The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, v. 24, no. 3 (November ...

- sX~~~zri- m-"^Z^U^^ . - ^MP^^^ - - - Ii-AIM

FRONTISPIECE:Gazelle cup, from the Safid River region. Late iI - early i millennium B.C. Gold, height 216inches. Rogers Fund, 62.84

Art of the Marlik CultureC H A R L E S K. W IL K I N S O NCurator Emeritus of Near Eastern ArtA large exhibition, 7000 Years of Iranian Art, seen in Paris in 1961 and afterwardin other European and then American cities, aroused great interest through its displayof ancient pottery in the form of animals, birds, and human beings. Many of theseobjects of unglazed earthenware, grotesque in form and visually arresting, appealedstrongly to people who ask of art something more than mere prettiness and mirrorreflections of creatures and men of this world. But of quite as great interest to archaeologistsand collectors were the exhibition's objects of gold. These included pieces inknown and new styles and formed a dazzling collection that was fully as fascinating asthe pottery. Many of the pieces in both categories were exhibited as coming from"Amlash," and it was obvious that a new find, or a series of finds, had been made innorthern Iran.The designation "Amlash" has been used quite loosely as the place of origin for manyantiquities that have come from other, sometimes unknown, sites in the province ofGilan, which extends southward from the southwest shore of the Caspian Sea. Here, inthe area of the Safid River and its tributaries, a region long known as Dailaman, liethe archaeological sites of Amlash, Marlik, and Dailaman, among others. It has beenpossible, however, to trace relationships between objects found in the Dailaman regionand others found elsewhere, especially in the Kalar Dasht River region, in the provinceof Mazanderan, somewhat under a hundred miles to the east. Important discoverieswere made there, near Chalus, when excavations were dug for a palace for the lateShah Riza Pahlavi.In two respects Marlik, on the Gohar River (a tributary of the Safid), has provedthe most important of all these rich sites. In the first place, Marlik was dug in I96 - I962by E. O. Negahban, on behalf of the University of Teheran and the ArchaeologicalService of Iran, in such a fashion that notes, photographs, and drawings were madeof the objects in situ. In the second place, Dr. Negahban succeeded in finding a seriesof intact graves of warriors, of warrior-kings and their wives, and even of their horses.As a result of his work it is known that certain types of earthenware figures were foundin graves together with specific kinds of weapons, jewelry, and other objects of bronze,ContentsArt of the Marlik CultureCHARLES K. WILKINSONThe Battle of the CrescentIOIHELMUT NICKEL IIION THE COVER:Detail of the Museum's shield,illustrated on page s oIOIThe Metropolitan Museum of Artis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve, and extend access toThe Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin ®www.jstor.org

silver, and gold. So disparate in style are these objects that, had they been known onlythrough their appearance in the antiquities market, not even an archaeologist wouldhave believed that certain of them could have come from one place. But for Negahban'sdiscoveries, the problems in understanding the flood of material that has been obtainedby all sorts of means from the Safid River region would be even greater than theyare now.In the catalogue for the American showing of the 7000 Years of Iranian Art, EdithPorada called the culture that produced the material found in these tombs the Marlikculture. This use of the name of a very small place to denote an entire archaeologicalculture has its precedent in Mesopotamian archaeology (e.g., al-'Ubaid and JamdatNasr), and will be employed here.Who the Marlik people were is unknown. They seem to have flourished from nearthe end of the second millennium B.C. to the beginning of the first - after the Kassiteempire in the south of Mesopotamia had come to a close, and contemporaneously withthe last Middle Assyrian kings. No written records of the Marlik culture exist, nor arethere any others concerning the area at this particular period. Later, in the ninthcentury B.C., Assyrian records that speak of Mannaeans and Medes in northwest Iranmay be dealing with the end of this culture.Among the examples of the Marlik culture that are to be seen in the Museum, as aresult of recent gifts, loans, and purchases, is an earthenware bull (Figure i) of the sametype as those found by Negahban. Similar bulls have also been found elsewhere, namelyat Garmabak, near the Chalus Road, which runs north from Teheran to the Caspian.A Mazanderan bull was published (in Persian) by H. Samadi of the ArchaeologicalService of Iran in I956, several years before Negahban's finds. Dozens of similar animalshave since appeared, and are now in collections all over the world. Comparison of thepottery bulls with actual humped bulls of Iran (Figure 2) makes clear that the humpis exaggerated, often to an extraordinary degree. This emphasis was doubtless made toconvey the impression of enormous power-not surprising when one considers howimportant bulls were in the ancient economies. Common to most is the spoutlikemouth, which probably served some practical purpose. Also usual are the much shortenedlegs. These perhaps assure the stability of the piece, or perhaps they were simplyless trouble for the potter to make. Some of the pottery bulls have additions such asmetal earrings.THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART BulletinVOLUME XXIV, NUMBER 3 NOVEMBER I965Published monthly from October to June and quarterly from July to September. Copyright ? I965by The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Fifth Avenue and 82nd Street, New York, N. Y. 10028. Secondclass postage paid at New York, N. Y. Subscriptions $5.00 a year. Single copies fifty cents. Sent free toMuseum Members. Four weeks' notice required for change of address. Back issues available on microfilmfrom University Microfilms, 313 N. First Street, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Editor: Gray Williams, Jr.;Assistant Editors: Suzanne R. Boorsch, Anne Preuss, and Katharine H. B. Stoddert. Designer: PeterOldenburg.102

I. Bull, from the Safid River region. Late I - early I millennium B.C.Earthenware, height 7 inches. Lent anonymously, L62.15.22. Iranian humped bull. Woodcutfrom La Perse, la Chaldee, et laSusiane, by Jane Dieulafoy (Paris, i887). The Library of theMetropolitan Museum

3. Base of the gazelle cup4. Earrings, from the Safid Riverregion. Late ii - early Imillennium B.C. Gold, length24 inches. Lent anonymously,L62.i8The exaggerations of the earthenware figuresdo not appear in the gold vessels found atMarlik. On those decorated with bulls theemphasis is on locks of hair growing from thechests, backs, and leg joints. Neither the bodyshape nor the hair, however, is exaggeratedon the four gazelles that walk in processionaround a gold cup from the Safid River region(Frontispiece). Nothing in Iranian antiquitiescould offer a greater contrast in feeling andstyle than this cup and the bull of Figure i,but the contrast cannot be accounted for entirelyby the differences in the mediums andthe subjects. In the gazelles there is a graceand delicacy that suggest a court style, whereasthe bulls on the Marlik gold vessels show aprovincial version of a foreign sophistication.The bodies of the gazelles are repousse andchased, the hair indicated by means of shortstrokes and dots contained within outlinedconventional shapes that do not conform tonature. The heads, projecting in the fullround, look at first as though they must havebeen hammered out from the body of the cup.Instead, they were hammered up separatelyand then fastened invisibly in place by amethod much practiced in Iran in antiquity:colloid hard-soldering, a process involving acopper salt and glue. The ears, which almostquiver with life in the sensitively modeledheads, were also made separately. So, too,were the horns, each of which is composedof a strip of thin gold rolled up tightly andshaped appropriately. Originally the hornsjust cleared, in a most elegant manner, thecup's everted rim; some of them have nowbeen crushed down upon it. The hoofs areindented, doubtless for the insertion of inlayssuch as once filled the recessed eyes. No traceof these inlays has survived -a loss that givesthe cup a homogeneity it once did not possess.The decoration includes two guilloche bor-ders, a double one at the top, a single onebelow. The sides of the cup swell as they approachthe base, so that the cup appears torest on an inflated ring. The base itself (Figure3) is decorated with a pattern of six-petaledrosettes formed by overlapping circles containedwithin a narrow circular band hatchedlike a cord. The background of this design isnicked with small dots.The technique used in making the gazelles'horns is to be seen on other metal objectsfrom the Safid River region. One of these isa pair of gold earrings with hollow animalbodies decorated with small granular rosettes(Figure 4). The heads that project at one endare very like the heads on the gazelle cup,even to the socketed eyes, and the horns weremade in precisely the same way. Earringsclosely related to this pair were found at Marlikby Negahban. They are simpler in thatthey do not have animal heads, but they havethe same bulbous form and they are adornedwith the same kind of granular rosette. Anotherof these technically related objects fromMarlik is a gold beaker decorated with wingedbulls whose heads project in the full round,with horns made in the manner describedabove.The fashion of decorating vessels with projectinganimal heads, obviously popular inthe Safid River region, was not local. Similarheads occur on a gold cup fortuitously foundI04

