| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: Hans Holbein the Younger, Volume 2 (of 2)
Author: Chamberlain, Arthur B. (Arthur Bensley)
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Hans Holbein the Younger, Volume 2 (of 2)" ***
VOLUME 2 (OF 2) ***
HANS HOLBEIN THE YOUNGER
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration:
VOL. II. FRONTISPIECE
KING HENRY VIII
EARL SPENCER’S COLLECTION, ALTHORP
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HANS HOLBEIN
THE YOUNGER
BY
ARTHUR B. CHAMBERLAIN
ASSISTANT KEEPER OF THE CORPORATION ART GALLERY, BIRMINGHAM
WITH 252 ILLUSTRATIONS, INCLUDING 24 IN COLOUR
IN TWO VOLUMES
VOL. II
NEW YORK
DODD, MEAD AND COMPANY
1913
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Printed by BALLANTYNE, HANSON & CO.
at the Ballantyne Press, Edinburgh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTENTS
CHAP. PAGE
XVI. THE MERCHANTS OF THE STEELYARD 1
XVII. “THE TWO AMBASSADORS,” 1533 34
XVIII. PORTRAITS OF 1533-1536 54
XIX. “SERVANT OF THE KING’S MAJESTY” 90
XX. THE DUCHESS OF MILAN 114
XXI. THE VISIT TO “HIGH BURGONY” 138
XXII. BASEL REVISITED 156
XXIII. ANNE OF CLEVES: 1539 171
XXIV. THE LAST YEARS: 1540-1543 185
XXV. HOLBEIN AS A MINIATURE PAINTER 217
XXVI. THE WINDSOR DRAWINGS AND OTHER STUDIES 243
XXVII. DESIGNS FOR JEWELLERY AND THE DECORATIVE 265
ARTS
XXVIII. THE BARBER-SURGEONS’ PICTURE AND THE 289
PAINTER’S DEATH
XXIX. CONCLUSION 312
APPENDIX
A. EARLY DRAWING BY HOLBEIN IN THE 323
MAXIMILIANS MUSEUM, AUGSBURG (Vol. i.
p. 43)
B. DESIGNS FOR PAINTED GLASS OF THE LUCERNE 323
PERIOD (Vol. i. p. 79)
C. EARLY DRAWINGS FOR WALL-PAINTINGS (Vol. 326
i. p. 101)
D. GLASS DESIGNS WITH THE COATS OF ARMS OF 326
THE VON ANDLAU AND VON HEWEN FAMILIES
(Vol. i. p. 145)
THE GLASS DESIGNS OF “THE PASSION OF 327
CHRIST” (Vol. i. p. 156)
E. THE FAESCH MUSEUM (Vol. i. pp. 88, 328
166-8, 180, and 239-41)
F. HANS HOLBEIN AND DR. JOHANN FABRI (Vol. 330
i. p. 175)
G. THE TRADE-MARK OF REINHOLD WOLFE (Vol. 332
i. p. 202)
H. NICOLAS BELLIN OF MODENA (Vol. i. pp. 333
282-4)
I. THE MORE FAMILY GROUP (Vol. i. pp. 334
291-302)
THE PORTRAIT OF SIR THOMAS MORE (Vol. i. 340
pp. 303-4)
J. HOLBEIN’S RETURN TO ENGLAND IN 1532 340
(Vol. i. p. 352)
K. LORD ARUNDEL AND REMBRANDT AS COLLECTORS 341
OF HOLBEIN’S PICTURES (Vol. ii. p. 66)
THE PORTRAITS OF SIR NICHOLAS POYNTZ 342
(Vol. ii. p. 71-72)
L. HOLBEIN’S VISIT TO JOINVILLE AND NANCY 343
IN 1538 (Vol. ii. pp. 148-149)
M. HOLBEIN’S STUDIO IN WHITEHALL (Vol. ii. 344
p. 185)
THE BARBER-SURGEONS’ PICTURE (Vol. ii. 346
p. 294)
SUMMARY LIST OF HOLBEIN’S CHIEF PICTURES AND 347
PORTRAITS
PICTURES BY AND ATTRIBUTED TO HOLBEIN, AND OF 359
HIS SCHOOL AND PERIOD, EXHIBITED AT VARIOUS
EXHIBITIONS BETWEEN 1846 AND 1912
I. THE BRITISH INSTITUTION, 1846 359
II. ART TREASURES OF THE UNITED KINGDOM 360
COLLECTED AT MANCHESTER IN 1857
III. SPECIAL EXHIBITION OF WORKS OF ART, 361
SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM, JUNE, 1862
IV. SPECIAL EXHIBITION OF PORTRAIT 362
MINIATURES ON LOAN AT THE SOUTH
KENSINGTON MUSEUM, JUNE, 1865
V. FIRST SPECIAL EXHIBITION OF NATIONAL 363
PORTRAITS ENDING WITH THE REIGN OF
KING JAMES THE SECOND ON LOAN TO THE
SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM, 1866
VI. THIRD AND CONCLUDING EXHIBITION OF 367
NATIONAL PORTRAITS ON LOAN TO THE
SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM, APRIL, 1868
VII. ROYAL ACADEMY OF ARTS, WINTER 368
EXHIBITIONS OF WORKS BY THE OLD
MASTERS, 1870-1912
VIII. GROSVENOR GALLERY, WINTER EXHIBITION OF 374
DRAWINGS BY THE OLD MASTERS, 1878-79
IX. EXHIBITION OF THE ROYAL HOUSE OF TUDOR. 374
NEW GALLERY, 1890
X. EXHIBITION OF THE ROYAL HOUSE OF TUDOR. 381
CORPORATION OF MANCHESTER ART GALLERY,
1897
XI. NEW GALLERY, WINTER EXHIBITION, 1901-2. 382
MONARCHS OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND
XII. LOAN COLLECTION OF PORTRAITS OF ENGLISH 383
HISTORICAL PERSONAGES WHO DIED PRIOR
TO THE YEAR 1625. OXFORD, 1904
XIII. EXHIBITION ILLUSTRATIVE OF EARLY ENGLISH 384
PORTRAITURE. BURLINGTON FINE ARTS
CLUB, 1909
XIV. PICTURES BY OR ATTRIBUTED TO HOLBEIN, 386
DESCRIBED BY DR. WAAGEN IN HIS
“TREASURES OF ART IN GREAT BRITAIN,”
1854
A SHORT BIBLIOGRAPHY 390
INDEX 401
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ILLUSTRATIONS
KING HENRY VIII _Frontispiece_
Reproduced in colour, by kind
permission of Earl Spencer, G.C.V.O.
_Althorp._
1. GEORG GISZE (1532) 4
Reproduced in colour.
_Kaiser Friedrich Museum, Berlin._
2. HANS OF ANTWERP (1532) 8
Reproduced by gracious permission of
H.M. the King.
_Windsor Castle._
3. HERMANN HILLEBRANDT WEDIG (1533) 17
Reproduced in colour.
_Kaiser Friedrich Museum, Berlin._
4. (1) DERICH BORN (1533) 18
Reproduced by gracious permission of
H.M. the King.
_Windsor Castle._
(2) DERICH TYBIS (1533) 18
_Imperial Gallery, Vienna._
5. DERICH BERCK (1536) 22
Reproduced by kind permission of Lord
Leconfield. _Petworth, Sussex._
6. THE TRIUMPH OF RICHES 26
Design for the wall-decoration in the
Guildhall of the London Steelyard
Merchants. Pen-and-wash drawing
heightened with white
_Louvre, Paris._
7. THE TRIUMPH OF POVERTY 27
Seventeenth-century copy, by Jan de
Bisschop, of the wall-decoration in
the Guildhall of the London Steelyard
Merchants.
_British Museum._
8. APOLLO AND THE MUSES 31
Design for the decoration of the
Steelyard on the occasion of the
coronation of Anne Boleyn.
Pen-and-wash drawing touched with
green.
_Royal Print Room, Berlin._
9. THE TWO AMBASSADORS: JEAN DE DINTEVILLE 36
AND GEORGE DESELVE (1533)
Reproduced in colour.
_National Gallery, London._
10. PORTRAIT OF A MUSICIAN 52
Reproduced by kind permission of Sir
John Ramsden, Bt.
_Bulstrode Park, Bucks._
11. ROBERT CHESEMAN (1533) 54
Reproduced in colour.
_Royal Picture Gallery, Mauritshuis,
The Hague._
12. CHARLES DE SOLIER, SIEUR DE MORETTE 63
_Royal Picture Gallery, Dresden._
13. TITLE-PAGE OF COVERDALE’S BIBLE (1535) 76
Woodcut.
_From a copy in the British Museum._
14. SIR THOMAS WYAT 79
Drawing in black and coloured chalks.
Reproduced by gracious permission of
H.M. the King.
_Windsor Castle._
15. PORTRAIT OF A LADY, PROBABLY MARGARET 82
WYAT, LADY LEE
Until recently in the collection of
Major Charles Palmer, by whose kind
permission it is reproduced.
_Mr. Benjamin Altman’s Collection, New
York._
16. SIR RICHARD SOUTHWELL (1536) 84
Reproduced in colour.
_Uffizi Gallery, Florence._
17. SIR NICHOLAS CAREW 87
Drawing in black and coloured chalks.
Reproduced in colour.
_Public Picture Collection, Basel._
18. HENRY VII AND HENRY VIII 97
Cartoon for the Whitehall
wall-painting. Reproduced by kind
permission of the Duke of Devonshire,
G.C.V.O.
_Chatsworth, formerly at Hardwick
Hall._
19. HENRY VIII 102
_National Gallery, Rome._
20. QUEEN JANE SEYMOUR 111
Reproduced in colour.
_Imperial Gallery, Vienna._
21. THE DUCHESS OF MILAN (1538) 128
Reproduced in colour.
_National Gallery, London._
22. EDWARD VI WHEN PRINCE OF WALES (1538-9) 165
Reproduced by kind permission of the
Earl of Yarborough.
_Earl of Yarborough’s Collection._
23. EDWARD VI, WHEN PRINCE OF WALES 167
Drawing in black and coloured chalks.
Reproduced by gracious permission of
H.M. the King.
_Windsor Castle._
24. QUEEN ANNE OF CLEVES (1539) 181
Reproduced in colour.
_Louvre, Paris._
25. THOMAS HOWARD, DUKE OF NORFOLK 197
Reproduced in colour, by gracious
permission of H.M. the King.
_Windsor Castle._
26. HENRY HOWARD, EARL OF SURREY 200
Drawing in black and coloured chalks.
Reproduced by gracious permission of
H.M. the King.
_Windsor Castle._
27. PORTRAIT OF AN UNKNOWN YOUNG MAN (1541) 202
Reproduced in colour.
_Imperial Gallery, Vienna._
28. PORTRAIT OF AN UNKNOWN YOUNG MAN WITH A 203
FALCON (1542)
Reproduced in colour.
_Royal Picture Gallery, Mauritshuis,
The Hague._
29. (1) PORTRAIT OF AN UNKNOWN ELDERLY MAN 205
_Kaiser Friedrich Museum, Berlin._
(2) PORTRAIT OF AN UNKNOWN ENGLISH LADY 205
_Imperial Gallery, Vienna._
30. DR. JOHN CHAMBER 208
_Imperial Gallery, Vienna._
31. MINIATURES 222
(1) HENRY BRANDON.
(2) CHARLES BRANDON.
(3) LADY AUDLEY.
(4) QUEEN CATHERINE HOWARD.
Reproduced by gracious permission of
H.M. the King.
_Windsor Castle._
(5) PORTRAIT OF AN UNKNOWN YOUTH.
Reproduced by gracious permission of
H.M. the Queen of Holland.
_Royal Palace, The Hague._
(6) THOMAS CROMWELL, EARL OF ESSEX.
Reproduced by kind permission of the
late Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan.
_New York._
32. STUDY FOR THE PORTRAIT OF A FAMILY GROUP 226
Indian-ink wash drawing with brush
outline.
_British Museum._
33. MINIATURES 228
(1) MRS. ROBERT PEMBERTON.
Reproduced by kind permission of the
late Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan.
_New York._
(2) HANS HOLBEIN: SELF-PORTRAIT.
_Wallace Collection._
34. (1) UNKNOWN ENGLISHMAN. (2) WILLIAM (1)
PARR, MARQUIS OF NORTHAMPTON 256
Drawings in black and coloured chalks. (2)
Reproduced by gracious permission of 256
H.M. the King.
_Windsor Castle._
35. THOMAS, LORD VAUX 257
Drawing in black and coloured chalks.
Reproduced by gracious permission of
H.M. the King.
_Windsor Castle._
36. (1) UNKNOWN MAN, SAID TO BE JEAN DE (1)
DINTEVILLE (2) MARY ZOUCH 257
Drawings in black and coloured chalks. (2)
Reproduced by gracious permission of 257
H.M. the King.
_Windsor Castle._
37. (1) LADY AUDLEY. (2) LADY MEUTAS (1)
Drawings in black and coloured chalks. 257
Reproduced by gracious permission of (2)
H.M. the King. 257
_Windsor Castle._
38. “THE LADY HENEGHAM”: POSSIBLY MARGARET 258
ROPER
Drawing in black and coloured chalks.
Reproduced by gracious permission of
H.M. the King.
_Windsor Castle._
39. PORTRAIT OF AN UNKNOWN YOUNG MAN 259
Drawing in black and coloured chalks.
Reproduced in colour.
_Public Picture Collection, Basel._
40. THE QUEEN OF SHEBA’S VISIT TO KING 262
SOLOMON
Silver-point drawing washed with
colour.
Reproduced by gracious permission of
H.M. the King.
_Windsor Castle._
41. QUEEN JANE SEYMOUR’S CUP 274
Pen-and-ink drawing.
_British Museum._
42. HANS OF ANTWERP’S CUP 275
Pen-and-wash drawing.
_Public Picture Collection, Basel._
43. SIR ANTHONY DENNY’S CLOCK 276
Indian-ink wash and pen drawing.
_British Museum._
44. DESIGN FOR A DAGGER HILT AND SHEATH 277
Pen-and-ink and Indian-ink wash
drawing.
_British Museum._
45. (1) DAGGER SHEATH WITH FOLIATED ORNAMENT 278
(DATED 1529). (2) UPRIGHT BAND OF
ORNAMENT: PIPER AND BEARS. (3) DAGGER
SHEATH WITH THE “JUDGMENT OF PARIS”
_Public Picture Collection, Basel._
46. (1) DAGGER SHEATH WITH A DANCE OF DEATH. 278
(2) DAGGER SHEATH WITH A ROMAN
TRIUMPH. (3) DAGGER SHEATH WITH
“JOSHUA’S PASSAGE OF THE JORDAN”
_Public Picture Collection, Basel._
47. FIVE DESIGNS FOR DAGGER HILTS 278
_British Museum._
48. EIGHT DESIGNS FOR PENDANTS AND ORNAMENTS 279
_British Museum._
49. NINE DESIGNS FOR PENDANTS 279
_British Museum._
50. NINE DESIGNS FOR MEDALLIONS OR ENSEIGNES 280
_British Museum._
51. (1) BAND OF ORNAMENT: CHILDREN AT PLAY. 282
(2) BAND OF ORNAMENT: CHILDREN AND
DOGS HUNTING A HARE
_Public Picture Collection, Basel._
(3) DESIGN FOR A COLLAR, WITH NYMPHS AND 282
SATYRS. (4) DESIGN FOR A CHAIN. (5)
DESIGN FOR A BRACELET OR COLLAR WITH
DIAMONDS AND PEARLS.
_British Museum._
52. DESIGNS FOR ARABESQUE ENAMEL ORNAMENTS 282
_British Museum._
53. DESIGNS FOR MEDALLIONS, &c. 285
(1) HAGAR AND ISHMAEL.
(2) THE LAST JUDGMENT.
(3) ICARUS.
(4) DIANA AND ACTÆON.
(5) CUPID AND BEES.
(6) “I AWAIT THE HOUR.”
(7) THE RAPE OF HELEN.
Reproduced by kind permission of the
Duke of Devonshire.
_Chatsworth._
54. HENRY VIII GRANTING A CHARTER TO THE 288
BARBER-SURGEONS’ COMPANY
Reproduced by kind permission of the
Barber-Surgeons’ Company.
_Barber-Surgeons’ Hall, London._
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hans Holbein the Younger
CHAPTER XVI
THE MERCHANTS OF THE STEELYARD
The German Steelyard in London, and Holbein’s connection with its
members—Portraits of Georg Gisze—Hans of Antwerp—The Wedighs—Derich
Born—Derich Tybis—Cyriacus Fallen—Derich Berck—“The Triumph of
Riches”—“The Triumph of Poverty”—Triumphal arch designed by Holbein
for the Steelyard on the occasion of Queen Anne Boleyn’s coronation.
THERE is no record to show in what part of London Holbein took up his
residence upon his return to England. Possibly he may have settled in
the house in the parish of St. Andrew Undershaft, in Aldgate Ward, in
which he was residing in 1541; or there may be some truth in the
tradition recorded by Walpole[1] that he lived for a time in a house on
London Bridge, in close proximity to the Steelyard, where he was much
occupied in painting various members of that colony of German merchants
for the next year or two. There is nothing to indicate that he returned
to Chelsea, for the purpose of finishing the More family picture, or
that he received further commissions from Sir Thomas and his immediate
circle of friends. During Holbein’s absence in Basel More had been made
Lord Chancellor, but had resigned that office on May 16th, 1532, which
was about the time of Holbein’s return to London. More, a generous man,
had not amassed wealth in the public service, and on relinquishing
office and the salary it carried with it, retired into private life on a
modest income, not sufficient to permit a lavish patronage of art. Two
other members of the More circle, and good friends to Holbein, Sir Henry
Guldeford, and Archbishop Warham, died in the same year, the former in
May and the latter in August, and thus the painter lost two other
patrons immediately after his return. A certain John Wolf was the
painter employed to provide the escutcheons, banners, and other
decorations for Guldeford’s funeral.[2]
Footnote 1:
_Anecdotes_, &c., ed. Wornum, 1888, vol. i. 86, note.
Footnote 2:
_C.L.P._, v. 1064.
Whether Holbein’s appearance amid entirely new surroundings was due to
these events is doubtful. It is natural to suppose that he would turn
instinctively towards a society of fellow-countrymen, speaking the same
language, and of similar habits and modes of thought, with whom he would
feel most at home, men of comfortable fortunes, well able to afford the
luxury of sitting for their portraits, and with the means also of
finding him other remunerative work.
These merchants of the Hanseatic League in London formed a rich
corporation of considerable numerical strength, whose beginnings went
back to the very early days of English history. Some of its most
valuable privileges and trading monopolies were granted it by Richard I
and Edward III, in return for moneys lent, monopolies which hampered
English trade for centuries afterwards. This colony had always occupied
a part of the river bank above London Bridge, on the site of what is now
the South-Eastern Railway Station in Cannon Street.[3] Their buildings
were surrounded by a turreted wall, which stretched from the river
northward to Thames Street, and from Allhallows Street on the east to
Cosin (Cousins) Lane on the west, their property extending towards
Dowgate. Entrance in the principal front in Thames Street was by three
fortified gateways, above which the Imperial double-eagle floated, and
within stood their old stone Guildhall, with a pleasant garden planted
on one side with fruit trees and vines after the fashion of their
fatherland, and, to the west of the main gate, vaults where Rhenish wine
and other foreign delicacies were sold, a favourite place of resort for
English citizens as well as foreigners. It has been generally supposed
that its name, the Steelyard, or _Stahlhof_, arose from the great
weighing-machine or steelyard which stood within its entrance.[4] The
Guildhall and Council Chamber were situated in the western corner on
Thames Street, and several passages, including Windgoose Alley, ran from
that street to the river, giving access to the shops and small houses,
the latter usually consisting of a bedroom and sitting-room for the
merchant, and, at the back, stores and apartments for clerks and
workmen. The corporation was a close one, and the rules by which its
members were bound were as strict as those of a monastery. Within its
precincts women were strictly forbidden; all married members had to live
outside the walls, nor were guests allowed to lodge there unless also of
the Hanseatic community. Each night at nine the gates were shut, and the
Steelyard was then like a small walled German town in the midst of
London. The breaking of its laws, or the practice of any bad habits, was
followed by severe punishment. Its members, too, were obliged to take
their share in the wider civic life of London. The Steelyard was
represented by an Alderman and a Deputy, and, among other duties, each
merchant had his allotted post in case of war, and was obliged to keep
the necessary arms ready for the defence of the city.
