Talk:Hans Holbein the Younger

Basic Edits

• user:Jfahler -- reworked the introduction and tried to do my best in the interest of the flow of the article. The article certainly needs work.
• user:Iconofiler -- Can someone qualified list some of the "recent exhibitions" or take out the (currently unproductive) sentence that mentions them?

Artcyclopedia link

• user:H.J. -- it is a very nice site and it should stay, because it is a good thing to support the arts and museums, in this case by spreading the knowledge about the artists, the paintings and some income for the museums
• JHK -- that is just a link to a commercial site, and doesn't really add anything to the article

Copyright

An earlier version of this article, contributed by user:H.J., was a rewording of this article. Lee Daniel Crocker suggested that it was "at least paraphrased sufficiently to avoid copyright problems".

Because of the importance (as generally agreed) of citing one's sources, Martin added an "earlier version" link to the article to avoid possible accusations of plagiarism.

Portrait

According to this website, the portrait shown is not a self-portrait by Holbein at all, but may have been a portrait done of him after his death by Lucas Horenbout.

The URL to the Wallace Collection websites page about the portrait minature og Hans Holbein the Younger made by Lucas Horenbout has been changed. It's here now: http://www.wallacecollection.org/c/w_a/t_m/m/2003_09.htm --Jorunn 20:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The Body of the Dead Christ in the Tomb

Should this article mention this particular work? As far as I am aware, it's a rather unique depiction.Editor437 23:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Knife fight

I've cut this for the moment, putting it here while I check on it further.

"...he was also charged with taking part in a knife fight."<ref>Wolf, 2004, p. 93</ref>

I haven't got Wolf. Buck says that Holbein was sentenced on 10 December 1517 for his part in a brawl in Lucerne. On the other hand, I am very surprised that the exhaustive biographer Derel Wilson makes no mention of this. Nor does Strong. Will check further. qp10qp (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Dealt with. Rowlands comes through with the details, now added. I've looked at Wolf on Google Books and he doesn't give a ref for the knife aspect, so I'm avoiding mention of the knife until I can corroborate it. qp10qp (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Getting close. North mentions a knife fight as a separate incident from the brawl, but gives no details of when/where it took place. qp10qp (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Great. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. (Don't worry, I don't mind talking to myself–just think I ought to document here my provisional removal of a referenced detail from the article.)qp10qp (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

I'm going to try to block in the raw facts of Holbein's life. After that, I'll go through (all being well and RL permitting) adding more about specific works of art, styles, religious and intellectuall background, etc. qp10qp (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything specific you need/want? - PKM (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This article's in basic shape now, just need to sharpen and simplify the prose and work on some image links and captions. I've been working on List of paintings by Hans Holbein the Younger as a backup to this page (hope to do an equivalent on the drawings eventually, but, whew, it's time consuming). My real problem is the miniatures and roundels, because I can't find or scan any as good as your Brandons (and the Mrs Small will be all right once I deframe it). I tend to blow them up a bit because real-scale miniatures are uncomfortably tiny, but that exposes the page print patterns and the limitations of my scanner. So if you can do any good miniature scans, that would be a help. The best roundel is File:Simon George, by Hans Holbein the Younger.jpg, because it was so big in the first place.

The only other need I can think of is that our images of Christina of Denmark are unsatisfactory in some way; the one in this main article at the moment is too printy and overblack in the gown. I've stood in awe in front of that painting at the National Gallery, but I can't for the life of me remember its precise colouring; I'm sure it's not as grey as another one on Commons, but also not as garishly green and yellow some of the ones in my books. I suspect it has a restrained but rich viridian greenness in the wall and a subtle mid-yellow-ochre floor. So, in short, if you are able to upload a superior version of Christina, I'd be eternally grateful, since it is essential to have one in the article. Many thanks for your interest: thank goodness I never tire of Holbein because this is all taking longer than I expected. qp10qp (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes those are almost as bad as the one on the NG website. I think you are right on the colours, though it is always an alarming experience to lug the catalogue into an exhibition & hold it up in front of the actual work. But it's no joke trying to match colours in print or digitally, especially when you can't see the screen & the original together, as I know from personal experience. Johnbod (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

INRI

The "INRI" inscribed on Tuke's crucifix is, according to scholars Bätschmann and Griener, "a magical prophylactic, intended to protect its owner against ill-health".[140] Magical prophylactic? I see. Is it an incantation? What dark secret meaning does it hold? Can anyone enlighten me? Mabe he was an asthmatic and he'd left his puffer in the draw beside the bed. In Need of Respiratoy Inhalant. Johnbo! Where are you? Amandajm (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

How very interesting! At about the time of this portrait, the pilgrimage took place from Northern England, protesting at the closure of the monastries. The Holy Wounds depicted on Tuke's cross were taken as their symbol. There may be more to this than meets the eye.

