form a word,
who cannot talk but finds it still more trying
to be silent,
so my desire leads me
to speak, and I want my sweet enemy
to hear me before I die.
I f perhaps all her joy
is only on her beautiful face,
and she is averse to all else,
listen, green embankment,
and lend my sighs such lengthy flight
that it will always be repeated
how you were my friend.
This particular canzone is generally thought to have
been written by Petrarch (1304-1374) between the years
1337 and 1341 while the author was still in his early to mid
thirties and living in the Vaucluse in southern France. I t is
typical of the love poems written in adoration of Laura,
the girl whom he saw when young and to whom he dedi-
cated a lifetime of poetry. I t must be noted that the phrase
"E cosf desio me mena" is only a portion of the complete
sentence, and by dropping off the final words of the phrase
-"a dire"-its meaning has been changed. I n fact Petrarch
said that desire led him to speak. The omission of the last
words lends the phrase a more general character, one more
suitable for a motto. I t is also more personal.7
That a Petrarchian phrase should appear on an allegory
from the sixteenth century is not surprising. Petrarch exer-
cised a strong influence on the art and literature of both
the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. He was considered
all over E urope to have been the person who most con-
tributed to the rebirth of poetry in the Renaissance, and
he was generally honored as one of the founders of the
humanistic movement, a man whose writings inspired imi-
tators in virtually every country in E urope. N umerous edi-
tions of his works, including the C anzoniere, appeared
throughout the sixteenth century in a variety of languages,
and his poems were current among the educated class.
The presence of an I talian motto would naturally point
toward an I talian patron and an I talian artist, and when
the painting was auctioned in 1979 at C hristie's it was in
fact connected with the name of Giulio Romano, that pas-
sionate devotee of classical lore.8 Giulio did not commonly
use such inscriptions on his pictures, and I know of noth-
ing he did that relates directly to Petrarch; he was much
too intent on the Latin sources. The style of the panel is
also clearly not related to that of Giulio, who loved fleshy
figures that derived from Roman sarcophagi. The wiry lit-
tle man on a horse in the Getty panel, with his thin and
very individualized features, also does not correspond in
any way to the canon of an artist whose classicizing ten-
dencies led all of his figures to approximate those of
Roman statuary. I ndeed, no I talian painter could have
painted such a figure.
I t will save further debate on this point if one detail is in-
troduced here that should settle the question of whether
the picture could have been painted in I taly. The artist
painted it on an oak panel, a support found primarily in
the low countries and N orthern Germany, and this im-
plies that the painting also originated in the north.9 E xcep-
tions could be found, but since the style of the painting is
obviously northern, there does not seem to be any reason
to search for exceptions.
A second detail that should be mentioned here is a small
stamp on the reverse of the panel. This stamp takes the
6. The connection with Petrarch was first made by Prof. J. H. Whitfield
of Birmingham, and it was also he who eventually identified the exact
source.
7. I t has been suggested-by M aria C hiara A rese Lucini of our staff-
that the phrase E C O S I D E S I O M E M E N A was and is a colloquialism in
common usage in I taly. D r. N icholas M ann of Pembroke C ollege, O x-
ford, has confirmed this possibility, and so it is not to be excluded that
the phrase did not come via Petrarch. I n any case the sentiment is very
Petrarchian in nature.
8. C hristie's sale, February 9, 1979, lot no. 24.
9. O ak trees are found in E ngland, the low countries, northern France
to a point somewhat south of Paris, and in most of northern and central
Germany.
24 Fredericksen
Figure 2. S tamp on the reverse of the panel of fig. 1.
form of an elaborated figure eight (fig. 2), and its signifi-
cance is still unknown. I t was at first assumed10 that this
was a panel-maker's stamp such as is often found on the
reverse of panels made in A ntwerp. O ther examples of this
particular stamp are unknown, but the explanation re-
mains a very tempting one. Unfortunately, very little is
recorded about panel stamps of any kind. I t may be, for
instance, that certain collectors used such stamps, but if
they did, they must be very rare. The more famous marks,
such as those of C harles I , were not stamped but rather
branded. I ndeed, virtually all stamps on the back of panels
have traditionally been assumed to be panel-makers'
stamps such as are often found on the reverse of panels
from A ntwerp.
However, the overwhelming majority of such panel
marks are from the seventeenth century and not before."
A ccording to John Fletcher only one other sixteenth cen-
tury panel has so far been identified with a stamp on the
reverse, the Portrait of E lizabeth of York in the Queen's col-
lection at Holyrood House in E dinburgh, which has on
the back a stamp in the form of petals.'2 The significance
of this stamp is not yet understood, and it is, therefore, of
very little help in identifying that on the Getty panel. I t is
known that sixteenth-century Flemish sculptors com-
monly stamped their finished works: in A ntwerp they
sometimes utilized a stamp in the form of a hand and
sometimes of a castle; in Brussels a hammer was employed,
and in M echelen, a coat of arms."3 But so far, no similar
practice is known for painted panels, at least not until the
seventeenth century, and the stamps from the seventeenth
century do not much resemble the two mentioned above.
Therefore one should probably resist the temptation to
assume that the Getty stamp and that on the painting in
Holyrood Palace are simply very early examples of Flem-
ish, and particularly A ntwerp, panel-makers' stamps.
There may be other reasons, however, for thinking that
the panels come from A ntwerp. John Fletcher believes
that panels of the quality used for the Getty painting were
produced only in the major Flemish cities and not in
E ngland.'4 This has yet to be demonstrated conclusively,
in my opinion, but certainly A ntwerp, because of its
preeminent importance as a center of art activity in the
sixteenth century,, was a much more likely place to find
good oak panels at this time than any other major city in
northern E urope.
THE PRO VE N A N C E
The next important bit of information that can be de-
rived from an examination of the painting is provided by a
somewhat larger mark branded on the back of the panel, a
monogram "HP" beneath a coronet. This monogram is
well known as that of Henry Prince of Wales and is our
earliest clue to the provenance of the painting. Henry
Frederick, the eldest son of James VI of S cotland Games I
of E ngland), was born in 1594 and is rightly famous as a
patron of the arts, in spite of the fact that he died at the
age of eighteen and never attained the throne.