5. Lion cup, from Mazanderan. Late ii - early i millennium B.C. Gold, height5 inches. Archaeological Museum, Teheran6. Goblet, from Luristan. Late ii - early i millennium B.C. Bronze, height 58inches. Gift of H. Dunscombe Colt, 61.264at Kalar Dasht in west Mazanderan. The animalsthat stalk around this vessel-betweenguilloche bands, as on the gazelle cup-arelions (Figure 5). Their heads are not solderedin place, as are those on some of the Marlikcups, but simply fastened on in a rather crudeway with gold pins. However, the Mazanderancup has the same conspicuous base seenon the gazelle cup and on Marlik beakers. Inall probability the lion cup was made aboutthe same time as the Safid River pieces.Of approximately the same period, orslightly earlier, is a bronze vessel, now in theLouvre, that was discovered many years agor_at Susa in Elam, hundreds of miles to thesouth of Gilan and Mazanderan. Decoratedwith two rows of animals with projectingheads, couchant bulls above and standinghorses below, it again has the protruding base.This cup has been dated to the period ofUntash-gal, who reigned in Elam from approximatelyI234 to I227 B.C. In Luristan,far to the southwest of Gilan, bronze vesselswere made with the characteristic base (Figure6). The fashion of the projecting heads, however,seems not to have been popular there.But the tradition of encircling a vessel withanimals whose heads project goes back muchearlier than the period of the pieces so faridiscussed. It is to be seen in Mesopotamia,rather than in Iran, as early as the third millennium.The idea apparently developed frommetal wall decorations of the fourth millennium,such as those at the Temple of Imdugudat al-'Ubaid. The treatment on vesselsfirst appears in bowls of carved stone, examplesof which are in this Museum. No such

7. Stag cup, from the Safid River region.Late ii - early i millennium B.C. Gold,height 24 inches. Lent by Mr. and Mrs.Alastair Bradley Martin, L63.io.ibowls of metal of this early date, if any weremade, have survived.In Elam, early in the second millennium,bowls with projecting heads were made ofbitumen. Numerous examples were found atSusa. Some of their heads have inlaid eyes,and it is not impossible that the bowls wereonce covered with foil, even though none ofthem now shows any trace of such a treatment.These bitumen bowls do not have the protrudingbases seen in the later metal cups;they do have, however, a slight swelling toform a foot.In its full-round heads, then, the gazelle cuphas links with a past that was not exclusivelyIranian. In its base, on the other hand, it incorporatesa fashion that was purely of Iran and,in light of the known examples, especiallypopular in the north. The fashion could havestarted in the south, judging from the Susaanimal cup, but the basis for this hypothesisremains disturbingly small. The superiorityof the workmanship in the gazelle cup raisesthe question of whether it was made locallyin Gilan or imported, possibly from Elam.Although the question cannot be answereddefinitely, it is more likely that the cup wasmade in the north, because of its close linkswith the Marlik pieces, even though they arenot so fine. Accordingly, one has to recognizethat among the people of the Marlik culturethere were metalworkers of greater skill thanhas heretofore been realized.Whereas the gazelle cup and one or twoobjects from Marlik raise such questions, othergold and silver pieces from the Safid Riverregion can with sureness be considered localproducts. An example is a gold cup (Figure 7)that corresponds very closely to a silver cupfound by Negahban at Marlik. Both are decoratedwith stags represented in profile, chasedand in very low relief. With their extremelylong legs and small heads, the animals seem to8. Base of the stag cup

step along with almost fairy grace. Althoughthe drawing on the Marlik cup is considerablycruder, its stags are like those on the oneillustrated in that their horns are displayedon either side of the profiled heads. This conventionwas not always followed at Marlik.The two cups are further alike in lacking an"inflated" base and in having, instead of guillochebands, double rows of small connectedsemicircles, perhaps here signifying mountainsin accordance with an ancient Near Easternconvention. The base of the illustrated exampleis decorated with a sixteen-petaled rosettewithin a circle (Figure 8).In appearance these two cups are obviouslyunlike the gazelle cup and others related to it.Furthermore, the stag cups have no relationshipto any known works of art from thesouth. The indication, therefore, is that therewas more than one school of design in theMarlik area. This would seem more likelythan the supposition that the Marlik vesselsshould simply be divided into two groups,one local, the other imported. One of theMarlik schools-that of the stag cups-useda style that would appear to have been indigenousto the people occupying the area; theother, of which the gazelle cup is perhaps themost refined example, incorporated traditionsof both Mesopotamia and other parts of Iran.Gold, in the Safid River region, was usednot only for vessels but for the adornment ofobjects. Such a use occurs in a bronze helmetwith decorations of a religious nature (Figure9). No surviving Elamite or Assyrian monu-ment shows a helmet of precisely this shapeor with this decoration. Obviously it was wornby a person of high rank -one thinks of thewarrior-kings whose graves Negahban found.Despite its gleaming decorations the helmetwas intended for practical use, since it isstrongly made. It is more or less hemispherical,with the front edge cut away a littlewhere the brows would be, and pointed downsomewhat at the nose. The bottom edge of theback is missing, and of the twelve ornamentalstuds that once were spaced all around thehelmet only nine remain. On the back thereis a tapering metal tube for the insertion of afeather or a horsehair plume. Assyrian helmets9. Helmet, from the Safid River region. Late II - early I millennium B.C.Bronze, decorated with gold and silverfoil over bitumen, height 6i2 inches.Fletcher Fund, 63.74I07

io. Roundel, from the Safid Riverregion. Late II - early imillennium B.C. Gold andsilver foil over bitumen, diameter3VU6 inches. Rogers Fund,62.II5that were round rather than pointed usuallyhad ear flaps; there are no signs of such flapson this helmet. Although the overall shape isunlike any shown in Elamite carvings, thereis perhaps a point of resemblance in an Assyrianrelief in the British Museum that depictsan Elamite being hurled from his chariot. Hishemispherical helmet or hat is shown falling.Another Elamite, transfixed by an arrow andassisted by an Elamite archer, wears a similarhelmet with a long feather hanging down atthe back. It does not emerge from a tube;instead it is attached to the interior of thehelmet. Is it possible that the headgear on thisrelief of late date - 653 B.C. - is a survival of atradition exemplified in the Museum's helmet?The principal ornament of the helmet consistsof three divine figures. The central oneis a bearded god holding a vase from whichstreams of living water issue -a Sumerian conceptionoriginally, but one that spread anddominated Mesopotamian thinking for a longtime. Fish are often portrayed in such streams.They are absent here, but the impression ofa fish is conveyed by the scalelike pattern thatcovers the god's skirt and the background.This god of the waters is flanked by femaleIo8divinities whose hands are raised to the levelof their chests. Their flounced dresses, typicalof Mesopotamia in the third and second mil-lenniums, also appear in Elamite representationsof female divinities. The figures' horns,one of the attributes of a divinity, are coveredwith a ropelike pattern. The god's horns aresurmounted by a star, those of his companionsby rosettes. Crowning the helmet is a birdwith outstretched wings, looking as if it wereabout to swoop down. The effect is appropriatewhether the bird represents the divinityof the skies above, completes the power ex-pressed by the figures below, or symbolizesthe bird of prey of the battlefield, waitingfor the victims of the warrior who wore thehelmet.The physical composition of the figures andthe technique of fastening them in place wereestablished by Murray Pease, the Museum'slate conservator. It was possible to determine,through the gaps in the foil covering,that the figures have cores of bitumen. X-rayphotographs show that the cores, as well asthe tube on the back, were fastened to suitablyshaped bronze plates. These, in turn,were fastened to the helmet with pins. Inaddition, the bird's projecting head was modeledon a metal armature. The unaided eyewould judge that the figures and studs werecovered by a skin of gold only. Instead, thecovering is in two layers, one of silver coveredby one of gold.This distinctive technique of gold foil oversilver over bitumen is seen in another objectfrom the Safid River region, a roundel (Figureio) provided with four metal loops on theback so that it could be used, perhaps, tolink leather or fabric bands. The animals thatencircle the central rosette appear to be mouflon.Like those of the stags on the cups discussedearlier, their horns are placed symmetricallyon either side of their profiled heads.The outer edge of the ornament is decoratedwith little semicircles, a favorite motif of Marlikculture metalwork.The same animals, treated in the same style,appear on another Safid River bitumen roundel(Figure ii). This object, which has lostmost of its silver and gold covering, has a par-