Footnote 3:
The buildings of the Steelyard were finally pulled down in the autumn
of 1863, and the ground was excavated immediately afterwards. The
Cannon Street Railway Station covers approximately the whole site of
the Steelyard except the strip on the north front cut off for the
widening of Upper Thames Street. See Philip Norman, “Notes on the
Later History of the Steelyard in London,” _Archæologia_, vol. lxi.
pt. ii. (1909), pp. 389-426; Wykeham Archer, _Once a Week_, vol. v.
(1861); J. E. Price, _Transactions of the London and Middlesex
Archæological Society_, vol. iii. 67 (1870). See also for the whole
history of the Steelyard, Lappenberg, _Urkundliche Geschichte des
Hansischen Stahlhofes zu London_, Hamburg, 1851.
Footnote 4:
Dr. Norman, however, considers that it has nothing to do with a
weighing-machine, but that it is an Anglicised form of the German
“Stahlhof.” See his paper in _Archæologia_, quoted on the preceding
page.
Their privileges were so great that they had always been unpopular, and
this dislike grew in strength until the reign of Henry VIII, when the
first attempts were made to break up their monopolies, which ended, some
sixty years later, in their complete overthrow. When Holbein first came
among them, however, they still occupied the foremost place in the
commercial life of London, and were an exceedingly rich and prosperous
community. They served the King and Court in more ways than one, for
they were constantly made use of for the despatch of letters abroad and
for the translation of communications received from foreign countries.
They made arrangements with their agents in Europe for the payment of
the diets and other expenses of Henry’s ambassadors and special
messengers, and much confidential continental news was received through
their business houses. Books, prints, and various rare and artistic
objects were also forwarded to them for delivery to the English court.
Thomas Cromwell, in particular, made much use of them in the sending and
receiving of foreign correspondence. They also entertained all important
visitors, artists, craftsmen, and others of their own countrymen who
visited England.
Holbein, however, does not appear to have come into contact with them
during his first visit to England; no portrait, at least, of a Steelyard
merchant of that date has survived, though he painted Niklaus Kratzer,
who must have known many of them intimately. Possibly his introduction
to them in 1532 was due to his friendship with the German astronomer. In
any case, between 1532 and 1536, he painted a considerable number of
them, chiefly small half-length portraits, in which the sitter is shown
in his own room or office, dressed in sober black, with the accessories
of his work scattered round him, and with letters in front of him
containing his name and his address at the Steelyard. These portraits
were most probably painted for presentation by the sitters to the League
of which they were leading members, to be hung on the walls of the
Council Chamber of their Guildhall, rather than for the purpose of
sending them to family relations abroad. This would account for the
presence of several of them in England to-day, for when the Guild was
finally broken up in 1598 and much of its property scattered far and
wide, some of the portraits remained in this country while others found
their way abroad.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 1
GEORG GISZE
KAISER FRIEDRICH MUSEUM, BERLIN
]
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF GEORG GISZE]
The portrait of Georg Gisze, now in the Berlin Museum (No. 586) (Pl.
1),[5] was one of the first, if not the first, of these likenesses of
Steelyard merchants to be painted by Holbein. This portrait is not only
the most elaborate work of the whole series, but the sitter was also one
of the most important members of the League then in London. His name is
spelt in more than one way on the picture itself, and other versions of
it are to be found in the English State Papers. In the letter from his
brother, which he holds in his hand, he is addressed, according to the
Berlin Catalogue, as Jerg Gisze. The full address is “Dem erszamen
Jergen Gisze to lunden in engelant mynen broder to handen.” Below the
motto on the wall, beneath the shelf on the left—“Nulla sine merore
voluptas”—in the sitter’s own handwriting, is the signature G. Gisze or
Gyze. It has been read both ways, for the second letter may be taken
either as an _i_ followed by a long _s_, or, as two connected strokes
representing the letter _y_. On other letters from foreign
correspondents, tucked behind the wall-rails on the right, his name is
also spelt Gisse and Ghisse, while in the distich inscribed on a
cartellino fastened to the wall over his head it appears in its
Latinised form of Gysen. This distich, which also contains the date and
the sitter’s age, runs as follows:—
Footnote 5:
Woltmann, 115. Reproduced by Davies, p. 140; Knackfuss, fig. 117;
Berlin Catg., p. 176; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 95; and in colour by the
Medici Society.
“Δισυχι`ον ĭ Jmaginē Georgii Gysenii
Jsta refert vultus, qua cernis Jmago Georgi
Sic oculos viuos, sic habet ille Genas.
Anno ætatis suæ xxxiiij
Anno dom 1532.”
In days when spelling was largely phonetic it is not surprising to find
proper names spelt in a variety of ways, and the Hanse merchants, in
particular, received letters from correspondents in all parts of the
world, speaking a variety of languages and dialects. According to the
Berlin Catalogue, Georg Gisze was born on 2nd April 1497, so that he was
of Holbein’s own age, and died in February 1562, and was a member of a
leading Danzig family. Woltmann regarded him as a Swiss, and states that
there was a family called Gysin settled in the neighbourhood of Basel,
and that the name is still to be seen on numerous sign-boards in the
adjacent small town of Liestall.[6] Miss Hervey, on the other hand,
suggests that, however the name may be spelt, it was probably a
variation of that of Gueiss, which was one of the most distinguished in
the annals of the Steelyard.[7] The family belonged to Cologne, and
Albert von Gueiss was a representative of the Steelyard at the
Conference held at Bruges in 1520. In at least one entry in the
Steelyard records this name is spelt Gisse. She suggests, therefore,
that Georg Gisze may have been a younger brother or a son of this Albert
von Gueiss. In his book on Holbein’s “Ambassadors” picture, Mr. W. F.
Dickes, who, in his anxiety to prove that Holbein was not in England in
1532, conveniently ignores the evidence of the letter which Gisze holds
in his hand, addressed to him “in London,” conclusive proof that the
portrait was produced in this country, is of opinion that it was painted
in Basel.[8] Little is known of its history since it left the walls of
the Guildhall in Thames Street. It was in the Orleans Collection in
1727, and was purchased at the sale of that collection by Christian von
Mechel.[9] Various attempts to induce the Basel Library to buy it proved
unavailing. It was afterwards for a time in Basel, and in 1821 was added
to the Solly Collection, passing later into the Berlin Gallery.
Footnote 6:
Woltmann, i. 366.
Footnote 7:
_Holbein’s Ambassadors_, p. 240.
Footnote 8:
_Holbein’s “Ambassadors” Unriddled_, p. 2.
Footnote 9:
See Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 240. It was brought to England with the
Orleans pictures in 1792, and in the Sale-Catalogue was described as
“Portrait of Gysset.” It fetched 60 guineas. See Waagen, _Treasures_,
&c., Vol. ii. p. 500.
The first time the name of Georg Gisze occurs in the English State
Papers is in 1522,[10] when he was twenty-four years of age. The paper
is an English translation of a protection, dated Lyon, 26 June 1522,
granted by Francis I to Gerrard van Werden, George Hasse, Henry Melman,
Geo. Gyse, Geo. Strowse, Elard Smetyng, Hans Colynbrowgh, and Perpoynt
Deovanter, merchants of the Hanse, during the war between him, the
Emperor, and England. They are forbidden to deal in wheat, salt,
“ollrons,” harness, and weapons of war. Deovanter appears to have been
one of the leading merchants. At this period he went as a representative
of the Steelyard on several missions to Francis for the purpose of the
recovery of goods taken from their ships by the Captain of Boulogne.
During his absence he gave power of attorney in a suit of his against
George Byrom, of Salford, to several friends and fellow-merchants, among
them “George Guyse,” and, it is interesting to note, “Th. Crumwell, of
London, gent.”[11]
Footnote 10:
_C.L.P._, vol. iii. pt. ii. 2350.
Footnote 11:
_C.L.P._, vol. iii. pt. ii. 2446, 2447, 2754.
The next reference to Gisze is at Michaelmas, 1533, in a letter from
Thomas Houth to the Earl of Kildare in Ireland,[12] respecting the death
of a certain John Wolff, in which, speaking of some bills, he says,—“I
ascertained at the Steelyard that the handwriting was his, by the
evidence of Geo. Gyes, the alderman’s deputy, and others.” This letter
proves that Gisze held an important position in the Steelyard, as Deputy
to the Alderman, who was probably Barthold Beckman, of Hamburg.[13]
Possibly his appointment to this position occasioned the painting of his
portrait.
Footnote 12:
_C.L.P._, vol. vi. 1170.
Footnote 13:
Lappenberg, _Urkundliche Geschichte des Hansischen Stahlhofes zu
London_, p. 157; Miss Hervey, _Holbein’s Ambassadors_, p. 239.
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF GEORG GISZE]
The portrait is life-size, and half-length, the sitter being turned to
the right, the face towards the spectator, and the eyes turned slightly
to the left. He is wearing a flat black cap over his fair hair, which is
cut straight across the forehead and covers the ears; and a dress of
rose-coloured silk with a sleeveless overcoat of black, and a fine white
linen shirt. He is seated behind a table covered with a cloth of Eastern
design, and is in the act of opening his brother’s letter. By him, on
the table, stands a tall vase of Venetian glass with twisted handles,
filled with carnations, and scattered in front of him are various
objects used in his business, a seal, inkstand, scissors, quill pens, a
leather case with metal bands and clasps, and a box containing money.
From the shelves on the walls hang scales for weighing gold, a seal
attached to a long chain, and a metal ball for string, with a damascened
design and a band with the words “HEER EN” repeated round it.[14] Books
and a box are upon the shelves, and tucked within the narrow wooden bars
which run round the walls are parchment tags for seals and several
letters with addresses in High German. On these occur the dates 1528 and
1531, while the names of the correspondents with which they are endorsed
can be more or less clearly discerned, as well as the word “England.”
Woltmann reads the names as “Tomas Bandz,” “Jergen ze Basel,” and “Hans
Stolten.” This last letter is marked with the writer’s particular
device, which also occurs on a second letter, and is very similar to the
device on the letter in the picture of Derich Tybis in Vienna. The walls
of his room are painted in greyish green, the paint shown as rubbed and
discoloured here and there, and along the bars and shelves, which have
been worn by constant use.
Footnote 14:
In the inventory of the goods of John Wolff, attached to the letter
mentioned above, a similar ball is included—“a round ball gilt for
sealing thread to hang out of to seal withal.” _C.L.P._, vol. vi.
1170.
The painting of the numerous details is wonderful in its accurate
realism, showing the closest observation and an evident delight in their
perfect rendering. It has been suggested, as the picture contains many
more accessories than in his other portraits of members of the
Steelyard, that Holbein took particular pains with it as the first of a
possible series, and that it was a kind of “show-piece,” in order that
his clients might see of what he was capable. This superb portrait,
which is in a better state of preservation than most of Holbein’s
existing works, is finer in its clear, luminous colour and more delicate
in its drawing than any other of his pictures of this period. It is
almost Flemish in the minuteness and care of its finish and in its cool,
clear tones. All the objects of still-life which surround the sitter,
which are placed about him as naturally as though the artist had come
upon him suddenly when engaged upon his daily business, and had there
and then painted him, without arranging or posing, whether of silk, or
linen, or gold, or steel, or glass, are painted with a fidelity to
nature never excelled by the Dutchmen or Flemings of the following
century, who devoted their whole career to the rendering of still-life.
In Holbein’s portrait, however, all these carefully-wrought minor
details, beautiful in themselves as they may be, in no way force
themselves on the attention to the detriment of the portrait itself,
which stands out as a vivid representation of the sitter’s personality,
in which the essentials of his character have been seen with an unerring
eye, and set down upon the panel with an unerring hand. We get here the
young German merchant to the very life, precise, deliberate and orderly
in the transaction of his affairs, with strongly-marked German features,
long nose, and determined chin, a living presentment which only a master
could have produced.
Ruskin’s glowing description of the picture is well known, but it is so
true and so eloquent that a sentence from it may be quoted:—
“Every accessory is perfect with a fine perfection; the
carnations in the glass by his side; the ball of gold, chased
with blue enamel, suspended on the wall; the books, the
steelyard, the papers on the table, the seal ring with its
quartered bearings—all intensely there, and there in beauty of
which no one could have dreamed that even flowers or gold were
capable, far less parchment or steel. But every change of
shade is felt, every rich and rubied line of petal followed,
every subdued gleam in the soft blue of the enamel and bending
of the gold touched with a hand whose patience of regard
creates rather than paints. The jewel itself was not so
precious as the rays of enduring light which form it, beneath
that errorless hand. The man himself what he was—not more; but
to all conceivable proof of sight, in all aspect of life or
thought—not less. He sits alone in his accustomed room, his
common work laid out before him; he is conscious of no
presence, assumes no dignity, bears no sudden or superficial
look of care or interest, lives only as he lived—but for ever.
It is inexhaustible. Every detail of it wins, retains, rewards
the attention with a continually increasing sense of
wonderfulness. It is also wholly true. So far as it reaches,
it contains the absolute facts of colour, form, and character,
rendered with an unaccusable faithfulness.”[15]
Footnote 15:
Ruskin, “Sir Joshua and Holbein,” _Cornhill Magazine_, March 1860;
reprinted in _On the Old Road_, vol. i. pt. i. pp. 221-236.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 2
HANS OF ANTWERP
1532
WINDSOR CASTLE
]
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF HANS OF ANTWERP]
The portrait of Hans of Antwerp, in Windsor Castle (Pl. 2),[16] belongs
to the summer of the same year, 1532, and was one of the earliest of the
Steelyard series. It is in oil on panel, and has darkened with age, and
has suffered to some extent from repaintings. It represents the
half-length figure of a middle-aged man, about three-quarters the size
of life. He is turned to the right, seated at a table, upon which his
elbows rest, and he is about to cut the string of a letter with a long
knife. He has thick bushy hair and beard, brown in colour, and brown
eyes, and is wearing a dark overcoat, which may have been originally
dark green in colour, edged with a broad band of brown fur, and beneath
it a brown dress and a white shirt with the collar embroidered with
black Spanish work. On his head is a flat black cap. The table is
covered with a dark green cloth, and upon it, in front of him, are
placed a pad of paper with a quill pen resting on it, some coins and a
seal engraved with the letter W. The head, strongly lightened, stands
out against a background of grey-brown wall, with a strip of darker
colour on the right-hand side of the panel. He wears a signet ring on
the first finger of his left hand, and a smaller ring on the little
finger of the right.
Footnote 16:
Woltmann, 265. Reproduced by Law, _Holbein’s Pictures at Windsor
Castle_, Pl. ii.; Davies, p. 30; Knackfuss, fig. 119; Cust, _Royal
Collection of Paintings, Windsor Castle_, 1906, Pl. 46; Ganz,
_Holbein_, p. 96.
The letter which he holds in his hand has a superscription in crabbed
Teutonic writing, which Woltmann, after careful examination, deciphered
as follows:—
“_Dem ersamen H[a]nnsen
Von Anwerpen ... lo [....] vpn
Stallhoff zv h[anden]._”
The parts in brackets are hidden in the original by the knife, and have
been added conjecturally by him, so that the whole inscription would run
in English: “To the honourable Hans of Antwerp in London, in the
Steelyard, these to hand.” The words “ersamen” and “Stallhoff” are
distinct, but the “Anwerpen” is less clear, and only the first letter of
the Christian name is certain.
The brown under-dress the sitter is wearing certainly has some
appearance of the leather apron worn by goldsmiths which Woltmann
declared it to be;[17] and this, together with the gold coins on the
table, such as goldsmiths were in the habit of exhibiting in their
shops, he regarded as additional proof that the portrait represents the
goldsmith, Hans of Antwerp, Holbein’s close friend and one of his
executors.[18] There is considerable probability that this ascription is
correct, though it is by no means absolutely certain. On the paper-pad
lying on the table there is an inscription, evidently in the sitter’s
handwriting, giving his age and the date. Even this inscription is not
absolutely clear. Woltmann reads it:—
Footnote 17:
Woltmann, i. p. 368. An under-dress of similar fashion, however, is
worn by nearly all Holbein’s Steelyard sitters.
Footnote 18:
It should be noted, however, that similar coins appear in the box on
the table in the portrait of Georg Gisze.
“Anno dm. 1532 an. d. 26 Julii
Ætatis suæ ...”
The second “A.D.,” however, is evidently wrong. Mr. Law[19] reads it as
a possible “Aug.” for August, and is doubtful about the word “Julii.”
Both these writers fail to decipher the sitter’s age, but it appears to
be “53,” or, perhaps, “33,” the latter agreeing better with the apparent
age of the sitter.
Footnote 19:
Law, _Holbein’s Pictures_, &c., p. 5.
The W. on the seal affords some evidence against the portrait being that
of John of Antwerp. Woltmann calls it “the device of his trading house,”
and in this Mr. Law follows him. It is much more probable, however, that
it is the initial of his surname. The seal is of a similar shape to
those in the portraits of Georg Gisze and Derich Tybis. In the former
the lettering is illegible, but in the latter it is plainly “D. T.”
Before Hans of Antwerp’s surname was known, Woltmann’s suggestion was
not out of place, but Mr. Lionel Cust[20] has recently discovered it to
have been Van der Gow, which does not accord with the letter on the
seal. Among the numerous references to John of Antwerp in the State
Papers and elsewhere he is never once spoken of as belonging to the
Steelyard, whereas the picture in question is in all probability a
portrait of some merchant of the Hanseatic League. More than one German
merchant of the Steelyard whose surname began with W is mentioned in the
records, such as Gerard van Werden and Ulric Wise, while one of the
leading jewellers of Henry’s reign was Morgan Wolf, though he was almost
certainly a Welshman. However, until further evidence is forthcoming,
the name Hans of Antwerp must stand as the sitter for this portrait, and
it has much in its favour.
Footnote 20:
_Burlington Magazine_, vol. viii. No. XXXV. (Feb. 1906), pp. 356-60.
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF HANS OF ANTWERP]
As the friend and witness and administrator of Holbein’s will, the
question of the true portrait of John of Antwerp is of unusual interest.
The two men appear to have been closely associated, and there is no
doubt that Holbein supplied him with designs. One such design is well
known—the drawing for a beautiful drinking-cup in the Basel Gallery upon
which is inscribed the name “Hans Von Ant....” (Pl. 42).[21] Mr. Lionel
Cust conjectures that the cup given by Cromwell to the King on New
Year’s Day, 1539, made by John of Antwerp, was this identical cup; but
it hardly appears probable that an object made for such a purpose would
have the maker’s name placed upon it so prominently on a broad band
running round its centre. It may be suggested that it is more likely to
have been intended by the maker for presentation to the Hanseatic League
to form part of the corporation plate of that body kept in the Guildhall
of the Steelyard.
Footnote 21:
Woltmann, 110 (104). See p. 275.