N ot a great deal has been written about Henry's activi-
ties as a collector, and a certain amount no doubt remains
to be gleaned from the E nglish royal archives.'5 N o inven-
tory of the prince's collection has yet been found; and
though some of the sources of his possessions have been
identified, it is also obvious that the list is far from com-
plete. The bulk of the prince's collecting apparently took
place between 1610 and 1612, the year of his death, but
there is reason to think that James I acquired some pieces
on Henry's behalf and gave them to him before 1610, the
year he was made Prince of Wales.'6 I n that year Henry
10. John Fletcher has published this stamp as a panel-maker's stamp in
an article in the A ntiquaries Journal, v. 61, ii, 1981.
11. I have not been able to find any substantive material on this sub-
ject. The only article, very brief in nature, known to me is by Rene van
de Broek in the Gazette N ationale lA ntiquaire, no. 33, A ugust,, 1972, pp.
XI I -XI I I . I n a letter to John Fletcher of D ecember, 1981, M . van de
Broek, a restorer active in Brussels, says that marks from the sixteenth
century are rare, and he could find no record of any. S ince the subject
has been studied so little, however, it is always possible that more such
stamps exist without having been noticed.
12. This stamp is apparently not published, and I know of it only from
John Fletcher, who kindly volunteered the information
13. This information comes from J. Lambrechts-D ouillez, A ssociate
C urator at the M useum Vleeshuis in A ntwerp, in a letter to John Fletcher
of D ecember, 1980.
14. D r. Fletcher's opinion on this subject is contained in the following
article, pp. 39-44.
15. The definitive study of this subject must await publication of S ir
Roy S trong's book. I n the meantime, the best summary of Henry's col-
lecting is found in O liver M illar, The Queen's Pictures, 1977, pp. 25-28.
S ee also Roy S trong, The E nglish I con: E lizabethan and Jacobean Portraiture,
1969, pp. 20, 55-57.
16. James I is credited with having bought the Lumley Library for
Henry in 1609 when the prince was just fifteen years old. S ee T. Birch,
also received a gift of some marine pieces by Hendrik
Vroom and Jan Porcellis from the D utch ambassadors.'7
There are records of his buying paintings from D utch
dealers who carried their offerings across the channel, and
from a variety of unidentified persons in E ngland.'8 But it
is also known that Henry asked for gifts of paintings as
part of the negotiations connected with his projected mar-
riage to C aterina de' M edici, and he is also said to have
bought paintings through agents in Venice and probably
other cities on the continent.'9 I n addition to artists
already in E ngland whom he patronized, such as I saac
O liver, N icholas Hilliard, and I nigo Jones, Prince Henry
attracted to E ngland D utch painters such as M ichel M iere-
veldt and the carver cum keeper A braham Van der D oort,
as well as an I talian architect. N one of these has yet proved
to be the source of the Getty panel. The number of pain-
tings known still to carry Henry's mark is hardly more
than a half dozen; Van der D oort's catalogue of the paint-
ings belonging to C harles I lists a few more.20 However,
although no clear picture is yet available, the weight of
evidence makes it probable that the prince would have
acquired a painting such as the Getty panel in E ngland
between 1610 and 1612, though it could easily have been
imported from somewhere else.
A similar painting has recently appeared that might
eventually lead to the source of the Getty picture. This is
the A llegory of Painting (?) by Hendrick Goltzius that passed
through an auction at C hristie's in 1981 (fig. 3).21 A l-
though larger than the Getty panel, it is also lozenge-
shaped and has the monogram of Henry Prince of Wales
on the reverse. The significance of lozenge-shaped panels
will be dealt with below (p. 27), but lozenge-shaped pic-
tures are rare, and two of them in the same collection,
both with allegories, implies-though it does not prove-
that they had a common origin. The artist of the Getty
panel cannot have been Goltzius, because its style is very
different from his, but the panels may well have had a sim-
ilar function-assuming that their shape implies a particu-
lar function-and could therefore have performed this
function for the same owner, or owners. The Goltzius
panel is datable probably around the end of the century.22
Goltzius was active in Haarlem, but there is no way of
knowing for whom he might have painted the allegory.
Presumably it remained in the Lowlands until roughly the
time Prince Henry bought it, implying perhaps that the
Getty panel was also there at that time.
The collection of Henry Prince of Wales is generally
assumed to have passed upon his death in 1612 to his
twelve-year-old brother C harles, later to become C harles I .
A few panels survive with the marks of both Henry and
C harles on them, and Van der D oort also records a few
that belonged to both men. I n fact, it appears that the col-
lection remained intact for at least a few years, but eventu-
ally the paintings did pass to C harles. S ome of them have
remained in the British royal collections until the present;
others were apparently traded by C harles during his life-
time, and some were dispersed after his execution. The
Getty panel must have been one of those traded.
The Getty painting does not have the monogram of
C harles on the reverse, but not all of his paintings bore it,
Figure 3. Hendrick Goltzius, A llegory of Painting. A rt mar-
ket, Germany.
The Life of Henry Prince of Wales, 1760, pp. 161 ff.
17. S ee J.G. van Gelder, "N otes on the Royal C ollection, I V: The
'D utch Gift' of 1610 to Henry, Prince of 'Whalis', and some other Pres-
ents," in Burlington M agazine, C V, D ecember, 1963, pp. 541 ff.
18. S ome of these are mentioned by 0. M illar, op. cit., p. 28. Further
notices were kindly relayed by S ir Roy S trong who has found reference in
the Public Record O ffice of pictures bought from "Vandellivell
D uchman" in 1611-12.
19. S ee for instance, C alendar of S tate Papers, Venetian, v. XI I , 1905, p.
106, quoted in M illar, op. cit., p. 27.
20. M argaret Toynbee (in a letter of January, 1981) has identified six
additional paintings with the mark of Henry: the well-known Battle of
Pavia at Hampton C ourt, C hrist in the House of M artha and M ary by Hans
Vredeman de Vries, Youth Looking Through a Window by an anonymous
I talian (?) artist, S hipwreck by M oonlight by Porcellis, and the O ld Woman
Blowing C harcoal, also anonymous, all in the Royal collections. I n addi-
tion there is a Parable of the Tares attributed to Bloemaert in S omerville
C ollege, O xford. I n Van der D oort's catalogue of C harles' collection,
mention of pictures coming from Henry are given (ed. M illar, 1960) on
pp. 8, 17, 185.
21. S old at C hristie's, O ctober 30, 1981, lot 33, the property of a lady.
I t has passed to a private gallery in Germany.
22. S ee E . R.J. Reznicek, "Het begin von Goltzius's loopbaan als S chi-
der," O ud Holland, 1960, pp. 42-43.
