Holbein's Mastery of the Elliptical Construction
  
	
		|     | 
		    | 
		
			
		 | 
		  | 
	
	
		 | 
		 | 
		  | 
		  | 
	
	
		 | 
		 | 
		
			
				Holbein’s Sketch of the Holy Family with St. Anne and St. Joachim (1518-19) 
					 
				 
			 
		 | 
		  | 
	
  ans Holbein the Younger employed two distinct painting styles. One was the staid, 
  formal style of the portraits for which he is widely known. They are devoutly 
  puritan in the black garments, stony expressions and unadventurous backgrounds, 
  with only a couple of exceptions. The other is an exhilarating drawing style 
  with a bold use of white highlighting and strong oblique perspective construction. 
  Oblique perspective was virtually unknown in Holbein’s time. Its only 
  valid exemplar is a curious painting of unknown attribution mentioned by the 
  historian Vasari. Raphael used a type of oblique perspective in his bold ‘Coronation 
  of Charlemagne’, in the Vatican in Rome, but analysis reveals that this 
  painting was constructed entirely intuitively, with no adherence to a unifying 
  perspective scheme.
Holbein’s sketch of the Holy Family with two saints therefore 
  offers a striking advance from the stolid one-point perspectives of the early 
  Renaissance. It is staged in an unabashed oblique view, with the drama of the 
  eye level at the foot of the tableau. Rather than the plain archways of prior 
  work, Holbein develops a complex structure of receding vaults and chamfers. 
  To do so requires an understanding of the projection of the semi-circular structures 
  in the portico to oblique ellipses in the plane of the picture. This is a challenging 
  geometrical construction, especially in the early 1500s. Even now, few artists 
  would know how to generate the nested ellipses in the right configuration to 
  match the intended structure.
In view of the timing of Holbein’s work, it is interesting 
  that Jean Pélérin (the ‘’Viator’) had recently 
  published an analysis of the two-point construction in 1505. He was French, 
  and published in Toul, a town in the Lorraine district northwest of Switzerland. 
  The book was pirated in an illustrated edition Nuremberg, again just north of 
  Switzerland, in 1509. It is thus highly plausible that a copy was available 
  to Holbein in Basle at that time. His friend, Nicolas Copernicus, had lived 
  in the same area, moving from Padua to to Frauenburg, in 1512 and published 
  his ‘De Revolutionibus’ in Nuremberg in 1543.
Detailed analysis of the archway in this sketch leads to the 
  conclusion that Holbein used a sophisticated construction method for the elliptical 
  curves and the converging details, with a few minor conceptual lapses. The lapses 
  are interesting because they indicate that he must have employed a geometric 
  construction of some kind rather than an optical projection method, such as 
  a camera obscura. Use of an optical projection method might have resulted in 
  inaccuracies of transcription as he traced the image onto the paper, but it 
  would not have generated conceptual errors in the construction logic. 
	
		
			  | 
		
		
			| 
				 Fig. 1. Elliptical construction of 
          the portico 
			 | 
		
		
			  | 
		
	
 
Holbein’s construction is sophisticated because the primary 
  construction of the portico contains a set of six nested circles, which project 
  to ellipses in the oblique view that Holbein chose for this sketch. At this 
  point in history, it is not clear whether artists appreciated the rule that 
  circular structures always project to ellipses in oblique view. The mathematical 
  proof is difficult and the result counterintuitive. Up until this time, artists 
  had mostly restricted themselves to circular arches shown frontal to the canvas, 
  or non-circular arches. Where oblique arches are shown, they usually are in 
  a narrow angle of projection where the details of the ellipse are hard to discern. 
  It is interesting, therefore, to attempt to identify the first use of accurately 
  elliptical construction.
Nevertheless, the construction analysis for this sketch makes 
  clear that Holbein’s curves are essentially perfect ellipses. For each 
  curve of the portico, an ellipse can be found that follows almost perfectly 
  the curve that he has drawn. It seems, then, that he must have been aware of 
  the fact that circles project to ellipses, and also have had access to some 
  method of drawing ellipses where he wished to place them. Not only this, but 
  the method must have allowed flexible control of the ellipse placement, because 
  his ellipses are all at exactly the same angle (30º in this case) and are 
  nested a fashion appropriate to the spatial relationships of the circular arcs 
  from which they derive. The angle of view is such that the lower left edges 
  of the contours within the funnel-shaped portico all coincide. The outer circle, 
  however, shows an expansion in the plane of the wall. For this reason it is 
  larger at all points than the next circle for the inner rim of the coping, and 
  hence the lower edges of the two outer circles do not coincide. Finally, there 
  is a tubular section leading to the inmost curve, so again the lower edges should 
  not coincide. 
Another place where the construction is demanding is in the 
  scallop shell fountain below the portico. Here the actual shape of the shell 
  alcove is a flattened ellipse; at least, that is how we perceive it when viewing 
  the sketch. The perspective foreshortening squeezes this ellipse and, by the 
  inverse geometrical theorem, returns it to a circular shape on the page. Apparently 
  Holbein was aware of this inverse property because the outline of the shell 
  forms an almost perfect circular arc.
  Holbein has captured the elliptical projection of all these properties essentially 
  perfectly. These days, such a construction could be readily achieved by use 
  of a sheet of ellipse templates, but it is far from obvious what method Holbein 
  could have used to generate such a precise alignment. The only place where he 
  deviates from the required construction is in the two small circles at the corners 
  of the structure. The enclosing turquoise ellipse shows the required orientation 
  of the projection, at 30º to match the orientation of the other ellipses. 
  But it is very clear Holbein must have drawn this small ellipse by hand, since 
  it is quite wobbly. Moreover, the yellow ellipse indicates the best-fitting 
  orientation, which is at 20º rather than 30º. The mismatch is fairly 
  noticeable in the original.