The Two Faces of Anne?

The allure of Anne Boleyn is that she is always a possibility, never a certainty.  Moreover, in the space between possibility and certainty, we insert our own selves into her, making her what we want her to be. This fluidity of Anne Boleyn is driven partly by the fact there is no contemporary image of her, other than a damaged medal from 1534.  The image of Anne on the medal, with the English gable hood, jeweled cross and assertive gaze, is more iconographic than realistic.  It says, "Queen of England" rather than "Here is what I look like." And what Anne Boleyn looked like is what we really want to see!

Enter Hans Holbein, the German painter at the court of Henry VIII.  He was there during Anne's tenure and probably painted her from life.  But any portrait of her he painted no longer exists. The theory is that all contemporary paintings of her were destroyed after her downfall.  But passed down to us are two preparatory drawings by Holbein, depicting two women, each labeled as Anne Boleyn.  We know the inscriptions were not done by Holbein.

It is debatable that the two drawings represent the same woman.  Some people have tried to show that the two sitters are the same woman, but many others feel instinctively that they are not.  The inscriptions on each of the drawings date from the 17th and 18th centuries, which further complicates their identities, as there is a huge gap between the creation of the image and its labeling.   One drawing is in the British Museum and the other is in the Royal Collection.  

The inscription on the British Museum drawing tells us that Anna Bullen decollata/Fuit London 19 May 1536 (Anna Bullen was beheaded London May 1536.) This is the drawing most Anne Boleyn admirers wish to be her, as it shows an attractive lady with regular features and a rather steady gaze, the kind of look she may have given Mark Smeaton as she told him he was an inferior person!  But the British Museum is not so sure.  It lists the drawing as a "portrait of a lady, formerly thought to be Anne Boleyn."

The other drawing by Holbein, the one in the Royal Collection, is inscribed Anna Bollein Queen and is even more problematic.  The Royal Collection lists this drawing as " a portrait drawing of a woman traditionally believed to be "Anne Boleyn." But there are many doubters. The image is of a woman in profile, with a heavy double chin, a white unadorned cap out of which peek strands of golden hair, dressed in a high neck chemise and wrap around fur collared robe.

The problem with this drawing is that it is a very "un” Anne image, at least in terms to how many of her devotees wish to see her. The drawing therefore gives rise to a feeling of “cognitive dissonance.”

Cognitive dissonance is that feeling of conflict when opposing elements come together that don't really make sense.  What usually happens in such an opposition is that one side of the equation is emphasized and the other is dismissed.  And that is why the second drawing is so interesting!

Despite the” identification” of the sitter as Anne on the drawing, you will likely accept or reject this drawing as a likeness of Anne Boleyn based on how you connect to Anne in your mind.

Those who outright reject this image as Anne refer to her notable sense of style and her awareness of her status as queen.  For example, Roland Hui, of the Tudor Faces blog, says that "It appears highly inconceivable that Anne would have wished to present herself in such a humble manner."   Anne's most notable biographer, Eric Ives, agrees.  "The sitter is in evident deshabille, and why should any such likeness be commissioned?”

Both assessments put forth the idea that Anne, both in her personal preference and in her status as queen, would not be seen in her pajamas! Anne Boleyn is always a queen!

On the other side of the debate is the notion that Anne's very position as queen would allow her to be so relaxed.  This is the "bedroom" Anne, private and behind the scenes, that she may have wanted for the following reasons:

1.  She was pregnant, which would account for her pudgy face

2.  She is showing off the night robe Henry gave her, although the extant description of this garment does not include fur.

This is a more romanticized view of Anne, and those who ascribe to it are allowing Anne to veer from the traditional royal image and accept her also as a contemplative expectant mother, in a private moment.  Perhaps the commission was even intended as a gift for her husband, Henry VIII.

And isn’t it inscribed, "Anna Bollein Queen?"

One would think that would solve the issue of identity and that there would therefore be no need for controversy, but it does not.  The inscription was added several centuries later.  It is supposedly taken from the assignment of identity made by John Cheke, tutor to Prince Edward ( later Edward VI) of the sitters in Holbein's drawings. Cheke did label a few of the drawings incorrectly, but he may have met Anne when she was queen, so the supposition is that he recognized her.  Those who accept the Royal Collection drawing as Anne Boleyn ascribe authority to the original labeling made by Cheke, which was then placed onto the drawing 200 years later by the unknown inscriber.