26 Fredericksen
and it is furthermore possible that some were disposed of
before the brand was applied. O ur painting cannot be
identified in Van der D oort's inventory of 1639, though
this does not necessarily mean that the painting had
already left the royal collections. I t is known that other
paintings in C harles' collection, that were certainly pre-
sent at the time of inventory, were not included. But there
remains the possibility that our panel left the royal collec-
tions early in C harles' reign, or perhaps even before his
ascent to the throne in 1625.
The next certain record of the painting is in 1653 when
it is recorded in the notebook of Richard S ymonds among
the pictures in the quarters of Lady A nne M ary Howard at
A rundel House in London.23 The description reads:
"a fellow on horseback flying almost. with this cosi.
desio. mi mena."
Unfortunately no artist is given; apparently his name had
been forgotten by this time.
S ymonds describes the painting among those "in the
C losett of the Lady A nne M ary Howard," perhaps a kind
of dressing room. With it were some other pictures, appar-
ently mostly small, including a large M adonna by
Raphael, a portrait by D urer, a self portrait by Holbein
dated 1543, two portraits of M ichelangelo and Giulio Ro-
mano, and a M adonna and C hild in miniature by "E
O liver" (I saac O liver?). N one of these can be identified
in the 1639 Van der D oort inventory of C harles I 's collec-
tion, and none of them can be connected with Henry
Prince of Wales. Two of the pictures, the Raphael and the
D urer, are described as having belonged to a "M r. Fox"
about whom nothing is known; the miniature by O liver is
not known to exist, and the others are not described in
enough detail to be traceable.
O nly the Holbein self-portrait may be identifiable, since
a miniature in the Wallace collection, which has long been
called a self-portrait, does in fact carry the date 1543 and is
thought to have belonged to Lord A rundel.4 This minia-
ture is traditionally identified as the same that was seen by
Karel van M ander in the collection of Jacques Razet (or
Raset) in A msterdam in 1604.25 I t is worth noting that
Razet displayed a taste for erudite allegories of the sort
found on our panel; in particular he owned at least three
by C ornelis Ketel, all of which are now lost. O ne might
hope therefore, that the Getty panel came from there also,
but of the various allegorical paintings mentioned by Van
M ander that belonged to Razet, none of them can be our
panel. I t remains possible that Razet owned the Getty
panel and that it was simply not mentioned in Van M an-
der's book. The A rundel inventory of 1653, however,
simply describes the portrait as an "oil" without calling it a
miniature or round which is a strong indication that it
may not be the same painting. I f so, this would suggest
that the A rundels had two self portraits by Holbein dated
1543, and this is, of course, not impossible.
Lady A nne M ary Howard was the eldest daughter of E d-
ward S omerset, second marquis of Worcester, and in 1652
married Henry Howard, a grandson of Thomas Howard,
E arl of A rundel. Henry succeeded to the title of the E arl of
A rundel and S urrey and became sixth D uke of N orfolk upon
the death of his elder brother in 1677. A nne M ary Howard
had thus been married only one year at the time of the in-
ventory of 1653, and her husband would not succeed to
the title for another two and one half decades. I t remains
possible, therefore, that she had the allegory panel from
her own family; but it is more likely that it was a gift from
her new spouse and that it came to them from the collec-
tion of his grandfather, the famous and powerful Thomas
Howard, second E arl of A rundel, who had died in 1646.
Thomas Howard was close to both C harles and his elder
brother, Henry Prince of Wales, and is known to have
owned paintings formerly in the collection of C harles I ,
with whom he made various exchanges. We know, for in-
stance, that the album of portraits by Holbein that is now
in the royal collections at Windsor C astle followed this
path. This album is first recorded in the collection of E d-
ward VI who probably had it from his father Henry VI I I .
From E dward it passed to Henry Fitzalan, first E arl of
A rundel, and upon his death in 1580 to his son-in-law,
Lord Lumley. Lumley died in 1609, and the album appar-
ently passed to Henry Prince of Wales. When Henry died
in 1612, the album went to his younger brother, C harles
I , who then gave it to Lord Pembroke in an exchange.
Finally, Pembroke gave it to Thomas Howard, second
E arl of A rundel.
I t is not known how the Getty panel left the collection of
Lady A nne M ary Howard and her husband. The latter
died in 1684, and A rundel House and its collections passed
to Henry, the seventh D uke. I t was evidently he who dis-
posed of this portion-roughly a third-of the A rundel in-
23. S ymonds' notebook is in the British M useum, D epartment of
M anuscripts. The text was copied by Vertue and is found in his manu-
script (Brit. M us. M S . 23.081). The text of Vertue's transcription is in
turn given by M ary Hervey, The Life, C orrespondence and C ollections
of Thomas Howard, E arl of A rundel, 1921, p. 521. 1 am indebted to
S usan Foister of the Warburg I nstitute who was the first person to notice
this entry.
24. For the most complete discussion of the history of this miniature,
see Graham Reynolds, C atalogue of M iniatures (Wallace C ollection), 1980,
pp. 33-39. I t is now attributed to Lucas Horenbout.
25. K. van M ander, S childerboek, 1604, folio 223v, quoted by P. Ganz
in Burlington M agazine, LXXI , A ugust, 1937, p. 67.
26. Two such sales are mentioned by John E velyn in his D iary. S ee D .
heritance. Two sales are supposed to have taken place, in
1686 and 1691, but neither catalogue survives.26 S ir Peter
Lely is supposed to have acquired a great many things
from him, but Lely's sale catalogue of 1682 does not in-
clude the Getty panel.27 N orfolk's wife divorced him in
1700 and then married S ir John Germain, taking with her
some elements of the A rundel collection; these were even-
tually sold in 1770 by a descendant, but this sale also does
not include the Getty panel. M ost probably our panel was
among those included in the sales of 1686 and 1691, whose
contents are not recorded.
The modern provenance of the painting is also confused
and unclear. The painting first definitely reappears in a
country sale in 1978, that of the contents of S petchley
Park, sold on July 11/12. The Getty panel was lot no. 281,
and it is described as follows:
A square hatchment, painted and inscribed, the oak
panel bearing a former owner's initials-HP and C oronet
framed 21 in. square.
S petchley Park was the property of the Berkeley family,
but according to Bruton Knowles, the firm of auctioneers
that managed the sale, lot 281 did not come from S petch-
ley but was added to the sale by M r. T. G. Burn of Rous
Lench C ourt, near Hereford.28 I t was the only painting in
the sale from M r. Burn's collection. Further enquiries with
Bruton Knowles and M r. Burn produced the information
that the picture was bought by M r. Burn, along with other
effects, from the widow of the Rev. E . W. M . de la Hay,
rector at N orth C erney, where he lived until his death in
1936. A ccording to a resident of N orth C erney who
knew him, Hay paid visits to N orthern I taly with local
companions from 1912 onwards and bought works of
art there;29 the strong implication was that he would have
acquired our panel there. This does not, however, bring
us very close to the N orfolk provenance, and it would
seem much more likely that Hay would have bought the
panel somewhere in E ngland. I n any event we are as yet
unable to bridge the gap of approximately 250 years in
its provenance.
