This
has happened before and now it happens again. A visit to a museum
which was originally a private collection leads to something wholly
unexpected. Three years ago, it was the Gulbenkian Museum in Lisbon,
where I saw Ghirlandaio’s Portrait
of a Young Woman
and thought, how did this come to be here in Lisbon and not in Rome
or Florence, or somewhere in Italy, or perhaps in the Louvre? And
now, visiting the Thyssen Bornemisza Museum in Madrid, I find myself
wondering the same thing, and this time it’s a painting I would
expect to find at the National Portrait Gallery in London.
I
see it across the room at a distance of several meters, and yet I
seem to feel its effect before I can begin to take in any detail. Can
it be that a Holbein portrait draws one in, pulls one forward? The
painting is Holbein’s 1536 portrait of Henry VIII. In his role
as a court artist, Holbein painted Henryseveral
times, but all the other surviving images of Henry are copies made
from Holbein’s originals. It was a common practice then;
courtiers wishing to demonstrate their fealty to the monarch
commissioned other artists to make a copy of any portrait favored by
the king and displayed this copy in their homes in anticipation of a
royal visit, so that the king might see his own image on display.
This painting here in Madrid is unique because it’s the only
surviving portrait of Henry from Holbein’s own hand. It’s
commonly understood that this portrait was a preparatory study for a
larger full-length portrait for which we now have only a copy because
the original was lost in the great Whitehall fire in 1698.
It’s
aa arresting portrait. Henry’s clothing is rich in texture and
depicted in great detail — the fine silk and the intricate
embroidery, and each hand showing a precious jewel. But all this is
beside the point; it’s his face that draws us in and we stare
at him and he stares right back. He is forty-five years old and has
already been injured in a fall from his horse, an injury that will
plague him for the rest of his life and which, by some historical
speculation, gave him a concussion from which he never recovered and
which accounted for his increasing irascibility and unpredictable
temper, a temper evident in his stare, almost a glower. The jeweled
hat hides his increasing baldness, and the fullness of his face, the
incipient jowls, have perhaps been minimized. Holbein knew how to
flatter but not too much.
Holbein’s
Henry VIII portrait makes a striking impression for another reason, a
rather subtle reason which I would have missed completely if I had
neglected the adjacent portrait along the wall with itsbrief
description card. This next portrait shows a young girl with red
hair, a fresh complexion, and a serious mien, as if she were thinking
of the afterlife, or perhaps simply contemplating a fate beyond her
control. Scholars believe this is the work of Holbein’s near
contemporary, Juan de Flanders. It’s his 1496 portrait of a
young girl, Catherine of Aragon, aged eleven and already engaged to
marry Arthur, Prince of Wales. Arthur’s early death and
Catherine’s subsequent marriage to his younger brother, Henry,
and their marital life of twenty-some years with its turbulent end in
the most consequential divorce of its time is a tale that needs no
re-telling here. But it may be noted that her Hapsburg uncle Carlos
V, King of Spain and Holy Roman Emperor, insisted on the legitimacy
of Catherine’s marriage to Henry. And so the juxtaposition of
Catherine’s portrait with Henry’s here in a museum in
Madrid is a statement that brims with wit and irony, because Henry’s
portrait was painted in 1536, the same year he ordered the execution
of Anne Boleyn, the woman for whom he cast aside his Spanish queen.
How
did these two paintings come to be here, next to each other?
Fortunately, the provenance of both paintings is well established.
Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza acquired the de Flanders portrait of
Catherine from the Duque del Infantado in 1930, at the beginning of
the Great Depression, a time when financial distress resulted in the
sale and transfer of many works of art. As for the Holbein painting
of Henry, this hung on the wall for many years at Althorp House in
Northamptonshire, the Spencer family home. Then in 1934,
Thyssen-Bornemisza acquired Holbein’s portrait of Henry when
the 7th Earl of Spencer, needing cash, decided to sell some of the
family’s art collection. Thus, these acquisitions were separate
events, and we cannot confidently say they were purchased with the
intent of hanging them together so that visitors familiar with the
controversial marriage and divorce might contemplate Carlos V having
the last word. But I like to think some Spanish curator with an
impish sense of humor saw the possibility of making a statement.
But
surely some British patron of the arts must have seen the portrait of
Henry as a work of national significance, a worthy candidate for the
National Portrait Gallery. Has no one raised the notion of asking the
Spanish authorities to intercede in recognition of its British
patrimony and bring about its return? True, the possession of the
Elgin marbles at the British Museumputs
the British in a poor position to demand the return of a national
treasure, but couldn’t the British at least make a decent
offer? Spain might not necessarily hand it back as a beau
geste,
but perhaps a financial inducement commensurate to its worth might
bring about its return.
On
the other hand, reflecting on the underlying unfortunate episode in
Anglo-Spanish relations and Henry’s ill treatment of the
long-suffering Catherine, and in recognition of the rightness of
Catherine’s cause, perhaps the Spanish might prefer to have the
last word and keep both paintings where they are, side by side.
Politics, bitterness, arrogance and anger and a disregard for common
justice may have torn these two lives apart, but these two paintings
can place them where they ought to be — together again.
Contact
Giles
(Unless
you
type
the
author's name in
the subject
line
of the message we
won't know where to send it.)