John of Antwerp’s name occurs frequently in the private accounts of
Thomas Cromwell for the years 1537-39, and Mr. Lionel Cust has gathered
together much interesting information about him. In a letter from
Cromwell to the Goldsmiths’ Company we learn that he had been settled in
London since 1515, but the first reference to him Mr. Cust finds is in
March 1537, in the Privy Purse Expenses of the Princess Mary, which
runs: “Item payed for goldsmythes workes for my ladies grace to John of
Andwarpe iiij _li_, xvij _s_, vij _d_.” There is, however, an earlier
reference, and one of considerable interest, in the State Papers, in a
letter from one Richard Cavendish to the Duke of Suffolk, dated Norton,
5th June 1534, which shows that John Van Andwerp was at that time
employed with a certain Hans De Fromont in searching for a gold mine at
Norton. “They are,” says Cavendish, “applying themselves with diligence
to find the mine. Here is the greatest diversity of earth and stones,
for the stones in the gravel in most places appear to be very gold. Many
assays have been made to prove it, but nothing found as yet, and it is
believed the glitter ‘is but the scum of the metal which groweth beneath
the ground.’ They have now begun to dig pits to get at the principal
vein. The people are as glad as ever he saw to further the matter, for
in old evidences the place is called Golden Norton, which proves that
gold may be found there. He sees no great forwardness as yet, but prays
God they may find some.”[22]
Footnote 22:
_C.L.P._, vol. vii. 800.
Cromwell employed him in a number of ways. In December 1537[23] he
received 15_s._ for setting a great ruby, and 29_s._ for the gold in the
ring. In November 1538[24] he was at work on the cup already mentioned
for a New Year’s Gift to Henry, for which purpose he received 52 oz. of
gold, and was paid nearly £20. Other work during these years consisted
in making a George, setting stones in rings, making chains and
trenchers, and repairing various Georges, Garters, and other jewellery
belonging to the Lord Privy Seal, full details of which will be found in
Mr. Cust’s paper, the last entry being dated 15th December 1539.[25]
Footnote 23:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiv. pt. ii. 782, ii. (p. 333).
Footnote 24:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiv. pt. ii. 782, ii. (p. 338).
Footnote 25:
_Ibid._, under various dates.
An entry in the Book of Payments of the Treasurer of the Chamber for
April 1539[26] shows him in another capacity, one, as already noted, in
which the foreign traders in England were frequently employed by the
Court. He received one shilling from the King’s purse for forwarding
letters of importance to Christopher Mount and Thomas Panell, “his
gracis servauntes and oratours in Jarmayne.”[27]
Footnote 26:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiv. pt. ii. 781 (p. 309).
Footnote 27:
Mr. Cust suggests that this message was addressed to Holbein. He says:
“At Lady Day, 1539, he (Holbein) seems to have been still absent (in
Basel), though he was back in England before Midsummer.” (_Burlington
Magazine_, February 1906, p. 359.) This, however, is not probable.
Holbein was certainly back from Basel by December 1538, when he
received £10 for his journey to Upper Burgundy, and he presented a
portrait of Prince Edward to the King on New Year’s Day, 1539. He
received no salary on Lady Day, 1539, because he had already received
a year’s wages in advance at Midsummer, 1538, to date from the
previous Lady Day, and not because he was out of England. At this
period messages and money were being constantly sent to Christopher
Mount, who was much abroad on missions to the German Protestant
princes, and the question of the marriage with Cleves was only one of
the many affairs, and one of the least important, upon which he was
then engaged.
In 1537 Hans of Antwerp’s name occurs in the return for Subsidies of
Aliens in England, among foreigners dwelling in the parish of St.
Nicholas Acon, as “John Andwarpe, straunger, xxx _li._, xxx _s._” In a
similar list for the same parish in 1541 he is given for the first time
his proper name: “John Vander Gow, _alias_ John Andwerp, in goodes, xxx
_li._, xxx _s._” Mr. Cust suggests that his name may have been Van der
Goes. This assessment of his goods at £30 and the tax on it of thirty
shillings was the customary rate for foreigners. Nicholas Lyzarde,
Elizabeth’s serjeant-painter,[28] was assessed to the same amount—but
Holbein was taxed at the higher rate of £3 on his salary of £30, as it
was the custom to tax “lands, fees and annuities” at double the rate of
goods.
Footnote 28:
See p. 309.
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF HANS OF ANTWERP]
In April of the same year Van der Gow was anxious to obtain the freedom
of the Goldsmiths’ Company as a step towards being admitted to the right
of citizenship in London. Cromwell’s letter, recommending him to the
Company “most hartely,” states that he had already lived twenty-six
years in London, had married an Englishwoman, by whom he had many
children, and purposed continuing in London for the rest of his life.
This desire to become a naturalised Englishman might be taken as some
evidence that he was not a member of the Steelyard confraternity.
From the register of the church of St. Nicholas Acon, in Lombard Street,
where the goldsmiths have always congregated, we learn that he had a
son, Augustine Anwarpe, baptized on 27th November 1542, and a second
son, Roger, on 10th December 1547; that on three successive days in
September 1543 three of his servants, John Ducheman, Jane, his maid, and
Richard, were buried; that a fourth servant was buried on the 10th
August 1548; and that his son Augustine was buried on 1st July 1550.[29]
There can be little doubt that the three servants died of the plague
which was raging in London in September 1543. Holbein was almost
certainly another of its victims, and Mr. Cust suggests that he may very
probably have caught the infection in John Van der Gow’s house.
Footnote 29:
These facts are taken from Mr. Cust’s paper.
The portrait, it is to be supposed, like Holbein’s other representations
of Steelyard merchants, was very possibly presented to the Guild, and
would remain hanging in their Guildhall until they were expelled by
Elizabeth in 1598. “When in 1606,” says Woltmann, quoting from
Lappenberg, “under James I, the Steelyard was given back to its
possessors, the rooms were found in an evil condition, and all movables,
such as tables, seats, bedsteads, and even panels and glass windows,
were almost entirely stolen. That under such circumstances a sparing
hand watched over the pictures is scarcely to be expected.”[30] The
portrait of Hans of Antwerp, whatever its earlier adventures may have
been, was in the collection of Charles I, in which it was No. 29, and is
described in his catalogue as: “Done by Holbein. _Item._ Upon a cracked
board, the picture of a merchant, in a black cap and habit having a
letter with a knife in his hand cutting the seal thread of the letter; a
seal lying by on a green table; bought by Sir Harry Vane and given to
the King.” The crack in the panel is still plainly visible. It was
valued by the Commonwealth Commissioners at £100, and sold for that sum.
It reappears, however, in James II’s catalogue, No. 499: “By Holbein. A
man’s head, in a black cap, with a letter and penknife in his hand.” It
is possible that it is the picture by “Holbin” of “a Dutchman sealing a
letter,” which was in the Duke of Buckingham’s collection at York House
in 1635,[31] from which it may have passed into that of Charles I. The
picture, though it has not the richness and transparency of colour of
the “Gisze,” or its extreme delicacy of execution and luxuriance of
detail, is a vigorous and life-like representation of a somewhat stolid
German, painted with the truth and sincerity which Holbein brought to
everything he touched.
Footnote 30:
Woltmann, i. p. 381. See also Norman, _Archæologia_, vol. lxi. pt. ii.
p. 394.
Footnote 31:
See Randall Davies, “Inventory of the Duke of Buckingham’s Pictures,”
&c., _Burlington Magazine_, March 1907, p. 382.
[Sidenote: PORTRAITS OF TWO OF THE WEDIGHS]
The two small roundels, which hitherto have always been regarded as
likenesses of Holbein himself, undoubtedly represent, as Dr. Ganz has
recently pointed out, the same individual as the sitter in the Windsor
picture, who, until his identity is finally settled, it is most
convenient to call Hans of Antwerp. The first is the beautiful little
painting on oak in the Salting collection,[32] in which the sitter is
shown in full-face, with a flat black cap, a gown lined with
light-coloured fur, and a dark under-coat or vest, cut straight across
the top, as in most of Holbein’s other Steelyard portraits. The left
hand only is shown, with a ring on the first finger. On the background
on either side of the head is the faded inscription “ETATIS SVÆ 35.” It
was possibly painted a year or two later than the Windsor portrait, to
which the likeness is very marked. If, however, the sitter really
represents Hans of Antwerp, and he was painted a second time by Holbein
about 1534-5, when 35 years of age, he must have been only a boy when he
settled in London in 1515. The second roundel is in Lord Spencer’s
collection at Althorp,[33] and this, too, has always been regarded as a
portrait of Holbein by himself. Here again the likeness to the Windsor
picture is a strong one, though the opposite side of the face is seen,
as he is shown in three-quarters profile to the spectator’s left. There
are slight variations in the dress, the undervest being lower, and
disclosing more of the white shirt. Some critics regard it as a genuine
work by Holbein, but Dr. Ganz places it among the doubtful and
wrongly-attributed pictures. He suggests that it is probably one of the
two roundels considered to be self-portraits by Holbein which C. van
Mander saw in Amsterdam in 1604, and was engraved by A. Stock as such in
1612 and published by H. Hondius. There is a replica of it in the
Provinzial Museum in Hanover.[34] All three works evidently represent
the same man, and at about the same age.
Footnote 32:
Exhibited Burlington Fine Arts Club, 1909, Case D, No. 1, and
reproduced in the Catalogue, Pl. xxxiv.; also by Ganz, _Holbein_, p.
114.
Footnote 33:
Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 226.
Footnote 34:
See Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 253.
In the same year, 1532, he painted another goldsmith, Hans von Zürich,
but the picture has disappeared, and is now only known from the
engraving Hollar made of it in 1647, when it was in the Arundel
collection. In the engraving he is shown at half-length, full-face, the
body turned slightly to the left, and is a thin man, with a pleasant
expression. It is inscribed on the top: “Hans von Zürch, Goltshmidt.
Hans Holbein, 1532,” and below, “W. Hollar fecit, 1647, ex collectione
Arundeliana,” and has a dedication by the publisher, H. Vander Borcht,
to Matthäus Merian.[35] The date indicates that Hans von Zürich must
have been living in London at that time, though his name does not occur
in the State Papers.
Footnote 35:
Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 197 (i.). Parthey, No. 1411.
One other portrait of a German merchant by Holbein was painted in the
year 1532.[36] It is in the collection of Count von Schönborn in Vienna,
and is one of a pair of portraits of brothers or near relations, members
of the Wedigh family of Cologne.[37] They hung together until 1865, in
which year the finer one of the two, dated 1533, was acquired by Herr B.
Suermondt, of Aix-la-Chapelle, and is now in the Berlin Gallery, having
been purchased in 1874, together with another fine portrait by Holbein
of an unknown young man, from the Suermondt collection. The close
relationship of the two sitters is proved by the exactly similar coat of
arms on the enamelled ring each one is wearing. In the first edition of
his book Woltmann gave it as his opinion that they were Englishmen, but
afterwards came to the conclusion that both portraits represented German
Steelyard merchants. The belief that they were Englishmen was afterwards
strengthened by a communication to the Berlin authorities from Privy
Councillor Dielitz, who, from the coat of arms on the rings, held that
the pictures represented two members of the English family of Trelawney.
This ascription, however, has been proved to be wrong, and it may be
pointed out that the motto inscribed on the paper projecting from the
book in the Vienna portrait,—“Veritas odium parit” (“Truth brings
hatred”), is not the present motto of the Trelawney family. On the side
of the same book, painted on the edges of the leaves, are the letters “H
E R. W I D.,” and more recent research has established the fact that the
two men were members of the Wedigh family. Members of this patrician
family of Cologne had been connected with the London Steelyard since
1480. In this connection it is interesting to note that the seal in the
so-called “Hans of Antwerp” picture is engraved with the letter “W,”
which suggests some possibility that he, too, may have been a Wedigh.
Footnote 36:
Woltmann, 262. Reproduced by Knackfuss, fig. 118; Ganz, _Holbein_, p.
97.
Footnote 37:
Both portraits are mentioned in an inventory of 1746.
The 1532 picture in the Schönborn collection is a small half-length. The
subject, who is seated at the back of a table, is turned to the right,
with head almost full-front and looking at the spectator. His right arm
rests on the table, and he holds his gloves in his left hand. His hair,
cut straight across his forehead, covers his ears, and he is
clean-shaven. He is wearing the usual dark overcoat with deep fur
collar, and an inner collar or lining of lighter fur, opened
sufficiently to show a part of his embroidered under-dress, the sleeves
of which are of watered or patterned silk, and a white pleated shirt
gathered round the neck in a small frill. The customary flat black cap
is on his head. On the table to the left is a leather-bound book with
two clasps, with the artist’s initials on the cover, and a piece of
paper projecting from between the leaves on which is written the Latin
motto already quoted. On the plain blue background is inscribed on
either side of the head, “ANNO. 1532.” and “ÆTATIS.SVÆ. 29.” It is a
sympathetic and simple rendering of a young man of serious expression,
in which both the beardless face, of a somewhat reddish complexion, and
the two hands are very finely painted. Woltmann conjectured that the
Latin motto indicated that the book on the table might be one of those
writings which the German reformers were at that time busily engaged in
smuggling into England, the secret dissemination of which neither Wolsey
or More could stay, in spite of the drastic methods they employed to
stamp it out. Although possessing many privileges, the men of the
Steelyard were by no means free from persecutions of this nature.
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF HERMANN WEDIGH]
The companion picture, in the Berlin Gallery (No. 586B) (Pl. 3),
represents Hermann Hillebrandt Wedigh.[38] Like that of his brother, it
is a small half-length. He stands directly facing the spectator, the
left hand holding his buff-coloured gloves, and the right half hidden by
the heavy dark-brown cloak, with black velvet collar and velvet at the
wrists, the folds of which are finely arranged and painted. This cloak
lacks the customary fur collar. The white shirt, partly open and showing
the bare chest beneath, is tied in the front by long strings passed
through a white button, and the embroidered collar is almost hidden by
his beard. A flat black cap is on his head, of the type worn by all the
Steelyard merchants in Holbein’s portraits. The hair, beard, and long
moustache are fair, the separate hairs being indicated with almost
microscopic care. The eyes are brown, the left one being decidedly
smaller than the right, and there is a corresponding difference in the
development of the two sides of the face. There are no accessories of
any kind, and upon the plain blue background, on either side of the
head, is inscribed, in gold letters: “ANNO. 1533.” and “ÆTATIS SVÆ. 39.”
The gold ring is enamelled in red, white and black, and in the circle
round the coat of arms there are some letters now undecipherable. This
is one of the finest and most sympathetic portraits ever painted by
Holbein. The face, in spite of its slight irregularity, is one of great
charm and much sweetness of expression. The drawing of the hands and
mouth is particularly fine.[39]
Footnote 38:
Woltmann, 116. Reproduced by Dickes, p. 79; Knackfuss, fig. 121; Ganz,
_Holbein_, p. 98; and in colour in _Early German Painters_, folio v.
Footnote 39:
Mr. Dickes, who does not hesitate to suggest that a date has been
tampered with if it suits his argument to do so, regards this picture
as “an unmistakable portrait of the second person” in the
“Ambassadors” picture, such person being, in his opinion Philipp,
Count Palatine. This picture, he says, “has a damaged date, catalogued
as 1533, and a more clear “ætatis 34,” which is no doubt correct, for
the moustache shows five years’ more growth” (_i.e._ than in the
“Ambassadors”). “No one who compares the two faces can doubt the
identity, or that if of Philipp—born November 12, 1503, as indicated
in our picture—its correct date is 1538.” It requires a very vivid
imagination to see a likeness between Wedigh and the portrait of the
Bishop of Lavaur in the National Gallery group; but Mr. Dickes sees
Philipp and Otto Henry in so many portraits scattered about Europe,
having but the faintest resemblance to one another, and gives to
Holbein so many pictures he never painted, and takes from him at least
one of his finest works (the Morette in Dresden, which he calls Otto
Henry and attributes to Amberger) that his attribution with regard to
the Wedigh portrait is not worth serious consideration. The date upon
it is plainly enough 1533. At the time he was writing his book the age
of the sitter appeared to be “34,” but recent cleaning shows it to be
“39.” (Dickes, _Holbein’s “Ambassadors” Unriddled_, p. 81.)
Three other portraits of Steelyard merchants bear the date 1533: Derich
Born at Windsor, Derich Tybis at Vienna, and Cyriacus Fallen at
Brunswick. The portrait of Derich Born (Pl. 4 (1)),[40] in the royal
collection at Windsor Castle, painted when he was twenty-three, is,
after the “Gisze” and “Hermann Wedigh” portraits, perhaps the most
attractive of the Steelyard series. It is slightly under life-size, the
figure shown nearly to the waist, turned to the right, and the head,
upon which the light falls strongly from above on the right, nearly in
full-face. His right elbow rests on a stone ledge or parapet which runs
across the picture, the left hand placed across the right wrist, and a
gold signet-ring with a coat of arms on his forefinger. He wears a flat
black cap, black silk dress, and a white shirt with a collar of
so-called Spanish work of black silk thread, very delicately painted. He
is beardless, and has chestnut-brown hair, cut straight across the
forehead and hiding the ears in the customary fashion.
Footnote 40:
Woltmann, 266. Reproduced by Law, Pl. 3; Davies, p. 154; Ganz,
_Holbein_, p. 100; Cust, _Royal Collection of Paintings, Windsor
Castle_, 1906, No. 45.
On the flat stonework below the ledge on which his arm rests is
inscribed, in large Roman letters as though cut in the stone, the
following Latin couplet:
“Derichvs si vocem addas ipsissimvs hic sit
Hvnc dvbites pictor fecerit an genitor.”
(“If you were to add a voice this would be Derich, his very
self; and you would doubt whether a painter or a parent had
produced him.”)
Below this runs, in slightly smaller letters of the same type:
“DER. BORN ETATIS SVÆ 23 ANNO 1533.”
The background is of a dark greenish blue against which stand out some
branches and leaves of a vine or fig tree. It is painted in cool and
delicate tones, with flesh tints of a pale brown, in which it bears a
close resemblance to the portrait of Georg Gisze. It is marked, too, by
the same simplicity and restraint, and air of quiet and dignified
repose, and searching truth and insight in the rendering of what must
have been a very attractive nature, qualities which make Holbein’s
portraiture so great.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 3
HERMANN HILLEBRANDT WEDIG
KAISER FRIEDRICH MUSEUM, BERLIN
]
* * * * *
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 4A
DERICH BORN
1533
WINDSOR CASTLE
]
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF DERICH BORN]
This is the only one of several portraits of the series without letters
or papers bearing the name and address of the sitter which can be said
with absolute certainty to represent one of the London Steelyard
merchants. Mr. W. F. Dickes suggests that it represents the eldest son
and successor of Theodorichus de Born, the printer, of Deventer and
Nimeguen, who issued the Netherland New Testament in 1532, and he quotes
a reference to a Theodorichus de Born de Novimagio acting as Secretary
to the Faculty of Arts at Cologne University, and also to a Derichus de
Born who had a licence to preach. “Remembering,” he says, “that Erasmus
spent his schooldays at Deventer, and that Holbein owed to him several
of his introductions, I think my suggestion deserves to be considered.
At any rate, there is no necessity to assume, as is done without a
tittle of evidence, that this young scholar was a member of the
Stahlhof! Nor does the presence of this portrait at Windsor prove that
it was painted in England.”[41]
Footnote 41:
Dickes, _Holbein_, &c., p. 6.
Mr. Dickes, whose chief object is to prove, for the purposes of his
theory about the “Ambassadors,” that none of these Steelyard portraits
was painted in England, starts by misquoting the inscription on the
picture, which he gives as “Derichus si vocem addas de Born,” an
extraordinary mixing of the first and third lines. There is no “de Born”
in it, it is distinctly “Der. Born,” and though the young man depicted
may have been a member of Theodorichus de Born’s family, as he suggests,
he was certainly a member of the Steelyard, and known in London as
Derich Born. In the Calendars of Letters and Papers, under the heading
of “Ordnance,” a paper is printed which gives a list of “payments made
by Erasmus Kyrkenar, the King’s armourer, by his Majesty’s command, from
15th Sept, to 13th Oct. 28 Hen. VIII” (1536), for wages of armourers,
and the providing of armour, harness, &c., in connection with the
Rebellion in the North. Among the items included in his account is the
following:
“For various bundles of harness bought of Mr. Locke, merchant of London,
and of _Dyrycke Borne, merchant of the Steelyard_,” &c.[42] This, though
it does not actually prove him to have been in London in 1533, shows
that he was most certainly here three years later as a member of the
Steelyard. Evidence of his presence in London in the years 1542-49 is to
be found in the _Inventare hansischer Archive des 16. Jahrhunderts, I_,
quoted by Dr. Ganz,[43] who states that he was a merchant of Cologne.