ticularly interesting center decoration: a headwith an extremely broad face, short nose,small mouth, low forehead, heavy-lidded eyes,and short beard. Although it in no way resemblesthe heads of any of the pottery figures orthe small solid bronzes that were found atMarlik, it does resemble, in the details mentioned,the head of the god on the helmet.Its gently waving hair, parted in the middle,ends in three large ropelike curls on eitherside of the face. A feature that has apparentlynot been seen elsewhere is the line of invertedtriangles just below the hair; what this representsis not known. The mustache, contraryto Mesopotamian fashion, is treated as a seriesof dots. The beard, which begins high on thecheeks, seems to be cut short by the doubleropelike border circling the head.It is tempting to think that this is a representationof a man of the Marlik culture - one,indeed, who might have worn the helmet. Unfortunately,there is every reason to think thatthis was no ordinary mortal. The peculiar sidecurls indicate as much, for they are of a definiteiconographical type, the distinguishingmark of a figure who often appears in Sumerianscenes. In many of these he has beenidentified by some as the legendary Gilgamesh,in others as an unspecified hero. Whoever hemay be, he is often portrayed in companywith such gods as Ea, the god of water and ofwisdom (the Sumerian equivalent of the godon the helmet). He is also shown as a superhumanfisherman, a carrier of the water oflife, a wrestler with bulls or lions, or a lonewalker between palm trees (which occurs ona seal of the Middle Assyrian period-about1350-900 B.C.). In regard to dating the roundelit is perhaps significant that the fashionchanged in the late Assyrian empire, and thesimple curls were supplemented with luxurioustresses, as exemplified in a relief fromthe palace of Sargon II (72I-705 B.C.), nowin the Louvre. In this the figure grasps withone arm a diminutive lion. Showing similartresses, a carving of the time of Sennacherib(704-681 B.C.) is in the British Museum.The group of objects considered here, inaddition to showing that the craftsmen of theMarlik culture varied greatly in competenceas they worked in their different styles, makesit clear that many of the mythological, iconographical,and artistic conceptions of theSumerians were transmitted to their neighborsand successors. And in accordance withthe whole history of art in Iran-a countrywhose inhabitants have undergone many racialchanges and admixtures - these objectsalso demonstrate that whatsoever in art isaccepted from the outside world is changedin the land of its adoption.REFERENCESFor Marlik earrings:E. 0. Negahban, "A Brief Report on Marlikin Iran" in Journal of British Institute of PersianStudies, II (1964), pp. 13-19.For Susa cup:G. Contenau, Manuel d'archeologie orientale,depuis les origines jusqu'a l'epoque d'Alexandre,II (I93I), 632.For Elamite helmets:R. D. Barnett, Assyrian Palace Reliefs andTheir Influence on the Sculpture of Babylonia andPersia (1960), P1. 121.I. Roundel, from the Safid Riverregion. Late I - early imillennium B.C. Bitumen,with traces of gold and silverfoil, diameter 34 inches. Lentby Norbert Schimmel, L65.z5

::i;??-ea - I clc - -LFL -9 ' -udihrk-LTa-:" ':BbiiiLCSI L?e I1 4 1 -s BdF-arideP -r r ep19r I - 1IIL ,- I ehis -q cC?--_;l 1 n4Cu" 9 ? t3-r I :-tPt 1iiei:-c_-?ii; :::::a? :?:?1Il?s

The Battle of the CrescentH E L M UT N I C K E L Associate Curator of Arms and ArmorSome of the finest existing armor is a group of richly decorated, magnificently embossedparade suits, shields, and other elements, all apparently made in a Frenchroyal armory in the sixteenth century, inasmuch as many of the pieces, as well as alarge complex of drawings for them, display emblems of French kings of that time.The Museum is fortunate in having in its collection, among other objects from thegroup, a splendid shield (Figure i) bearing the badges and monograms of King Henry II(1547-I559). A companion piece is in the Louvre, corresponding in size and pointedoval shape (Figure 2). Each shield has a large central medallion with a battle sceneelaborately framed in interlaced strapwork filled with trophies, masks, and boundcaptives. The figural decoration of both shields is highly embossed in relief, and themonograms and emblems in the strapwork are damascened in silver as well as themore usual gold.Much has been written about this fascinating group of parade armor, and throughthe studies of Bruno Thomas, director of the Waffensammlung in Vienna, and StephenV. Grancsay, curator emeritus of the Department of Arms and Armor in this Museum,much has been learned about its origin and its position within the field of sixteenthcenturydecorative art. Earlier studies by Hans Stocklein, Rudolf Cederstr6m, andKarl Erik Steneberg had established connections between the set of drawings (now inthe Graphische Sammlungen, Munich), attributed to the so-called School of Fontainebleau,and elements of the armor, including several pieces in our collection. The earlierwriters suggested, and Bruno Thomas recently proved, that a major part of the drawings,and consequently of the armor, can be attributed to Etienne Delaune, a courtartist for Henry II from 1552 or 1553 until the king's death.The work of this medalist, engraver, and designer for Henry was centered on theroyal personage, and his armor designs were "tailored" for the very body of the king.In this oeuvre there is developed an intricate and highly sophisticated iconographicalsystem whose basic themes are triumph and fame. Allegory and mythology are usedextensively to demonstrate these themes; historical events and personalities are selectedfor their relevance to Henry's exploits and ambitions: his battles against his enemiestheHoly Roman Emperor and the English - and his desire to make his name immortalas that of the wisest and most powerful ruler in the Western world.I. Shield of King Henry II ofFrance. Designed by EtienneDelaune (I518/19-I583),French. Probably made in aFrench royal armory, xvicentury. Hezght 25 inches.Harris Brisbane Dick Fund,34.85IIIThe Metropolitan Museum of Artis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve, and extend access toThe Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin ®www.jstor.org