Anyway, B and G's pointlessly anti-Christian POV jibe offended me, and would have offended Tuke, so I editted out the "magical prophylactic" bit. Amandajm (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this interpretation goes back to John Oliver Hand, who showed the Five Wounds as part of an incantation on a ring. It probably needs to be cut in the end, though, as being too particularised. Such a challenge in this article to know when to particularise or dip beyond the standard images and interpretations (but I think it's important to do so here and there to ensure the Wikipedia article is distinct from the other trawls through Holbein's life and work on the net).

I plan to put the article up for Peer Review sometime, for a good raking through. First I need to put up loads more images on Commons, so readers have the opportunity to chase the art up without frustration. At least (almost) every work mentioned in the article has a sourced image on Commons now. Still plenty to do to make the coverage there thorough, and I'm slow at it. qp10qp (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The point is that "INRI" might be "used as part of" an incantation. But it is not, of itself, magical, prophylactic or an incantation. While the presence of the Five Wounds might suggest that the particular style of cross is being worn specifically to ward of ills, the inscription INRI does not. It signifies "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews", and is a normal feature of many crucifixes. To say that INRI is a "magical prophylactic", implying that this is its primary or only meaning is erroneous. The use of the word "magical" rather than "Christian" or "religious" also carries conotations that are completely unnecessary and out of place in this context.

Was Brian Tuke linked to the Pilgrimage of Grace as his display of the Five Wounds suggests?

Re pics. I will take a look through my repros of drawings.

Amandajm (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• INRI is also perhaps a rather scholarly touch at this date - looking at Schiller it seems to be far more common in German art than Italian. Johnbod (talk)

OK, the Tuke example is on my list to be excised and replaced by something else to illustrate the "private world of sitter" point. qp10qp (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I think replacing Tuke is unnecessary. Everything is fine now that the words "magical prophylactic" are removed. Amandajm (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Dance of Death/ Faces de la Mort

copied from my talk: ... trying to hunt down the exact details. The sources are so confusing, even on the sizes. Rumelin in Muller is saying "41 woodcuts by Hans Lutzelburger and Veit Specklin". Peter Parshall in Roskill says: "Holbein designed the Pictures of Death while still resident in Basel, and the earliest known impressions were printed from forty-one of the fifty-one blocks. This printing was probably done around 1525–26 once the majority had been cut. It also seems certain that the blocks were cut according to their intended sequence, save for the culminating images, which must have been made in advance in order to issue the first edition. I conclude this from the fact that the remaining ten blocks portray tradesmen and other figures from the lower classes, following a logical division of the estates". My problems in nailing this at the moment are: where are these ten images? I can't find them anywhere. They weren't published in the 1538 Les Simulacres & historiees faces de la mort, so can they rightly be counted as part of this work? I will be able to get a grip if I can find where/when they were published. We need a ref for the bit in the notes somewhere that the series was left incomplete by Lutzelburger's death and for the bit in the image description that Specklin completed them. Work in progress. (By the way, I am coming round to the idea of not primarily calling them Dance of Death anymore: recent scholars seem to be calling them "images" or "pictures" of Death, which is certainly justified by what they were called when published. What do you think?)qp10qp (talk)