I n 1978 the painting was bought by a small dealer from
C oventry, A nthony Haynes. He in turn gave it to C hris-
tie's to sell, and it was put into a sale on February 9, 1979
as a work from the circle of Giulio Romano. The buyers in
1979 were a group of dealers, including A nthony S peel-
man, C olnaghi's, and D avid C arritt; the museum acquired
the painting from S peelman a year later.
THE FUN C TI O N O F THE PA N E L
O ne of the most puzzling aspects of the Getty painting
has been its original function. I t has been suggested that it
might have been a portrait cover, or the cover of a box,
part of a paneled room, or a "hatchment," as it was called
in the sale in 1978. A lthough these are all possibilities,
some are less probable than others. To be a portrait cover,
for instance, the Getty panel, because of its shape, would
have had to fit over a round portrait. C ircular portraits do
exist, and a circular portrait in a lozenge-shaped format is
not inconceivable; but I do not know of any, and the idea
seems unlikely.
D avid C arritt has suggested that it could have been the
lid of a box, such as the two allegories by Lorenzo Lotto in
Washington.30 The same objections would pertain in this
instance, I believe, because one must then assume that the
box contained something in lozenge form since the con-
tents could hardly have been aligned differently from
the lid.
The idea of a hatchment, or some variation of a hatch-
ment, seems the most likely. The word "hatchment" is not
a familiar one to A merican readers, but in E ngland it is
used to signify a panel, or tablet, with the coat of arms of
an individual. O riginally it was utilized to announce a
death and was hung in a public place, normally on an
outside wall of the home of the deceased. A nd, most im-
portantly, it was hung by the corner and was designed
generally with a lozenge form. The Getty panel cannot
have been a "hatchment" because is does not depict any-
one's arms. The subject is an allegory with a motto, and it
may be a personal motto, but the subject cannot possibly
be a coat of arms.
N evertheless, the function of the panel may be in some
way related. E gbert Haverkamp-Begemann has suggested a
very plausible solution.3" He has pointed out that lozenge-
shaped panels were used by the Rederijkers (rhetoricians)
in the Lowlands as blazons, and that they normally depict
allegories with mottos. A group of five such blazons exists
in the Vleeshuis M useum in A ntwerp, and others have
been published. A fairly typical blazon is that of the Reder-
ijkers van de Groeiende Boom (growing tree) from the
town of Lier painted by C rispin van den Broeck in 1561
S utton in Burlington M agazine, 89, M arch 1947, p. 75, n. 81.
27. The sale was op A pril 18, 1682.
28. Letter from Bruton Knowles dated S eptember 16, 1980, in the
museum files.
29. A ll of this information about the Rous Lench collection is due to
John Fletcher, who made enquiries with all of the principals and also
travelled to C erney to speak to residents. I am very much indebted to
D r. Fletcher for his enterprise in this matter.
30. M r. C arritt's opinion was given to John Fletcher.
31. Professor Begemann's suggestion was made to me in January of
1981 when he was a guest scholar at the Getty M useum, and his discus-
sions with me on this matter have been very rewarding.
28 Fredericksen
Figure 4. C rispin van den Broeck, Blazon of the Rederijkers
van de Groeiende Boom, A ntwerp, Koninklijk
M useum voor S chone Kunsten.
Figure 5. Jan S teen, The Rederijkers. Brussels, H. S tokvis
collection.
(fig. 4).32 I t depicts S aint Gommaire holding a staff with a
flourishing oak at the top. I t does not have a motto, but
the mottos were often put on the frame. O thers exist with
a rebus as a theme.33 A lthough such blazons are now fairly
scarce,34 there must have been many in the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries. M ost large- and middle-sized Flem-
ish and D utch towns had chambers of rhetoric, sometimes
more than one-A ntwerp, for instance, had three-and all
of them produced such blazons. M oreover, they held festi-
vals at which representatives of many groups gathered
together. The most famous of these, in 1561, included
fourteen different groups, and special blazons were made
for the occasion.35 The blazons were displayed at the festi-
vals, and prizes were awarded for the best ones. N ormally
a blazon was simply hung by its corner on a wall while the
chamber was in session. The well-known painting by Jan
S teen from the next century shows some drunken rhetori-
cians with the blazon prominently displayed in the fore-
ground (fig. 5). Because they were considered heraldic
devices and prominently shown, the groups may have
modernized their blazons from time to time regularly pro-
ducing new versions in the more current taste, and dis-
carding the old ones. Whatever the reason for their
relative rarity now, they were clearly considered valuable
at the time they were painted.
The Rederijker groups were also significant for the art of
their time because of their close association with the ar-
tists' guilds. I n A ntwerp the guild known as D e Violieren
included both artists and rhetoricians. M any well-known
painters were also famous as performers, and no doubt this
contributed to the quality of the blazons.
The Getty panel, unfortunately, does not precisely fit
the pattern of other blazons. For one thing, it would be the
only such blazon with an I talian inscription.36 This does
32. A ntwerp cat. no. 553, presently on loan to the Vleeshuis M useum
in A ntwerp. I t is discussed briefly in P. Wescher, "C rispin van den Broeck
as Painter," in Jaarboek van het Koninklijk M useum VO O T S chone Kunsten,
A ntwerp, 1974, pp. 175-6.
33. S ee for instance the rebus blazon sold at C hristie's on July 11,
1980, lot 122, as by Hans Jordaens. O thers are discussed in A ug. A .
Keersmaekers, "D rie Rebus-Blazoenen van de A ntwerpse Violieren," in
Verslagen en M ededelingen van het Koninklijke Vlaamse A cademie voor Taal-
en Letterkunde, 1957, pp. 343 ff. There is a particularly good reproduction
Figure 6. E mmanuel de Witte, C hurch I nterior. O berlin,
A llen M emorial A rt M useum, O berlin C ollege,
R.T. M iller, Jr. Fund, 43.279.
not, perhaps, exclude it, but since the Rederijkers were
very much involved in the use of their own language as
their dramatic medium, the appearance of an I talian motto
seems definitely out of place. M oreover, the motives found
in the majority of blazons are religious in nature. This is
not true in all cases, especially those done as a rebus where
mythological figures are utilized at times; but most often
the mottos reflect a pious sentiment very much at odds
with the Petrarchian phrase found here. A t the same time,
it must be emphasized that Petrarch was an important
figure for the Rederijkers who considered him the founder
of modern poetry, the man who most brought about the
Renaissance in letters, and his works were brought out in a
variety of editions in the N orth. His name is often found
in literary works published during the fifteenth and espe-
cially the sixteenth centuries in the N etherlands. I t would
be completely in character for the Rederijkers to pay him
homage.