Footnote 42:
_C.L.P._, vol. xi. 686.
Footnote 43:
_Holbein_, p. 240.
The picture is on oak, 1 ft. 11½ in. high by 1 ft. 7¼ in. wide. It was
at one time in the Arundel collection, and is entered in the 1655
inventory as “Derichius a Born.” It is possible that the earl owned more
than one of the Steelyard portraits, for there are two entries of
portraits of men with black birettas. On the back is the brand of
Charles I, “C.R.” crowned, though it is not described in his catalogue.
There is a second portrait of Derich Born by Holbein, a small oval of
about 3 in. high (9 × 8 mm.), on paper, in the Alte Pinakothek at
Munich, giving the head and shoulders only.[44] It is painted in oil on
paper, and has suffered somewhat from retouching, but is still an
excellent example of the small portraits in oil on wood or paper,
usually enclosed in a case of wood or ivory, which Holbein was fond of
painting at this period, closely akin to his true miniatures of a rather
later date. In the Munich version the position is reversed, the sitter
being turned to the right, and the face not quite so fully to the front.
The workmanship, more particularly of the collar, is as fine as in the
larger Windsor portrait. His name and age and the date are given, but
the last figures and letters have been cut away, probably when fitting
it into the frame, so that all that is left of the inscription on the
background, on either side of the head, now reads:
Footnote 44:
Woltmann, 220. Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 147.
“DEBOR . . . .
TATIS SVÆ . .
M. D. XXX . . .”
There is every probability that the completed date was 1533, and that
the little picture was produced at about the same time as the Windsor
version, though the sitter looks slightly younger, and while the more
important work was painted for a place on the walls of the Hanse
Guildhall, the lesser one may well have been done for sending to the
sitter’s relations abroad. The Munich catalogue states that it is from
the Elector Palatine’s palace at Mannheim, but otherwise nothing is
known of its history.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 4B
DERICH TYBIS
1533
IMPERIAL GALLERY, VIENNA
]
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF DERICH TYBIS]
The half-length portrait of Derich Tybis, of Duisburg (Pl. 4 (2)), about
half the size of life, in the Vienna Gallery (No. 1485), is of the same
date, 1533.[45] It is a full-face representation of a young man, with
dark brown eyes and hair, his double chin and upper lip being
clean-shaven and tinged with blue. In his hands, which rest on a table
in front of him, he is holding a letter which he is about to open. He
wears the usual heavy, black, sleeveless cloak or overcoat, with a deep
collar of fur, and a smaller inner collar of lighter fur. The
fore-sleeves of his under-dress are of dark-brown velvet. The open fur
collar allows a glimpse of a finely-pleated white shirt, with a
neck-band of a conventional design of holly leaves worked in gold thread
in place of the more usual black Spanish embroidery. He wears two rings
on the forefinger of his left hand, one with an oval green stone in a
claw setting. The table is covered with an olive-green cloth, and lying
upon it are a second letter, a paper with an inscription, a seal,
quill-pen, sealing-wax, and a circular inkstand in two divisions, with
an ink-well in one half and some gold coins in the other.
Footnote 45:
Woltmann, 251. Reproduced by Knackfuss, fig. 120; Ganz, _Holbein_, p.
101; and in colour in _Early German Painters_, folio ii.
The picture has suffered some damage, more particularly in the colour.
The ground, which was originally azure blue, has turned to a greenish
tone, and the shadows of the flesh are now too grey; but the masterly
draughtmanship is still there and the extraordinary insight into
character. Here again the fine and expressive hands at once attract
attention.
The letter he holds in his hands is from his father, and is addressed
“Dem ersamen Deryck tybis von Duysburch alwyl London vff wi ... dgyss
mynem lesten Sun....” (“To the honourable Derich Tybis of Duisburg, at
the time in London, in Windgyss, my dear son”). This address shows that
Tybis was living in Windgoose Alley, one of the passage-ways running
through the Steelyard, with the houses and shops of the members on
either side.
On the open paper lying on the table is inscribed, in imitation of the
sitter’s handwriting:
“_Jesus Christus._
“Da ick was 33 jar alt was ick Deryck Tybis to London dyser
gestalt en hab dyser gelicken den mark gesch[rieben] myt myner
eigenen Hant en was Holpein malt anno 1533. per my Deryck
[device here] Tybis fan Drys[burch].”
(“When I was 33 years old, I, Deryck Tybis, in London, had this
appearance, and I have marked this portrait with my device in my
own hand, and it was painted by Holbein in the year 1533, by me
Deryck (here stands the device) Tybis von Drys....”)
The device, a combination of crosses, is repeated on the seal on the
table, with the letters D.T., reversed, on either side of it. There is a
somewhat similar device on some of the letters in Georg Gisze’s
portrait. The address on the second letter, lying in front of him, is
now almost illegible. There is no inscription on the background. The
writer has found no reference to Tybis in the English State Papers.
The fourth Steelyard portrait of 1533, that of Cyriacus Fallen, in the
Brunswick Gallery,[46] is also a half-length, about half the size of
life. Like Derich Tybis, the sitter is shown full-face, looking at the
spectator. His hair is cut in the customary Steelyard fashion, and he is
clean-shaven. His black cap is set rather jauntily on one side, and his
black overcoat has a very heavy fur collar, while his fore-sleeves are
of brown silk with a pattern, as in the Wedigh portrait. The neck of his
white embroidered shirt is just visible over the collar. In his hands he
holds his gloves and two letters, superscribed with his name and address
in London. These addresses are not very legible. Dr. Woltmann at first
supposed the Christian name to be Ambrose, but further examination
proved it to be Cyriacus. One of the inscriptions is: “Dem Ersamen
syryacussfalen zu luden vp Stalhoff sy disser briff”; and the other:
“Dem Ersamen f. ... syriakus fallenn in Lunde ... stalhuff sy dies....”
Footnote 46:
Woltmann, 126. Reproduced in _The Masterpieces of Holbein_ (Gowan’s
Art Books, No. 13), p. 34; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 99. Reinach gives the
surname as Kale, _Répertoire des Peintures_, Vol. ii. p. 518.
On the green background, on either side of the sitter’s head, is
inscribed his motto, “Patient in all things,” his age, and the date:
IN ALS GEDOLTIG SIS ALTERS. 32.
· ANNO · · 1533 ·
Fallen has a broad face, and a somewhat stolid expression; like his
fellow merchants, he has been placed upon the panel with absolute truth
and precision, without a touch of flattery. The eyes, hands, and dress
are still in excellent condition, but the head, unfortunately, has
suffered greatly in the course of time, and has been much rubbed and
overcleaned, and retouched in numerous places.[47]
Footnote 47:
Restored in 1892 by Hauser.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 5
DERICH BERCK
1536
Lord Leconfield’s collection
PETWORTH
]
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF DERICH BERCK]
There is a gap of three years before the next and last of this series of
portraits of Hanse merchants is reached, that of Derich Berck or Berg of
Cologne, in Lord Leconfield’s collection at Petworth (#Pl. 5#),[48]
which is dated 1536. He is represented life-size, at half-length, and
full face, with brown hair and beard, and black dress and cap. Both
hands are shown, and the left, resting on a table with a red cover,
holds a letter addressed:—“Dem Ersame’ v[n]d fromen Derich berk i.
London upt. Stalhoff,” together with the motto _besad dz end_ (“Consider
the end”), and the trade-mark of his business house. On the table is a
slip of paper with the Latin motto, “Olim meminisse juvabit,” selected
by Berck, says Dr. Ganz, to indicate that Holbein’s brush will secure
him immortality.[49] In the top right-hand corner are the date and the
sitter’s age, “AN. 1536. ÆTA: 30” twice over, a later inscription being
painted over the faded original one. The background is blue, with a
green curtain on the left.
Footnote 48:
Woltmann, 241. First published by Dr. Ganz in _Burlington Magazine_,
October 1911, vol. xx. p. 33; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 107.
Footnote 49:
See _Burlington Magazine_, vol. xx. p. 32.
The writer has not seen this picture, but it is described as follows by
Dr. Ganz in the _Burlington Magazine_:—“The merchant’s cloth and cap are
black, but not dark; the heavy silk reflects the light in a greenish
colour finely observed. The background is blue, of the same blue as in
the portrait of Richard Southwell at Florence executed in the same year.
It is enriched by a green curtain with red strings, giving an
opportunity for the artist—like the red cloth on the table—for
introducing other tones into his composition, such as black, besides the
main notes of blue and flesh colour. The brightest point in this
profound harmony of colours, a part of the white shirt with black
embroidery, is placed just under the face and makes the fresh and lively
expression of it stronger. The light shines with a rare splendour over
this man’s healthy face and is reflected in the grey-blue eyes, which
look so frank and kindly.” This picture has suffered from over-painting,
but it remains a splendid and virile example of Holbein’s portraiture.
There is a poor copy of it in the Alte Pinakothek at Munich,[50]
purchased in 1899 from a local picture-dealer. It had come originally
from France, and was regarded as an unfinished portrait by Holbein of an
unknown man. The Munich catalogue describes it as a school-replica.
Footnote 50:
Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 219.
To Holbein the Steelyard proved to be in all ways a fruitful source of
income. Not only was he busily engaged for some years in painting
individual members of the League, but he was also employed by them in
their corporate capacity upon an important work of decoration for their
Guildhall, and in at least one other direction. This decoration
consisted of two large allegorical paintings in tempera representing
“The Triumph of Riches” and “The Triumph of Poverty.” No record exists
as to the date of this work, but it is reasonable to suppose that the
commission was given him in 1532 or 1533, at the time when he was in
constant attendance within the precincts of the Steelyard for the
purpose of painting some of its leading members in the midst of their
daily occupations.
These decorative paintings have long since disappeared, but the original
design for “The Triumph of Riches” exists, as well as numerous copies of
both compositions, so that it is possible to gain some idea of their
beauty and importance. These allegories, which contained many life-size
figures, were not painted on the walls, but on canvas, and so easily
removable. They added greatly to the artist’s reputation in this
country, and before the close of the sixteenth century they were
celebrated throughout Europe among artists and connoisseurs of painting.
Carel von Mander says that Federigo Zuccaro, about the year 1574, made
two drawings from them, and declared them to be equal to anything
accomplished by Raphael, and that after his return to Italy he told
Goltzius the painter that they were even finer than any wall-paintings
from Raphael’s brush.
The two pictures remained in the Guildhall of the Steelyard until 1598,
when it was closed by Queen Elizabeth, who at the same time expelled the
Germans from their houses. For some years the place remained desolate,
and when, in 1606, under James I, the buildings were restored to the
League, most of the property left behind was found to have been stolen
or badly damaged. The glory and prosperity of the Steelyard, indeed, had
completely vanished, never to be fully restored again, and when the
affairs of the Company in London were finally wound up, the two pictures
were presented by the League, through their representative, the
house-master, Holtscho, on January 22nd, 1616 (old style) to Henry,
Prince of Wales, like his brother, Charles I, a patron of the fine arts.
Holtscho, in describing the event, says: “I cannot, also, leave it
unnoticed, that although these works are old, and have lost their
freshness, yet His Highness, as a lover of painting, and as the works of
the master, specially this work, have been highly commended, has taken
great pleasure in them, as I have myself perceived, and have also heard
from himself.”[51] The researches of Dr. Lappenberg have placed these
facts beyond doubt, thus disproving the old legend that the pictures
were destroyed when still hanging on the walls of the banqueting-hall of
the Easterlings during the Great Fire in 1666.
Footnote 51:
Woltmann, i. 381, quoting from Lappenberg, _Urkundliche Geschichte des
hansischen Stahlhofes zu London_, 1851, pp. 82-87.
[Sidenote: THE TWO “TRIUMPHS”]
It has been generally supposed that on the death of Prince Henry, two
years after they were presented to him, the pictures passed into the
possession of Charles I; and as they were not included among the
pictures of that King’s collection sold by order of the Commonwealth in
1648-53, Dr. Lappenberg concluded that they must have remained at
Whitehall until destroyed in the fire at that palace in 1698. Further
evidence, however, appears to contradict this conclusion. In Van der
Doort’s carefully-prepared catalogue of Charles I’s collection, although
several less important works by Holbein are included, among them two
miniatures, these two celebrated pictures are not mentioned. Again,
Sandrart, in his autobiography, describes the two compositions in some
detail, after seeing them in 1627 in the Earl of Arundel’s possession,
in the long garden gallery in Arundel House. He does not say whether
they were pictures or drawings, so that they may have been only the
original designs; it is much more probable, however, that they were the
large paintings, as Sandrart speaks of them first of all, as the chief
of Holbein’s works belonging to the Earl, and afterwards describes three
of his best known portraits, hanging in the same gallery, those of
Erasmus, Sir Thomas More, and a “Princess of Lorraine” (the Duchess of
Milan), which seems to indicate that Lord Arundel possessed the large
works. It has been suggested that they may have been presented by
Charles I to the Earl; but it is more likely that they were obtained by
exchange with that monarch. Later on they were taken abroad with the
rest of the collection by the Countess of Arundel, and were in Amsterdam
at the time of her death in 1654. In the inventory then drawn up they
are merely described as “Triumpho della Richezza” and “Triumpho della
Poverta.” Probably they were among the pictures hastily sold by Lord
Stafford in that town immediately after his mother’s decease.[52] The
last trace of their history to be found is in a paragraph in Félibien’s
_Entretiens sur les Vies et sur les Ouvrages des plus excellents
Peintres anciens et modernes_, published in 1666, in which he speaks of
them as having been brought from Flanders to Paris: “Il y avait encore
dans la maison des Ostrelins, dans la salle du Convive, deux tableaux à
détrempe, qu’on a veûs icy depuis quelques années, et qu’on avait
envoyez de Flandres.”[53]
Footnote 52:
See _Burlington Magazine_, August 1911, vol. xix. pp. 282-6.
Footnote 53:
Quoted by Woltmann, i. p. 382.
If Félibien is correct, the pictures had once more come into the
possession of the Hanseatic League. They were, no doubt, purchased in
Amsterdam by that body, and forwarded to Paris. No further record of
them has been discovered, and as they were already in a damaged state
when presented to the Prince of Wales, the probability is that they have
perished.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 6
THE TRIUMPH OF RICHES
Design for the wall-decoration in the Guildhall of the London
Steelyard Merchants _Pen-and-wash drawing heightened with white_
LOUVRE, PARIS
]
[Sidenote: THE TWO “TRIUMPHS”]
Holbein’s original sketch for “The Triumph of Riches,” a masterly pen
drawing washed with Indian-ink, and touched with white in the high
lights, is in the Louvre (#Pl. 6#).[54] A similar drawing in the British
Museum, purchased in 1854, which at one time was attributed to Holbein
himself, is said by Woltmann to be a tracing of the Louvre example; but
it has no appearance of being traced, and is certainly a copy, perhaps
by an Italian.[55] The heads and attributes are given a Raphaelesque
air, strikingly different from the Flemish style of a second drawing in
the Museum, of the second composition, “The Triumph of Poverty.”[56]
This latter is in black and red chalks and pen, washed with Indian-ink,
and heightened with white, on a blue background, and was acquired in
1894 from the Eastlake collection. Lady Eastlake possessed a similar
drawing of the “Riches.” Both are in all probability by Lucas Vorsterman
the younger, and were purchased by Sir Charles Eastlake from the Walpole
sale in 1842 for sixteen guineas. They appear to be copies, as Vertue
suggested, made for engraving purposes by Lucas Vorsterman from the
drawings done by Zuccaro in 1574; or possibly from the original
paintings when in Amsterdam. Vorsterman certainly engraved one, if not
both subjects, though only his engraving of the “Poverty” is known.
These drawings,[57] at one time in the Lely collection, were in
Buckingham House, before it was purchased for a royal palace, and were
sold as allegorical works by Van Dyck, and bought by Horace Walpole, who
regarded the “Riches” as by Vorsterman, and the “Poverty” as by Zuccaro;
but the latter, like the former, is decidedly Flemish in style.[58]
Sandrart possessed copies, in all probability those made by Zuccaro,
which were afterwards in the Crozat collection, and when that collection
was sold passed into that of Privy Councillor Fleischmann, of Strasburg,
and while in his possession were engraved for Von Mechel’s “œuvres de
Jean Holbein,” and inscribed “Zuccari delin. 1574.” All further traces
of these Zuccaro drawings have now been lost.
Footnote 54:
Woltmann, 233. Reproduced by Ganz, _Hdz. von H. H. dem Jüng._, Pl. 31;
Woltmann, i. p. 384.
Footnote 55:
British Museum Catalogue of Drawings, &c., Binyon, ii. p. 342.
Footnote 56:
_Ibid._, p. 342.
Footnote 57:
The Vorsterman copies are reproduced in outline in Waagen’s edition of
Kugler’s _German, &c., Schools of Painting_, from drawings made by Sir
George Scharf when they were in the Eastlake collection.
Footnote 58:
Walpole, _Anecdotes_, &c., ed. Wornum, i. p. 89. Dr. Ganz, however,
regards the “Poverty” as Zuccaro’s copy. See _Holbein_, p. 248.
The British Museum possesses a very rare and interesting engraving,
dated 1561,[59] and inscribed “Faicte par Maistre Hans Holbeyn tres
excellent pointre. Et imprime par Johan Borg^{ni} Floret^o en Anuers lan
M·D·LXI.” It is evidently taken from Holbein’s original design, which
must have been in Antwerp at that date. Larger copies of both paintings
are also in the British Museum; they are by Jan de Bisschop, a Dutch
artist who died in 1686, and were probably made from the original large
compositions when they were in Amsterdam. They are pen drawings washed
with bistre, and are executed with great detail (#Pl. 7#).[60] The
“Riches” shows several minor differences and some additions when
compared with the Louvre drawing. Two new characters are introduced,
_Phileas_ and _Leo Pisanus_, their heads appearing before and behind the
charioteer, as well as _Heliogabalus_ and some unnamed persons; there is
a parrot on the tree in the background (as in the Vorsterman drawing),
while the tree itself is much larger and more finished. All goes to
prove, in short, that the Louvre drawing and the copy of it in the
British Museum represent Holbein’s study for the painting, while the
Bisschop drawings were made from the paintings themselves, and the
Vorsterman drawings either from the finished works or from Zuccaro’s
copies of them, and represent the final designs.[61] The British Museum
possesses a third copy of the “Triumph of Poverty,” made by Matthäus
Merian the Younger in 1640, when the picture was still in London.[62]
Footnote 59:
Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 175.
Footnote 60:
Both reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, pp. 176-7.
Footnote 61:
See the British Museum Catalogue, i. p. 343.
Footnote 62:
A small version of the “Riches” until recently belonged to Mr. Edwin
Seward, F.R.I.B.A., of Cardiff.
