The Hampton Court Painting of the Field of Cloth of Gold Considered as an Historical Document

The Antiquaries Journalhttp://journals.cambridge.org/ANT

Additional services for The Antiquaries Journal:

Email alerts: Click hereSubscriptions: Click hereCommercial reprints: Click hereTerms of use : Click here

The Hampton Court Painting of the Field of Cloth of Gold Considered as an Historical Document

Sydney Anglo

The Antiquaries Journal / Volume 46 / Issue 02 / September 1966, pp 287 307DOI: 10.1017/S0003581500053312, Published online: 29 November 2011

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0003581500053312

How to cite this article:Sydney Anglo (1966). The Hampton Court Painting of the Field of Cloth of Gold Considered as an Historical Document. The Antiquaries Journal, 46, pp 287307 doi:10.1017/S0003581500053312

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/ANT, IP address: 128.250.144.144 on 09 Mar 2013

THE HAMPTON COURT PAINTING OF THE FIELDOF CLOTH OF GOLD CONSIDERED AS AN

HISTORICAL DOCUMENT

By SYDNEY ANGLO

ON 29th March 1770, Sir Joseph Ayloffe, Vice-President of the Society of Anti-quaries, read a learned paper to his colleagues on a painting, then at WindsorCastle and now preserved at Hampton Court, depicting the interview of June 1520between Henry VIII and Francis I at the Field of Cloth of Gold.1 Ayloffe pre-sented a long and minutely circumstantial account of the painting, which, in viewof the considerable deterioration of the canvas over the last 200 years, is of inestim-able value for details concerning colour and design. He also compared the paintingwith such documentary evidence as was available at the time, and concluded thatit was an accurate representation of major features of the Anglo-French interview.Since Ayloffe's time a mass of contemporary descriptive source material has cometo light, and it has even been thought that the profusion of seemingly inconsistentdetails relating to the Field of Cloth of Gold renders impossible any attempt toreconcile the documentary records either one with another or with the pictorialrepresentation.2 However, a close examination of the sources reveals several funda-mental consistencies which enable us to reconstruct, with reasonable certitude, boththe scene and the events at the Field of Cloth of Gold: and this synthesis may beused to check the value and authenticity of the Hampton Court painting as anhistorical document.

The picture (pi. L), recognized as the work of several hands, is a composition bothin space and time. Indeed, Ayloffe maintained that it might 'as properly be styleda picturesque map as an historical picture'. It is set within an area encompassedby a triangle drawn between Calais, Guisnes, and Ardres, and depicts the mainEnglish procession to the interview of Thursday, 7th June; the actual meetingbetween the two kings within a pavilion set in the Val d'Or; a single episode fromthe tilting which took place on various days between n t h and 19th June;the flying dragon firework which appeared on 23rd June; and the English tempo-rary palace and fountains which stood triumphant throughout the festival.3 The

1 Sir Joseph Ayloffe,'An Historical Description don Brown; / Diarii di Marino Sanuto, ed. F.of an ancient Painting in Windsor Castle', Archaeo- Stefani; Calendar of Letters and Papers, Foreignlogia, iii (1786), 185-229. An engraving of the and Domestic of the Reign of Henry VIII, ed. J. S.painting by Basire, after a water-colour copy by Brewer; Chronicle of Calais, ed. J. G. NicholsEdwards, was published by the Society of Anti- (Camden Society, 1846); and The Rutland Papers,quaries in 1774. See, for the history and literature ed. W. Jerdan (Camden Society, 1842).of this painting, O. Millar, The Tudor, Stuart, and 3 For a general account of this international courtEarly Georgian Pictures in the Collection of Her festival see my article, 'Le camp du drap d'or etMajesty the Queen (London, 1963), no. 25. les entrevues d'Henri VIII et de Charles Quint',

2 Particularly valuable have been the publication Fites et cMmonies au temps de Charles Quint, ed.of the Calendar of State Papers, Venetian, ed. Raw- J. Jacquot (Paris, i960), pp. 113-32.

288 THE ANTIQUARIES JOURNAL

painting abounds with a variety of other interesting details; but here we are consideringthe work as an historical document, and discussion must be limited to those featuresalone which may be checked against other documentary sources. There are foursuch aspects. First is the topography of the painting both in its general dispositionof the area between Calais, Guisnes, and Ardres, and, more particularly, in itsrendering of the town and castle of Guisnes. Second is the elaborate temporarypalace which looms so large in all the written accounts of the festivals, and whichoccupies so important a place in the pictorial composition. Third is the great pro-cession of Henry VIII to the royal interview. And, finally, there are the lists withinwhich the tournament, forming the chivalric focal point of the entertainments, tookplace.1

TOPOGRAPHY

The artists' topography, when checked against both modern and Henricianmaps, seems wilfully inaccurate. All geographical truths are sacrificed to the causeof effective design. Guisnes and Ardres were the two towns forming the boundariesof the Anglo-French interview, and the artists have depicted the former in theforeground on the left and the latter, in the distance, beyond the lists. On the leftof the picture, due north of Guisnes, dramatically rising out of the flood waters, isthe castle of Hammes; while due north of that castle, mistily set on the very horizon,are the spires and towers of Calais. The trouble is that, although Hammes wasalmost due south of Calais, Guisnes was south-south-east of Hammes, whileArdres was again south-east of Guisnes. Thus, if, from the relationship betweenGuisnes and Calais, we assume that the artists were viewing the scene from thesouth-east, then neither Hammes nor Ardres should have been visible—a situationwhich may best appear from the accompanying sketch map showing the plan of thepainting as compared with the actual disposition of the towns (fig. i).

More serious still are discrepancies in the artists' version of Guisnes Castle. Ascan be seen from the accompanying map (pi. LII a), drawn late in Henry VIII'sreign, the castle of Guisnes was on the north side of the town, that is towardsCalais.2 But the painting shows the castle to the south of the town. Of course,such wilful misrepresentation was demanded by the exigencies of composition, and

1 The personal interview between the kings, du Bella/, Mimoires, ed. Michaud and Poujoulat,though depicted within a pavilion, as it should be, ibid., p. 131; Edward Hall, Chronicles, ed. H. Ellisis very much an idealized conception and does not (London, 1809), p. 610; Gonzaga Archives,admit ofany worth-while comparison with the docu- Mantua, Busta 85.B.XXXHI.10, fols. 195—8 .̂ Mostmentary sources—these are, themselves, very im- sources describe the pavilion as of cloth of gold,precise on this particular matter. The following though one Italian says that it was 'una paviglionesources all mention the actual meeting, the heart- d'oro in cremexin' (Sanuto, xxix, col. 20); andless embracing, and the discussion which took place: another has it 'di brochato in campo de cremesi'La Description et Ordre du Camp Festins et Joustes (Gonzaga Archives, torn, cit., fol. 195). See my(Paris, 1520); Lordonnance et Ordre du Tournoy 'Le camp du drap d'or etc.', p. 120, and plate vm,Ioustes et Combat a Pied et a Cheval(Paris, 1520); reproducing B.M. Cotton. MS. Augustus III,Cat. S.P. Fen. iii, 50, 60, 67-71, 89; Les Mimoires no. 18.de Fleuranges, ed. Michaud and Poujoulat in the 2 See B.M. Cotton. MS. Augustus I, ii, nos. 12,Nouvelle Collection des Mimoires pour servir a 23, 52, 57B, 71.I'Histoire de France, v (Paris, 1838), p. 70; Martin

PAINTING OF THE FIELD OF CLOTH OF GOLD 289

is to be expected in a work exalting the pomp and power of the English King inFrance. Rather more noteworthy, perhaps, is the fact that the painting has onlya general resemblance to contemporary drawings and plans of Guisnes Castle. Themoat, and the main tower with its conical foundation, are depicted, but everythingelse seems different. Particularly striking is the contrast between the simple castleentrance through which the English procession marches in the picture, and the

Fie. 1. First the fact, then the fiction

elaborate system of turrets and towers best studied in contemporary plans suchas those preserved among the Cottonian Manuscripts at the British Museum.