2. Shield of King Henry II ofFrance. Designed by EtienneDelaune. Probably made in aFrench royal armory, xvIcentury. Height 24 3 inches.Musee du LouvreIn line with this plan, a shield from the same workshop, now in the Royal Armory,Turin, has Latin inscriptions in its framework identifying the scenes in its five medallionsas events in Rome's war against Jugurtha (Figure 3), and a related shield, in theArmoury of Windsor Castle, represents events in the careers of Julius Caesar andPompey the Great. On Henry's armor in the Louvre the story of Caesar and Pompeyis illustrated once more, with Henry portrayed as Caesar. Other classic themes depictedin this group of armor are the Trojan War and the Legends of Hercules. A contemporaryrather than a classical event is shown in still another shield of the group, now in theWallace Collection, London. Although its damascened inscription has been largelyobliterated, it still suffices, along with other evidence, to identify the scene as theFrench siege of Boulogne-sur-Mer in I545.Until now, however, no satisfactory explanation has been found for the scene on ourshield or for the scene on the companion piece in the Louvre. Yet clearly these twobattles are too specific in their details not to be representations of well-defined historicalor mythological events.On both shields one of the embattled parties wears European dress, the other Oriental,both of these a mixture of classical and sixteenth-century costume. The banners ofthe Orientals display crescents; the banners of the Europeans have either crosses orsaltires for devices. Both sides are shown using cannon. In the left background of ourshield (Figure 6), beyond a river filled with boats, a walled city flies a crescent banner.To the right appears a fortified camp, one of its tents surmounted by a pennant chargedwith a saltire. In a raised battery a gunner trains his piece upon the city. On the nearside of the river, in the middle ground, is a second camp, fortified by a similar batterytogether with a makeshift breastwork of earth-filled barrels and gabions. Here an armywith pikes and halberds, clad in the puffed and slashed dress of sixteenth-century footsoldiers, holds off a host in turbans, shooting arrows and brandishing scimitars. Unlikethe Europeans, the Orientals are supported by cavalrymen, although only a handfulare seen. The large banners of the Europeans are seme with small crosses and their tentpennants are charged with crosses; the flags and lance pennons of the Orientals showfrom one to three crescents.In the foreground (Figure 14) two Europeans in "classic" armor, one mounted, theother standing over his fallen horse, are engaged with three turbaned horsemen. Afourth Oriental has been thrown to the ground; lying partly on his shield, which isdamascened with three silver crescents, he raises one arm in an appeal for succor. Oneof the turbaned horsemen aims an arrow at the back of the mounted European, who,strangely, holds his sword in his left hand. The harnesses of the Orientals' horses aredecorated with small crescents; the harness of the mounted European has tiny saltiresengraved in its mountings.In the background of the Louvre shield (Figure I8) a moated fortress, defended bycrescent-bearing troops with smoking cannons, is besieged by an army with the cross onits banners. Oriental horsemen approach in the distance, attacking the siege army fromthe rear. As on our shield, there is a river, this time crossing the middle ground. In theforeground (Figure 19) three European foot soldiers in half-classic, half-contemporaryarmor defend themselves against four opponents in generally similar armor, some ofwhich has "Oriental" characteristics. One man on either side has fallen. To the rear ofI I2

:: ia?__s;:i?.?:.i:?; :;:"??,sillnI.b?s?.:I?i":?"kLP?"Ptly P?11)16 I " ?rru rpll IJs8":Bd"d-%iF"B?;1: is?;sr-;c;?;?ia:::i-8:?il-41:591?pa?i: :s:;B??:;??,,?i?5I""?:"":a""':" ;3li'-fi:P:B Sdx;H ? -?:_:?I;-:::?::: ? g'??:ii;;:,i,i?:i ai;-P-:: :::9:t"P-:::;- :::.:..:;i:-?-----y;?::;:?a?a-:;? ?:?-. :::?-

3. Shield. Made in the same workshop as Figures i and 2. Height 28 inches. RoyalArmory, Turin. Photograph: Alinari- Art Reference Bureauthe group a bound captive hurries away. Al-though the European foot soldiers display nodistinctive emblems or badges, one of theiropponents unexpectedly has a small cross onthe center of his shield and a fleur-de-lis-likedecoration on his helmet (Figure 4).Several interpretations have been offeredfor these complex scenes. An event in classicalhistory comparable to the Jugurthine War, ason the Turin shield, or to the exploits ofCaesar, as on the Windsor Castle shield, hasbeen called improbable because of the presenceof firearms. This method of eliminationis somewhat overcritical, however, for it is notunusual in illustrations of the sixteenth centuryto see firearms in classical scenes andBiblical scenes as well. The Louvre shield itselfincludes cannons among the classic trophiesin its framework.But if a classic event has been doubtedbecause of the cannon, a contemporary event,equivalent to the siege represented on theshield of the Wallace Collection, also meetswith difficulties, this time on heraldic grounds.A cross, white in a red field, was the device onthe banners of French troops, beginning withthe Hundred Years' War, and it was also thebanner device of the Swiss, most trusted ofthe mercenaries in the French service. Butthis same cross was also the cognizance of theSavoyards, who were on the side of the HolyRoman Emperor. The cross red on white, onthe other hand, was the badge not only of theEnglish, but, among others, of the Genoese,still another ally of the Empire. The saltireor St. Andrew's cross, sometimes shown asragged staves, was one of the badges of theOrder of the Golden Fleece and, usually redon yellow, was borne by the German Landsknechteand other troops of Emperor MaximilianI and his successor Charles V. Becausecross and saltire are to be found on the sameside in the Museum's shield, and because asoldier with a "French" cross on his shield anda "French" fleur-de-lis on his helmet is fightingside by side with the Orientals on theLouvre shield, it has been suggested that thesescenes might represent the capture of Nicefrom the Savoyards by the Turkish admiralKhair ad-Din Barbarossa in i543. On this

occasion the crescent-bearing Turkish infidelswere in alliance with Francis I, the MostChristian King of France, against EmperorCharles V, the Overlord of Christendom, whoin turn was fighting against the Pope, theHead of Christianity, as well as the rebelliousProtestants, who claimed to be following theTrue Word of God. A second and somewhatsimilar suggestion is that the shields show thecapture of Corsica from the Genoese by Henryand his Turkish allies in 155I- I553. Althoughthe heraldic cognizances -crosses for eitherFrenchmen or Savoyards, saltires for Imperialtroops, crescents for Turks - could be acceptedas in accordance with these events (eventhough the display of many small crosses ona banner instead of a single large one would behighly unusual for the French as well as theSavoyards), the topography of the scenes doesnot fit in with these interpretations at all.Another suggestion, identifying the crossbearersas Frenchmen, the troops with saltiresas Germans, and the crescent-bearers as Saracens,has been made in favor of some episodeof the Crusades, the Crusades being practicallythe only historical occasions when Frenchand German forces fought side by side againstinfidels. This would seem, however, to be aperiod completely alien to Henry's ideas andiconographical concepts. Furthermore, thepresence of firearms could be used to rule outthe Crusades, just as it has been held againstattempted classical interpretations. Also, thewarrior with the cross on his shield and fleurde-lison his helmet, fighting with the "Sara-cens," would be wholly inexplicable.A clue to the mystery is found in the Turinshield, showing the story of Marius and Jugurtha.Here the Roman camp is identifiedby pennants charged with crosses - proof thatin Etienne Delaune's iconography the crossis not necessarily a symbol of Christianity:crosses and saltires, the badges of the troopsof the Holy Roman Empire, could just aswell be taken as emblems of classical Rome.On his parade armor in the Louvre, as mentionedearlier, Henry equated himself withCaesar. However, on our shield and the Louvreshield the "Romans" are unmistakably on thelosing side, and it seems unlikely that theking would identify himself with defeat inarmor designed for his personal use. The alternativeis - that he identified himself with thecrescent-bearers!Now, besides having the Turks as his allyagainst the Empire, Henry had another reasonto favor the crescent. As the symbol of themoon goddess Diana, it was his personal badgein honor of his mistress, Diane de Poitiers. Itoccurs well over a hundred times in the frameworkof these two shields, damascened in silver- the metal of the moon in the lore of alchemy.Damascening in silver rather than gold wasmost uncommon, and its occurrence in theseshields is a further indication of their closerelationship to the person of Henry.But who were the "Orientals" that defeatedthe Roman legions, and could boastof a heroic leader worthy of the adulation ofa Renaissance personality despite the leader'shatred for idolized Rome? The answer: theCarthaginians and Hannibal. And inseparablyconnected with Hannibal's name is that ofhis greatest victory, Cannae. Reading Livy'sdescription of the Battle of Cannae (Historyof Rome, Book XXII, Chapters 44-51), onenot only recognizes the terrain represented onthe shields but finds that the scene on ourshield illustrates specific events in the battle.According to Livy:The consuls . . . followed the Phoenicians[Carthaginians] until they came to Cannae,where, having the enemy in view, they di-vided their forces ... and fortified two camps.... The river Aufidus, flowing past both theircamps . . . the smaller camp . . . was situatedacross the Aufidus.Bitter quarreling occurred over the strategyto be followed, and the rash consul TerentiusVarro, against the advice of the second consul,Lucius Aemilius Paulus, and other generals,blundered out on the battlefield picked byHannibal to make the best of his inferiority ininfantry and his superiority in cavalry. Hannibalhad planned his battle as a pincer movement.He gave way with his center in a feint,letting his Numidian and Gaulish horse outflankthe Romans and cut them off in the rear.For this reason only a scattering of Oriental1I54. Detail of the Louvre's shield