It has been noted in an earlier chapter that Holbein, in his
wall-paintings, was influenced by the example of Andrea Mantegna, whose
“Triumph of Cæsar” had a European reputation. The Steelyard allegories
were compositions of a similar nature, though in no sense copies of any
earlier Italian work. The “Triumph of Riches” represents a crowded
procession moving towards the spectator’s left. The magnificent chariot
of Plutus, drawn by four white horses, is followed and surrounded by the
most famous men of wealth of antiquity. The god of riches himself, old,
bent, and bald, is seated on a high seat at the back of the car, with
his feet on a sack of gold. In front of him sits Fortune on a globe,
blindfolded,[63] her veil blown out like a sail, and stooping down to
scatter gold among the crowd; and in front of her sits the Charioteer,
named _Ratio_, holding the reins, which are labelled _Notitia_ and
_Voluntas_. The two near horses, _Impostura_ and _Contractus_, are led
by _Bona Fides_ and _Justitia_, two finely designed figures of women,
while two other women, _Liberalitas_ and _Æqualitas_, are mounted on the
off horses, _Avaritia_ and _Usura_, which they urge along with short
whips. On either side of the chariot walk Simonides, Sichaeus, Leo
Byzantius, Bassa, Themistocles, Pythius, Crispinus, Ventidius, who holds
up his toga to catch the coins Fortune is scattering, Gadareus and
others, some of them bent down with the weight of gold they are carrying
in sacks or large purses. Behind the car rides Crœsus, a majestic,
crowned figure, his horse led by Narcissus, with Cleopatra, Midas,
Tantalus, and other riders bringing up the rear. On the extreme right of
the composition _Nemesis_ hovers over them in the clouds. To each figure
a label with the name is attached, all of which are not given on the
Louvre drawing, but are found in the Vorsterman and Bisschop copies. On
the extreme left, in the sky, is a large cartellino,[64] with a Latin
inscription of two lines in Roman characters:—
“Avrvm blanditiæ pater est natvsq. doloris
Qvi caret hoc moeret qvi tenet hic metvit.”
This sentence was also written up over the central door of the Steelyard
Guildhall, and has been ascribed, according to Walpole, to Sir Thomas
More, but this appears to be a legend without any real foundation in
fact.
Footnote 63:
In the original drawing. In the Bisschop copy her head is raised, and
she is not blindfolded.
Footnote 64:
Not shown in the Louvre drawing.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 7
THE TRIUMPH OF POVERTY
Seventeenth-century copy of the wall-decoration in the Guildhall of
the London Merchants of the Steelyard
By JAN DE BISSCHOP
BRITISH MUSEUM
]
[Sidenote: THE “TRIUMPH OF POVERTY”]
Both compositions were of the same height, but the “Triumph of Riches”
was much the longer of the two, so that they must have been painted to
fill particular and prescribed wall-spaces in the Hall. Probably the
“Riches” occupied the place of honour on one of the long walls, opposite
the windows, with the “Poverty” at one of the ends of the room. The
latter, according to Dr. Ganz, came first, as the heads of a number of
the figures in the foreground are turned backwards as though looking
across the room at the other procession following them. In the “Triumph
of Poverty,” in which the procession moves in the same direction, from
right to left, the central figure is Poverty, an old woman, lean, and
bare to the waist, seated in a rough waggon with upright poles bearing a
canopy of straw. Over her head is a label with the Greek title “Πενια.”
Behind her sits _Infortunium_, striking with a rod at the heads of the
crowd of poverty-stricken, half-naked figures following the cart, among
whom are an old man, _Mendicitas_, and an old woman, _Miseria_. In front
of Poverty sits _Industria_, distributing instruments of labour,
hammers, chisels, flails, squares, and other tools to the poor workmen
walking below, and she is supported by _Usus_ and _Memoria_. The cart is
driven by _Spes_, who looks up towards heaven, and is drawn by two oxen,
_Negligentia_ and _Pigritia_, in the shafts, and two asses, _Stupiditas_
and _Ignavia_, as leaders. These steeds are led by four finely designed
female figures, _Moderatio_, with a whip, _Diligentia_, _Solicitudo_,
and _Labor_, the last carrying a heavy spade. Behind _Labor_ walks a
young man with a basket of carpenter’s tools, and a flail over his
shoulder. On a tree in the left background hangs a large wooden tablet
with a long Latin inscription, also attributed to Sir Thomas More,
beginning:
“Mortalivm jvcvnditas volvcris et pendvla
Movetvr instar tvrbinis quam nix agit sedvla,” &c.[65]
Footnote 65:
The lines are quoted in full by Wornum, p. 265, and Woltmann, i. p.
385.
From the Louvre sketch in particular, but also from the numerous more or
less faithful copies, sufficient evidence of the fine decorative
character of the originals, their sense of rhythmic movement, their
creative power and imagination, and the nobility of their design, can be
obtained. The allegories they set forth were plain enough to read. They
pointed out the instability of fortune and glory, and the virtue to be
found in honest poverty, and warned the merchants who daily looked upon
them, and whose avocations were the making of money, against undue
arrogance in prosperity or needless despondency in adversity. “Both
pieces,” says Van Mander, who describes them with some care, “were
excellently arranged, freely drawn, and well delineated.” The
colour-scheme appears to have matched the fine decorative qualities of
the design. The compositions were not carried out in natural colours as
in a picture. They were painted in greyish monochrome, with colour
sparingly used. The background was blue, green was used in the trees,
and the horses which drew the chariot of Plutus were white. The flesh
tints of the numerous figures were rendered naturally, but the garments
they wore were in monochrome, ornamented at the borders with gold, which
was also used in other parts of the canvas with excellent effect, so
that the paintings, when in position on the walls, must have added to
the rich and brilliant appearance of the room, with its sideboards
covered with silver plate and pewter ware.
We have one other record of a commission given to Holbein by the
Steelyard. This was the design for the triumphal arch which they erected
on Saturday, May 31st, 1533, when Anne Boleyn rode in procession from
the Tower through the City to Westminster for her coronation. From a
letter written by Chapuys, the Imperial Ambassador in London, to Charles
V, dated May 18th in that year, it is evident that the Germans were not
anxious to incur the cost of this decoration; but the Londoners, who had
contributed 5000 ducats towards the festivities, of which 3000 were for
a present to the new Queen, were determined to make all the inhabitants,
irrespective of nationality, pay their due share.
“The Easterlings,” says Chapuys, “as being subjects of your Majesty,
would like to be excused, but the great privileges they enjoy here
prevent them from objecting.”[66]
Footnote 66:
_C.L.P._, vol. vi. 508.
[Sidenote: “APOLLO AND THE MUSES”]
Having determined to do it, however, they did it well, as contemporary
records bear witness. Stow tells us that Anne, after being greeted at
Fenchurch Street by the children of the City Schools, was still more
splendidly welcomed at the corner of Gracechurch Street, “where was a
costly and marvellous cunning pageant made by the merchants of the
Stilyard: therein was the Mount Parnassus, with the Fountaine of
Helicon, which was of white marble, and four streames without pipe did
rise an ell high, and mette together in a little cup above the
fountaine, which fountaine ranne abundantly with Reynish wine till
night. On the mountaine sat _Apollo_, and at his feete sate _Caliope_;
and on every side of the mountaine sate four Muses, playing on severell
sweet instruments, and all their jestes, epigrams, and poesies were
wrytten in golden letters, in the which every Muse, according to her
property, praysed the Queene.” Camusat, in his narrative, says: “In all
open places were scaffolds, on which mysteries were played; and
fountains poured forth wine. Along the streets all the merchants were
stationed.”
This triumphal arch was designed by Holbein. His original sketch for it,
formerly in the Crozat collection, and more recently in that of the late
Herr Rudolph Weigel, of Leipzig, is now in the Berlin Print Room (#Pl.
8#).[67] In its details it corresponds almost exactly with Stow’s
description. In the centre Apollo is seated on a rock, beneath a slight
bower or baldachin consisting of thin pillars supporting slender arches
wreathed with leaves, across which hangs a scroll-shaped tablet for an
inscription, the whole surmounted by a two-headed Imperial eagle. Apollo
holds a small harp on his left knee, and with his right hand directs the
music of the attendant Muses, who are grouped beneath him, five on the
left hand and four on the right, on either side of a fountain of fine
Renaissance design, in which the wine is falling from the smaller upper
basin into the larger one beneath. The two front figures, Calliope and
Polyhymnia, are seated, with lute and viol. Four of the others are
singing, and the remainder playing various musical instruments, one with
both a trumpet and a small drum. Apollo, crowned with a wreath, is clad
in classical costume, but the ladies are wearing dresses of Holbein’s
day. On either side of the group rise two tall candelabra, with blank
shields for coats of arms, surmounted with royal crowns. In the
background rocky mountains are indicated. The whole composition is
supported by a central arch, of rich Renaissance design, shown in
perspective, with a large blank tablet, to contain words of welcome, at
its crown, and there are indications of smaller arches on either side.
Thus it is evident that the decoration was not a painted one, but was a
solid structure built across the street, under which the royal carriage
would pass, and that Apollo and the Muses were represented by living
persons, who played their instruments as the procession went by, while
the white marble fountain splashed its Rhenish wine.
Footnote 67:
Woltmann, 175. Reproduced by Ganz, _Hdz. von H. H. dem Jüng._, Pl. 30,
and in _Holbein_, p. 178; Davies, p. 146; His, Pl. 51.
The sketch is a very hasty one, but would be quite sufficient to
indicate to the Steelyard the artist’s intentions. Holbein himself, no
doubt, superintended the erection of the archway. Slight as it is, it is
masterly in draughtsmanship, displaying Holbein’s delicacy and certainty
of touch in every stroke. The two seated figures, more particularly the
one on the right, are rapidly drawn with the greatest grace and charm.
According to Woltmann the Imperial eagle on the summit has only one
head; the drawing is rubbed at the top, but there seem to be indications
that the split or two-headed bird, which was then customary, was
intended. Mr. W. F. Dickes denies that this drawing was intended for the
Steelyard arch; he considers it to be a sketch for one of the Apollo
musical festivals of Holbein’s Guild “zum Himmel” at Basel, and uses it
as a proof that the painter had returned to his adopted city in
1533.[68] He bases this on an entry in the Banner Book of the Guild,
dated November 23rd, 1533, which he reads as a payment to Holbein for
banners painted for some festivity.[69] The symbol of the Basel
Painters’ Guild was a pigeon with outstretched wings, within a wreath or
bower, and Mr. Dickes sees in the eagle of the Berlin drawing, which is
not within a bower, the pigeon of the Guild. He states, too, that as the
Hanseatic League included merchants of other than German nationality
they would have been unwilling to use an emblem so limiting as the
Imperial bird. This statement is, however, incorrect. No doubt exists as
to the use of the eagle on this particular occasion. It was, indeed,
viewed with extreme distaste by the new Queen. Eustace Chapuys, writing
to Charles V on July 11th, less than six weeks after the event, says: “I
understand the lady (_i.e._, Anne) complains daily of the Easterlings,
who on the day of her entry had set the Imperial eagle predominant over
the King’s arms and hers.... This may serve as an indication of her
perverse and malicious nature.”[70] And again, on the 30th of the same
month, he returns to the same subject: “... the Lady who, as I am told,
was not at all pleased with the Easterlings and other Germans for
bringing me to see their fleet, which is greater than any that has been
seen here for a long time; or that, at a solemn banquet which they made,
the ships did march with their artillery. She is in a still worse humour
because this was done near Greenwich park; and this has renewed the
regret she felt for the eagle which the Easterlings carried in triumph
the day of her entry here.”[71] These letters afford additional evidence
that Holbein made this drawing for the occasion of Anne’s coronation,
and that it has nothing to do with Basel or the Zunft zum Himmel.
Footnote 68:
Dickes, _Holbein’s “Ambassadors” Unriddled_, p. 3.
Footnote 69:
This point is dealt with in a later chapter. See pp. 157-158.
Footnote 70:
_C.L.P._, vol. vi. 805.
Footnote 71:
_C.L.P._, vol. vi. 918.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 8
APOLLO AND THE MUSES
Design for the Decoration of the Steelyard on the occasion of the
Coronation of Anne Boleyn
_Pen-and-wash drawing touched with green_
ROYAL PRINT ROOM, BERLIN
]
[Sidenote: “APOLLO AND THE MUSES”]
The Imperial two-headed eagle was also carved in stone over the
principal entrance to the Steelyard. The old device had disappeared in
the course of time, but in 1670 a new one was placed in position. The
following item occurs in a series of accounts still extant in connection
with the Steelyard buildings of that period: “December 31st, 1670. To
Gabriel Cibbert, stone-cutter,—for the eagle put on over the gate from
Thames Street, fixed on John Balls buildings, £5.” Caius Gabriel Cibber,
a native of Holstein, and father of Colley Cibber, was a sculptor of
some merit who practised in London. This sculptured shield-shaped stone,
bearing an eagle displayed with a crowned collar and two heads,
surrounded by an inscription, was also removed in course of time, and
was recently found by Mr. Lawrence Weaver in the garden of Bickley Hall,
Kent.[72]
Footnote 72:
See Dr. Philip Norman’s paper, already quoted, in _Archæologia_, vol.
lxi. pt. 2, p. 406, in which the shield is reproduced.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER XVII
“THE TWO AMBASSADORS,” 1533
Holbein receives the offer of a yearly pension from the Basel Town
Council—“The Two Ambassadors”—The identity of the sitters—History and
description of the picture—Other portraits of Dinteville and the
members of his family—Félix Chrétien—Mr. Dickes’ theory that the
picture represents the Princes Palatine Otto Henry and Philipp—The
“Portrait of a Musician” at Bulstrode Park.
THROUGHOUT the earlier years of Holbein’s second sojourn in England,
though he was busily occupied on work for the German merchants of the
Steelyard, his time was by no means completely taken up with the
commissions they gave him both individually and as a corporate body.
During the same period he painted the portraits of more than one
Englishman and several foreigners of distinction.
[Sidenote: LETTER OF RECALL FROM BASEL]
As already pointed out, he probably returned to England during the first
months of 1532. It is to be presumed that he arrived thus early—or even
in the late autumn of the previous year—or otherwise it is difficult to
account for the letter of recall, dated 2nd September 1532, which was
sent to him in England by the Burgomaster of Basel, Jakob Meyer—not his
old patron, Meyer zum Hasen, but Jakob Meyer zum Hirschen—on behalf of
the Council. Such a letter would hardly have been written if he had been
absent from Basel for only a month or two. It is probable that the best
part of a year would be allowed to elapse before a recall was sent to
him. It runs as follows:
“Master Hans Holbein, the painter, now in England.
“We, Jacob Meiger, Burgomaster, and the Council of the City of Basel,
send greeting to our dear citizen, Hans Holbein, and let you herewith
know that it would please us if you would repair home as soon as
possible. In that case, in order that you may the better stay at home
and support your wife and children, we will furnish you yearly with
thirty pieces of money, until we are able to take care of you better.
We have wished to inform you of this, in order that you may conform to
our desire. Dated Monday, 2nd September 1532.”[73]
Footnote 73:
Woltmann, English translation, p. 336. Original text in Woltmann, i.
363, and Wornum, p. 265.
The offer contained in this letter, which, though its terms were not
lavish, was a proof that his fellow-citizens appreciated his art and
were anxious to induce him to reside permanently in Basel, was not
tempting enough to induce Holbein to leave England. Whatever his answer
may have been—for it is to be presumed that he received the letter,
though there is no actual evidence to show that he did so—the Council’s
request proved ineffectual. He must have felt that it would be folly to
abandon regular and remunerative employment in London for doubtful and
ill-paid municipal commissions in Switzerland, more particularly as he
had so recently formed a new and lucrative connection with the
Steelyard, while memories of the bad times lately encountered in Basel
were still vivid.
As already pointed out, the only three portraits by him bearing the date
1532 are of German merchants. In the following year, however, more than
one fine work affords proof that the Steelyard was by no means his only
source of income. His most important undertaking in 1533 was the large
double portrait generally known as “The Two Ambassadors,” now in the
National Gallery, for which it was purchased, in 1890, with two other
pictures, from the fifth Earl of Radnor, for £55,000, of which £25,000
was contributed by the State, and £30,000 by Messrs. Nathaniel
Rothschild & Sons, Lord Iveagh, and Mr. Charles Cotes. The addition of
this great painting to the national collections, in which, until then,
Holbein had been unrepresented, aroused much curiosity as to the
personality of the two sitters. Many attempts were made to identify
them, and numerous solutions of the riddle were suggested in letters to
the _Times_ and other papers and reviews. Magazine articles were written
about it, and, lastly, two volumes of considerable size were published
with this picture as their sole subject. Probably no other painting in
the world has produced so great a mass of literature.
The two men represented are Frenchmen: Jean de Dinteville, Lord of
Polisy, and Bailly of Troyes, and, at the time the picture was painted,
resident French ambassador in London, and his close friend George de
Selve, afterwards Bishop of Lavaur, who came over to England in the
spring of 1533 on a short visit to the Bailly. The painting (#Pl.
9#),[74] which is on ten vertical panels of oak, is 6 ft. 10 in. high by
6 ft. 10¼ in. wide, and is thus described in the National Gallery
catalogue:
Footnote 74:
Woltmann, 215. Reproduced by Davies, p. 152; Miss Hervey, _Holbein’s
Ambassadors_, frontispiece; Dickes, frontispiece; Ganz, _Holbein_, p.
103; and elsewhere.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 9
THE TWO AMBASSADORS
Jean de Dinteville and George de Selve
1533
NATIONAL GALLERY, LONDON
]
“The scene is a chamber paved with inlaid marbles, and hung with green
damask, which in the upper left-hand corner partly reveals a silver
crucifix attached to the wall behind. In the centre of the composition
is a wooden stand, having an upper and a lower shelf. To the left of
this, leaning his arm upon it, stands Jean de Dinteville, a young man
with dark-brown eyes and beard, in a rich costume of the period of
Henry VIII, wearing a heavy gold chain with the badge of the French
order of Saint-Michel, and, on his right side, depending from his
girdle, a dagger with wrought gold hilt and sheath: on the sheath the
inscription—ÆT. SVÆ 29. in relief. In his black bonnet is a jewel
formed of a silver skull set in gold. To the right, George de Selve,
dark-eyed, with a close beard, also leans upon the stand, or, more
immediately, on a clasped book, the edges of which are inscribed:
ÆTATIS SVÆ 25. He wears a four-cornered black cap, and a loose,
long-sleeved gown of mulberry and black brocade, lined with sable, and
reaching to the ground. Both these persons regard the spectator. The
upper shelf of the stand is covered with a Turkish rug, on which are
several mathematical and astronomical instruments, and, close to the
principal personage, a celestial globe. The lower shelf bears a case
of flutes, a lute, an open music-book containing part of the score and
words of the Lutheran hymn, ‘Komm, heiliger Geist,’ a smaller book, on
arithmetic, kept partly open by a small square, a pair of compasses,
and a terrestrial hand-globe, which is in a direct line below the
other globe. Under the stand lies the lute-case. Conspicuous in the
foreground is the _anamorphosis_, or perspectively distorted image, of
a human skull, which, touching the floor on the left, stretches
obliquely upwards towards the right. In the shadow cast on the floor
by the chief personage is the inscription—‘JOANNES HOLBEIN PINGEBAT
1533’ in sloping Roman letters.” To this it should be added that
Dinteville’s dress consists of a slashed doublet of rose-coloured
satin, and a black surcoat. The latter is lined with ermine, with
which the shoulder-puffs, further adorned with gold tags, are piped. A
large gold and green silk tassel, of very fine execution, hangs, with
the dagger, from his girdle, and he also wears a sword, only the hilt
and sheathed point of which are seen.
[Sidenote: HISTORY OF THE PICTURE]
All that was known about the picture at the time of its purchase for the
National Gallery was that at the end of the eighteenth century it was in
the possession of Jean Batiste Pierre Le Brun, the Parisian
picture-dealer, and husband of the well-known portrait-painter, Madame
Vigée Le Brun. Le Brun issued a very indifferent engraving of it by J.
A. Pierron in Part XII (dated 1790) of his “Galerie des Peintres
Flamands, Hollandais et Allemands.” In the index it was described as
representing “MM. de Selve et d’Avaux; l’un, Ambassadeur à Venise,
l’autre, dans les pays du Nord, avec les attributs des Arts qu’ils
cultivaient; on voit à terre une Tête de Mort en perspective, à prendre
de l’angle gauche, qui de face ressemble à un poisson.” When the
publication was issued in volume form in 1792, with text, Le Brun
slightly amplified this note, and added “J’ai depuis vendu ce tableau
pour l’Angleterre, où il est maintenant; les figures sont de grandeur
naturelle.” He gives no information as to the source from which he
obtained the picture. It is stated in the National Gallery catalogue
that it is probable that it came into the hands of the dealer
Vandergucht, and that from him it was purchased by the second Earl of
Radnor, about 1790 or 1795; but from the account books of Longford
Castle it would appear that it was sold to the Earl by the dealer
Buchanan, who received one thousand guineas for it, the payments being
made in 1808 and 1809.