Such topographical inexactitude need, however, only shake our confidence inthe painting as a composition in space. Clearly, had the artists rendered the pre-scribed geographical area more exactly, then their composition would have hadto be radically altered. To keep the castle in the foreground would necessitatemoving Guisnes to the right side of the canvas and Ardres to the left; while Hammesand Calais (other key English possessions in France) could not have been shown atall. On the other hand, the discrepancies in the castle itself cannot be due to thedemands of the design, and argue that the artists responsible must, at best, havebeen working from memory, or from generalized sketches of the fortifications.

THE PALACE

To contemporary observers the most noteworthy feature of the Field was theEnglish temporary palace which, according to one Italian admirer, could not havebeen bettered by Leonardo himself.1 It was erected 'aux portes de Ghines, assezproche du chasteau', just by the bridge which crossed the moat;2 and this is

1 Cal. S.P. Fen. iii, 88.2 Fleuranges, p. 69; Cal. S.P. Fen. iii, 60, 69.

Joachino, it must be noted, writes that the palace

was in the midst of a large square, surrounded bya moat—he is the only observer to mention this.

290 T H E ANTIQUARIES JOURNAL

well-depicted in the painting which shows the bridge, in the very centre of the com-position, leading from the castle gates to the English House. Descriptions suppliedby Venetian, Mantuan, and French observers, and by Edward Hall, are very inexactand confusing with regard to the actual plan of the palace, but there seems to begeneral agreement that the building was roughly square in shape and comprisedfour separate sections. The pamphlet, published shortly after the interview byJean Lescaille, mentions 'quatre grans corps de maison'. Hall writes that 'thepalays was quadrant, and euery quadrant of the same palays was iii.C.xxviii. footelonge of a syse, which was in compasse. xiii.C. and xii. foote aboute'.1 A Genoesecommentator, Gioan Joachino, describes the palace as being well-nigh square withfour ranges of connected buildings.2 Another Italian mentions four distinct sectionsto the English building; and, finally, Count Alexandro Donado, after describingthe large hall entered via the gateway, states that this occupied one-fourth of thebuilding, and that the rest was divided into divers corridors, chambers, and closets.3

The key to this problem of four separate sections within a quadrant is to be foundin the correspondence of the English Commissioners supervising the buildingworks.4 From their letters it becomes clear that the ground floor, consisting of wine-cellars and rooms for the household officers, was set within a quadrant each side ofwhich was about 300 feet in length and formed by brick walls 8 feet in height.5

Above these walls, which stood upon a stone foundation, was raised the main storeyarranged in four blocks each looking on to an interior courtyard, open to the sky.Indeed, such an atrium is suggested in the painting where the roofs certainly slopedown inwards as well as outwards. Two of the ranges of buildings were given overto apartments for the royal entourage: on one side those for Henry and Wolsey,and on the other those for Queen Katharine and for Henry's sister, Mary. Theother two ranges consisted first of the main gateway together with a chapel and twooratories, and, secondly, a large banquet hall.6

1 Lordonnance, Hall, p. 605. various eyewitness estimates of the height of the2 Cal. S.P. Ven. iii, 60. Joachino's dimensions brick foundation wall are as follows: Cal. S.P. Ven.

are very confusing since they suggest an oblong iii, no. 50 gives 4 feet; no. 60 gives 15 feet; no. 69ground-plan, not a square. He says that, of the four gives about 3 paces; no. 83 gives 18 feet; no. 88connected ranges of buildings, two were 160 paces gives about 12 feet.in length opposite each other, and two were of 80 6 Lordonnance tells us that the brick walls werepaces; each range measuring 30 paces in depth. built upon a stone foundation: 'Les fondemens

3 Cal. S.P. Ven. iii, 88, 83. sont de pierre, et les murailles de brique'. It is4 Chron. of Calais, pp. 79-85, for the text of the impossible to reconstruct the exact disposition of

Commissioners' letters of 26th March, 10th April, the apartments and halls in this building, but the18th May. Another letter dated 21st May is in following account, based on the Commissioners'the Public Record Office, S.P. 1/20, fol. 77 (L.P. letters and eyewitness evidence, reconciles most ofin. i, 825, where this letter is said, wrongly, to be the divergencies, and indicates the general arrange-printed in Chron. of Calais). ment. On the left of the principal entry were three

5 Chron. of Calais, p. 82: 'There ys set up at chambers for Wolsey, adjoined by three largerGuysnes in bryke warke viij. fote above the apartments for the king; and on the right weregrownde, the kinges lodging, the quenes lodging, three apartments for Henry's sister, Mary, to-and bothe your lodging [i.e. Wolsey's] and the gether with three for Queen Katharine. These con-Frenche qwenes dowagers'. For the dimensions of stituted two ranges of buildings, which flanked athe various apartments see the Commissioners' letter central section consisting of the main gatehouse andof 26th March, Chron. of Calais, pp. 79-80. The connected structures. This gateway gave on to an


The walls above the brickwork were about 30 feet in height and fashioned ofcloth or canvas mounted upon timber frames. They were painted, very cunningly,to resemble stone or brickwork and, it was said, seemed to be that which they werenot, and were that which they did not appear to be.1 A remarkable feature of thepalace was the large windows of an exceptionally fine white glass which, saysSoardino, the Mantuan ambassador to the French court, made the building sobright that it might almost have been open to the daylight—a remark repeated,inmuch the same words, by Joachino.2 From Fowler's works accounts at the PublicRecord Office, it appears that some 5,000 feet of glass was employed in the building—and employed to good effect, it would seem, for Fleuranges comments that it wasthe most beautiful glass that he had ever seen and that 'la moitid de la maison estoittoute de verrine; et vous asseure qu'il y faisoit bien clair',3 Above these windowswas a cornice surmounted by a frieze about 5 feet in width. At the time whenJoachino described the structure, the frieze was still unadorned but, he thought,destined to be filled either with paintings or inscriptions; and subsequently we learnfrom other observers that the space was decorated 'a l'antique', with gilt foliage orleaf-work.4 The roof, frequently commented upon by the observers, was slanting and,though set with solid stone chimney pieces, was really of oiled cloth painted leadcolour to resemble slates—again a simulation of the permanent by the temporary.s

The entire palace was crenellated and embattled with round towers at eachcorner; and, in the centre, was the foregate arched with 'great and mighty masonry. . . with a tower on euery syde of the same porte rered by great crafte'.6 Thesetowers were built entirely of real brick pierced with loop-holes, and, says Joachino,entrance hall running along the ground floor, and, Commissioners who write as though this hall wasdirectly facing the gateway, a shallow stairway lead- separate from the rest (Chron. of Calais, pp. 79-80).ing to an upper entrance hall. The central section • Cal. S.P. Fen. iii, 60. Cf. the more practicalincluded the square 'hault plase' mentioned by the reactions of a Welsh chronicler, present at the royalCommissioners as 'sett betwene the kinges lodging interviews, who reckoned that despite its fineand the queenes'. All these chambers, except for the appearance the English palace must have been chillygatehouse and lower entrance hall, were built upon and uncomfortable: see Thomas Jones, 'Disgrifiadthe main floor, resting on the brick walls which Elis Gruffudd o'r Cynadleddau a fu rhwng Harrienclosed the ground floor of the palace. Within VIII a'r Ymherodr Siarl V a rhyngddo a Ffransesthese walls, running beneath the level of the main I, Brenin Ffrainc, yn 1520', Bulletin of the Boardapartments, was a special gallery from the king's of Celtic Studies, xviii (1958-60), p. 322.chambers to the queen's—made 'undre the flore 2 Gonzaga Archives, torn, cit., fol. 183^, wherefor lake of stuffe' (CAron. of Calais, p. 80). The Soardino writes that the windows gave 'vna clari-Commissioners intended to cast the whole palace tade, come se fusse al discoperto'. Cf. Cal. S.P.'aftyr a square courte', with the exception of a chapel Fen. iii, 60, where Joachino says that the windowsand one gallery—suggesting that this chapel, over- gave so much light that it was like being in the open,looked by two oratories, projected into the interior 3 Fleuranges, p. 69.court, and was approached by a small gallery from 4 Soardino, in Gonzaga Archives, torn, cit., fol.the 'hault plase'. This view is corroborated in a 183^, writes of 'un cornisone molto bello dorato:letter from Soardino (Gonzaga Archives, torn, cit., et fac 'a a fogliami intorno'. Lordonnance, morefols. 183—7 ,̂ calendared briefly in Cal. S.P. Fen. generally, mentions 'la couuerture paincte a lan-iii, 94). The central section and its appendages must tique'.have constituted the third range of buildings. The s Cal. S.P. Fen. iii, 60, 83; Gonzaga Archives,fourth range can only have been the large banquet- torn, cit., fol. 183^ (this section calendered in Cal.ing hall which all witnesses regard as part of the S.P. Fen. iii, 94).main palace—despite the confusing evidence of the 6 Hall, p. 605.