5. The Battle of Cannae, by HansBurgkmair the Elder ( 473- 53 I),German. Dated I529. Oil onwood, 63i x 48 inches. AltePinakothek, Munichhorsemen are seen near the river. The Romancavalry on the left wing was engaged onlylater, when the trap was closing around thedoomed Roman infantry in the center. Thescene in the middle ground shows the laststand of the Romans in their smaller camp.At this point Livy tells of the death of LuciusAemilius Paulus:In the other part of the field Paulus, althoughhe had received a severe wound froma sling at the very outset of the battle, neverthelessrepeatedly opposed himself to Hannibal,with his men in close formation, and atseveral points restored the fight. . . . Theywere beaten, but chose rather to die wherethey stood than to run away; and the victors,angry that their victory was thus delayed, cutthem down, when they could not rout them.But they routed them at last, when only afew were left, exhausted with fighting andwith wounds. The survivors were now all dispersed,and those who could attempted toregain their horses and escape.Gnaeus Lentulus, a tribune of the soldiers,as he rode by on his horse, caught sight of theconsul sitting on a stone and covered withblood. "Lucius Aemilius," he cried, "on whomthe gods ought to look down in mercy, as theonly man without guilt in this day's disaster,take this horse, while you have still a littlestrength remaining and I can attend you andraise you up and guard you. Make not thisbattle calamitous by a consul's death; evenwithout that there are tears and grief enough."To this the consul answered, "All honour,Cornelius, to your manhood! But waste notin unavailing pity the little time you have toescape the enemy. Go, and tell the senators inpublic session to fortify the City of Rome andgarrison it strongly before the victorious enemydraws near: in private say to QuintusFabius that ILucius Aemilius has lived till thishour and now dies remembering his precepts.As for me, let me breathe my last in the midstof my slaughtered soldiers, lest for a secondtime I be brought to trial after being consul,or else stand forth the accuser of my colleague,blaming another in defense of my own innocence."While they were speaking, there cameup with them first a crowd of fleeing Romans,and then the enemy, who overwhelmed theconsul, without knowing who he was, beneathI6a rain of missiles. Lentulus, thanks to his horse,escaped in the confusion. The rout was noweverywhere complete.On our shield, then, the consul is shownmaking his last stand above his fallen horsewhile the faithful tribune strives to save him.A puzzling detail is that the Orientals who areattacking the unfortunate consul do not carrytheir shields on their arms but have themslung on their backs. This behavior, not verysensible in a pitched battle, can be explainedas an indication of the following episode:About five hundred Numidians, who, in additionto their customary arms and missiles,carried swords concealed under their corselets,pretended to desert. Riding over from theirown side, with their bucklers at their backs,they suddenly dismounted and threw downbucklers and javelins at the feet of their enemies.Being received into the midst of theirranks they were conducted to the rear andordered to fall in behind. And while the battlewas getting under way at every point, theykept quite still; but no sooner were the mindsand eyes of all absorbed in the struggle, thanthey snatched up the shields which lay strewneverywhere amongst the heaps of the slain,and assailing the Romans from behind andstriking at their backs and hamstrings, effecteda great slaughter and a terror and confusionthat were even greater.If any doubt remains that the scene on ourshield is indeed meant to represent the finalphases of the Battle of Cannae, it can be resolvedby comparing Delaune's portrayal ofthe battle with certain probable sources andprototypes.Among the countless battle scenes representedin works of art of the sixteenth centurythere are a number identified by their inscriptionsas battles of Cannae. One is a monumentalpainting of 1529 by Hans Burgkmair(Figure 5), which was one of a number ofpaintings of famous battles commissioned byDuke William IV of Bavaria. In designing hisscene Burgkmair borrowed from an earlierBattle of Cannae, the reverse of a medalstruck in 1504 or I505 in honor of Gonzalo

Ie-a ? sl Irp?lla * h-;II??iYjl,i-R:::::.:C-$is:x,o-?:?i,,bi-?--i?:8ur;II-M?;r ? r--Y?ropre r.*:IlaB?s??:::E:::.ttP . e CF~-dPCilR" -u-uli8? 61 'L 1EBh" CBsFarkavn IsP" - 'II _dR 88:i.? ?.?ila'1"3:.?6iS:?`";x,a, d',,"-d::i.?";\_r;?:

6. Detail of the Museum's shield7. Detail of a woodcut by Hans Burgkmair theElder. For Der Weisskunig, 5 14-15 6.Dimensions of whole 8y x 734 inches. TheLibrary of the Metropolitan MuseumII8

8. Woodcut by Burgkmair for Der WeisskunigIde C6rdoba, "El Gran Capitan," a Spanishgeneral of great renown in the Italian wars atthe beginning of the sixteenth century. Themelee on this medal (Figure io) establisheda model that was widely copied (Figure 11),and Burgkmair, eagerly seeking Italian sourcesto give his painting the necessary "authen-ticity," evidently used the medal or a copyof it for the central composition in his fore-ground (Figure 12).Bruno Thomas was the first to point outthe derivation of Delaune's style of compositionfrom that of Burgkmair, who workedabout a generation earlier. The derivation isparticularly evident in the Louvre shield,where the upper half of the composition canbe traced to a woodcut by Burgkmair inEmperor Maximilian's autobiographical ro-mance of chivalry, Der Weisskunig (Figure17). Several of the motifs in the middle groundof our shield seem to have been inspired bymore of these woodcuts (Figures 7, 8).The foreground scene of our shield is basednot only on the medal of Gonzalo de C6rdobaand Burgkmair's painting, but has featuresthat seem to have been borrowed from stillanother medal, The Lion Hunt, by Moderno(Figure i5). The consul and the Orientalhorseman attacking him are evidently takenfrom the Gonzalo medal, although the differingposition of the horse's head - turned back-may be a combination of postures that canbe found in The Lion Hunt and Burgkmair'spainting. The fallen horse that is such an importantelement in the Gonzalo medal andin the foreground of Burgkmair's painting hasbeen exchanged for one in Der Weisskunig(Figure I3), with the falling rider converted,mirrorwise and at a different angle, into theman in mail lying on the ground. The mostimportant link is that between the figure onI-_-~c~cc-/-?------r9. Sketch for The Battle of Cannae, by HansBurgkmair the Elder. Pen and ink onpaper. Nationalmuseum, Stockholm