There is one further objection to thinking the Getty
allegory was the emblem of a Rederijkerskamer. The motto
seems somewhat too personal to be that of a group. I n-
deed, the reflexive verb menarsi is used in the first person,
me mena; and this seems to exclude its use as a club slogan.
The Getty panel seems more likely to have been the per-
sonal sentiment of someone very much aware of I talian
culture and literature, perhaps one of many writers in the
N etherlands or E ngland who emulated Petrarch and
would have been proud to feature one of his phrases on his
blazon.
I t seems likely that the Getty panel had a heraldic func-
tion. The motto and the lozenge shape are enough to
allow us at least this assumption. The lozenge shape seems
to have traditionally served for heraldic devices, like the
hatchment in E ngland, the origin of which comes from the
continent. O ne need only recall the use of lozenge-shaped
panels in D utch churches where they grace the pillars in so
many paintings of church interiors (fig. 6).
However, it is a mistake to assume that every lozenge-
shaped panel is heraldic in character. Two pictures by
Goltzius, one depicting the D ying A donis (A msterdam,
Rijksmuseum) and the other showing the figure of C hrist
C rowned with Thorns (in the M arienkirche in Ulzen in Ger-
many) are enough to show that these panels were.not
always intended to be heraldic. We simply do not know
why Goltzius painted these pictures to be hung from the
corner. The panel in Ulzen may simply have been meant
to hang from a pillar, since it is difficult to have more than
one point on a round column from which to hang the
painting. But certainly the D ying A donis does not come
from a church.
THE D A TE A N D THE A RTI S T
The appearance of the Getty panel for sale at C hristie's
in 1979 as the work of a member of Giulio Romano's circle
marked the first time that an opinion has been given about
its authorship. I n the inventory of 1653 the panel was al-
ready an anonymous work, and it seems to have remained
anonymous after that. The attribution to the circle of
Giulio (died 1546) implies that the compilers of the 1979
sale thought it was to be dated during the first half of the
sixteenth century, but since the painting clearly has
nothing to do with Giulio, this inference is of little value.
A t the time of the sale, however, a series of people, mostly
dealers, thought of Hans Holbein as a possibility, and at-
tention has centered on this artist since that time. The pre-
of one in S . S peth-Holterhoff, Les Peintres Flamands de C abinets dA ma-
teurs au XVI I e siecle, 1957, fig. 1.
34.D r. E . van A utenboer, an authority on Rederijkers blazons, has
kindly written to me (S eptember 17, 1981) that he has studied 200
blazons, both heraldic and rebus style, but many of these are only known
from prints and do not exist in panel form.
35. For a recent overview of the subject of the Rederijkers festivals, see
E . van A utenboer, Het Brabants Landjuweel der Rederijkers (1515-1561).
He also gives extensive bibliography.
36. A ccording to D r. E . van A utenboer, see note 34.
30 Fredericksen
Figure 7. I saac O liver, E dward Herbert, I st Baron Herbert of
C herbury. E arl of Powis collection.
Figure 8. Hans Holbein the Younger, E rasmus' Terminus.
C leveland, The C leveland M useum of A rt, Gift
of D r. and M rs. S herman E . Lee in memory of
M ilton S . Fox.
sent author was one of those to whom the name occurred,
and the attribution was also suggested independently by
Richard Herner, A nthony S peelman, D avid C arritt, and
M ichael S impson. S ubsequently the first two had serious
doubts about this idea, and only C arritt continued to
believe in it. I ndeed, the suggestions made during the fol-
lowing year while the painting was studied by its new
owners ranged very late into the century to include even
such artists as M arcus Gheeraerts the Younger (active
1561-died 1635).
I t must be admitted that the theme of the Getty panel is
just as well suited to the taste of the second half of the six-
teenth century as to the first. I t coincides perfectly with the
allegories fashionable in E lizabethan E ngland and also in
the Lowlands of the same period. O ne must only recall the
allegories described by Van M ander that were painted by
C ornelis Ketel-now all lost-or the paintings and minia-
tures from the court of James I and even Henry Prince of
Wales. I ndeed, the famous melancholy picture of E dward
Herbert lying by a stream painted by I saac O liver (fig. 7)
would perfectly embody the theme of the 125th canzone of
Petrarch:
". . . odil tu, verde riva, e presta a'miei sospir si largo
volo . . ."
N or is the pictorial style of the Getty picture radically dif-
ferent from that of the Jacobean and E lizabethan periods.
A nd yet the Getty panel is not as "mannered" as the
work of any of the artists from the later part of the cen-
tury. The anatomy is not as "pinched" as the work of Hill-
iard or O liver. The style is less refined in character. I ts
mannerisms are much more modest in nature, pointing to
a time when the elaboration of classical motifs into some-
thing we now call anti-classical had not yet begun in
earnest. But of course Holbein was the principal font of
E lizabethan and Jacobean style.
I t is difficult to compare the Getty panel to the accepted
works of Holbein. I f by him, it would be very unusual in
his oeuvre. For one thing, there are virtually no other
paintings with secular allegories by his hand. The only
work that could fit that description is the recently discov-
ered depiction of E rasmus' Tenninus (fig. 8), which is also
heraldic in general character, in a tondo, and similarly
small in scale.37 I t does not otherwise offer any obvious
37. S ee J. Rowlands, "Terminus. The D evice of E rasmus of Rot-
terdam," in Bulletin of the C leveland M useum of A rt, February, 1980,
pp. 50 ff.
38. Ganz, D ie Handzeichnungen Hans Holbeins des Jungeren, 1911-37,
nos. 263 and 266. The former is in the British M useum (Holbein 35d) and
is illustrated by C hamberlain, Hans Holbein the Younger, 1913, v. 2, pl. 50,
no. 1. The second is in Basel.
39. Ganz, op. cit., no. 257, at C hatsworth. Reproduced in O ld M aster
Figure 9. Hans Holbein the Younger, A llegory of Time.