surmounted by battlements defended by statues of armed men in the act of dis-charging stones from their 'scapetti', and iron balls from cannons and culverins.Donado mentions well-made wooden statues of wild men with hand-guns, stones,and cross-bows, placed in the various niches around the building. Lescaille'spamphlet describes the great entrance to the English House more generally—'lesentrees de ladicte maison estoient en fason des entrees des grans chasteaulx, Et audessus des portes y paressoient plusieurs gens armez comme silz vouloient deffendrelentree par force*. But further detail of the decoration of this gate and its towers isgiven by Hall who says that it was set 'with compassed images of auncient Prynces,as Hercules, Alexander and other by entrayled woorke, rychely lymned with goldeand Albyn colours'.

The painting at Hampton Court renders much of this detail very faithfully(pi. LI). It depicts the main frontage of a rectangular building with walls,resembling plain stone rather than the brickwork mentioned by most writers,raised above a solid-looking plinth of red brick. These walls are castellatedthroughout their length and are fortified at each corner, as on either side of theforegate, by a round tower built of brick and pierced with the 'finestrate' described byJoachino. Within the top of each tower are statuesque figures of men holdinggreat stones poised above their heads, as though in the act of hurling them downupon attackers. These figures accord well with a passage in Hall, describingimages 'resemblynge men of warre redy to caste greate stones'. They do not,however, correspond to the other heavily-armed figures mentioned by the Italiansand confirmed by Hall in a later passage, where he writes that 'the tower of the gateas semed, was buylded by greate masonry, and by great engyne of man's wit, forthe sundry countenaunces of euery image that their appered, some shotyng, sumcastyng, sume ready to strike, and firyng of gonnes whiche shewed very honorably'.1

On the other hand, the picture clearly shows the frieze which runs, as the writerstestify that it should, between the windows and the cornice under the battlements;and the flourishing, stylized floral motif shown in the painting accords perfectlywith the written descriptions of antique leaf work. The windows, too, correspondvery closely with those, described by Joachino, as being divided solely by woodenpilasters representing columns. The painting of the roof is also an impressivelyexact rendering of what seems to have been the reality, despite the inclusion of aroyal beast, not mentioned by observers, at each of the four angles. The simulatedslanting slate covering is clearly shown; and four square chimney stacks of brick-work correspond to the stone stacks mentioned by Donado.

There are, however, noteworthy deviations. The foundation of solid brickworkis strikingly depicted, and its scale in relation to the canvas wall above is approxi-mately correct—that is 8 feet to about 30 feet—although the scale provided by the

1 Hall, p. 605. Another feature worthy of note is ments, but unlike the round towers, terminate inthat the painting depicts, on either side of the gateway, a projecting, moulded cornice. Each of these squaretwo sets of double transome windows each separated towers contains two figures poised in the act offrom the other by a square, plain stone (as contrasted casting down stones. The square towers are notwith brick) tower. These towers, like the round mentioned in any surviving source,ones, are continued above the ordinary wall battle-

m&

3mm

wm<

?m%

^mw.

*-m

m-

(Rep

rodu

ced

by G

raci

ous

Per

mis

sion

of

Her

M

ajes

ty

the

Que

en)

The

Ham

pton

Cou

rt P

aint

ing

of th

e Fi

eld

of C

loth

of

Gol

d

PLATE LI THE ANTIQUARIES JOURNAL

(Reproduced by Gracious Permission of Her Majesty the Queen)

The English Palace and Fountains, and the Lists

T H E ANTIQUARIES JOURNAL PLATE L I I

a. Map of the Marches of Calais (B.M. Cotton MS. Augustus I, ii 71)

{Reproduced by Gracious Permission of Her Majesty the Queen)

b. Guisnes Castle, and the English Procession of 7th June 1520


figures standing within the gateway and in front of the palace suggest that theeight foot wall is not represented. More significant than this question of the scaleof the wall is the lack of detail shown. Joachino, when describing the compart-ments, cellars, kitchens, and offices within these brick walls, makes particularmention of windows set with fine gratings, arched, and seemingly made of ironbut, in reality—like so much else in this palace—fashioned of painted wood. Thesedecorative windows, he continues, were so well and uniformly placed that theyadded to the grace of the entire building.1 But this striking feature is not indicatedin the painting.

Even more serious are the discrepancies, between the written accounts and thepainting, encountered in the representation of the main gateway. Hall, as we haveseen, mentions a decoration of 'auncient Prynces, as Hercules, Alexander and other';but the painting shows none of these. Instead it has a set of allegorical figureswhich finds no mention whatever in the chroniclers of the scene. Upon the key-stone of the arch stands a winged male figure wearing a skull-cap decorated with asmall cross. In his right hand he grasps a long-shafted cross, and in his left he hasa shield resting upon a dragon lying stretched out at his feet. Sir Joseph Ayloffeconjectured that these figures are emblematical of Henry's 'new acquired title ofDefender of the Faith'.2 Of course, since this title was not officially bestowed untilOctober 1521, such a figure could not have been employed at the Field of Clothof Gold, though the artists might subsequently have included an allusion of thiskind as a compliment to Henry. Unfortunately, the figure corresponds so closelyto the standard representation of St. Michael that it is difficult to resist the conclusionthat we see here the image which, in fact, surmounted Francis I's ill-fated pavilionoutside Ardres, and that, in this detail, the artists have simply bungled.3 On eitherside of this equivocal figure is a large union rose of York and Lancaster; and a greatfestoon of laurel leaves, supported by an ornamental banner, surmounts both rosesand the image. Above these ornaments is a crowned shield of the royal arms,supported by a golden lion and red dragon. On one side of these armorials, set onthe cornice which continues over the gateway, is the letter H, and on the other sideis the letter R. The upper part of the shield stands out against a concave, semi-circular pediment fluted like a scallop shell and bordered by another cornicerepeating the flourishing motif of the main frieze. At the apex of this cornice isanother figure standing upon a dragon. AylofFe has no hesitation in proclaimingthis to be St. George who would, at least, have been appropriate for the Englishroyal palace, despite his absence from the written accounts. From behind thescalloped pediment rises a further tower—though it is hard to tell whether it isreally placed in the centre of the roof, as AylofFe maintains, or is meant to be partof the gateway. It is an hexangular structure terminating in a moulded corniceand conical pedestal. About the cornice are four royal beasts bearing armorial

1 Cal. S.P. Fen. iii, 60. No other observer men- 3 For Francis I's pavilion see La Description;tions this feature, though Soardino does mention Lordonnance; Fleuranges, p. 69; Du Bellay, p. 132;the offices, and, in particular, praises the wines Hall, p. 607; Cal. S.P. Fen. iii, 60, 69, 80, 83;stored therein. Soardino in Gonzaga Archives, torn, cit., fol. 186

2 AylofFe, Archaeologia, iii, 203. (this section is very inadequately calendared).


vanes; and surmounting the pedestal is a winged female figure trampling upon yetanother dragon transfixed by a long-shafted cross. Ayloffe postulates that all thisis emblematical of Religion; but it is difficult to see sufficient detail to establish thisinterpretation with any confidence.1 Certainly there is no mention of any suchfigure in the written accounts.