II.Copy of the Gonzalo medal (Figure io). Boxwoodplaque. South German, early xvi century. Width i4inches. Gift of Harry G. Friedman, 61.244io. The Battle of Cannae. Medalin ho nor of Gonzalo deC6rd 'oba. School of Moderno,Italia in, I504 or I505. Mountedon a sword thought to havebeen Gonzalo's. Royal Armory,Mad 'rid. Photograph: Pdtrimonio Ndciondl'~, L,,,, i _' ~Burgkmair12. Detail of thepainting13. Detail of a woodcut by Burgkmairfor Der Weisskunig

our shield, identified via Livy as the tribuneGnaeus Lentulus, and a figure in the back-ground of Burgkmair's painting-identifiedby an inscription as CNEVS CORNELIVSvors,LENTVLVS (Figure I6). Even the generalsimilarity is striking, but it is particularlynotable that both horsemen have their swordsin their left hands. It might well be thatBurgkmair painted his Lentulus after an engravingthat had mistakenly exchanged leftand right, as happened not infrequently, orafter a medal in reverse. Delaune, apparentlyrecognizing the discrepancy, attempted tomake it appear reasonable within his compositionby maneuvering an archer to the rightside of his Lentulus. This may also have beenan added touch of historical authenticity, illustratingLivy's description of the breakthroughof about six hundred Roman survi-as led by the tribune Publius SemproniusTuditanus:... he grasped his sword, and, forming acolumn, strode away through the midst ofthe enemy; and when the Numidians hurledmissiles at their right sides, which were unprotected,they shifted their shields to theright and so got through.Although it is easy enough to explain manyof the motifs in our shield in terms of printsand medals-objects of art that were readilyportable-it is less easy to connect the tworepresentations of Lentulus. Delaune apparentlyknew Burgkmair's figure, yet the paintingnever left Bavaria, and Delaune did notgo to Germany until long after the shield wasmade. Perhaps one of the German craftsmen14. Detail of the Museum's shield

15. The Lion Hunt. Medal by Moderno (activelate xv - early xvI century), Italian.Diameter 3 inches. Victoria and AlbertMuseumwho are known to have been employed in theFrench royal workshops acted as intermedi-ary. (Some of the hundred sixty-odd drawingsfor the parade armor, mentioned earlier, carryexplanatory notes, and all of these notes arein sixteenth-century German, not French.)Two sketches for Burgkmair's painting areknown. One of them, showing the far backgroundwith the town of Cannae and thefleeing consul, Terentius Varro, has to theright a circular fortification whose slopingsides are reinforced by buttresses (Figure 9).The same kind of fortification occurs in thebackground of our shield. It might well bethat other sketches of Burgkmair's "authentic"representation somehow served as modelsfor Delaune.While our shield depicts Livy's version ofthe Battle of Cannae, the scene on the Louvreshield, interestingly enough, is based on a differentaccount - that of Polybius, as found inhis Histories, Book III, Chapter I 7:z 6. Detail of the Burgkmair paintingSuch was the outcome of the battle atCannae ... a battle in which both the victorsand the vanquished displayed conspicuousbravery, as was evinced by the facts. For ofthe six thousand cavalry, seventy escaped toVenusia with Terentius, and about three hundredof the allied horse reached different citiesin scattered groups. Of the infantry about tenthousand were captured fighting but not inthe actual battle, while only perhaps threethousand escaped from the field to neighboringtowns. All the rest, numbering aboutseventy thousand, died bravely ....The Romans who were made prisoners werenot in the battle for the following reasons.Lucius had left a force of ten thousand footin his own camp, in order that, if Hannibal,neglecting his camp, employed his whole armyin the field, they might during the battle gainentrance there and capture all the enemy'sbaggage: if, on the other hand, Hannibal,guessing his danger, left a strong garrison inthe camp, the force opposed to the Romanswould be reduced in numbers. The circumstancesof their capture were more or less asfollows. Hannibal had left an adequate forceto guard his camp, and, when the battleopened, the Romans, as they had been ordered,delivered an assault on this force. At122

17. SM FAB Spring-LP Kl.M* m.St. 2.WPPreis: EPS-Schaltanlagen Hans+Markus BuschkühlSt = Anzahl der StartplätzeTeilnehmer ST VereinBayer,Iris 1 RG Hausdorp e.V.Betzhold,Angela 1 RFV Burscheid-Paffenlöh e.V.Bickhoff,Vanessa 1 RFV Ratheim 1951Bohnes,Marina 1 RG Ober-Castrop e. V.Borcherding,Chiara 2 RFV Ratheim 1951Dahlmann,Dirk 1 RFV Velbert e. V.Ensmann,Lena 1 RFV Deutschritter Düren 1926Fiebig,Kai 2 Vereinigter RFV Remscheid e.V.Gerner,Katja 1 Lintorfer RFV 1975 e.V.Groesdonk,Anna 2 Förderverein f.TRS MülheimHamacher,Lara 1 RFV Deutschritter Düren 1926Hanowski,Andrea 1 RFV Ziethen Trompet 1884 e.V.Heiligenpahl,Anja 1 RFV Jagdfalke BrünenHübner,Nadja 2 RFZV St.Hubertus Herne-Bochum-GerthJakobs,Antonia 1 RTS ButschenhofJungermann,Marina 1 RFV Dilkrath 1932 e.V.Kelleners,Nicole 2 RFV Ratheim 1951Kirchfeld-Pauly,Claudia 1 RV Im Hassel e.V.Knorr,Annalena 1 RFV Ratheim 1951Leuchten,Marie-Therese 1 RV VolkardeyMeyer,Kathrin 1 RFV Kaarst 1924 e.V.Oepen,Daria 1 RFV Deutschritter Düren 1926Pannenbecker,Johannes 2 RFV St.Georg Büttgen e.V.Paulus,Rolf 1 RG Auerhof e.V.Pfeifer,Peter 1 RSV Essen e.V.Plantzen,Jennifer 2 RC St.Georg Günhoven e.V.Quack,Maike 2 RV Ostenhof e.V.Raucamp,Maren 2 RV Rheinische Höhen e.V.Schläger,Alois-Adolf 1 TSPF EssenSchmitt-Sasse,Rainer 2 Wuppertaler RFVSchulze-Hesselmann,Julius 1 RG Zülpich-MerzenichSielemann,Maren 1 RV Rhede-Krommert e.V.Thönnißen,Mara 1 RFV Ratheim 1951Wefringhaus,Philipp 2 RSV Düsseldorf-Eller 1967Wilwerscheid,Harald 2 RC Kalenborner Höhe e.V.Zimmermann,Thekla 1 RV Hebborner Hof e.VAnzahl d. Startplätze: 48 Startfolge ab: B nach Pferd25

ig. Detail of the Louvre's shield entirecomposition is preserved in a ratherweak copy in the Royal Library of Turin(Figure 20). The existing part, in the FoggArt Museum, depicts a group of three combatantsand, oddly enough, these three warriorsare missing in Delaune's composition. Itmakes one wonder if Delaune was using as amodel the original drawing, from which theFogg fragment had already been cut. (Onehalf of the scene was made into an engravingby a follower of Pollaiuolo, but Delaune wascertainly not using the print, illustrated asFigure 2I, since his composition lacks figuresin the print and contains others that do notappear there.) Thus Delaune, himself a stylesetterof great importance and influence, de-pended heavily on established images, not onlyof his own time but of generations earlier.And now the explanation for the odd figureon the Louvre shield: the soldier on the cres-cent side with the cross on his shield and fleurde-lis-likedesign on his helmet. Both Livy andPolybius mention that Hannibal's main bodyof infantry consisted of Gaulish allies equippedwith Roman arms captured in the battles atthe river Trebia and Lake Trasimenus. Thedevices of cross and fleur-de-lis, therefore, weremeant to indicate a Gaul fighting in Romanarms. But surely they also had a second meaning,identifying the French, as descendants ofthe Gauls, in their struggle against the Empire,as the successor of ancient Rome. Thecross on the shield doubles as the sixteenthcenturycognizance of the French army, thewhite cross.In the framework of both shields large trophiesare displayed. On ours a pair of drumsis decorated with small damascened escutcheonscharged with saltires (Figure 23); onthe Louvre's a pair of shields is decorated with124