During the years the picture remained in Longford Castle many guesses
were made as to the identity of the personages. Le Brun’s title, which,
after all, contained half the truth, was not accepted by the leading
critics, largely owing, no doubt, to the fact that the title of Avaux
did not exist until more than a hundred years after the picture was
painted, so that, the one name being impossible, the other was included
in the same category. In the end, a suggestion that the man on the left
of the picture was Sir Thomas Wyat was regarded as a very possible
solution. Mr. Wornum, in his book published in 1867, gave this
attribution a qualified acceptance—“the subject is doubtful, but it is
supposed to represent Sir Thomas Wyatt, the poet and diplomatist, and
some learned friend”[75]—and Dr. Woltmann followed suit, but went a step
further, suggesting John Leland, the antiquary, as the second
figure.[76] Both identifications, however, were shown to be inaccurate
by Mr. J. Gough Nichols in a paper contributed to _Archæologia_ in
1873;[77] but he could offer no name in substitution, and so the matter
stood until the purchase of the picture for the nation.
Footnote 75:
Wornum, p. 275.
Footnote 76:
Woltmann, i. 374.
Footnote 77:
_Archæologia_, vol. xliv. pt. ii. pp. 450-55.
[Sidenote: THE IDENTITY OF THE SITTERS]
The public exhibition of this splendid example of Holbein’s art produced
a long and interesting correspondence in the _Times_ newspaper. Sir J.
C. Robinson upheld Dr. Woltmann’s belief that the two men were Wyat and
Leland, but Sir Sidney Colvin,[78] by means of convincing proofs, showed
that this attribution was untenable, as also that of Le Brun. He gave,
at the same time, four reasons for supposing that the personage on the
left was really a Frenchman and an ambassador—(1) the traditional title;
(2) its having been sold into this country from France; (3) the wearing
of the French order of Saint-Michel; and (4) the close resemblance in
dress and fashion of the personage in question and the portrait of
another French Ambassador, the “Morette” at Dresden. He proposed, as a
probable solution, the name of Jean de Dinteville—a suggestion which
afterwards proved to be the correct one. When, in August 1891, the
picture was cleaned, and the name of Polisy, Dinteville’s birthplace, an
obscure village in Burgundy, was discovered on the terrestrial globe,
the only other French towns upon it being Paris, Lyon and Bayonne, the
identity of the left-hand figure was placed almost beyond doubt. Sir
Sidney also suggested that the second person might be Nicolas Bourbon,
the French poet.
Footnote 78:
_The Times_, September 1890.
Other attempted identifications included such divers personages as Lord
Rochford, brother of Anne Boleyn; Count Balthazar Castiglione, who came
to England to receive the Order of the Garter for the Duke of Urbino;
and Guillaume and Jean du Bellay. The last-named solution was published
in a pamphlet in 1890 by Mr. Elias Dexter, under the title of _Holbein’s
Ambassadors Identified_. The writer sought to prove that the National
Gallery picture and the one engraved for Le Brun were not the same, and
that there must be two versions of the subject in existence. This
contention he based on a number of slight differences between the
accessories in the picture and in Pierron’s print, but such differences
may be easily explained by the inferiority of the engraver’s work and
the unusual complexity of the many details. To prove the identity of the
two sitters with the brothers Du Bellay, who in 1533 were about 42 and
41 years of age respectively, he was obliged to declare the inscriptions
on the dagger and the book to be forgeries. It is true that Jean du
Bellay was in England in that year for a short time, and this is Mr.
Dexter’s sole evidence, though he professes to see a strong likeness
between the two ambassadors and the portraits of the brothers Du Bellay
engraved on the same plate in the ninth volume of the _Versailles
Gallery_.
A much more elaborate theory was advanced by Mr. W. F. Dickes in three
articles in the _Magazine of Art_, and in several letters to the _Times_
in answer to critics unfriendly to his attempted solution of the riddle.
His contention is that the picture was painted as a memorial of the
Treaty of Nuremberg between the Catholics and Protestants in 1532, and
that the two persons represented are the brothers Otto Henry and Philipp
of Neuburg, Counts Palatine of the Rhine. This theory he still further
elaborated in a book published in 1903 under the title of _Holbein’s
Ambassadors Unriddled_. His arguments, however, are singularly
unconvincing, and have failed to obtain the support of any serious
student of Holbein. Before dealing with them, however, it will be better
to give a brief account of the discoveries of Miss Mary F. S. Hervey, by
means of which the identity of Holbein’s two sitters was finally set at
rest. Her account of her discovery of a document which provided
conclusive evidence that the two Ambassadors were Jean de Dinteville and
George de Selve was communicated to the _Times_,[79] and this, together
with further corroborative evidence, was embodied in a book, _Holbein’s
Ambassadors: the Picture and the Men_, published in 1900.
Footnote 79:
_The Times_, December 7, 1895.
In 1895 Miss Hervey happened to come across a copy of the _Revue de
Champagne et de Brie_ for 1888, which gave a short notice of a picture
formerly preserved at Polisy, containing the portraits of Jean de
Dinteville and George de Selve. This paragraph was based on a catalogue
published in March 1888 by M. Saffroy, an antiquarian bookseller of
Pré-Saint-Gervais, in which a seventeenth-century parchment, describing
the picture, was offered for sale. Miss Hervey hastened to communicate
with M. Saffroy, and by one of those happy chances which seldom occur,
the document was still in his possession, and proved to contain exactly
the information which had so long been sought in vain. The following is
a translation of its complete text as given by Miss Hervey:—
“[Remarks on the subject of an excellent picture of the Sieurs
d’Inteville Polizy, and George de Selve Bishop of Lavour, showing the
offices they held, and the time of their decease.]
“In this picture is represented, life-size, Messire Jean de DIntevile
chevalier Sieur de Polizy, near Bar-sur-Seyne, Bailly of Troyes, who was
Ambassador in England for King Francis I in the years 1532 [O.S.] and
1533 and since Gouverneur of Monsieur Charles de France, second son
(_sic_) of the said King; the said Charles died at Forest Monstier in
the year 1545, and the said Sr. de DIntvile in the year 1555. Interred
in the Church of the said Polizy. There is also represented in the said
picture Messire George de Selve, Bishop of Lavaur, a personage of great
learning and virtue, who was Ambassador with the Emperor Charles V; the
said Bishop was the son of Messire Jean de Selve, Premier President of
the Parliament of Paris; the said Bishop died in 1541, having in the
above-mentioned year 1532, or 1533, gone to England by permission of the
King, to visit the said Sieur de DIntevile, his intimate friend, and
also of all his family; and they two having met in England an excellent
Dutch painter, employed him to make this picture, which has been
carefully preserved at the same place, Polizy, up to the year 1653.”
The manuscript consists of an oblong piece of parchment which may have
been cut from an inventory, but it is more probable that it was written
as a descriptive label to be attached to the picture-frame, after the
picture’s removal from Polisy in 1653. The latter supposition would
account for the fact that no mention is made of the place where the
picture then was, which would, of course, be unnecessary. The
authenticity of this document has been pronounced by the British Museum
authorities to be indisputable. The body of it was written just after
the middle of the seventeenth century, while the heading was added at a
slightly later date, at a time, no doubt, when the label had become
separated from the picture.
[Sidenote: THE PICTURE AT POLISY]
In her book Miss Hervey gives a long and interesting account of the
lives of the two men. It is sufficient to state here that Jean de
Dinteville was born in September 1504, and was therefore in his
twenty-ninth year when he came to England as resident French ambassador
in February 1533; and that the name “Polisy” is given a prominent place
on the terrestrial globe placed near him in the picture. The second
sitter, George de Selve, was appointed to the see of Lavaur in 1526,
when he was in his eighteenth year, but was only consecrated in 1534,
when he was in his twenty-sixth year, which exactly agrees with the
inscription on the picture, which states that he was then in his
twenty-fifth year.[80] Further evidence exists in the shape of a grant
from the Pope to De Selve, dated May 1526, permitting him to hold
several benefices “although only seventeen years old.” The fact that he
was not consecrated until the year after the picture was painted,
although appointed to the see of Lavaur in 1526, explains why Holbein
has not represented him in episcopal robes.
Footnote 80:
See _Gallia Christiana_ (Lutetiæ, 1715), vol. xiii. (1722), p. 344.
_Ecclesia Vaurensis_, No. xxi., Georgius de Selve. (Quoted by Miss
Hervey, p. 13.)
This document is confirmed by a further discovery by Miss Hervey of a
_Mémoire_ preserved in the Bibliothèque de l’Institut at Paris, which
gives a summary of three letters concerning the picture. The letters
themselves, which so far, with possibly one exception, have not yet been
discovered, were addressed by Nicolas Camusat, the antiquary, canon of
Troyes, and an intimate friend of the Dinteville family for many years,
to his friends the Godefroy brothers, to whom and to others he
constantly supplied antiquarian and genealogical information. His
letters relating to Polisy extended from 1607 to 1655.
The following is a translation of the memorandum:
“Memoir in explanation of three letters sent by Monsr. Camusat,
Canon of St. Pierre at Troyes, [touching a picture made in
England of George de Selve, Bp. of Lavaur, who had gone thither
to visit the Bailly of Troies, Sr. de Polizi, Jean d’Inteville,
at that time the King’s ambassador].
“There are two relating to the Bishop of Lavaur, George de
Selve, son of Mr. le Premier President de Selve, which Bishop
had been invited by Mr. de Polizy, bailly of Troyes, ambassador
in England in the years 1532 [O.S.] and 1533, to visit him in
England, which he did, having first taken leave of the King. And
being in England, they had made the excellent picture by a Dutch
painter, Holben, which picture was preserved in the House of
Polizy, distant but one league from Bar-sur-Seine, a hundred and
forty [_sic_] years and more, as belonging to the Seigneur of
the place, Sr. de Sessac, until the year 1653, when he had it
removed to Paris, to his house near the parish of St. Sulpice;
the said picture representing the said Sr. de Polizy, Jean de
d’Inteville, and the said Sr. Bishop of Lavaur, who was
afterwards ambassador with Charles V; and the said Bishop died
in 1541. The said picture is considered the finest piece of
painting in France in the opinion of the best painters. M. le
Mareschal du Plessis-Praslain not long since bought the estate
of Polisy for three hundred thousand livres from the said Sr. de
Sessac.
“Mr. de Vic, garde des sceaux, formerly said that it was the
most beautiful piece of painting in France.
“Mr. George de Selve, and his brothers, worthily served France
in various embassies and legations.”
In this document the name of the painter, “Holben,” is given; it is
inserted between the lines, but is in the same hand and of the same date
as the writing which surrounds it. The portion at the head of the
memorandum between brackets is by another hand. It is interesting to
note that not only is the name of the painter given but that in the
seventeenth century Holbein’s work was considered, both by painters and
amateurs, to be the finest picture then in France. There is in the
Godefroy collection a second paper, a copy, dated 1654, of a memorandum
drawn up by Camusat, in which there is further reference to the picture.
It need not be quoted here, but it speaks of the figures as life-size,
and concludes by saying that “the piece is esteemed the richest and best
wrought that is to be found in France.”[81]
Footnote 81:
See Miss Hervey, _Holbein’s Ambassadors_, p. 18 _et seq._, where both
documents are reproduced in facsimile.
Thus the identity of Holbein’s sitters is irrefutably established, and
the picture’s history can now be traced almost without a break.
Dinteville, who had already been in England on a short mission in 1531,
reached London at the beginning of February 1533, and was lodged in the
royal palace of Bridewell, by the Thames. The exact date of George de
Selve’s visit to him is not known, but it was between February and
Easter in that year; he was back in France before the end of May. There
appears to have been some secrecy in connection with the latter’s
journey to England, for though he had the permission of Francis I, for
some reason Montmorency, the Grand Master, was, if possible, to be kept
in ignorance of it. In a letter, dated 23rd May, to his brother, the
Bishop of Auxerre, Dinteville says: “Monsr. de Lavor m’a fait cest
honneur que de me venir veoir, qui ne m’a esté petit plaisir. Il n’est
point de besoing que Mr. le grant maistre en entende rien.”[82]
Footnote 82:
From a letter in the Dupuy Collection, Paris, Bibl. Nat., vol. 726, f.
46, quoted by Miss Hervey, p. 80.
[Sidenote: JEAN DE DINTEVILLE AND HOLBEIN]
It is impossible to say in what way Dinteville became acquainted with
Holbein, or to whose offices the introduction between ambassador and
painter was due. Dinteville counted among his friends more than one of
Holbein’s sitters, while he was, no doubt, well acquainted with Niklaus
Kratzer through his keen interest in mechanics and the various
astronomical and mathematical sciences. He had thus more than one
opportunity of seeing examples of Holbein’s skill in portraiture, and it
is to be gathered that he conceived a great admiration for it, for
otherwise he would not have ordered so large and important a portrait
group of himself and his friend. With the exception of the “Duchess of
Milan,” the More family group, and the now lost “Fitzwilliam, Earl of
Southampton,” of which there is a good copy in the Fitzwilliam Museum,
Cambridge, the “Ambassadors” is the only portrait-panel painted by
Holbein in England of which there is any record in which the figures are
shown both life-size and at full-length. As there is no reference in the
State papers of England or France to the semi-secret business which
brought George de Selve over to London, the suggestion may be hazarded
that he came for the express purpose of having his portrait painted,
Dinteville urging him to do so on account of the excellent painter he
had discovered. The picture, crowded as it is with intricate
accessories, must have taken a considerable time to complete. It was, no
doubt, painted in the Ambassador’s own room in Bridewell Palace, and the
sitter and the painter must have spent long hours in planning out and
arranging the many mathematical and scientific instruments which form so
important a feature of the panel, some of which may have been lent by or
purchased from Kratzer. The visit of the future Bishop of Lavaur was so
short that he can hardly have seen more than the beginning of the work
and the finishing of his own head and hands. No doubt Holbein followed
his usual practice and made preliminary studies of the two heads, but
these drawings have not been traced, although there is a very fine
unnamed study in the Windsor collection (Pl. 36 (1))[83] which is
supposed to represent Jean de Dinteville, the features showing
sufficient resemblance to those of the Bailly of Troyes to induce the
suggestion that it represents him at a later date. Both Sir Sidney
Colvin and Miss Hervey hold this opinion, as did the late Sir Frederick
Burton; but it must be confessed that the resemblance is not very
striking.[84] The Windsor drawing is of a man considerably older than
the Dinteville of the picture; but the Bailly, after his residence in
this country throughout the greater part of 1533, paid only three short
visits to London between the years 1535 and 1537. Even if the drawing
had been made by Holbein in the last-named year he would only have been
in his thirty-third year. A miniature or portrait, painted by Holbein
from this drawing, was in the Arundel Collection, and was engraved by
Hollar. It is highly improbable, too, that after he had been so
elaborately painted Dinteville would have sat again for his portrait a
few years later, so that, all things considered, this attribution can
only be accepted with caution. There is, however, an undoubted portrait
of Dinteville at Chantilly, forming part of the collection of drawings
of the ladies and gentlemen of the Court of Francis I, by Jean Clouet
and his school, which was formerly at Castle Howard. This portrait was
identified by Miss Hervey in 1904.[85] The likeness is very marked,
though the drawing lacks the strength and fine draughtsmanship to be
found in similar portrait-studies by Holbein, and it appears to have
been done within a few years of the picture itself.
Footnote 83:
Woltmann, 345; Wornum, i. 12; Holmes, i. 52; engraved by Hollar, 1649
(Parthey, 1547). Reproduced by Miss Hervey, p. 110; Ganz, _Hdz. von H.
H. dem Jüng._, No. 33; Mantz, p. 177. Hollar’s engraving reproduced by
Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 199 (i.).
Footnote 84:
The drawing was conjectured at one time to represent Charles Brandon,
Duke of Suffolk, and it has also been suggested that it is a likeness
of Edward Stafford, Duke of Buckingham. It is described on p. 257.
Footnote 85:
_Burlington Magazine_, vol. v. No. xvi. (July 1904), where the drawing
is reproduced.
[Sidenote: “THE COURT OF FRANCIS II”]
The picture was taken back to France by Dinteville, and remained at
Polisy until the middle of the seventeenth century. By the marriage, in
1562, of Dinteville’s niece, Claude, with François de Cazillac, Baron de
Cessac, the family estates, and with them the picture, passed into the
possession of the latter house, a distinguished family in the south of
France. In 1654 a later François de Cazillac sold Polisy, and
permanently removed to the Château of Milhars in Languedoc, his chief
residence. From the second document quoted above we learn that De Cessac
removed the picture to his town house in Paris in 1653. This house was
in the Rue du Four, St. Germain des Prez, behind the house known as
Chapeaufort, in the parish of St. Sulpice.[86] From 1653 onwards there
is no actual evidence as to the whereabouts of the picture until it
turned up one hundred and twenty years later in the Beaujon sale in
Paris in 1787. During his researches into its past history Mr. W. F.
Dickes discovered this sale-catalogue in the Cabinet des Estampes in
Paris.[87] Nicolas Beaujon, a rich financier and collector of pictures
and objects of art, died without heirs in 1786, leaving all his money to
charities. His pictures were sold in the following spring, and among
them were two attributed to Holbein. These two works were not,
apparently, part of Beaujon’s collection, but were put into the sale by
some other person.[88] The first, which, according to the
sale-catalogue, represented the Court of Francis II, has recently come
to light again;[89] the second was the “Ambassadors” picture. The two
were sold together in one lot for the insignificant sum of 602 francs,
and the purchaser was evidently Le Brun. The description of the picture
in the sale-catalogue tallies almost exactly with Le Brun’s description
which accompanied Pierron’s engraving. From the sale-catalogue he
obtained the supposed names of the sitters, “MM. de Selve et d’Avaux,”
and he evidently endorsed, without troubling to make a careful
examination of his own, the further statement of the catalogue that
there was no date upon it. Probably the picture was in need of cleaning,
so that both signature and date were obscured. Mr. Wornum discovered
them in 1865, and they had been noted by others before that date. When
the picture was acquired for the National Gallery, however, the
signature had again become obscured by dirt, after the passage of some
thirty years, and was only deciphered after re-cleaning.
Footnote 86:
See Miss Hervey, _Holbein’s Ambassadors_, pt. i. chap. ii. p. 21.
Footnote 87:
Dickes, p. 9.
Footnote 88:
See below, p. 46.
Footnote 89:
This picture, which is the subject of a very interesting article by
Miss Mary F. S. Hervey and Mr. R. Martin-Holland in the _Burlington
Magazine_ for April 1911 (vol. xviii. No. xcvii. pp. 48-55), where it
is reproduced, together with other works of its author, a forgotten
French painter named Félix Chrétien, was described in the Beaujon
catalogue as “The Court of Francis II and the principal nobles of that
time, with the attributes of Moses and Aaron, who present themselves
before the King of Egypt, who is Francis II himself; their names are
written on the different contours of their robes,” &c. It further
stated that it was “by the famous Holbein, towards 1552.” From the
time of the Beaujon sale in 1787 all traces of this large panel
painting—5 ft. 9 in. high by 6 ft. 2 in. wide—were lost, until it
suddenly reappeared in Messrs. Christie’s saleroom on February 26,
1910, in company with the big group of Sir Thomas More and Family. In
the catalogue it was given to Holbein, and was described as “Moses and
Aaron before Pharaoh” (“a group of figures, said to represent King
Henry VIII as Pharaoh,” &c.), and as formerly in the collection of the
Prince de Cerny. The mystery of the picture’s meaning was cleared up,
and the name of its painter discovered, by Miss Hervey and Mr.
