THE RENAISSANCE EGG: A FABERGÉ IMPERIAL EASTER EGG PRESENTED
BY EMPEROR ALEXANDER III TO HIS WIFE THE EMPRESS MARIA FEODOROVNA
AT EASTER 1894,WORKMASTER MICHAEL PERCHIN, ST. PETERSBURG
 The
egg-shaped casket carved of translucent bluish gray agate opening
horizontally and raised on an oval gold foot, the hinged cover
applied with a white-enameled latticework and set with diamond
and ruby flowerheads at the intersections, the top wit the diamond-set
date 1894 on an oval reserve enameled translucent strawberry
red, the reserve bordered by green-enameled scallop shells interspaced
with red and white enameled ovoids, the lower border of the
cover with scallop shells enameled translucent strawberry red
between white enamel scrolls set with diamonds, the cover opening
to reveal interior rims engraved with scrolling foliage on a
white enamel ground, the diamond-set rim of the lower half enameled
translucent strawberry red, the “straps” of the
lower half enameled with blue scallop shells and berried green
leaves, each end of the casket mounted with a gold lion mask
and loose ring handle, with diamond-set clasp, the foot repoussé
with leaves enameled translucent green interspaced by translucent
red enamel bellflowers, marked with Cyrillic initials of workmaster,
Fabergé in Cyrillic and assay mark of 56 standard for
14 karat gold.
The 1894 Imperial Egg is described on its invoice as:
“Agate egg, gold mount, decorated in the Renaissance style,
with diamonds, rose-cut diamonds, pearls and rubies. St. Petersburg,
May 6, 1894 4750 r.” 1
After its confiscation by the Provisional Government, it
was sold by Antikvariat for 1,500 rubles to Armand Hammer.
The Egg in the Renaissance Style, or Renaissance Egg, was first
recognized as “based quite frankly on Le Roy’s masterpiece
in the Grünes Gewölbe at Dresden” by the doyen
of Fabergé studies, Kenneth Snowman, in his pioneering
monograph The Art of Carl Fabergé. Snowman points out
the differences:
“In comparing Fabergé’s work with Le
Roy’s, note how carefully the modern goldsmith has carried
out an almost identical composition in a far lighter vein, by
means of a subtle appreciation of the basic egg shape and a
careful adjustment of the scales as instanced by the gentle
curve added to the trellis pattern, and the more substantial
base in relation to the casket as a whole.” 2
The Fabergé family – father Gustav, mother Charlotte
and eldest son Peter Carl – moved in 1860 from St. Petersburg
to Dresden, the Saxon capital on the Elbe. Carl was confirmed
at the Lutheran Kreuzkirche in 1861 and the following year a
second son, Agathon, was born. The parents apparently remained
there for the rest of their lives (Gustav died in Dresden in
1893), but after taking a course in commerce at the Dresden
Handelsschule and broadening his knowledge on a Grand Tour comprising
Frankfurt, Florence and Paris, Carl returned to St. Petersburg
in 1864. His brother Agathon aged twenty joined him in St. Petersburg
in 1882, where he died prematurely in 1895. Although his stay
in Dresden was relatively brief, given Carl Fabergé’s
inquisitive mind we can safely surmise that while in the Saxon
capital he would have become well acquainted with the treasures
of the Green Vaults, which were located in the Royal Castle
and open to the public. Indeed, the greatest goldsmith and jeweler
at the Saxon Court of Elector-King Augustus the Strong, the
Swabian-born Johann Melchior Dinglinger (1664-1731), who was
well represented in this famed collection, is Fabergé’s
kindred spirit. In fact, Dinglinger’s masterpieces, the
myriad jeweled statuettes of the Court of the Grand Moghul of
1701-1708, 3 the Labors of Hercules
(1708-1712) and the Bath of Diana of 1704
4 are the direct antecedents of Fabergé’s
creations. Both artists had similarly fertile minds in which
novel ideas were constantly germinating. In the Green Vaults
Fabergé would have seen Le Roy’s oval agate casket,
as well as an early eighteenth century Hen in the Egg, which
could theoretically have served as prototype for the 1885 First
Egg.
A closer comparison between Le Roy’s casket and Fabergé’s
1894 Renaissance Egg, which bears Michael Perchin’s early
hallmark, was made possible at the Munich 1986-87 exhibition.
5 At the time, photographs were
taken of the two objects side by side, both closed and open
(below).While the similarities are evident when closed, differences
appear when comparing the interiors. Fabergé obviously
had never handled the prototype, nor seen the interior. Indeed,
he may well have relied on a nineteenth-century color reproduction.
There is no mention of the original surprise in Fabergé’s
invoice of May 6, 1894. Nor is there any mention of a surprise
in the 1930 sales list of Antikvariat, when the egg was sold.
However, a highly intriguing hypothesis as to the egg’s
content has most recently been advanced by Christopher Forbes,
namely that the Resurrection Egg is in fact its missing surprise.
The reasons given are as follows: the Resurrection Egg was almost
certainly in the same showcase as the Renaissance Egg at the
1902 von Dervis mansion exhibition among the Dowager Empress’
Fabergé objects. Other Imperial eggs too are shown separated
from their respective surprises. The Resurrection Egg is also
listed among the objects of art belonging to the Dowager Empress
in 1917 and 1922. Both are moreover of a very similar style
and coloring. The Resurrection Egg perfectly fits the curvature
of the Renaissance Egg’s shell and has a similar enamel
decoration on the base. Fabergé’s invoice calls
for pearls, which are lacking in the egg, but exist on the Resurrection
Egg. The late Kenneth Snowman 6
instinctively pointed out that the Resurrection Egg could well
have been inspired by a rock crystal clock by Heinrich Hoffman,
circa 1560. This rock crystal globe is in the Saxon Royal collection,
as is the prototype for the Renaissance Egg.
NOT E S
1. Fabergé/Proler/Skurlov
1997.
2. Snowman 1953.
3. See Géza von Habsburg,
Princely Treasures, Vendome Press, 1997.
4. Op. cit.
5. Munich 1987.
6. Snowman 1953/62/64/68,
ill. 305. |
|
|