The yay or nay position, therefore, largely stems from a judgement call as to what Anne Boleyn would or would not do ( i.e. Allow herself to be represented in a dressed down manner, or not) or what Cheke would or would not do ( label the drawing correctly) and then, of course, what the eventual inscriber would do.

A debate about what Anne Boleyn would or would not do can go on forever. For one thing, we have no way of knowing. More importantly, one's point of view is based on one's personal projection onto Anne.  Is she always a regal queen with great style?  Or is there room in her psyche for vulnerability to show through?  As an analogy to today’s celebrities, is she always on the red carpet or could she allow herself to be captured without makeup?  The way you answer that question will impact on how you receive this drawing.

 If we really want to come to terms with this image, there is a third approach that can be used.  That is to decode the drawing itself.

First, let's shine a light on the inscription itself:  Anna Bollein Queen. Anna is a variation of Anne and appears in inscriptions on her post contemporary portraits, such as the famous National Portrait Gallery portrait, which is inscribed Anna Bolina Uxor Henry Octa.  Anne herself signed her name Anna in her letter to her father as a tween, but later referred to herself as Anne.

The interesting tidbit is "Bollein,” a decidedly German rendering of the name (rhymes with nein and Holbein).  This version of the name Boleyn is not among the many variations documented of the Boleyn name.   

 
These include Bolan, Boullan, Bulen, Bulleyn, Bullen.  These were Frenchified versions of the name, and refer to the bull, an animal that is symbolized in the Boleyn coat of arms.  It is unlikely that John Cheke, an Englishman, spelled the name as “Bollein,” so what that means is that the inscriber did not copy the name exactly( if he copied it at all.)

Is there a breakdown, then, in the thread between Cheke's identification and the person who inscribed the drawing several hundred years later?
 

Now let's look at the sitter herself.  Holbein had an incredible ability to forge an individual likeness through both physiognomy and symbolism.  While the drawing is a preparatory work and not a finished product, it has enough details to make some observations.

The sitter's head wear is described by some people as an "under cap,” but there are similar head garments worn by other Holbein sitters and they are clearly head wear in their own right.

In the miniature of Jane Small, for example, painted c. 1540, the sitter, Jane, wears a white cap in a similar style and with the same amount of hair peeking out.  It is part of her ensemble, which is an elegant black and white.  Jane’s husband was a cloth merchant, which potentially gave Jane an advantage in choice of dress fabric options. Here is a woman who could make stylistic choices and she chose, for a portrait by Master Holbein, just such a white cap. This kind of head wear, was therefore, in my view, representative of a certain merchant class fashion, rather than an “under cap.”   Jane Small also wears a similar chemise tied at the neck.  

Holbein used the details of a sitter's garments as a commentary on the person's rank, class, and wealth.  These qualities are also integral to a sitter's self-image.

In the drawing labeled Anna Bollein Queen, other than the word Queen, there is nothing at all to suggest the status of queen, no jewels, no fine fabrics, no adornment.

The Sumptuary Laws in England at the time prevented people from dressing above their station.  It seems logical that no one dressed below their station, either. 

In comparison to other women painted by Holbein, the sitter in the Anna Bollein Queen drawing seems to be of middle class, choosing to be depicted in a very unobtrusive and unengaged manner. Only a handful of Holbein's sitters were captured in profile. the vast majority are at a three-quarter angle, probably because most people look better that way.  This woman does not seem to want to look better.

In fact, the rounded jawline is so prominent that, interestingly, some have identified the sitter to be Anne because of Anne's "alleged facial misfortune", alluding to the scurrilous description of her by later Catholic propagandists like Nicholas Sander. In the 1580s, Sander published a so-called description of Anne Boleyn that said she had " a large wen under her chin, and therefore, to hide its ugliness, she wore a high dress covering her throat." 

Would it not be ironic if the drawing was actually of an anonymous woman, perhaps of the merchant class like Jane Small, which someone, centuries later labeled ( as a prank? As a mean-spirited joke?)  Anna Bollein, Queen, based on these later descriptions of her?  I would not be surprised.