C hatsworth, D uke of D evonshire.
5I E RVA R VO GLI O :
\XVE L C HE HO '
Figure 10. Hans Holbein the Younger, A llegorical D esign for
a M edallion. London, British M useum.
points of comparison. O ne should not forget also the two
lost paintings of the Triumph of Riches and Poverty.
However, one does find a number of drawings by Hol-
bein, notably those with decorative designs, that are alle-
gorical. These generally date from the time of Holbein's
employment by Henry VI I I in E ngland. A n example is the
depiction of Time E xtracting Truth from the Rock, of which
there are two versions in medallion form.38 S ome also uti-
lize I talian mottoes. A t least two can be mentioned: a
design, perhaps for the back of a watch, which depicts a
young man sleeping under a tree with a putto striking the
bell on a large clock (fig. 9).39 The motto reads: A S PE TTO
LA HO RA . The other is a design, perhaps for a medallion,
depicting a hand extended from the clouds and resting on
a book which lies on the peak of a mountain (fig. 10)40 The
inscription says: S E RVA R' VO GLI O QVE L C HE HO GVI -
RA TO . The original purpose of the medallion is not cer-
tain, but apparently many of these medallion designs were
intended to be worn either on a cap or hanging from a
chain. S uch medallions often had a personal emblem, or
devise, and it was fashionable to accompany them with
either a Latin or an I talian motto, probably to some extent
because many of the jewelers who made them were I tal-
ians. The emblem usually expressed some sentiment partic-
ularly beloved of the wearer, often fairly obscure, and
allowing the observer some latitude in his interpretations.
S een in this context, the Getty panel fits very well, except
that it is not for jewelry.
I n spite of the fact that the oeuvre of Holbein does not
present an abundance of similar themes, the individual
parts of the painting can, nevertheless, find parallels. The
figure of a man riding on a galloping horse can be found in
a variety of compositions. The earliest comparable repre-
sentation of a horse occurs in the Portrait of Benedikt von
Hertenstein, now in the M etropolitan M useum.4' A t the
top of the painting is a sculptural frieze with a triumphal
procession (fig. 11). The rearing horse has certain affinities
with that in the Getty painting; it is much simplified and is
not so carefully defined, but this portrait is an early work
of 1517, and Holbein was hardly twenty years old.
M uch closer is a drawing in Berlin42 for a stained glass
window which also has at the top a frieze with galloping
horses (fig. 12). The horse and rider in the center are in
reverse, and running through water, but the parallels with
D rawings from C hatsworth, N ational Gallery, etc., 1962/63, no. 107.
40. Known in two versions, Ganz, op. cit., nos. 388 and 389, both
British M useum (Holbein 29b and c). The former is illustrated in
C hamberlain, op. cit., v. 2, pl. 50, no. 7.
41. M etropolitan M useum acc. no. 06.1038.
42. Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett I nv. no. 3103, Ganz, op. cit., no. 189.
I ncluded in D ie M alerfamilie Holbein, exh. Basel, 1960, no. 263, illus. in
C . Glaser, Hans Holbein d. J., Zeichnungen, 1924, pl. 31.
32 Fredericksen
Figure 11. Hans Holbein the Younger, Portrait of Benedikt
von Hertenstein (detail). N ew York, The M etro-
politan M useum of A rt, Rogers Fund.
Figure 12. Hans Holbein the Younger, D esign for stained
glass (detail). Berlin Kupferstichkabinett.
Figure 13. Hans Holbein the Younger (attributed to), D e-
sign for a C himneypiece (detail). London, British
M useum.
Figure 14. Hans Holbein the Younger (attributed to), A lle-
gory (detail). M alibu, The J. Paul Getty M useum.
the Getty painting are very obvious: a naked soldier with
a cape that billows out behind him and with his arms
around the neck of the horse. The saddle-blanket is fas-
tened in the same manner. The structure of the horse's
head and its swept back ear, are very nearly the same. This
drawing must date from 1523/24 because one of the figures
appears in a window dated 1524 that is copied after this
design.
The most striking comparisons appear in ornamental
drawings done by Holbein in E ngland after 1526. E spe-
cially close is the rearing horse seen in the midst of a battle
scene, part of the design for an elaborate chimney piece ap-
parently commissioned by Henry VI I 1.43 A detail of this
portion of the drawing (fig. 13), though very quickly
drawn, very small in scale, and lacking the elaboration of
the painting, is remarkably similar to the Getty horse. The
horse is in a slightly different position, but the tail has the
same flourish, and the head as well as the hooves have the
same structure we saw in the Getty panel. There is also
a half-naked rider. Though only sketchily drawn, he is
clothed in almost exactly the same manner as our rider
43. Ganz, op. cit., no. 123, British M useum Holbein no. 16, illustrated
in G. D avies, op. cit., 1903, pl. preceding p. 225. I t is formerly from the
A rundel collection and supposedly was a design for a chimney piece in
Henry's new palace at Bridewell.
Figure 15. Hans Holbein the Younger, D esign for a dagger
hilt. London, British M useum.
Figure 16. Hans Holbein the Younger, D esign for stained
glass (detail). Basel, Kupferstichkabinett.
Figure 17. Hans Holbein the Younger, D esign for metal
work (?). London, British M useum.
Figure 18. D etail of fig. 1. M alibu, The J. Paul Getty
M useum.
(fig. 14), with a cape that catches the wind and which
wraps around his waist and then flows out behind. The
rider however, wears a helmet and is intent on an en-
tirely different feat. O therwise, the two figures are nearly
identical.
O ther similar figures can be identified, though not al-
ways riding horses. A design for a dagger hilt in the British
M useum44 shows a kneeling figure blowing a horn who has
certain characteristics in common and the same leggings
(fig. 15). Lastly, there are the two ornament figures at the
top of a stained glass window design in Basel (fig. 16)45
These figures wear the same capes that billow out behind,
although the figures are not in motion and not riding
horses; they also crouch and stretch out their arms in the
same pose as the Getty panel. Finally there is a design for
an enameled mount with two very similar satyrs (fig. 21).46
A ll of these details do not, of course, conclusively prove
that the Getty allegory is by Holbein, but there is another
bit of evidence. The ornamental work traced in gold on
red in the corners of the Getty panel (fig. 18) have a nearly
exact counterpart in some arabesque designs by Holbein
44. Ganz, op. cit., no. 442, British M useum Holbein no. 20e, illustrated
in C hamberlain, op. cit., v. 2, pl. 47, no. 4.