The 1538 edition, and the later 1542 & 1545 had only Hans L's 41, but they had been done as prints before that (sometimes misleadingly called "proofs"). "Subsequent editions" had other ones (see weblink below). The Abbot is one of the 41. This from Bartrum,Giulia; German Renaissance Prints, 1490-1550; British Museum Press, 1995, ISBN 071412604 - # 232 a-p, (and Landau & Parshall). Her 16 exhibited go as low down the social scale as the Altman, Altweyb & Schiffman. There is more on the 1538 edn in Landau & Parshall. I thought combining the 2 notes on the matter might be better. but neither of these mention Specklin - Bartrum just says "by further woodcutters" (she talks of Specklin re the 91 decorative thingies by HH). But it seems clear Holbein did a set of 51, so the other 10 belong in the work - the 1538 preface mentions them & puffily says no other cutter was able to attempt them (Parshall 217). Both are happy using Dance of Death which I think is sufficiently well established by tradition, rightly or wrongly. How many extra? See here for a full list, or here for less handy details from the MMA. Parshall, 216 says there were 10 further Holbein designs, as mentioned in the 1538 preface, & Bartrum just says "further woodcuts, also designed by Holbein but cut by different block-cutters (H [Holstein] 99 (42-58)" - which is 16, 57 in total (H 99 (1) is the frontispiece perhaps). What Parshall has against the last 6 I don't know. 1538 edn, This and this (very odd notes) is what the book editions, with text, looked like (ie rather faint!) - the ones just with titles are I think always the single so-called "proof" impressions. Hope that helps! Johnbod (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a site here that's very good on all the copies by other artists, btw. [1]. Did you see I set off on a formschneider rampage & expanded Hans Lützelburger, as well as Jost de Negker and a new Hieronymus Andreae?Johnbod (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did see the Lützelburger: it's really useful! I need to check into this Specklin character now, who Rümelin credits with Lützelburger for the 41. Also, on a separate tack, Hans Herman, who seems to have cut this. qp10qp (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for all the links, which I've read through. I'm still not comfortable, though, because Müller's The Basel Years is exhaustively comprehensive and does not include any more images than the 41 (these include the Altman, Altweyb, Schiffman, and Astrologer—the last not titled in the "proof" form but published in 1538 with the other 40). None of the websites illustrate any of the further ones, as far as I can see (I'm dying to have a look). Wilson, like Rümelin in The Basel Years, only bothers with the 41; he says: "Here we consider the forty-one designs published in 1538. Seventeen further engravings appeared in later editions, some or all of which may not have been by Holbein's pen". Still looking into this. qp10qp (talk) 14:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The "full list" link above shows most - the highlighted ones. The authorship of the whole series used to be disputed, because the 1538 preface doesn't mention Holbein at all, only Hans L (& him not by name), but that's all over now. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Aha, didn't realise the red print was links. qp10qp (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting somewhere now. The pictures are fascinating (some obviously not Holbein but others plausibly so); the website does introduce them, though, by saying "These 12 new characters were probably not drawn by Holbein; an unknown artist must have added them to the original work". I've just read an article by Stephanie Buck in which she tries to analyse which of the (she also says 12) new pictures published by 1547 were based on Holbein compositions. She decides that seven were. The issue seems to be a matter of scholarly opinion. It is now easy to think of wordings to cover this in the article and image notes. The question of Specklin is a different matter, because Rümelin seems to think that he contributed to the original 41, not that he was necessarily the cutter of only later additions. He claims that his role has been for a long time a matter of dispute, but I've read some quite heavy-duty articles now and Specklin is hardly mentioned, so I think it will be safe to de-mention him: a catch-all phrase about possible other hands will cover all the images, core and late. But it does seem as if the 41 were probably finished before Lützelburger died. qp10qp (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Right - per Bartrum the 91 Holbein thingies used to be disputed between Specklin & Hans L, but are now mostly considered Specklin, with some by inferior hands. All these guys had assistants & stylistic judgements are very difficult beyond a judgement of quality (except if you have the actual block apparently, where individual technique is more evident). It would be good to have an article on them, now we have got so far - I was fascinated by the versions of them by other artists. Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I thought the soldier looked good. The wagoner is the one, I think, that the 1538 publisher said would be difficult—and I can see why, because that's a handful of a composition to woodcut. qp10qp (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, it's definitely on my Holbein list to do an article on this work: but I have to admit I tend to keep it at the bottom of the list, probably because the topic's intrinsically messy. Nothing seems agreed about it: precursors, meaning, dates, reasons for delayed publication, the lot. qp10qp (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Reformation

Is h was proponent of Reformation?--Vojvodaeist 09:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The article has plenty on this, though it's not conclusive. We have hardly any evidence of Holbein's religious position, other than deducible from the art. My opinion is that business came first with Holbein, that he went with the flow, and that as a result he gradually did become a Reformation artist. qp10qp (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Picture "Ambassador" Problem

it appears that there is a streched picture of a skull overlaying the picture of the two ambassadors. i did not know if that was supposed to be there, because does not look like it matches the rest of the picture, or the artist's style.Balance of paradox (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

@Balance of paradox Nope, that's in the original. Creedweber (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Unclear sentence

A sentence in the second paragraph is unclear: "At first, he painted murals and religious works, designed stained glass windows and printed books." Did he print books or did he design printed books? If he printed books, then we need a comma after "windows." If he designed printed books, then we don't want a comma, but we need to eliminate the ambiguity, which we can do by writing, "designed stained glass windows as well as printed books." Also, do we need "printed" if he designed books? Could he have designed handwritten books, making it necessary for us to used "printed" to indicate that he did not design handwritten books? Maurice Magnus (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

He designed some of the illustrations of a printer in Basel. I do not remember having read that he printed books, but that he was very close with a printer family this is a fact. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the book printing and replaced it with that he designed illustrations for a book printer Paradise Chronicle (talk) 03:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)