Martin-Holland, and will be found in their paper. It contains
portraits of a number of the members of the Dinteville family,
including the Bailly of Troyes, who appears as Moses, and his brother,
François II, Bishop of Auxerre, as Aaron. The Pharaoh is evidently
Francis I, though the likeness is by no means a good one. The names of
most of the figures are given on the hems of their robes. The picture
affords valuable additional proof of the identity of the personage on
the spectator’s left in the “Ambassadors” with Jean de Dinteville, for
the likeness is striking. The picture was painted in 1537, and
remained in the possession of the Dinteville family, together with the
greater work by Holbein, for exactly two hundred and fifty years. The
identity of the picture with the one in the Beaujon sale was first
pointed out by Mr. P. G. Konody (_Burlington Magazine_, vol. xix. No.
xcviii., May 1911, p. 106). Félix Chrétien, the painter of it, was a
chorister, and afterwards a canon of Auxerre, of which town he was
probably a native. He was a protégé of the Bishop’s, and no doubt owed
his training in art to him. Several of his pictures, considerably
damaged, remain in the immediate district of Auxerre.
Although no actual proofs can be produced as to the whereabouts of the
picture between 1653 and 1787, Miss Hervey, in the course of her
researches into the history of the De Cessac family, discovered
sufficient evidence to point to the probability that M. de Cessac took
it with him to Milhars when he finally settled there a few years later,
and that it remained there until shortly before the Beaujon sale. The
Milhars estate descended from heir to heir of the house of Dinteville
until 1765, when it was sold by the Marquis de Basville, who then
represented the family. He was the intimate friend of Beaujon, who made
him his executor, in which capacity he drew up the inventory of all the
banker’s pictures and art objects. In this inventory, however, there is
no trace of Holbein’s “Ambassadors” to be found, and the inference is
that as it was included in the Beaujon sale three months later it was
put into that sale by the executor himself. It seems certain, therefore,
that from the time when the picture was taken from England by Dinteville
in 1533 until it was sent back again by Le Brun more than two hundred
and fifty years later it never once left France, but remained as a
treasured possession in the family for whose ancestor it was
painted.[90]
Footnote 90:
See Miss Hervey, pt. i. chap. ii.
[Sidenote: THE THEORIES OF MR. DICKES]
In spite of the conclusive proof brought forward by Miss Hervey, Mr. W.
F. Dickes, in his book devoted to the unriddling of the “Ambassadors,”
refused to abandon his theory of the Nuremberg Treaty, and still pinned
his faith to his Princes Palatine Otto Henry and Philipp. It is
essential to his theory that Holbein should be proved to have been
absent from England in 1533, and he, therefore, gives it as his opinion
that the Steelyard portraits of that year, and the Cheseman
portrait,[91] were most probably painted abroad. He cites, as actual
proof that Holbein was in Basel in 1533, in addition to the extract from
the “Banner Book” referred to in the preceding chapter,[92] the “Wheel
of Fortune” picture in distemper at Chatsworth, which is dated 1533,
with the arms of Basel on the post supporting the wheel. “No one can
doubt,” he says, “that it was painted by Holbein at Basel in 1533;”[93]
but, as a matter of fact, it is not by Holbein at all, being far too
poor a work to be from his hand, but by Hans Schaeufelin, and the
initials “H. H.” on it are of later date. The monogram and the
well-known mark, in the form of a shovel, of the latter painter, which
have been tampered with, are still clearly discernible beneath the
letters.[94]
Footnote 91:
See pp. 54-56.
Footnote 92:
Page 32. See also pp. 157-178.
Footnote 93:
Dickes, p. 6.
Footnote 94:
As pointed out by Mr. S. Arthur Strong in his preface to _The
Masterpieces of the Duke of Devonshire’s Collection of Pictures_,
1901, and republished in _Critical Studies and Fragments_, 1905, p.
92, and Pl. viii. 1.
In his book Mr. Dickes abandons, or at least does not reprint, some of
the more fantastic theories he advanced in his magazine articles; but in
all that he has published on the subject his method of procedure is the
simple one of denying the authenticity of all evidence which is
destructive of his theory. Thus, he does not hesitate to declare the
first document discovered by Miss Hervey to be an eighteenth-century
forgery, and the two confirmatory papers amongst the Godefroy
correspondence he places in the same category. With regard to the date
and Holbein’s signature, he accepts as a fact the “staggering statement”
of the Beaujon sale-catalogue that in 1787 the picture was unsigned and
undated; and he infers that the inscription was added by Le Brun, and
that the three documents discovered by Miss Hervey were all forgeries
due to the same unscrupulous dealer. Why such an elaborate falsification
should be thought necessary, and what purpose it served, unless merely
to display the genealogical learning of the forger, Mr. Dickes fails to
explain. When Le Brun issued his engraving in 1792, with a descriptive
note lifted bodily from the Beaujon catalogue, and retaining the same
title, “MM. de Selve et d’Avaux,” he had already sold the picture into
England, so that to elaborate a series of forgeries in connection with
it, and then scatter them about France and get them inserted among the
papers of learned antiquaries, after the picture had left the country,
would seem to be a very futile proceeding; and if he had added the date
1533 and a false signature to it before selling it he would surely have
refrained from stating in his printed description of it that it was
painted in “la manière dont il a marqué ses ouvrages HB. BH. 1515.” The
whole theory, in fact, is absurd, as is Mr. Dickes’ further declaration
that the name “Policy” on the globe is also a forgery due to Le Brun.
The inscription on the book giving the age of George de Selve, “ætatis
suæ 25,” is also a forgery according to the same authority, or rather,
he holds that the last figure was originally an 8, but that it became
damaged, and that when repaired it was altered to a 5 through the
ignorance of the restorer. The alteration of the age from 25 to 28, it
should be noted, is vital to Mr. Dickes’ argument, for otherwise the
second figure cannot represent Count Philipp. Even this change, however,
is not sufficient to put matters right, and so he assumes arbitrarily
that although the picture was painted in 1533 (in spite of its forged
date!) the ages of the sitters inscribed on the dagger and the book were
purposely calculated from the previous year, in order to indicate that
the painting was a memorial of the Nuremberg Treaty of 1532. Mr. Dickes
professes to find further proofs of the ages of the sitters from the
numerous accessories on the table. The cylindrical sundial is so
arranged that it informs us that the sitter against whom it is placed
was born on April 10th, about 10.30 P. M., in the latitude of Neuburg,
which exactly agrees with the birth of Otto Henry, and this information
is confirmed by the decagonal sundial further along the table. With
respect to the second figure, the instruments are still more explicit,
for the date, November 12th, is repeated no less than four times on
Apian’s Torquetum, the astrolabe, and the quadrant, with the additional
information that the hour of birth was between five and six, which
exactly agrees with the day of the month and the hour of the birth of
Philipp.[95]
Footnote 95:
The present writer, although he has made a careful study of Mr.
Dickes’ readings of the instruments, has not sufficient scientific
knowledge to speak with authority as to the correctness or otherwise
of the results he obtains, which, if true, provide by far the most
ingenious and, indeed, the only plausible evidence he has brought
forward in favour of his theory. This evidence, however, is not always
as convincing as he would have us to believe. Thus, the decagonal
sundial, which on two of its sides gives the time as 10.30 (the hour
of Otto Henry’s birth), very clearly indicates 9.30 on its third and
most prominent side, while it almost touches the elbow of the second
figure, and so should refer, if to any one, to Philipp. Mr. Dickes
gets over this difficulty by the statement that the sundial,
“presenting three circles to be read, naturally devotes the two chief
dials to the principal person. These are—the dial with the wire stile,
in front, and the dial beneath the magnet on the top;” but he offers
no suggestion as to whose birth the third and most prominent dial
refers.
[Sidenote: THE ACCESSORIES OF THE PICTURE]
Space does not permit even a brief reference to further erroneous
inferences which Mr. Dickes draws from other parts of the picture, all
of which were fully and finally dealt with by Sir Sidney Colvin in a
review of the book.[96] Mr. Dickes by no means strengthens his case by
reproducing a number of portraits, selected from various European
galleries, in which he sees likenesses to his two heroes, though they
bear but the faintest resemblance either to genuine portraits of the
Counts Palatine or to the sitters in the “Ambassadors” picture.[97]
Footnote 96:
_Burlington Magazine_, August 1903, pp. 367-69.
Footnote 97:
The two most glaring examples of this, which show to what lengths a
fixed idea can carry one, are the splendid portrait by Holbein of the
Sieur de Morette, which he declares to be painted by Amberger, and to
represent Otto Henry at some date after 1556, when he was Elector
Palatine; and the beautiful little portrait of Hermann Wedigh, of the
Steelyard, dated 1533, which, as already noted, he holds to be an
unmistakable portrait of Philipp.
The book, in spite of the false theory on which it is based, displays
much careful if misplaced research, and as, for this reason, it is apt
to mislead those who have made no serious study of Holbein’s work, its
arguments have been briefly dealt with here. Mr. Dickes, however, is not
alone in refusing to accept Jean de Dinteville and George de Selve as
the two ambassadors. Mrs. G. Fortescue, in her book on the painter,[98]
holds that both Miss Hervey and Mr. Dickes are wrong; but she brings
forward no names to take the place of those she condemns, and merely
suggests, somewhat mysteriously, that later on she will produce facts
which will provide the correct solution.
Footnote 98:
_Holbein_ (“Little Books on Art”), 1904, p. 149.
Turning again to the picture itself, it is evident that the accessories,
with which the table is crowded, both from their unusual number and
character, were not collected at haphazard merely to afford an
opportunity for displaying Holbein’s skill in depicting minutiæ, but
that they represent the tastes and learned pursuits of the two sitters,
and were selected and arranged by Dinteville himself. The prevailing
love of allegory and symbolism, of the emblem or “devise,” which was a
marked characteristic of that age, is apparent in many of the picture’s
details, in some of them to be read plainly, in others so obscurely that
it is now impossible to explain them satisfactorily. Miss Hervey has
described them with care, and has elucidated much of their meaning and
purpose. The appearance of the Death’s-head twice over in the picture—in
the hat-medal worn by Dinteville and in the distorted skull in the
foreground—seems to indicate that the ambassador had adopted it as his
personal badge or _devise_. The picture, indeed, in its general
arrangement bears considerable likeness to the woodcut in the “Dance of
Death” series known as “The Arms of Death” (“Die Wappen des Todes”), as
was first pointed out by Mr. Wornum.[99] This suggests the possibility
that Dinteville had been shown, perhaps by Holbein himself, a proof set
of the “Dance of Death” woodcuts, and that he had been greatly impressed
by them. He suffered much from ill-health while in England, which may
have had something to do with his choice of a device of so gloomy a
nature.
Footnote 99:
Wornum, p. 181.
Certain of the instruments depicted are apparently set to indicate
various dates, such as the birthdays of the sitters or important events
in their lives, as pointed out by Mr. Dickes. The same instruments,
together with the other objects, also represent certain of the Seven
Liberal Arts—Music, Arithmetic, Geometry and Astronomy. The terrestrial
globe is copied from Johann Schöner’s globe of 1523, to which about
twenty names of towns have been added by Holbein, chiefly in France and
Spain, selected by Dinteville as an epitome of the foreign relations of
France in shaping which he had taken some share, the most important of
these additions, as elucidating the identity of the chief sitter, being,
of course, Polisy. The Lutheran hymn-book and the crucifix may be taken
as symbolical of France’s religious diplomacy and the opinions of the
two friends. The hope of religious union between the Roman Catholic and
the Reformed Churches played a large part in the life of the Bishop of
Lavaur. “To find means to promote that end was the object of his most
earnest thought; to see it accomplished, the dearest wish of his
heart.”[100] Dinteville, too, belonged to the liberal Catholic party in
France, and shared the Bishop’s views. Mr. Barclay Squire first pointed
out that the hymn-book in the picture was painted from a copy of Johann
Walther’s _Geystliche Gesangbüchlein_, published at Wittemberg in 1524.
The German arithmetic book was copied from a manual, _The Merchant’s
Arithmetic Book_, by Peter Apian, published at Ingoldstadt in 1527. The
badge of the order of St. Michael is worn by Dinteville without the
collar of scallop-shells, and merely suspended from his neck by a gold
chain. This was in accordance with the rules of the Order, which
permitted it to be so worn when under arms, or when travelling, hunting,
or when at home in private, or in other places where there was no
company. Other details of the picture are equally interesting, more
particularly the elaborate mosaic pavement, which Miss Hervey discovered
to be an accurate copy of the well-known paved floor in the Sanctuary of
Westminster Abbey, for the construction of which marbles and workmen
were brought from Italy by Abbot Richard Ware in the reign of Henry III.
This interesting discovery affords additional proof that the
“Ambassadors” was painted in England.
Footnote 100:
Miss Hervey, p. 221.
[Sidenote: THE ACCESSORIES OF THE PICTURE]
The picture, which in point of size and in the elaboration of its many
details is the most important work by Holbein remaining in England, is a
brilliant example of the painter’s technical abilities, though as a
composition it is less successful than certain other less ambitious
portraits from his brush. The accessories, on account of their number,
variety, and brilliance of execution, and the central position given to
them—so that the two figures have something of the appearance of the
supporters to a coat of arms, as in some of Holbein’s designs for
glass—to some extent distract the attention from the ambassadors
themselves. Dinteville appears to have selected them with great care,
and evidently attached great importance to them and the meanings they
were intended to convey; while the painter carried out his wishes so
admirably that they remain to-day almost as important a part of the
picture as they did in the opinion of the man for whom the work was
painted. The distorted skull, in particular, which at once catches the
eye, however entertaining or clever a rebus or emblematic puzzle the
Bailly may have thought it, holds far too prominent a position in the
composition for the painting to be regarded as a picture in the highest
sense of the word. It is, nevertheless, a work possessing very great
qualities, and, in many respects, must be placed in the forefront of
Holbein’s achievement. The faces of the two men are finely and
delicately modelled, though their character is not quite so subtly
expressed as in such a portrait as that of the “Duchess of Milan.” The
dark, penetrating eyes and well-chiselled mouth of Dinteville give
vitality to his intellectual face, in which can be traced some
indications of the delicate constitution which was so ill suited to the
climate of England. De Selve is grave in contrast, with dark eyebrows
and a more pallid complexion, and his countenance has less expression
and vitality than is to be found in that of his companion. It has been
suggested that this contrast between the two figures is so great that it
indicates the fact proved by Dinteville’s letter, that the future
Bishop’s stay in this country was of limited duration, and that his
portrait was probably not completed from life.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 10
PORTRAIT OF A MUSICIAN
SIR JOHN RAMSDEN, BULSTRODE PARK
]
[Sidenote: “PORTRAIT OF A MUSICIAN”]
In concluding this account of Dinteville’s connection with Holbein
reference must be made to a portrait in the possession of Sir John
Ramsden, Bt., of Bulstrode Park, Buckingham, recently published and
described for the first time by Dr. Ganz in the _Burlington
Magazine_,[101] which represents a man with a book of music and a lute
(Pl. 10). This “Portrait of a Musician” he regards as an undoubted
likeness of the Bailly of Troyes from Holbein’s brush. He describes it
as follows: “The man is sitting behind a table, and holds in his right
hand a roll of paper, in the left a guitar. Two books in red bindings
with green ribbons are placed, one open, one closed, on the red
tablecloth, and this group of colours forms the contrast to the green
curtain of the background. The cap and the black coat with large facings
and white shirt-ruffles hanging down are decorated with golden buttags
of a longish form, after the French fashion of the time. The blue eyes,
looking with a sharp and cold glance, give the impression of a man of
great reflection and prudence; and the beautiful, carefully tended hands
belong to a gentleman of the Court.... Round the neck he wears a small
golden chain and a black silk ribbon, to which is attached an object of
a very singular form, executed in gold and embellished with precious
stones. This cannot be a simple jewel, intended merely to hang on the
gold chain, but it seems to be a kind of whistle used in place of a
tuning-fork.”[102] This portrait is said to represent Lord Vaux of
Harrowden, from its supposed resemblance to the two drawings by Holbein
of that personage at Windsor, but Dr. Ganz holds that it bears a much
closer resemblance to Dinteville as he is shown in the “Ambassadors,”
and still more so to the drawing found by Miss Hervey at Chantilly. He
considers that the longer beard indicates that it was painted two years
later than the National Gallery picture. “The technical execution,” he
says, “confirms a later date of origin; the blending of the colours and
the brilliancy are in the well-preserved parts like the finest enamel.
The right hand, which has a smooth appearance, is retouched; but the
extraordinary quality of Holbein’s art in modelling the flesh without
any contrast is to be found in the face and in the execution of the left
hand. His attention was not limited to creating a portrait with the
exactness of a looking-glass; he tried to give the man in his intimacy
by obtaining a spacious effect. He placed the figure between two objects
and painted the shadows in their real values.” While admitting that the
likeness between this Musician and Dinteville is a strong one, the
present writer is of opinion that the picture at Bulstrode Park does not
represent the French ambassador. As already pointed out,[103]
Dinteville’s subsequent visits to England were all short ones, of only a
few weeks’ duration, during which time there would be little opportunity
for sitting for his portrait, nor is it very probable that he would want
a second likeness of himself so shortly after the big work was finished.
Little is known of the history of Sir John Ramsden’s picture, but it is
probably the _ritratto d’un Musico_ of the Arundel inventory. It is said
to have been purchased in 1860 from a sale in Scotland. Either this
picture, or a replica of it, was in the Ralph Bernal sale, 1855, when it
was sold to Mr. Morant for one hundred guineas. It was described in the
sale catalogue as: “Portrait of Nicholas, Lord Vaux, the poet and
musician, in a black dress and cap, seated at a table, an open book
before him, he holds a viol de gambe in his left hand, green drapery
behind, 17½ × 17, a most beautiful portrait of the highest interest.”
Footnote 101:
Vol. xx., October 1911, pp. 31-2. Also reproduced in _Holbein_, p.
137.
Footnote 102:
This object is in reality “a penknife containing also tooth-picks and
ear-spoons or other little instruments such as tweezers or awls.” See
letter from Mr. Sydney J. A. Churchill in _Burlington Magazine_, vol.
xx., January 1912, p. 239, who calls attention to a similar penknife
in the Figdor Collection, and to an engraving by Aldegrever of a like
object dated 1539.
Footnote 103:
See above, p. 44.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER XVIII
PORTRAITS OF 1533-1536
Portraits of Robert Cheseman—Thomas Cromwell—Lord Abergavenny—Charles de
Solier, Sieur de Morette—The Earl of Arundel’s collection of
pictures—Roundels of a man and his wife at Vienna—Portraits of members
of the Poyntz family—Nicolas Bourbon—His verses in praise of
Holbein—Design for the title-page of Coverdale’s Bible—Other woodcut
designs produced in England—Hall’s Chronicle—Portraits of Sir Thomas
Wyat—Margaret Wyat, Lady Lee—Sir Richard Southwell—Sir Thomas le
Strange—Lady Vaux—Sir Nicholas Carew.
THERE is only one portrait by Holbein bearing the date 1533 which can be
said with any certainty to represent an Englishman. This is the very
beautiful one of Robert Cheseman, now in the Hague Gallery, which has
been known for so long under the erroneous title of “Henry VIII’s
Falconer” (Pl. 11).[104] It represents a man holding a much higher
social position than that of a mere keeper of hawks. Henry’s falconers
were paid at a rate which did not permit them to employ the services of
the leading artist of the day should they wish—which is not at all
probable—to have their portraits painted. Their wages, in fact, ranged
between fifty and twenty shillings a month. Cheseman, in common with
other gentlemen of that period, chose to be painted with his favourite
hawk upon his wrist, for the same reason that the country squires of the
eighteenth century were so often depicted with their favourite dogs.
Another example of this habit is to be seen in the equally fine portrait
by Holbein of an unknown man, also in the Hague Gallery, dated 1542, who
is evidently a gentleman, and not a professional falconer.[105]
Footnote 104:
Woltmann, 159. Reproduced by Davies, p. 158; Knackfuss, fig. 122;
Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 102; and elsewhere.