Indeed, it does seem odd that this entire set of images, so striking and so domin-ant in the painting, should not have been mentioned by eyewitnesses at the Fieldof Cloth of Gold. One would expect Hall to describe such figures in detail—hadthey existed—and certainly he could not have misinterpreted them as classicalheroes. On the other hand, certain features of the gateway in the painting do cor-respond to the written accounts. Especially noteworthy is its similarity to Joa-chino's description of the two flanking round towers, as high as the palace, builtentirely of brick, pierced with loop-holes, and surmounted by battlements defendedby statues of armed men. Here the only difference is in the nature of the armamentsemployed by the defenders. All else corresponds exactly. Interesting, too, are thelarge moulded roses shown in the painting. It has sometimes been suggested thatthese are mentioned in the letters of the English Commissioners who waxed wrathat the dilatory artists, and hoped that the king would not be 'disappointed of hisroses'. Unhappily, this interpretation can be traced to a mistranscription in theCalendar of Letters and Papers of Henry VIII. The word should be rofes—and sodoes not throw any light upon the ornaments in the painting.2 There is, however,mention of gilt roses adorning the English palace, in a letter by Soardino who writesthat they were a most beautiful sight to see.3 So that, perhaps, even in this detailthe artists are not too wide of the mark.

Outside the main gateway, according to the documentary sources, at a distanceof about twelve paces, were erected two fountains. The first of these was of:

enbowed woorke, gylte with fyne golde, and bice, ingrayled with anticke woorkes, the oldeGod of wyne called Bacchus birlyng the wyne, whiche by the conduyctes in therth ranne to allpeople plenteously with red, white, and claret wyne, ouer whose hedde was written in lettersof Romayn in gold, f aide bonne chere quy vouldra.

The second, on the other side of the gate, was a pillar:

of auncient Romayne woorke borne with iiii Lyons of golde, the pyllers wrapped in a wretheof golde curiously wroughte and intrayled, and on the sommet of thesayde pyller stode animage of the blynde God Cupide with his bowe and arrowes of loue redy by his semyng, toStryke the younge people to loue.

This sumptuous description by Hall is fully corroborated by other observers, andthe two columns are magnificently illustrated in the painting.* The Bacchus foun-

1 In any case there seems to be no emblematic of Calais, p. 84.tradition associating such a figure of Religion with 3 Gonzaga Archives, torn, cit., fol. 183^.a dragon. The principal animal associated with 4 Hall, p. 605. Hall doesn't make it clear thatReligion was the elephant which, being deemed the the Cupid pillar was a fountain: but this is apparentmost religious of creatures, and a pachyderm to from other witnesses. Cf. La Description; Lordon-boot, would certainly not have been transfixed with nance; Cal. S.P. Fen. iii, 50, 60, 83; Gonzagaa cross. Archives, torn, cit., fol. 185^.

2 L.P. in. i, 750. Cf. the transcript in Chron.


tain, usually described as the more elaborate of the pair, is shown to the left of thegateway (that is to the right of the painting), and stands, as in the written accounts,at some short distance from the building itself. It is raised upon an ascent of twoshallow steps upon which is built an octangular basement storey faced with marble,and ending in a projecting embattled parapet. From this arise three cruciformstoreys of diminishing size; and the whole structure is completed by a bell-shapedhexangular roof with an image of Bacchus sitting astride a tun and drinking winefrom a shell which he grasps in his right hand. From the tun flows red wine letdown, through lion-head masks affixed to the panels of each storey, into the reser-voirs concealed behind projecting, moulded cornices. At last the wine issues fromthe masks of the basement storey where it is greedily collected by a riotous bandof waiting revellers. The other fountain stands to the right of the great entrance,and consists of an hexangular pillar mounted upon a double hexangular plinth.This pillar, faced with marble inlaid with a florid white scroll-work, terminates ina cornice and embattled parapet behind which is concealed a reservoir. Withinthis reservoir is a cylindrical column of white marble, ornamented with lion-headmasks pouring forth red wine. The whole structure is surmounted by a figure ofCupid holding a bow in his left hand.

In general, it can be seen that the painting of the fountains accords well with theother records. But there are two minor omissions to note: first, the painting givesno indication of the inscription which should have been above Bacchus's head; andsecondly, in the painting, the pillar with Cupid is not 'borne with iiii Lyons ofgolde', as Hall says it was—though the lion-head masks appear to be four innumber. A further inconsistency is seen in the actual structure of the Cupidfountain which, if really built in the form shown here, could have served no practicalfunction, since there are no conduits at the base of the column. There are, indeed,no outlets whatever within reach of the people below who, in contrast to the drunkengroup about Bacchus, show scant interest in the wine bubbling forth far abovetheir heads.

Concerning the exterior of the English temporary palace, there is one furtherstriking omission from the painting. Hall makes special mention of a corridor, orpassage way, leading from the palace to Guisnes Castle. It was, he writes, a gallery'for the secrete passage of the kynges persone into a secrete lodgyng within thesameCastle the more for the kynges ease'.1 A Venetian observer describes it as a cor-ridor through which the king could pass to and fro at his pleasure; and Joachinoestimates its length as being about 400 paces. Lescaille, too, has a very fancifulaccount in which he likens the passage to the labyrinths of myth and legend:

pour aller de lune desdictes portes iusques au chasteau du guynes y auoit vne allee faicte etcouuerte de verdure, laquelle estoit difficile comme la maison de dedalus, ou le iardin de morguela fee du temps des chevaliers errans.

Yet no such spectacular covered-way is indicated in the Hampton Court painting,

• Hall, p. 606. Cf. Chron. of Calais, p. 80, the queene, and you [Wolsey] to the brige of thewhere the Commissioners write of 'an other galerye castell'.made owte of the queenes loging to bring the kynge,


though it would have been a simple matter to show it between the palace and thecastle of Guisnes.1

In general, however, the painting of the English House seems to agree on somany points with the written accounts that it may be regarded—despite omissions,additions, and discrepancies in details—as a valuable indication of the main featuresof the structure, even though it is clearly more a suggestive synthesis than adepiction of actuality.

THE PROCESSION

This temporary palace stood throughout the Field of Cloth of Gold and was thecentre of the English court festivities. It rightly has its place in the foreground ofthe painting. But it is balanced in the foreground, on the left, by an equallyarresting feature—this time of flesh and blood—that is the great English processionto the first personal interview between the monarchs, in the afternoon of Thursday,7th June 1520 (pi. LII b). There are, as one would expect, numerous descrip-tions of this cavalcade—all with apparently conflicting information concerning thenumbers, order of proceeding, and attire of the people involved. It is, nevertheless,possible to produce a reasonable synthesis of these accounts, which may profitablybe related to the version in the painting.

The picture shows, at the very head of the concourse, just marching over thebridge into the castle, a detachment of infantrymen with halberds. They are fol-lowed by several mounted men, more halberdiers, and then three ranks of foot-soldiers without weapons. Next ride several ranks of gentlemen amongst whom,in the first row, there are at least two servants of Wolsey. The middle figure is achaplain in black gown, holding aloft a long-shafted cross as symbol of the car-dinal's legatine authority, and to his left is another chaplain, clad in scarlet, carry-ing Wolsey's cardinal's hat upon a cushion. These two figures are flanked bygentlemen in black; while on the outside, on the right, is a figure in a loose-fittingpuffed garment of white linen. These figures accord, in a general way, with theactual order of procession. We know that a company of the king's guard, allhalberdiers, dressed in green and white, marched first, together with a great forceof infantrymen armed with swords. These were followed by an array of gentlemen,in crimson and black, amongst whom were several of Wolsey's personal attendants.2

1 Cal. S.P. Fen. iii, 50, 60; Lordonnance. the procession were some foot-soldiers, drawn up2 The arrangement adopted by the English in one battalion, the numbers of which vary in

seems to have been for the central part of the pro- different reports: e.g. Cal. S.P. Fen. iii, 68, givescession, i.e. Henry, Wolsey, and other dignitaries, 2,000 troops; no. 50 gives 4,000; no. 69 givesto set out together from Guisnes and to proceed for between 3,000 and 4,000; no. 73 gives some 3,500;a short distance to a field before the castle where they Bodleian Library, Ashmol. MS., 1116, fol. 100^were joined by the main force of infantry and other gives 3,000. These soldiers were armed only withtroops. This force consisted of the retinues of the swords, but at their head marched a company of theEnglish lords as well as the king's own guard, and king's guard, armed with halberds, and dressed inHall's statement, that the array was composed of the the royal colours of white and green, their breasts'people and servauntes' of the English nobles, is embroidered with the royal rose. See Cal. S.P.supported by several Venetians who say that the Fen. iii, 50. Ibid., nos. 67, 73, give the number ofinfantry were dressed in various liveries. See Hall, halberdiers as only 100.p. 608; Cal. S.P. Fen. iii, 67, 69. Near the head of