45. Ganz, op. cit., no. 199, Basel, Kupterstichkabinett, inv. 1662.157,
illus. in C . Glaser, op. cit., pl. 21, and included in D ie M alerfamilie Hol-
bein in Basel, exh. Basel, 1960, no. 202.
46. Ganz, op. cit., no. 376, Brit. M us. Holbein no. 63h.
34 Fredericksen
Figure 19. Hans Holbein the Younger, A rabesque designs.
London, British M useum.
Figure 20. Hans Holbein the Younger, D esign for a button.
London, British M useum.
Figure 21. Hans Holbein the Younger, D esign for an enam-
eled mount. London, British M useum.
Figure 22. Hans Holbein the Younger, D esign for a portable
tablet (?). London, British M useum.
now in the British M useum (fig. 19).47 These designs are
generally assumed to have been intended for execution in
enamel, but virtually every detail of the Getty spandrels
can be found there, including the pierced tendril-like
leaves and the two vines that come together to produce a
single leaf, also pierced by a round hole. Though the
British M useum design is not the one used for our paint-
ing, the style and character of the two are certainly the
work of a single person. O ther arabesque designs by Hol-
bein show exactly the same decorative sense: one for a
button (fig. 20)48; another of unspecified function, perhaps
for metal work (fig. 17);49 and two sometimes identified
simply as "tablets" or book covers (fig. 22).5?
The close similarities between these designs excludes a
date for the Getty panel later than the 1550s and implies a
date in the 1530s or 1540s. O ther ornamental designs by
artists such as Peter Flotner (died 1546) and Virgil S olis
(died 1562) exist with the same general type of arabesquerie,
47. Ganz, op. cit., nos. 409-411, Brit. M us. Holbein 33a, b. and h., il-
lustrated in C hamberlain, op. cit., v. 2, pl. 52.
48. Ganz, op. cit., no. 307.
49. Ganz, op. cit., no. 231, Brit. M us. Holbein no. 34o.
50. Ganz, op. cit., no. 403, Brit. M us. Holbein no. 31d. I llustrated in
G. D avies, op. cit., preceding p. 227. O ther similar designs are Ganz nos.
231 and 307.
Figure 23. Hans Holbein the Younger, Portrait of an Unknown Woman. D etroit, The D etroit I nstitute
of A rts, Bequest of E leanor C lay Ford.
but by the second half of the century the taste in ornament
was more mannered.5' The graceful design seen on our
panel is fairly typical for a period during the second quarter
of the century. I t is also noteworthy that the artists who
developed and used it were German, and Holbein may
have carried the tradition with him to E ngland.
A lthough it is not easy to compare the Getty allegory to
existing paintings by Holbein, there are some in which one
senses a kindred technique. N ot wanting to belabor these
comparisons, there are at least two portraits in which one
finds some of the features of the rider in our panel, though
on a very different scale. O ne is the drawing of S ir John
Godsalve at Windsor. The other is the Portrait of an Un-
known Woman (fig. 23) now in D etroit.52 These three faces
may have no more in common than the fact that they are
seen from slightly above and that they have similarly
pointed features, but the artist has rendered them in a very
similar way. I n particular, the head of the woman in
D etroit, though much larger, is modeled and structured in
very much the same manner.
51. S ee for instance J. Byrne, Renaissance O rnament Prints and D rawings,
M etropolitan M useum of A rt, 1981, figs. 19 and 114. For Flotner in par-
ticular, see F. Reimers, Peter Flotner nach seinen Handzeichnungen und
Holzschnitten, 1890, pp. 25-36. A series of 40 sheets by Flotner published
in Zurich in 1549 is very similar in character to those by Holbein.
52. D etroit I nstitute of A rts, acc. no. 77.81; for a discussion see K.
Baetjer, "A Portrait by Holbein the Younger," in Bulletin of the D etroit I n-
stitute of A rts, v. 51, no. 1, 1979, pp. 24ff.
36 Fredericksen
Finally, there are three other paintings, all very different
in nature, that have stylistic parallels with our painting.
Two of them are the pictures in Basel which depict a single
woman, M agdalena O ffenburg as Venus and Lais C orin-
thiaca, both dated 1526. A close look at the originals
reveals a similar stage of Holbein's development and a
parallel rendering of form. The third parallel is the N oli M e
Tangere at Hampton C ourt which is merely the most con-
venient painting to use to demonstrate the way that Hol-
bein renders a leg and his proclivity for sandals and leg-
gings. There are many other examples, too, often with the
same prominent buckle at the top in the front and with a
button between the first and second toe.
A lso significant is Holbein's tendency to paint his fig-
ures, no doubt under the influence of I talian artists, as if
they were dancing. A gain and again one sees how he likes
to paint the full sweep of the leg, from the knee to the toe,
with a single easy arc. He often points the foot in such a
way as to emphasize this motion; and the outside contour
of the foot, as well as the heel, is simplified in order to
give a graceful whole. To my eye this is characteristic of
Holbein's figures from the 1520s until the end of his life.
I t is one of the artist's most prominent idiosyncracies,
and the Getty rider shares it, though he is not standing
on the ground.
I t should also be pointed out that the azurite blue back-
ground of the Getty painting was a color favored by Hol-
bein for many of his portraits and is more commonly used
by him as a background than any other color. I n addition,
the drawing revealed by infra-red photography under-
neath our picture (fig. 24) corresponds very well to what
we know of his style.
I f the Getty painting is by Holbein, it can also be dated
with reasonable accuracy. A ll of the drawings and paint-
ings that I have mentioned fall within a relatively short
period of the artist's life. The painting of Benedikt von
Hertenstein of 1517 with the rearing horse above is much
less developed than the others and is rather dissimilar in
technique. I t shares few stylistic parallels with our painting.
The two drawings for stained glass windows are datable
about 1518 and before 1524. The earliest painting with
which we can compare our own would be the two of M ag-
dalena O ffenburg dated 1526, when Holbein was still in
Basel. The N oli M e Tangere has been dated as early as 1524
and as late as 1532, with the general consensus placing it
during the late 1520s; it is probably to be dated after 1526
when Holbein went to E ngland. The D etroit portrait is
normally dated about 1534. The Portrait of S ir John God-
salve is placed during the mid 1530s. The various designs
for daggers, chimney pieces, etc. are impossible to date,
though they were certainly done in E ngland and generally
between 1536 and 1543.