crosses (Figure 22). These combinations makesense only if saltire and cross are taken asbadges of Rome, not of contemporary Frenchor Imperial troops. The trophies are Romanarms displayed in the triumph of a hero whohas the crescent as his badge: Hannibal -Henri! Perhaps even the H and C in themonograms on these shields, standing forHenry and his wife, Catherine de' Medici,can be read with the second meaning ofHannibal and Cannae, or Carthage. And thereseems to be even another direct allusion inglory. Contemporary copies of the medalsometimes omitted Gonzalo's name in theinscription, so that it was even easier to mistakethe representation for "the" Battle ofCannae. A German medal struck in 1527with the portrait of Count Palatinate Philiphas the battle scene on its reverse, in allusionto the count's surname, Bellicosus. Eventhough the medal retains the original inscrip-tion, CONSALVI AGIDARI VICTORIA- DEGALLIS AD CANNAS, it was apparentlythought to praise Hannibal and Cannae. This20. Two Deeds of Hercules, by afollower of Pollaiuolo. Italian,about I500. Pen and ink onpaper, 44 x so4 inches.Royal Library, TurinHenry's emblem, for Polybius expressly mentionsthat Hannibal set up his forces in acrescent formation.A curious point about this iconographicalsequence of battle scenes is that the first linkin the chain, the medal in honor of El GranCapitan, did not refer, despite its inscription,to the classic Battle of Cannae. Instead itcommemorated an event of I503, the Battleof Cerignola, in which a greatly outnumberedarmy of Spanish men-at-arms and GermanLandsknechte under Gonzalo de Cordoba defeatedthe French under the Duke of Nemours.The scene of this battle, which wasdecisive for the first phase of the Italian wars,was only about five miles from the ancientbattlefield of Cannae, and Gonzalo's menmarched across the very site. For this reasonthe unknown medalist made his flattering butmisleading allusion to Hannibal's deed of21. Hercules and the Giants, by a follower of Pollaiuolo. Italian, about I500.Engraving, i44 x 2I 6 inches. Harris Brisbane Dick Fund, 25.2.22

22. Detail of the Louvre's shieldmedal, rather than the original, may havebeen Burgkmair's inspiration; it proves atleast that this particular battle scene wasknown in Bavaria two years before Burgkmairproduced his painting. Similar medalsstruck for Charles V and for Louis II of Hungaryhave Gonzalo's name replaced by thedate 1538.Perhaps there was an underlying wish toblot out the humiliating memory of theBattle of Cerignola, the "second Battle ofCannae," when Henry ordered his courtartisans to create the two shields. Henry hadspent the greater part of his lifetime tryingto overthrow the Holy Roman Emperor,even as his father and grandfather had done.After the crushing defeats suffered by hisfather, Francis I, Henry had managed to turnthe tide, although more by diplomacy thanby feats of arms. Making skillful use of thechaotic conditions within the Empire, whereCatholics and Protestants were at one another'sthroats, Henry employed the Turksas one arm of a giant pincer against the Em-pire - on a vastly larger scale the very strategy126used by Hannibal against the Romans atCannae. Henry was at the summit of hispower when the peace treaty of Vaucelles,signed in I556, gave him possession of theterritory he had wrenched from the Empire,and when, six months later, his old adversary,Charles V, abdicated. Perhaps this was theperiod during which the Battle of Cannaeshields were made, in praise of Henry's strategyand prowess, and in anticipation of agreat victory soon to come that would destroyhis enemies forever.Unfortunately for Henry, his "Cannae"was to remain wishful thinking. Immediatelyafter the abdication of Charles V, Henrybroke the truce by going to war again -andsuffered three disastrous defeats. In the campaignof I557 against Naples, the Frencharmy under Francois, duke of Guise, wasnearly wiped out by Don Fernando Alvarezde Toledo, duke of Alba. In the battle of St.Quentin in 1557 the Constable of France,Anne de Montmorency, was taken prisonerby Emmanuel Philibert, "Ironhead," dukeof Savoy. And in the Battle of Gravelines in

1558 the army of Marshal de Thermes was brokenrouted and the marshal himself and all hisgenerals were captured. (Incidentally, thearmor believed to have been worn by Montmorencyin the battle of St. Quentin is exhibitedin our Arms and Armor Gallery, asare elements of armor that belonged toAlvarez de Toledo, Emmanuel Philibert, andFrangois, duke of Guise.) As a result of hisreverses, Henry was forced in I559 to makeanother peace treaty-one considerably lessfavorable than that of 1556, although hemanaged to retain important parts of hisearlier territorial acquisitions.It was at the celebration of this new peace,during a tournament, that Henry receivedthe wound that ended his life, a splinter fromhis opponent's shattered lance entering theeyeslit of the royal helmet. Its continuationrendered meaningless by the king's death, theiconographical program for the armor wasoff, leaving some of its ideas expressedin such fragmentary form that they maynever be fully understood.REFERENCESStephen V. Grancsay, "The Armor of HenryII of France from the Louvre Museum" in TheMetropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, n.s., XI(1952), pp. 68-80.Stephen V. Grancsay, "Royal Armorers:Antwerp or Paris?" in The Metropolitan Museumof Art Bulletin, n.s., XVIII (1959), pp. I-7.Peter Halm, "Hans Burgkmair als Zeichner"in Miinchner Jahrbuch der Bildenden Kunst, ThirdSeries, XIII (1962), pp. 75-162.Bruno Thomas, "Die Munchner Harnischvorzeichnungendes Etienne Delaune fur dieEmblem- und die Schlangen-Garnitur HeinrichsII. von Frankreich" in Jahrbuch der KunsthistorischenSammlungen in Wien, LVI (1960), pp. 7-62.Bruno Thomas, "Die Munchner Waffenvorzeichnungendes Etienne Delaune und die PrunkschildeHeinrichs II. von Frankreich" in Jahrbuchder Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien, LVIII(1962), pp. IOI-I68.23. Detail of the Museum's shield

NotesOne of the drawingsin the exhibition will be this recentlyrediscoveredand remark-The collecting of drawings by the old mastersably preserved example of mid-fifteenth-centuryFlorentine draughtsmanship.has, in New York City, a history that spansnearly a hundred years, but only after 900odid discriminating connoisseurship begin toinspire the purchases of public and privatecollectors in this city. The Metropolitan Mu-seum's collection of drawings dates back toI880 and is based on a gift from CorneliusVanderbilt, but the Museum's first major ac-quisitions in the field were made in I906,when Roger Fry came to New York as theMetropolitan's Curator of Paintings. A fewyears later J. Pierpont Morgan purchased aremarkable group of drawings brought to-gether by the English artist Charles FairfaxMurray, and this group forms the nucleus ofthe fine collection of drawings at the PierpontMorgan Library. These two institutions, theMetropolitan Museum and the Morgan Li-brary, have now joined forces in organizing aseries of exhibitions that will reveal the richesaccumulated over fifty years in the public andprivate collections of New York and its im-mediate vicinity. The first of these presenta-tions, opening on November 9 at the Metro-politan and continuing until January 9, isdevoted to Italian drawings of the Renaissance.The unstinting generosity of sixteen col-lectors and the resources of the two organizinginstitutions have made possible a dazzlingpanorama of the variety and inventiveness ofItalian draughtsmanship of this period. Onehundred and fifty-one drawings, a good manyof them never before exhibited, represent allthe major Italian schools. Antonio Pollaiuolo,Leonardo, Michelangelo, Raphael, Andrea delSarto, Titian, Correggio, and Parmigianinoare all present, surrounded by a galaxy ofwonderfully talented draughtsmen, and thegrowth of Italian art is traced from the middleFRANCESCO DI STEFANO, CALLED PESELLINO (about 1422-1457),of the fifteenth century to the end of the six-Italian (Florence). St. Philip Holding a Cross. Brush and brown wash,teenth. The event is commemorated in a fullyheightened with white, over black chalk. Io x 72 inches. Rogers Fund, 65. 12. illustrated catalogue.. B.128

THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ARTArthur A. Houghton, Jr. PresidentRobert F. Wagner Mayor of the City of New YorkAbraham D. Beame Comptroller of the City of New YorkMalcolm P. AldrichHenry C. AlexanderMrs. Vincent AstorSherman BaldwinCleo Frank CraigDaniel P. DavisonJ. Richardson DilworthC. Douglas DillonJames J. Rorimer DirectorMrs. James W. FosburghJohn W. GardnerWalter S. GiffordRoswell L. GilpatricJames M. HesterDevereux C. JosephsHenry R. LuceBOARD OF TRUSTEESRobert Lehman Vice.PresidentEx OfficioElectiveHonoraryDwight D. Eisenhower Richard C. Patterson, Jr.Dudley T. Easby, Jr. SecretaryCecily B. Kerr Executive Assistant to the DirectorHarry S. Parker III Administrative AssistantArthur Klein Supervisor of Plans and ConstructionAdelaide A. Cahill Assistant for ArchivesMildred S. McGill Assistantfor LoansAMERICAN PAINTINGS AND SCULPTURE: Robert Beverly Hale, Curator. AlbertTenEyck Gardner and Henry Geldzahler, Associate Curators. Stuart P. Feld,Assistant CuratorAMERICAN WING: James Biddle, Curator. Mary C. Glaze and Berry B. Tracy,Assistant CuratorsANCIENT NEAR EASTERN ART: Vaughn E. Crawford, Associate Research Curatorin Charge. Prudence Oliver Harper and Oscar White Muscarella, AssistantCuratorsARMS AND ARMOR: Randolph Bullock, Curator. Helmut Nickel and NormaWolf, Assistant Curators. Harvey Murton, ArmorerTHE COSTUME INSTITUTE: Polaire Weissman, Executive Director. Stella Blum,Mavis Dalton, and Angelina M. Firelli, Assistant CuratorsDRAWINGS: Jacob Bean, Curator. Merritt Safford, Associate Conservator ofDrawings and PrintsEGYPTIAN: Henry G. Fischer, Curator. Nora E. Scott, Associate Curator.Eric Young, Assistant CuratorEUROPEAN PAINTINGS: Theodore Rousseau, Curator. Claus Virch, AssociateCurator. Margaretta M. Salinger, Associate Research Curator. Elizabeth E.Gardner, Assistant Curator. Hubert F. von Sonnenburg, Conservator ofPaintings. Gerhard Wedekind, Associate ConservatorAUDITORIUM EVENTS: William Kolodney, ConsultantBOOKSHOP AND REPRODUCTIONS: Bradford D. Kelleher, Sales Manager.Margaret S. Kelly, General Supervisor, Art and Book Shop. Daniel S. Berger,Assistant to the Sales ManagerCONSERVATION: Kate C. Lefferts, Assistant ConservatorDEVELOPMENT AND MEMBERSHIP: David A. Knickel, Manager, Development.Jean A. Ashfield, Assistant Manager. Dorothy Weinberger, Manager, Membership.Suzanne Gauthier, Assistant ManagerEDUCATION: Thomas M. Folds, Dean. Louise Condit, Assistant Dean inCharge of the Junior Museum. Blanche R. Brown, Beatrice Farwell, RobertaPaine, and Angela B. Watson, Senior LecturersSTAFFWalter C. Baker Vice-PresidentNewbold Morris Commissioner of the Department of ParksEdgar I. Williams President of the National AcademyHenry S. MorganMrs. Charles S. PaysonRichard S. PerkinsRoland L. RedmondMrs. Ogden ReidFrancis Day RogersElihu Root, Jr.J. Kenneth Loughry TreasurerGeneral AdministrationJames I. RorimerIrwin UntermyerStephen Francis VoorheesArthur K. WatsonMrs. Sheldon WhitehouseArnold WhitridgeCharles B. WrightsmanNelson A. RockefellerJoseph V. Noble Operating AdministratorWarren C. Powers Assistant Treasurer-Controller Robert Chapman Building SuperintendentMaurice K. Viertel AuditorRobert A. Pierson Chief AccountantJames O. Grimes City LiaisonJessie L. Morrow Supervisor of PersonnelCuratorial DepartmentsInformationWalter Cadette Captain of AttendantsTheodore Ward Purchasing AgentWilliam F. Pons Manager, Photograph StudioEloise Bruce Restaurant ManagerBetsy Mason Manager of Office ServiceRichard R. Morsches Assistant to theOperating AdministratorFAR EASTERN: Aschwin Lippe, Research Curator. Fong Chow and Jean Mailey,Associate CuratorsGREEK AND ROMAN: Dietrich von Bothmer,Andrew Oliver, Jr., Assistant CuratorsISLAMIC ART: Ernst J. Grube, Associate Curator in ChargeCurator. Brian F. Cook andMEDIEVAL ART AND THE CLOISTERS: Margaret B. Freeman, Curator of TheCloisters. William H. Forsyth, Associate Curator of Medieval Art. ThomasP. F. Hoving, Associate Curator of The Cloisters. Vera K. Ostoia, AssociateResearch Curator. Carmen G6mez-Moreno, Assistant CuratorMUSICAL INSTRUMENTS: Emanuel Winternitz, Curator. Gerald F. Warburg,Associate in MusicPRINTS: A. Hyatt Mayor, Curator. Janet S. Byrne, Associate Curator. CarolineKarpinski and John J. McKendry, Assistant CuratorsWESTERN EUROPEAN ARTS: John Goldsmith Phillips, Curator. Carl ChristianDauterman, Associate Curator, Ceramics, Glass, and Metalwork. James Parker,Associate Curator, Furniture and Woodwork. Edith A. Standen, AssociateCurator, Textiles. Yvonne Hackenbroch, Associate Research Curator, Goldsmiths'Work. Olga Raggio, Associate Research Curator, Renaissance Art. JessieMcNab Dennis, Assistant CuratorLIBRARY: James Humphry III, Chief Librarian. Margaret P. Nolan, Chief,Photograph and Slide Library. Elizabeth R. Usher, Chief, Art Reference LibraryPUBLIC RELATIONS: Eleanor D. Falcon, Manager. Joan Stack, Manager,Information ServicePUBLICATIONS: Gray Williams, Jr., Editor. Jean Leonard and Leon Wilson,Associate Editors. Anne Preuss and Katharine H. B. Stoddert, Assistant EditorsREGISTRAR AND CATALOGUE: William D. Wilkinson, Registrar. Marcia C.Harty, Supervisor of the Catalogue and Assistant RegistrarTHE MAIN BUILDING: Open weekdays 10-5; Sundays and holidays 1-5. Tele- THE CLOISTERS: Open weekdays, except Mondays, 10-5; Sundays and holiphone:TRafalgar 9-5500. The Restaurant is open weekdays 11:30-2:30; Sun- days 1-5 (May-September, Sundays 1-6). Telephone: WAdsworth 3-3700.days 12-3; closed holidays. Coffee hours: Saturdays 3-4:30; Sundays 3:30-4:30. MEMBERSHIP: Information will be mailed on request.Income from endowment is the Museum's major source of revenue. Gifts and bequests are tax deductible within thelimits allowed by law. For further information call the Office of Development and Membership.The Metropolitan Museum of Artis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve, and extend access toThe Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin ®www.jstor.org