On the other hand, the painting does not show the two groups of mounted archersof the king's and cardinal's guard who should immediately have preceded thegentlemen; and the cross-bearer should not have been so far in advance of Wolsey,and should, furthermore, have carried two crosses, not one.1

The next two rows in the painting each show two gentlemen flanked by mountedmacers in crimson gowns—a rather rough and ready summary of the concourseof gentlemen followed by mace-bearers which should have occupied this positionin the procession.2 But this summarizing technique is carried to even greaterextremes: the painting now omits the twelve trumpeters, clad in green and whitedamask, who actually followed the macers, and moves on to what should have beena group of twelve heralds, but which has become the solitary figure of Sir ThomasWriothesley, Garter King of Arms, wearing the tabard of the Order. He is flankedon each side by a mace-bearer—the one on his right riding a magnificent whitehorse—but no other heralds are depicted.2 The next figure, Thomas Grey, mar-quis of Dorset, is in his correct position—following the heralds and preceding theking—with the Sword of State carried upright in its sheath.3 After the marquismarch six halberdiers dressed in scarlet, blue, and gold, with the crowned Tudorrose embroidered on their chests and backs. Then come three footmen precedingHenry VIII and Cardinal Wolsey.

The cardinal, though his mule is clearly depicted in its trappings of black velvetembroidered with gold, is a rather insignificant figure, largely obscured by the kingwho, as the focal point of the procession in the painting, is splendidly portrayed.He is clad in a heavy, pleated over-garment of cloth of gold, decorated with adelicate linear design in black. Beneath this, reaching to the knees, is a long rose-coloured jacket, puffed at the sleeves where they emerge from under the mantle.From his shoulders hangs a bejewelled collar which, according to Ayloffe, wascomposed of rubies and branches of pearls set alternately. Unfortunately thesedetails can no longer be discerned, owing to the very considerable darkening of thepainting—a regrettable tendency obscuring other details as, for example, the richjewel of St. George, adorning the king's breast, which now appears as a dark blur ofoils. The hat, too, perched upon Henry's head is deficient in the detail which oncerendered it so elegant a spectacle for, as Ayloffe informs us, it was of black velvetwith a white plume encircling the upperside of the brim, while the underside wasgraced with a broad circlet or lacing of rubies, emeralds, and other precious stonesintermixed with pearls—all now vanished.

Henry was, of course, also the focal point of the actual cavalcade at the Field ofCloth of Gold and is described, in great detail by many observers, particularly theItalians who exulted in the king's lavish garments and priceless jewels. Thesewritten descriptions provide a very elaborate picture of the king, which is in manyways consistent with the painting. The most significant difference is that, in fact,Henry wore a doublet of silver brocade with a mantle of cloth of silver—thoughthis was slashed or ribbed with cloth of gold, decorated with silver cords pendant

1 Cal. S.P. Ven. iii, 67, 69. when describing the sword as drawn before the2 Cal. S.P. Vert, iii, 68. kings reached the place of interview. Cf. Ibid.3 Hall, p. 609; Cal. S.P. Vert, iii, 68, is in error no. 50.


with jewels.1 Hall writes that the garment was 'large, and plited verie thicke, andcanteled of verie good intaile'—which is not too unlike the cut of the mantle in thepainting. We know, too, that Henry did wear a cap of black velvet adorned, how-ever, with a plume of black feathers, not white as shown in the painting.2 The collarof the Order of the Garter, naturally, figures in the written accounts as in thepainting, but the massive golden belt studded with precious stones, mentioned byItalian commentators, cannot be seen here.3 A more striking difference, almostcertainly due to the demands of the composition, is seen in Henry's mount whichin the painting is white, but which, in reality, was a bay.* Nor do the accoutrements,in the painting, tally with the written accounts. The trapper was of 'fine Golde inBullion, curiously wroughte, pounced and sette with anticke woorke of RomayneFigures', and Soardino adds that it was adorned with a number of golden bells eachnearly the size of an egg.5 But there is no indication in the painting either of theantique work or of the bells. The trappings are certainly depicted as of gold, butinclude small roses worked into the design at the joints of the breast-piece, head-stalls, reins, and stirrups, with golden tassels pendant from the border.6 Neverthe-less, even in this costume, as with the palace and the earlier part of the procession,there is still a fair measure of agreement between the sources. It is surprising,therefore, that there should be an important omission, from the picture, of the nextpart of the procession.

Henry was, in the actual cavalcade, attended by a group of footmen in crimsonand gold, and by Sir Henry Guildford, Master of the Horse, leading the king'sspare courser. Then came a group of nine pages, or henchmen, dressed in clothof gold and crimson, and riding Neapolitan coursers, 'de li piu belli siano stativeduti al mondo'. These horses were in harness of 'marueilous fashion, scaled infine golde in Bullion' and, continues Hall, 'workes subtile more then my sightecould contriue, and all the same horse Harneis were sette full of tremblyng spangesthat were large and faire'.7 A fine sight to be sure. Yet neither the Master of theHorse, the spare courser, nor the king's henchmen, are shown in the painting whichmoves straight on to a row of four noblemen of whom only two have been identified.Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk, rides at the extreme right upon yet another of thewhite horses employed, so obviously, by the artists to aid the composition of theirwork. To Brandon's left, upon a bay horse, rides Henry Bourchier, earl of Essex,holding in his right hand a silver rod as a symbol of the office of Earl Marshalwhich he held on this occasion.8 There follow two ranks of four noblemen, sixranks of Yeomen of the Guard, many more noblemen on horseback, a large group

1 Cal. S.P. Ven. iii, 50, 60, 67, 68, 69, 73; contemporary designs for horse harness, preservedLordonnance. at the British Museum, Cotton. MS. Aug. I l l , nos.

2 Lordonnance describes Henry as 'emplume de 28,35. See my'Le camp du drap d'or etc.', p. 120,plumes blanches'. All other witnesses assert that and plate ix.both hat and plume were black. 7 Hall, p. 609; Cal. S.P. Ven. iii, 67, 69. On

3 Cal. S.P. Ven. iii, 67, 73. the king's henchmen see my forthcoming book, Thet Cal. S.P. Ven. iii, 60, 67, 68, 69, 73. Great Tournament Roll of Westminster, pp. 92-94,5 Hall, p. 609; Cal. S.P. Ven. iii, 73. and plates for membranes 15—21 of the manuscript.6 It is interesting to compare Hall's description, 8 Chron. of Calais, p. 89; Rutland Papers, p. 30.

and the Hampton Court painting, with some near


of halberdiers, and, finally, a vast concourse emerging from the town of Guisneswhere they are seen marching through the market-place, watched by a desultoryscattering of townsfolk. In the written accounts of this latter part of the procession,Essex is not specifically placed: but, following the henchmen, there was indeed agroup of dignitaries riding in the company of various ambassadors to the Englishcourt—the archbishop of Canterbury, Warham, with the papal nuncio, the dukeof Buckingham with the Spanish ambassador, and the duke of Suffolk with theVenetian.1 Finally, as in the painting, the procession ended with a great array ofnoblemen, gentlemen, and soldiers.2j

Perhaps my conclusions concerning the relationship between the painted andnarrated processions are best stated in diagrammatic form, as follows:

THE POINTINGInfantry with halberds

Mounted officersHalberdiers

3 ranks of 5 infantrymen

5 gentlemen including Wolsey'scross-bearer and hat-bearer

Gentlemen flanked by mace-bearers

Garter King of ArmsDorset with Sword of State

6 Yeomen of the Guard3 footmen

Henry VI I I and Cardinal WolseyHalberdiers in attendance

Suffolk, Essex, and 2 unknowns2 ranks of 4 noblemen

6 ranks of Yeomen of the Guard

THE DOCUMENTS500 infantry with halberds

2,000 infantry with swords60 archers of the king's guard60 archers of the cardinal's guard

Gentlemen in Wolsey's service

Gentlemen followed by 12 mace-bearers12 trumpeters

12 heraldsDorset with Sword of State

FootmenHenry VI I I and Cardinal Wolsey

Master of the horse with spare courser9 henchmen or pages of the king

English dignitaries with ambassadors including thefollowing: Archbishop of Canterbury, papal nuncio;duke of Buckingham, Spanish ambassador; duke ofSuffolk, Venetian ambassador

Noblemen, gentlemen, soldiers Noblemen, gentlemen, soldiers

One further point concerning the procession in the painting must be noted. Itwill be seen that the head of the English procession disappears into the castle of

1 Cal. S.P. Fen. iii, 50. Nos. 67, 69, however, 2 None of the sources gives details concerning theput the ambassadors in an earlier section of the latter part of the English procession,procession.


