Didn't know if this board was still open 😄. Aprox 13' x13" engraved steel plates. The lady I bought them from said they were 15/16th century. They are hand engraved with applied silver dots and inlaid with silver inlay. What I would like to know is what does the artwork portray? it looks right for that period. I believe they were used as medallions in a cabinet. Do the scenes ring any bells? Very hard to get good photos, will try again tomorrow. Thanks!
@sonomabarn67 wrote:
Well, there you go. The Holy Roman Emperor. Can't help thinking it would've saved a lot of strained eyesight and general angst if we'd been offered details like this on page 1, rather than page 7. 🤔
@sonomabarn67 wrote:
This detail is from the second plate, right? I'm having some trouble placing it.
I mean, there isn't a third plate we haven't seen yet??
@lacemaker3 wrote:I'm finding it just about impossible to make out any of the image of the guy on the throne.
Is there anything in the etching that might be his heraldry? If so, and if you can post a picture, I'll see if it can help to identify him.
@argon38 wrote:
@sonomabarn67 wrote:
i just found a double headed eagle but camera is on charge...What happened to this...?
@sonomabarn67 wrote:
I
That does appear to be the arms that were used by later Holy Roman Emperors, but as others have said, I'm not sure where those are in the image. If they are associated with one of the people, then that probably indicates that the person who is wearing them is the emperor. That is why I asked if there was anything else that might be heraldry, to try to find clues to identify the other people. At this point, I would agree that this image appears to be showing Richard Coeur de Lion being pardoned by the Holy Roman Emperor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it turns out that these arms are identifying King Richard I Coeur de Lion and Holy Roman Emperor Henry VI , then as a related topic, this piece is showing the practice of later artists, to attribute arms to earlier figures who didn't actually have or use coats of arms, because they are being portrayed as though they were living in the artist's present day. The clothes, armor and horse harness that are shown are also showing the styles and fashions of, in this example, the 15th-16th century. I'm just pointing this out to explain why the people are being shown in a much later style, and that this can give clues to when the iconography was developed and the image was made. Of course, OP will have to depend on the condition of the piece to determine the actual age; if it is original or a later copy.
Henry VI did not actually have arms, because he lived just before the usage of heraldry became formalized. Later, historians and artists gave him arms, because to them, it was unthinkable that such an important person would not have had and displayed arms. The later arms are called attributed arms, and the arms attributed to Henry VI were a single-headed eagle, which was derived from the arms of his family. Later Holy Roman Emperors used a double-headed eagle, as is shown here. This was first adopted by Sigismund of Luxembourg, who became emperor in 1411, but later artists might have used the current arms to represent earlier emperors. This date (1411) might give an early bound to the date when this iconography could have been developed.
As it happens, Richard Coeur de Lion's arms were also attributed to him, but they appear to have been based on the shields he actually used in battle, as there are two different designs on the shields shown on his two great seals. I don't believe the actual seals have survived, and the designs are known from wax impressions that have survived on some documents. The shields are shown from the side, so only half the shield is visible, and the one on the first great seal shows a single lion rampant facing the center, but the quality of the images in the wax impressions are not very good. Most of the interpretations are based on line drawings of the wax impressions, and some show almost no detail and some a lot of detail (but sometimes contradictory). These can be found on the internet. (RIchard's second great seal shows 3 lions arranged like those on the Royal Arms of England now.)
There are also known examples where artists have misinterpreted heraldic arms, perhaps because the artist was not a nobleman and was not aware of the rules about how certain animals and their poses were supposed to be depicted. That could also have contributed to the depiction of two lions dancing, rather than fighting.
Perhaps "artistic license" was not the best phrase to use earlier, when I was trying to describe how artists might treat the depiction of earlier scenes. I just meant that to say, without being too wordy, that they tended to depict historical scenes as though they were happening in their present day, and that the rules of heraldic art have evolved over time, so images need to be interpreted according to the rules that were being followed at the time, not by later rules.
I was (and am) trying not to be pedantic or appear as though I was giving a lecture, but I seem to have failed spectacularly at that. It seems that I cannot win at this. It would be nice to be able to contribute and participate in a discussion without being disrespected, but that may be too much to ask.
If I offended anyone earlier, I'm sorry, and it was not intentional. I didn't mean to disrespect anyone, I was just trying to share information and knowledge, to contribute to the understanding of these pieces.
I believe that if someone has given offense, even unintentionally, then that deserves an apology. If that were more widely accepted, then it would go a long way to compensating for the fact that posts on the internet are very easy to misinterpret.
For what it's worth, an example of a double-headed eagle used in connection with Henry VI, Holy Roman Emperor:
https://www.kunstfreund.eu/Heinrich-VI-Portraet-Henricus-Imp-Friderici-I-filius-P-420
So does seem entirely possible that Henry was the Holy Roman Emperor whom the plaque artist wanted to indicate. But that's a deduction from the context (Richard the Lionheart) more than anything else, since we can't tell from the plaque shield alone which emperor was intended.
Obviously, if the shield is on a different plaque then it doesn't count as evidence for this scene, unless we're talking about a series of scenes from the lives of the emperors or somesuch.