I n the article below, pp. 39-44, John Fletcher will pre-
sent his arguments in favor of a date of 1526. Briefly, his
technical analysis of the panel leads him to believe that the
tree was felled in a period between 1515 and 1530. The ex-
ecution of the painting would have followed this within a
very few years. He also feels that the quality of the panel
itself and the presence of a stamp that might be from A n-
twerp indicate that it is likely to have come from that city.
His measurements of other panels have led him to believe
that Holbein's painting of N oli M e Tangere and three other
paintings by Holbein (two of them dated 1527 and 1528)
were all painted on panels cut from the same tree, or from
trees from the same grove. He therefore believes that all of
those panels originated in A ntwerp, although some, if not
most, of them were used in E ngland. S ince the Getty panel
has the same source and is stylistically compatible with the
others, it, too, can be assigned to Holbein.
I t is known that Holbein passed through A ntwerp on
his way from Basel to London in 1526; he remained in
the Flemish city for no more than six weeks, but he may
well have executed one or more paintings while there. D r.
Fletcher believes that a small, relatively fragile panel such
as the one used for the Getty portrait, would not have
been carried across the C hannel for use in E ngland. There-
fore he concludes that our panel was painted in A ntwerp
in 1526.
I do not find all of the details of this argument compel-
ling. I am not capable of judging whether or not the work-
manship of the Getty panel must necessarily mean it is
from A ntwerp, and certainly the stamp cannot yet be
taken as proof. However, if we assume the dates proposed
for the felling of the tree are correct and that the painting
was executed during the 1520s as D r. Fletcher suggests,
then I believe that the panel could just as well have been
brought to E ngland with the others. I f our panel could be
connected with a Rederijkerskamer-which it cannot-
that would be a strong reason to think that it was executed
in A ntwerp. But its early recorded presence in E ngland is
some reason to think that it may have been painted in
E ngland. The extensive parallels with other works by Hol-
bein certainly executed in E ngland also lead me to think
that the Getty panel is E nglish in origin.
I t is no more difficult to imagine how the Getty painting
might have come to be commissioned in E ngland than in
the Lowlands. A fter all, he spent most of his time there,
and there was no lack of patrons. There are a number of
E nglishmen, and one in particular, who can be suggested
as owners of the allegory. That one person is S ir Thomas
Wyatt (1503-1542), the famous statesman and writer who
belonged to precisely the same generation as Holbein. He
was an important member of the court of Henry VI I I and
Figure 24. I nfra-red photograph of fig. 1.
was an accused lover of A nne Boleyn. His family commis-
sioned much work from Holbein, and it is known that
Holbein painted portraits of S ir Thomas' father, S ir Henry,
as well as of his son, S ir Thomas Jr., and of S ir Thomas
himself. (The latter portrait is lost and is known only in
copies.)
The reason Wyatt is such an attractive candidate for the
original owner of the Getty allegory is the character of his
poetry. Wyatt was a writer of sonnets in the I talian style
and the most prominent of the many E nglish writers who
both translated and emulated Petrarch. The critic Putten-
ham, writing in 1589, describes Wyatt as one of those who
". . . having travailed in I talie and there tasted the sweet
and stately measures and stile of the I talian Poesie, as
novices newly crept out of the schooles of D ante, A rioste
and Petrarche, greatly pollished our rude and homely
maner of vulgar Poesie, from that it had been before."53
53. A rt of E nglish Poesie, 1589, reprinted in J. Haslewood, A ncient
C ritical E ssays, 1811, v. 1, p. 48.
38 Fredericksen
Wyatt wrote at least ten sonnets that were direct transla-
tions of Petrarch, and the bulk of his work shows the
strong influence of Petrarch and "Petrarchisme." Wyatt
would have been attracted to a motto like E C O S I D E S I O
M E M E N A . I t must be stated, however, that so far a
search of his writings has not revealed any special rever-
ence for the phrase.
A s concluded above, the Getty panel seems to date be-
tween the two paintings still in Basel, of 1526, and the
D etroit portrait of ca. 1534. Holbein was in E ngland from
1526 until 1528, when he returned to Basel. I n O ctober of
1531 he was still in Basel, but by the fall of the next year he
was again in London. I f our painting was executed in
E ngland, it would be during the period 1526/28, or 1532/34.
I am more inclined to the earlier dating.
There is one more reason, albeit not a very strong one,
for believing that our emblematical panel was painted by
Holbein. We have already seen that it belonged to Prince
Henry and probably later to Lord A rundel. This lineage is
of importance because it is well known that A rundel was
eager to collect the works of Holbein; he bought them or
made exchanges for them whenever he could. I n a letter of
1619, he describes himself as having a "foolish curiosity in
enquiringe for the peeces of Holbein."54 This obsession
with Holbein is adequately documented elsewhere, and
need not be repeated here. S uffice to say that the album of
portrait drawings came to him as a result of this passion, as
did a wide variety of other works by the artist. The Getty
panel may also have been acquired by A rundel in the same
manner as the drawings. By 1653, A rundel's grandson-or
at least Richard S ymonds, who visited his grandson-no
longer knew who the panel's author was. But its presence
in the A rundel collection, coupled with all of the other
indications accumulated above, helps us to advance the
attribution to Holbein with some conviction.
N o doubt the exact purpose of the Getty panel will
someday be found, and it may then be possible to learn
who it was that chose the motto E C O S I D E S I O M E M E N A .
The sentiment embodied in the allegory can also be taken
to typify the passion of later collectors who both owned it
and admired it. I t could stand for the desire of the Lord
A rundel to possess as many works by his favorite artist,
Holbein, as he could possibly buy, and it can stand for
our own desire to reconstruct and understand the works of
the past.55
The J. Paul Getty M useum
M alibu
54. Letter to D . C arleton, S eptember 17, 1619, quoted in M . Hervey,
op. cit., pp. 131-2.
55. Various people have been of help to me in the course of studying
this painting. I n particular John Fletcher of the Research Laboratory for
A rchaeology and the History of A rt at O xford University has made the
cause his own and pursued many paths of enquiry on his own volition.
A lthough I have not always agreed with his conclusions, I am most
grateful for his interest and assistance. O thers, such as George Goldner,
John Pope-Hennessy, John S hearman, and Gaby Kopelman have be-
lieved in the attribution and expressed their support. M iss Kopelman, for
instance, having worked on other paintings by Holbein, had no doubts
that the technique of our painting corresponded to the other works she
knew. Her encouragement was especially helpful.

E Cosi Desio Me Mena

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

E Cosi Desio Me Mena

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

E Cosi Desio Me Mena

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

E cosi desio me mena

Author(s): Burton B. Fredericksen

You might also like