Guisnes. This gives a fine curve to the densely-massed body of men, and helps thecomposition of the work. But documentary sources make it clear that the order ofproceeding was for the king, Wolsey, and other dignitaries to set out from Guisneswhence they rode to the field before the castle. There they were joined by themain force of infantry composed both of the king's own guard and the retinues ofthe English lords. Then they drew up in marching array and set off for the Vald'Or.1 There was no need for them to march into the castle. Indeed, had theymarched into the castle they wouldn't have been able to get out again, because therewas only a single bridge across the moat. Thus, in contrast to the general value ofthe painting as a summary of the procession, in this instance, as with their topo-graphy, the artists have sacrificed historical accuracy, and common sense, to theexigencies of design.

THE LISTS

Our final consideration, however, of the lists for the tournament, reveals no suchsacrifice of truth on behalf of design. Instead it affords the one instance in thepainting where the scene represented is not merely altered for artistic purposes, butbears scarcely any resemblance whatever to actuality.

The lists had given the officers in charge of their construction a great deal oftrouble. The problem was primarily one of precedence, for the appointed field wasabout half-way between Guisnes and Ardres, but within the English Pale. TheFrench felt that, in view of this, it would be to their dishonour if the tilt and barrierswere nearer the Guisnes end of the field than the Ardres end, and a good deal ofacrimony resulted before the lists were finally prepared for the ceremonial hangingof the royal shields on Saturday, 9th June.2

The area, according to Hall, was 900 ft. by 320 ft.3 Corroborative, and yetmore authoritative, evidence is provided by the earl of Worcester who supervisedthe English negotiations concerning the erecting of the lists. He points out, in aletter to Henry VIII, that in the original plan (which he proposes to modify) thetilt was set 208 feet from the royal gallery, but only 88 feet from the scaffold atthe far side of the field. To this width of 296 feet we must add a railed area 8 feetacross, and an 8-foot ditch. Thus the total width of the field must have been about328 feet—that is slightly greater than the figure given by Hall. The fosse wasreinforced by a bulwark, some 9 feet in height, built with the earth excavated fromthe ditches. At both the front and rear of the field was an entrance, each witha triumphal arch, set directly opposite each other. And in a line between these twoarches was the tilt, 'made all of square tymber', moved into the centre on Wor-cester's initiative.4 On each side of the enclosure, parallel with the tilt, were erected

1 Cal. S.P. Fen. iii, 67, 69. * College of Arms MS. 1st M. 6, fol. 9; La De-2 Chron. of Calais, pp. 86-88, for a letter from scription; Chron. of Calais, p. 86. The earl of

the earl of Worcester to Henry VIII, recounting Worcester and the French Marshal Chatillon didhis argument with the French Marshal Chatillon. not, at first, want the ditch around the lists: Wor-

3 Hall, p. 611. Cf. Joachino, in Cal. S.P. Ven. cester wrote that they thought that the 'lytelleiii, 6o, who says that the field was 400 paces by 200 diche', shown in Wolsey's plan, would 'rather doopaces. hurte than gode, for I assure your grace if it rain yt


long stages or scaffolds for the spectators—that on the left for the multitude, thaton the right for the nobility. In the middle of the right-hand scaffolds was set theroyal gallery, beautifully furnished and hung with tapestries. Lescaille describesthis gallery as 'bien tapissee et victree', rather suggesting that the royal spectatorswatched through windows—but this is not commented upon by other writers.1

Access to the gallery was gained by a flight of stairs—a common feature of suchstructures, which may be seen in numerous manuscript illustrations of the fifteenthand sixteenth centuries.2 On either side of the main entry to the lists, at the Guisnesend of the field, there was an arming chamber, 'made all of bordes paynted', for thekings, Francis on the right, Henry on the left: and at the same end of the field,but beyond the ditch, were pitched two sets of pavilions within which the Englishand French knights could arm themselves. Also in the vicinity, though whetherinside or outside the ditch we do not know, were 'twoo greate Sellers couched fullof wyne, whiche was to all men as largesse as the fountain'.3

The most outstanding feature of these lists was the perron and Tree of Honour.This classic tournament stage-property was, on this occasion, a twofold creationconsisting of a scaffold disguised as a mound or 'high mountaigne, couered withgrene Damaske', and an artificial tree compounded of simulated hawthorn andraspberry. The entire structure was set within the lists, centrally, near the head ofthe tilt, that is towards the main entrance to the field, between the arming chambersof the two Kings.4 The scaffold upon which the tree was mounted was 20 feetsquare, about as high as a man on horseback, encompassed with rails, and providedwith places for the heralds who were to supervise the scoring at the tilting. Thetree itself is best reconstructed from the surviving Revels Account which revealsthat the raspberry alone was composed of thirteen timber spars, each 40 feet long,together with many smaller sections; that over 600 yards of different cloths (includ-ing, naturally, cloth of gold) were used to cover the trunk and to provide the leaves;

wolle hurte the fowndacion of thescaffoldes on both • Lordonnance. College of Arms MS. 1st M. 6,sides, and cause the grounde to falle in yt. Also it fol. 96, describes the galleries thus: 'and also withinwolbe a great cherge to cary the yerthe out of the the said Camp ys a grete galary ordeyned for thecampe, and a long seasson to do yt; and also the said kinges and quenes and lordes with many Con-yerthe may not be carried over the campe, for it veyaunces therto belongyng, and the said galary iswoll marr all the gronde, that none shalle galop in lenght of paces xj score and x, and it is on thenor renne surely upon yt. It is thought that a rayle right hond of the said tilt at the comyng in, andmade of viij foot from the said scaffold to keep the ther is lykewyse on the lefte hand iij galaryes madepeople that they shalle not come nygh the same, will in lenght xxx paces'. This suggests both that theserve as well, for a diche of iiij fote depe and viij ordinary spectators' gallery was in three tiers, andfote wide is noo strenght yf eville disposed personnes that it did not run the entire length of the lists,wille enterprise any evill mater, as I trust to God 2 Cal. S.P. Fen. iii, 50, 81, 84.there shall be noon soche.'(C/£r0». of Calais, pp. 86- 3 Hall, p. 611. On the arming chambers see87). However, Wolsey finally had his way, and Hall, loc. cit.\ Cal. S.P. Ven. iii, 50; College ofmost observers report that the lists were surrounded Arms MS. 1st M. 6, fol. 9.both by a railed area, and by ditches—'tout aui- 4 College of Arms MS. 1st M. 6, fol. yb: 'Itemronne de grans fossez tout alentour comme vne betwene bothe the kinges lodgyngs at the said campville' {Lordonnance). The problem, discussed by ys set vp a tre of hawthorn and quyk beame [sic].'Worcester, concerning the excavated earth, was Other sources tell us only that the tree was near thesolved by using it to build the bulwark mentioned head of the lists, or towards the arming chambers,by two Italian observers {Cal. S.P. Ven. iii, 50, 60).

302 T H E ANTIQUARIES JOURNAL

that 262 hawthorn flowers and buds of silk were wrought; and that 150 dozenraspberry flowers, 2,400 cherries of crimson satin, and 2,000 flowers of white satinwere provided to add colour and verisimilitude to the curious plant. From thistree, and about the mound, as was customary, were suspended coloured shields,representing the different kinds of combat to be fought, together with the shieldsof the knights participating in the challenge.1

The Hampton Court painting includes, at the top right-hand corner, a repre-sentation of these lists (pi. LI). The field is shown as square in shape, sur-rounded by a barrier at all points except the entrance, which is set at the near side.The other entrance is not indicated. Nor are the triumphal arches shown. Nor isthe ditch. Nor is the earth bulwark. Nor are the arming chambers for the kings.Moreover, of the two series of scaffolds actually built within the lists, only the royalenclosure on the right side of the field is shown. But even this is not at all a splen-did affair, and neither suggests the glass-work mentioned by Lescaille, nor the factthat it was raised considerably above ground level and had to be entered by meansof stairs. Finally, in the bottom right-hand corner of the field, near the gallery—notin the centre where it should have been—is depicted the Tree of Honour, its trunkwrapped in red velvet embroidered with gold, and its branches hung with variousshields without semblance of order. This tree in no way corresponds to the sym-metrical, 'artificially wrought', hybrid which was created for the occasion. It looksmuch more like a real tree merely wrapped about with cloth of gold. Nor is thereany indication of the square mound on which the tree was erected. Nor, therefore,can we see the place which should have been provided for the heralds.

In the accompanying diagram (fig. 2) I have attempted a reconstruction of thelists from documentary sources, and compare this with a plan of the lists basedupon the painting, to show the drastic simplification employed here by the artists.The diagrams are not, of course, to scale: but otherwise they illustrate, very clearly,the contrast here between fact and depiction.

Can we reach any conclusions, even after checking the painting against the docu-ments? Since the artists' topography may be passed over, because it was deter-mined primarily by artistic considerations, we are left with the following position:the representation of the temporary English palace is, in the main, very accurate,apart from the deviation in the gateway; the English procession is fairly accurateas a general summary, but is nothing more; the lists are inaccurate, and have onlyone or two features remotely resembling actuality. This position suggests variouspossibilities: one can assume differing degrees of artistic licence agreed to by all theartists concerned; one can stress this fact that several artists were concerned, so thatno homogeneity either in aims or results may be assumed; or one can assume that,since the artists were working as a team, there must have been some common pur-pose and standards. Either of the first two assumptions nullifies all need for furtherspeculation—though even the most liberal artistic licence does not satisfactorilyexplain away so great a discrepancy between the sections of the painting. I think

1 P.R.O., E. 36/217, fols. 279-88 (L.P. in. ii, 1553)- Cf. Hall, pp. 610-11; Lordonnance\ Chron. ofCalais, pp. 88-89; Cal. S.P. Fen. iii, 50.


aLLeri^f Jor^yaCty- andJivSai

rium6h

THBLI3T5 ACCORfilhlG TOTHBDOCUMBNTJ

THE LISTS ACCORDIMQ 7V THBPAlNTINg

FIG. 2

that we are entitled to assume some homogeneity on the part of the artists, and thisleaves only one possible reason for the discrepancy—that the sources used for the re-construction of the palace and procession were much fuller than those for the lists.

It would be of some help, in determining the kind of sources which might havebeen used, if we knew when the picture was executed. But no attempt to date thework on internal evidence has been satisfactory, while other documentary sources


afford no clue. The work might, conceivably, have been based upon sketches madeat the Field of Cloth of Gold, though, if this were so, they must have varied con-siderably for the different features finally depicted. It is more likely that some nar-rative, or narratives, were employed; but here again it is impossible to say whatthese were likely to have been. Some of the closest parallels are, in fact, between thepalace in the painting, and letters, from Italian observers, which could scarcely havebeen known to the artists.1 Near-contemporary printed sources might seem morepromising, but, of those surviving, one, by Edward Hall, is rather late and, in anycase, not entirely similar to the painting. Another, La Description et Ordre du Camp,has little on any of the three features discussed in this article, and what it does haveis at variance with the painting.2 A third, Lordonnance et Ordre du Tournoy etc., doeshave two notable features in common with the painting; it describes Henry VIIIas wearing a white feather in his hat—the only observer to do so; and is, moreover,the only printed source available at the time to mention the dragon firework.3 Onthe other hand, Lordonnance does not give sufficient detail to have been the solesource for the palace and procession, while it has far too much information on thelists, making mention of the ditch, two arches, and two galleries—none of which areshown in the picture.4 And this negative result is as far as one can go with theavailable material.

If, however, the sources of this picture constitute a straightforward, thoughinsoluble, historical problem, a consideration of the possible occasion and purposeof its composition leads to a baffling complex of ideas. For the Field of Cloth of Goldforms but part of a problematical series of works depicting key events in HenryVIIPs career on the Continent. Three such paintings, in addition to the Field,are still preserved at Hampton Court. One of these represents the meeting of Henryand the Emperor Maximilian I outside TheVouanne in 1513, with the allies' campsbehind, the Battle of the Spurs beyond those, and two towns, inscribed TERVANEand TORNAY, under siege in the far distance. A second, and far larger canvas, isa variation on the first episode, this time showing the Battle of the Spurs in theforeground, the encampments in the middle distance, and a town inscribed TER-WAEN in the background. The third canvas, almost as large as the Field itself, depictsthe embarkation of Henry VIII from Dover—usually assumed to be his departurefor the Field of Cloth of Gold in

1 See above, pp. 290-2. cit. The Embarkation was described, in the seven-2 Hall, despite his flamboyance and mass of teenth century, once as 'the ships goeing to Bul-

description, is curiously imprecise; and where he loigne', and once as 'Henry 8 going to Bullen withdoes give specific detail, as in the gateway to the his fleete'(Millar, no. 24). This raises the possibilityEnglish palace, he differs from the painting. La that the picture represents Henry's departure forDescription has a very brief mention of the palace, his second interview with Francis I in 1532, whichand describes only the French procession of 7th did take place at Boulogne—and does not representJune. Its account of the lists is also very short, but his departure for the first interview which did notdoes mention two triumphal arches. take place at Boulogne. On the other hand, the

3 On the dragon firework see my 'Le camp du Field of Cloth of Gold painting, which unequivo-drap d'or etc.', p. 126. cally refers to the 1520 interview, was similarly

4 Lordonnance, for example, does not describe described in the seventeenth century, as 'a larg pisthe simulated slate roof, or the chimney stacks. opan klaht ramufft aut auff Wijthal bin king hnri

5 These paintings are nos. 22-24 m Millar, op. da 8 entrin tu bolonia'; as a 'Picture of the Seidge


There is a clear thematic relationship between these pictures. All celebrateHenry VIII in a way suggestive of court patronage, but thus far there has been nosatisfactory attribution to any artist, and modern scholarship has complicated thematter yet further by recognizing several hands involved, particularly in the largestcanvases.1 The Field of Cloth of Gold and the Embarkation have, at various times,been attributed to Vincent Volpe, and, together with the other works mentioned,to Cornelis Anthonisz—a more interesting possibility.2 Neither of these attribu-tions has found much favour, though they have not been as roundly condemnedas the attribution of the two largest works to Hans Holbein, which was once thevogue. The stylistic evidence renders Holbein a manifest absurdity in this con-nexion. But the attribution to him, so long current, provides a link with anotherseries of pictures, no longer extant, which must be considered here. These are thehistorical wall paintings, and other works—once preserved at Cowdray House, nearMidhurst in Sussex—which all perished in the fire of 1793.3

The Cowdray paintings, as listed in A Catalogue of the Pictures at Cowdray-House(Portsmouth, 1777), fall into two groups. The first, in the 'Dining Parlour', con-sisted of four large wall-paintings, representing events from Henry VIII's lastwar with France, and another wall painting, depicting the procession of Edward VIthrough London prior to his coronation. All these are attributed, in the catalogue,to Holbein. This seems to have been a traditional view, which was condemned byWalpole, Ayloffe, and others, on stylistic grounds—though a far simpler, and irre-futable, argument against the attribution may be deduced from two facts: thatthese paintings depicted events taking place between 1544 and 1547; and thatHolbein died in 1543. These pictures attracted the interest of the Society ofAntiquaries, in much the same way as did the Field of Cloth of Gold and the Em-barkation, and a series of historical descriptions by Ayloffe was published togetherwith Basire's engravings based on original drawings, made at Cowdray, by S. H.Grimm.4 This interest has preserved for us details which must otherwise have beenirretrievably lost; but, in a way, it has also badly misled subsequent scholars, forit has drawn attention away from the second group of works, painted 'on board',which adorned other rooms of the great house—and we have no description of theseapart from a few notes published by Richard Gough, in the third volume of theVetusta Monumental

of Bulloigne'; and as 'Henry 8 going into the 3 For the history of Cowdray, and for a summarvTowne of Bullen' (Millar, no. 25). All of which of most of the available evidence concerning thesuggests that those responsible for the seventeenth- paintings there, see W. H. St. John Hope, Cowdraycentury inventories did not know much about the and Easebourne Priory in the County of Sussexsixteenth century. (London, 1919).

1 See Millar, op. cit. * The Encampment of King Henry Fill at2 For the argument in favour of Anthonisz, see Portsmouth was published in 1778; The Riding of

N. Beets, 'Cornelis Anthonisz, I', Oud-Holland, lvi King Edward VIfrom the Tower of London in 1787;(1939), pp. 160-84. See also the note by G. Cal- The Meeting of King Henry VIII by Sir Anthonylender, Mariner's Mirror, xxv (1939), pp. 442-4, Browne on the hill near Marquison in 1788; Thealluding to the coincidence that Cornelis's brother Enaimprient of King Henry VIII at Marquison inwas Anthony Anthony, author and artist responsible 1788; The Siege of Boulogne in 1788 See St. Johnfor the magnificent illustrated rolls entitled, A De- Hope, pp. 48-65.claration of the Royal Navy of England. 5 See St. John Hope, pp. 36-48.


The concentration on works obviously not by Holbein has obscured the pos-sibility that several others may actually have been by him; while the fact that thewall paintings could all be associated with Sir Anthony Browne has similarlyobscured the possibility that many of the other paintings at Cowdray might wellhave come into the house before Browne's ownership. Indeed this seems highlylikely. Browne inherited Cowdray from his half-brother, Sir William FitzWilliam,earl of Southampton, who died in October 1542. FitzWilliam himself came intopossession of Cowdray in 1529, and it is significant that, of the other ten historicalpaintings—all attributed, as usual, to Holbein—four represent events in whichFitzWilliam played a notable part.1 Of particular interest is one which, accordingto the Catalogue of the Pictures, depicted 'the Victories, Sieges, and Taking ofTerouenne and Tournay, by King Henry VIII'.2 This recalls the two canvases,at Hampton Court, in which the siege of The"rouanne can be seen in the back-ground. But, more important, it also suggests the 'plat of Tirwan', showing thetown under siege, and 'the very maner of euery mans camp, very connynglywrought', which decorated the 'bakesyde' of a triumphal arch in the temporarybanquet hall, built at Greenwich for the Anglo-French festivities of May 1527.2This work was painted by a certain 'maister hans' who, judging from a variety ofevidence in the Revels Accounts and elsewhere, must have been Hans Holbein.4

Master Hans, with a team of subordinates referred to in the accounts as 'hyspaynters', also executed an astrological ceiling in the theatre built for the samefestival, together with two great canvases for the walls at either end of the hall. Allthese works were taken down at the end of the celebrations and, presumably, wentinto the king's store. Their subsequent fate is not known, but it is, at least, possiblethat the The>ouanne picture may have been presented by Henry VIII to Fitz-William who had, in fact, been knighted for his distinguished service in the cam-paigns of 1513. FitzWilliam remained, throughout his life, a favourite of the kingwho visited him, on several occasions, at Cowdray.s This is, of course, mere con-jecture; and one could accumulate many such tempting hypotheses. For example,perhaps the Field of Cloth of Gold, and the Embarkation, are themselves festivalpaintings—they may even be the missing pair from the 1527 theatre at Greenwich.After all, the paintings on that occasion, apart from the arch, were only supervisedby Holbein, so that his hand might well not be much in evidence. Or perhaps these

1 These are as follows: Catalogue, no. 56, 'Re- 2 Catalogue, no. 56. It is unfortunate thatpresents the Victories, Sieges, and Taking of Gough, in his notes on these pictures, gives noTerouenne and Tournay, by King Henry VIII ' ; description of this particular work,no. 67, 'Conducting the Emperor to Dover, by the 3 P.R.O., E. 36/227, fol. 11; Hall, p. 722. Onearl of Southampton, Admiral'; no. 72, 'Repre- this festival see my article,'La salle de banquet et lesents Francis I, on his Throne, with his Courtiers, theltre construits a Greenwich pour les fetesgiving Audience to the duke of Suffolk, and earl of Franco-Anglaises de 1527', Le Lieu thiatral a laSouthampton, sent Ambassadors from England, on Renaissance, ed. J. Jacquot (Paris, 1964), pp. 273—a secret Embassy'; no. 75, 'Driving the French to 88.Treport'. There was also a portrait, by Holbein, of 4 See F. M. Nichols, Proceedings of the SocietyFitzWilliam, which survived the fire, and is now of Antiquaries, Second Series, xvii (1897—99), 132preserved in the FitzWilliam Museum, Cam- ff.;'La salle de banquet etc.', pp. 277-81.bridge. s See St. John Hope, p. 21.


two great canvases were intended for some later festival, and adorned a temporaryhall, such as that built at Hampton Court in 1546, details of which do not survive.1

The fragmentary nature of the available evidence lends itself to a fantasy of identi-fications, which cannot safely be indulged in. But such possibilities serve to em-phasize that the few surviving pictures at Hampton Court must be regarded asrepresenting a fashion for historical, narrative paintings, the extent of which cannow only be guessed at.

If one considers the subject-matter both of the surviving canvases, and of the lostworks, it will be seen that they all deal with English activities on the Continent inthe years when these were at their most spectacular. The two Hampton Courtpaintings of Henry VIII before The"rouanne, together with the Cowdray versionof the siege of Thdrouanne, Howard's attack on the French galleys, and Dorset'sjourney into Spain, all relate to Henry VIII's first French War.2 The HamptonCourt Field of Cloth of Gold and Embarkation, together with the Cowdray picturesof an English embassy to France in 1518, jousting at the Field of Cloth of Gold,and the escorting of the emperor to Dover in 1520, all relate to English displaydiplomacy in the years before the second French War.3 That war was itself repre-sented in the Cowdray paintings of the Duke of Suffolk, and Count de Bure besiegingBray, and the Driving the French to Treport; and subsequent diplomacy was to beseen in a picture of the English embassy to France in 1529.4 Finally, the thirdFrench War was shown in the Cowdray wall paintings depicting the campaignsof 1544 and 1545. From Basire's engravings of the last group, it is apparent thatthe kind of detail, which abounds in the Field of Cloth of Gold, was by no meansunique. The wall paintings seem to have been based upon documentary recordsof the campaigns they celebrate, and there is every reason to suppose that the otherCowdray paintings were similarly designed.

None of this hypothesis can advance our knowledge of the actual sources em-ployed in the Hampton Court painting of the Field of Cloth of Gold. Nor does ithelp to evaluate the work as an historical document. But it does make clear that onemust see all the Hampton Court paintings in the context of an age when a king andhis great nobles enjoyed having their military and diplomatic exploits reconstructedpictorially, with considerable attention to detail, and thus made available both asdecoration, and as a record for posterity.

1 Charles Wriothesley, A Chronicle of England Fitz William's collection. One or two of the subjectsduring the Reigns of the Tudors from 1485 to 1559, listed in the Catalogue would have been very appro-ed. W. D. Hamilton (Camden Society, 1875, priate to the Anglo-French entente of 1527.1877), i, 173; Hall, p. 867. Both these mention 2 Catalogue, nos. 56, 100, 101.the new halls built for the revels—but give no 3 Catalogue, nos. 74, 58, 67.description worth mentioning. Amongst the Lose- * Catalogue, nos. 73, 75, 72. One other histori-ley MSS., now at the Folger Library, there is cal picture, also representing important matters onpreserved a book of payments relating to these the Continent—though this time rather less directlybuildings, but, as far as I can judge from the extracts involving English dignitaries—was Catalogue, no.I have on film, these refer mainly to artificers. An- 108, 'Battle of Pavia, in which the Emperor Charlesother possibility which has occurred to me, con- V, and the Allies, took Francis I, King of France,cerning the Cowdray paintings, is that the other two Prisoner.' This, inevitably, was also attributed toGreenwich canvases may have made their way into Holbein.

Date post:	03-Dec-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	sydney
View:	230 times
Download:	8 times

The Hampton Court Painting of the Field of Cloth of Gold Considered as an Historical Document

Documents