Footnote 105:
See p. 203.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 11
ROBERT CHESEMAN
1533
ROYAL PICTURE GALLERY, MAURITSHUIS, THE HAGUE
]
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF ROBERT CHESEMAN]
Robert Cheseman, of Dormanswell, near Norwood, in Middlesex, and
Northcote, in Essex, was a man of wealth, and one of the leading
commoners of the first-named county. He was born in 1485, son and heir
of Edward Cheseman, Cofferer and Keeper of the Wardrobe to Henry VII,
and succeeded to the family estates in 1517. His father is mentioned in
a pardon granted on March 2nd, 1486,[106] “to Edward Cheseman of London,
gentleman, of all fines, forfeitures, etc., due to the King or to
Richard III, late, in deed and not of right, King of England,” which was
granted him as one of the executors of the will of Thomas Windesore,
Constable of Windsor Castle. There was also a William Cheseman, probably
an uncle of Robert, who in 1485 and 1486 received grants of the offices
of bailiff of the rapes of Lewes and of Braneburgh, and of Clerk of the
Market of the town of Lewes, “in consideracion of the true and
feithfulle service that our welbeloved servaunt and true liegeman
William Cheseman hathe doone unto us, as well in the parties of beyonde
the see, as at oure late victorious felde within this oure
royaume.”[107]
Footnote 106:
Rev. William Campbell, _Materials for a History of the Reign of Henry
VII_, Rolls Publications, 1873, p. 336.
Footnote 107:
_Ibid._, p. 345.
On August 30th, 1523, Robert Cheseman was appointed Commissioner for
Essex to collect the subsidy,[108] and in December 1528 was placed upon
the commission of the peace for Middlesex. In 1530 he represented the
same county on a commission “to make inquisition in different counties
concerning the possessions held by Thomas Cardinal Archbishop of York
(Wolsey) on 2 Dec. 15 Hen. VIII, when the Cardinal committed certain
offences against the Crown for which he was attainted.”[109] During his
life he served on a number of commissions for collecting tithes,
subsidies, and the like, including one in 1533, the year in which he sat
to Holbein. In 1536 his name appears among a list of people from whom
money is due to the King by obligations,[110] while in the same year he
supplied thirty men for the army against the Northern rebels, which
proves him to have been a man of considerable substance.[111] He served
on the Grand Jury at the trials of Sir Geoffrey Pole, Sir Edward
Neville, and others, in 1538,[112] and of Thomas Culpeper and Francis
Dereham for treason in connection with the trial of Queen Catherine
Howard in 1541.[113] He was among the “squires” selected to welcome Anne
of Cleves when she first landed in England, and was, in fact, one of
some half-dozen men of position who represented Middlesex on all such
public occasions. In 1543 he supplied ten footmen for the army going
into Flanders “for the defence of the Emperor’s Low Countries,[114] and
in the following year he himself appears to have gone with the English
army into France, and it is noted against his name in the muster book
that he had “10 footmen already beyond the seas.” He married Alice,
daughter of Henry Dacres, of Mayfield, Staffordshire, a merchant-tailor
and alderman of Fleet Street, London. She died on July 31st, 1547, and
was buried at Norwood. His daughter and heir, Anne Cheseman, married
Francis Chamberlayne.
Footnote 108:
_C.L.P._, vol. iii. pt. ii. 3282.
Footnote 109:
_C.L.P._, vol. iv. pt. iii. 6516, 6598.
Footnote 110:
_C.L.P._, vol. x. 1257.
Footnote 111:
_C.L.P._, vol. xi. 580.
Footnote 112:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. ii. 986.
Footnote 113:
_C.L.P._, vol. xvi. 1395 (p. 645).
Footnote 114:
_C.L.P._, vol. xviii. pt. i. 832 (p. 467).
The portrait of Cheseman is a half-length, facing the spectator, the
head and eyes turned to the left. He wears a purplish red silk doublet,
and a black cloak trimmed with fur, and the customary black cap. On his
left hand, which is gloved, he carries a hooded hawk, with a bell on its
claw, and with the other hand strokes its feathers. He is clean-shaven,
and his long hair, which is beginning to turn grey, covers his ears.
Across the plain blue background, which has turned green through the
discoloration of the varnish, on either side of the sitter’s head, runs
the inscription in Roman lettering:
“ROBERTVS CHESEMAN. ETATES SVÆ XLVIII · ANNO DM. M D XXXIII.”
The painting of the beautiful plumage of the bird is a most masterly
piece of work, and the keen, piercing eyes and clean-cut face of its
master are rendered with that unerring truth and wonderful insight which
give Holbein his foremost place among the supreme painters of portraits.
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF ROBERT CHESEMAN]
This picture was seen by Sir Joshua Reynolds during his tour through
Flanders and Holland in 1781, and in his diary he describes it as:—“A
portrait by Holbein; admirable for its truth and precision and extremely
well coloured. The blue flat ground which is behind the head gives a
general effect of dryness to the picture: had the ground been varied,
and made to harmonize more with the figure, this portrait might have
stood in competition with the works of the best portrait painters.”[115]
This accusation of a slight “dryness” is to some extent true of certain,
though by no means all, of the portraits painted by Holbein in England,
when compared with some of his earlier work done in Basel. It has been
suggested that this may have been due to a growing habit, caused by the
increasing demands made upon his time, of placing greater reliance on
his preliminary chalk studies in painting a portrait, and thereby
reducing the number of sittings given him by the actual model.[116]
Footnote 115:
_A Journey to Flanders and Holland in the year 1781._ Works, vol. ii.
Footnote 116:
Wornum, p. 251-2.
An old copy of this portrait was lent to the Tudor Exhibition, 1890 (No.
173A), by the Rev. Charles Shepherd. The original picture was once in
the royal collections of England. It was No. 8 on the list of objects of
art which Queen Anne reclaimed from the Dutch States at the death of
William III as having formed part of the collection belonging to the
English royal house. Her claim was unsuccessful, and the picture
remained in Holland. On the back of the panel are the letters
W.E.H.P.L.C. and the seal of Johan Willem Friso, Prince of
Orange-Nassau, in whose collection it was, and afterwards in that of
William V. The second fine portrait of a man with a hawk in the Hague
Gallery,[117] dated 1542, was another of the pictures claimed by Anne,
and was No. 21 in her list. A third picture in the Hague, the beautiful
portrait of a young woman[118] (No. 275), now considered to represent
Holbein’s wife, has been already described. The Cheseman and the 1542
portrait were evidently taken over to Holland, with other paintings, by
William III during one of his visits to the Hague.
Footnote 117:
See p. 203.
Footnote 118:
See Vol. i. p. 106.
A small round portrait on wood, in the collection of Frau L.
Goldschmidt-Przibram in Brussels,[119] is dated 1533. According to both
Woltmann and Zahn it is in a very damaged condition, but is a genuine
work of Holbein. It represents a young man at half-length, facing the
spectator, but with the head slightly turned to the left. He is
clean-shaven, with bushy hair half hiding his ears, and wears the small
flat black cap and costume of the German merchants of the Steelyard, and
he was probably a member of that body. The right hand only is shown,
holding a carnation. Across the plain background, on either side of the
head, is inscribed “ANNO 1533.” The face is a very attractive one, and
the portrait has for years been regarded as representing the painter
himself. Dr. Woltmann so included it in his book, but it bears little
resemblance to the genuine portraits of Holbein. It was previously in
the Jäger, Gsell, and Fräulein Gabriele Przibram collections in Vienna.
Footnote 119:
Woltmann, 261. Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 104. Exhibition of
Miniatures at Brussels, 1912, No. 855_a_.
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF THOMAS CROMWELL]
During 1533, or in the first months of 1534, Holbein painted Thomas
Cromwell. The future Earl of Essex and “viceregent of the King in all
his ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the realm” was then only at the
beginning of his political career, and filled the minor post of Master
of the Jewel House. The portrait of him in the possession of the Earl of
Caledon,[120] at Tyttenhanger Park, St. Albans, which is evidently the
original of several versions still in existence, although it has
suffered greatly in the course of time, must be regarded as a genuine
work of Holbein’s brush. The face has undergone severe repainting, but
in many of the details his hand can be clearly traced. On one of the
papers on the table in front of the sitter is the following address: “To
our trusty and right wellbiloved Counsailler Thomas Cromwell, Maister of
o^r Jewelhouse,” which proves that it cannot have been painted later
than the first months of 1534, for early in that year Cromwell was
promoted to be First Secretary of State and Master of the Rolls. He
must, therefore, have sat to Holbein at some date between the latter
half of 1532 and the spring of 1534, having been appointed to the Jewel
House on the 12th April 1532 in place of Robert Amadas, the jeweller. If
done after his advancement, his higher titles would have been noted in
the inscription.
Footnote 120:
Woltmann, 249. Reproduced by Davies, p. 159; Pollard, _Henry VIII_, p.
180; Cust, _Burlington Magazine_, vol. xx. p. 7; Ganz, _Holbein_, p.
106.
It is very possible that Cromwell first made the acquaintance of Holbein
through their common friends, the merchants of the Steelyard, with whom
the future Lord Privy Seal was closely allied in more than one business
transaction, more particularly in connection with the wool trade, of
which the Hanse merchants then had a monopoly. He also made constant use
of their services later on in his career for the collection of
continental news, the forwarding of diets to various English ambassadors
abroad, the translating of foreign letters, and so on.
Eustace Chapuys, the Spanish Ambassador in London, in reply to a query
from his Imperial master as to the character of Henry’s new minister,
sent, in November 1535, a short and amusing biographical sketch of his
career, interesting as showing how Cromwell appeared in the eyes of a
foreigner.
“The Secretary, Cromwell,” he wrote, “is the son of a poor farrier, who
lived in a little village a league and a half from here (London), and is
buried in the parish graveyard. His uncle, father of the cousin whom he
has already made rich, was cook (_cousinier_) of the late archbishop of
Canterbury. Cromwell was ill-behaved when young, and after an
imprisonment was forced to leave the country. He went to Flanders, Rome,
and elsewhere in Italy. When he returned he married the daughter of a
shearman, and served in his house; he then became a solicitor. The
cardinal of York, seeing his vigilance and diligence, his ability and
promptitude, both in evil and good, took him into his service, and
employed him principally in demolishing five or six good monasteries. At
the Cardinal’s fall no one behaved better to him than Cromwell. After
the Cardinal’s death Wallop attacked him with insults and threats, and
for protection he procured an audience of the King, and promised to make
him the richest king that ever was in England. The King immediately
retained him on his Council, but told no one for four months. Now he
stands above everyone but the Lady (Anne Boleyn), and everyone considers
he has more credit with his master than Wolsey had—in whose time there
were others who shared his credit, as Maistre Conton (Compton), the duke
of Suffolk, and others, but now there is no one else who does anything.
The Chancellor is only his minister. Cromwell would not accept the
office hitherto, but it is thought that soon he will allow himself to be
persuaded to take it. He speaks well in his own language, and tolerably
in Latin, French and Italian; is hospitable, liberal both with his
property and with gracious words, magnificent in his household and in
building.”[121]
Footnote 121:
_C.L.P._, vol. ix. 862.
This is the man whom Holbein painted when he was merely Master of the
Jewel House and Clerk of the Hanaper of Chancery. He is shown, in Lord
Caledon’s picture, at half-length, seated in a high-backed wooden seat,
his head and body turned to the left, looking towards a window, only a
small part of which is seen, with a small table beneath it covered with
a Turkish cloth, on which papers are placed. He is dressed in a black
surcoat with a deep fur collar, and a black cap. He rests his left elbow
on another table in front of him, and holds a paper in his left hand, on
the first finger of which is a heavy signet ring. The right hand is not
shown. He is clean-shaven, and his bushy hair almost covers his ears and
falls on the back of his neck. On the table are pen and ink, a
richly-bound book with jewelled clasps, and several papers, on one of
which is the inscription already quoted. On a second paper the word
“Counseilor” can be deciphered at the head. The face, with its small
eyes set closely together, its thin, compressed lips and double chin,
and its sinister expression of cold determination, is a far from
attractive one, and lays bare that side of Cromwell’s character for
which he was so heartily hated by the Catholic party. In it is to be
seen little of that other side of him, of which, after his downfall,
Cranmer spoke, when writing to Henry on behalf of his old minister.
“Cromwell,” he said, “was such a servant in my judgment, in wisdom,
diligence, faithfulness, and experience, as no prince in this realm ever
had.” A large scroll stretching across the top of the picture, evidently
added after Cromwell’s death, contains a Latin inscription in his
praise. The portrait is on panel, 30 in. × 24 in.
[Sidenote: PORTRAITS OF THOMAS CROMWELL]
A smaller portrait of Cromwell, a circular painting with a green
background, and enclosed in a painted square stone frame, showing the
head only, is described by Wornum and Woltmann.[122] It was at that time
in the possession of Captain Ridgway, of Waterloo Place, London.[123] It
is 12 in. square, and differs in some details from the Tyttenhanger
portrait. Both writers appear to regard it as a genuine work by Holbein.
A portrait of Cromwell was one of the few works mentioned by name by Van
Mander when describing De Loo’s collection of Holbein’s works:—“the old
Lord Crauwl, about a foot and a half high, taken unusually artistically
by Holbein.” Although the dimensions do not quite agree, Woltmann
suggests that Captain Ridgway’s little picture was the one thus
described. According to Mr. Lionel Cust,[124] the few portraits of
Cromwell which have any claim to authenticity are all traceable to
Holbein, and fall into two groups, or at most three, each group deriving
from an original portrait by him. In the first class are the
Tyttenhanger picture and others based directly upon it. This portrait,
he says, descends direct from Sir Thomas Pope, one of Cromwell’s
instruments in the suppression of the monasteries. The second group
includes such pictures as the one in the National Portrait Gallery (No.
1683, 16¾ in. × 13 in.),[125] purchased in 1897, of which there are
several versions in existence, though there is no portrait of this type
so far traced which can be attributed to Holbein himself. The pictures
in this group show the head and shoulders only, and differ in minor
details from the Tyttenhanger type. The look of craftiness is
accentuated, and he is shown with a slight grey whisker, and the pointed
arch of the eyebrows is more strongly marked. The third group, which is
closely allied to the second, includes the recently-discovered miniature
in the late Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan’s collection,[126] and the medal in
the British Museum, of the date 1538, which, according to Mr. Cust, is
evidently based on a drawing by Holbein.[127] There was a portrait of
Cromwell in the Arundel collection, which is entered in the inventory as
“ritratto de Cromwell.” This was evidently the one in the possession of
De Loo, which afterwards passed, with other works by Holbein, from that
dealer’s collection into that of the Earl. Hollar’s engraving,[128]
which is not signed or dated, does not appear to have been taken from
the portrait at Tyttenhanger, but was most probably based upon the
Arundel picture; but whether that picture was an original by Holbein,
now lost, or one of the numerous versions now in existence, it is
impossible to say. One of these versions is in the collection of M. Ch.
Léon Cardon, Brussels.
Footnote 122:
Woltmann, 212, and i. 376; Wornum, p. 287.
Footnote 123:
Now, according to Dr. Ganz (_Holbein_, p. 241) in that of M.
Kleinberger, Paris.
Footnote 124:
In an interesting paper on “A newly-discovered miniature of Thomas
Cromwell,” _Burlington Magazine_, vol. xx., October 1911, pp. 5-7.
Footnote 125:
Reproduced in Mr. Cust’s illustrated catalogue of the National
Portrait Gallery, vol. i. p. 19, and in the _Burlington Magazine_,
vol. xx. p. 7.
Footnote 126:
Described in chapter xxv. See p. 231 and Pl. 31 (6).
Footnote 127:
Reproduced in _Burlington Magazine_, vol. xx. p. 7.
Footnote 128:
Parthey, 1386.
Several portraits of Cromwell were included in the Tudor Exhibition,
1890, wrongly attributed to Holbein. Among them was a bust portrait, to
the right, with a jewel in the cap, and the Garter George suspended from
a black ribbon, lent by the Duke of Sutherland (No. 39, 20 in. × 17
in.); a small half-length, to the left, wearing both collar and George
of the Garter, from Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (No. 160, 22½ in.
× 17 in.); and versions of the Tyttenhanger picture lent by Mr. Charles
Penruddocke (No. 162, 18 in. × 16 in.), and the Duke of Manchester (No.
163, 14 in. × 11½ in.).[129] In addition to the Hollar print, engravings
were made, from one or other of the copies of the original picture, by
Houbraken for his _Heads of Illustrious Persons_, 1745, from a picture
in the possession of Mr. Edward Southwell, and by Freeman for Lodge’s
_Portraits_, 1835, the latter from a picture in the possession of Sir
Thomas Constable, Bt., at Tixall. Probably both engravings were done
from the same painting.
Footnote 129:
A portrait of Cromwell, attributed to Holbein, the property of the
late Mr. J. P. Hardy, was sold at Christie’s on 13th December 1912.
There is a magnificent drawing, one of the most powerful studies Holbein
ever accomplished, in the collection of the Earl of Pembroke and
Montgomery at Wilton House,[130] which until recently has been generally
regarded as a portrait of the Lord Privy Seal—though it bears little
likeness to the Tyttenhanger panel—because the words “Lord Cromwell” and
“Holbein” have been inscribed in the bottom corners by a later hand than
the painter’s. It is in black and red chalk on paper tinted pink, with
slight touches of colour on the fur of the gown and the jewel in the
cap. The outlines of the features have been reinforced in ink, but this,
in contradistinction to some of the drawings in the Windsor collection,
where such retouching is evidently from a later hand, has been carried
out with such power combined with delicacy that it seems certain that it
was done by Holbein himself. The drawing evidently at one time formed
part of the Windsor series, at the date when the latter was given by
Charles I to an earlier Earl of Pembroke in exchange for the little “St.
George” by Raphael, which is now in the Hermitage. This book of drawings
was afterwards given by Pembroke to the Earl of Arundel, and it is most
probable that the so-called “Cromwell” drawing remained behind, perhaps
by accident. Quite recently it has been definitely identified as the
portrait of George Nevill, third Lord Abergavenny, by means of a
miniature in the possession of the Duke of Buccleuch, in water-colours,
on a playing card, which is based on Holbein’s drawing, and is inscribed
“G. Abergaveny.”[131] It bears a very strong likeness to the drawing,
and is attributed to Holbein himself. Further proof of identity is
obtained from a picture, which agrees with the miniature but does not
show the hands, in the collection of the Marquis of Abergavenny at
Edridge Castle, Kent. Both the Wilton drawing and the miniature were
included in the Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition, 1909 (No. 70 and
Case C. No. 22), and the former was in the Tudor Exhibition, 1890 (No.
1414).
Footnote 130:
Woltmann, 263. Reproduced by Davies, p. 162; Vasari Society, pt. v.
No. 28; _Catalogue of Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition_, 1909, Pl.
xxviii.
Footnote 131:
Reproduced in _The Connoisseur_, vol. xviii. No. 71, July 1907,
frontispiece (in colour); and in the _Illustrated Catalogue of the
Burlington Fine Arts Exhibition_, Pl. xxxiii.
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF MORETTE]
Singularly few examples remain of work executed by Holbein in 1534 and
1535. There are no dated portraits from his brush of the former year,
with the exception of the two small roundels in Vienna, and none of the
latter year, for the date on the beautiful miniature of little Henry
Brandon at Windsor, usually given as 1535, has been misread.[132] There
are one or two portraits which must have been done during this period,
among them the Morette, the drawing of Nicolas Bourbon, and a portrait
of Nicholas Poyns the younger; but there are so few examples which can
be definitely given to these two years that the writer hazards the
conjecture that for a part of the time Holbein was out of England.
Throughout his too short career the painter seems never to have severed
his connection with Basel, nor to have broken the friendly relationships
which existed between him and its Council. He remained a citizen of his
adopted city, and apparently retained his membership of the Painters’
Guild, until his death. To do so he must have paid some heed to the
somewhat strict laws as to the duties of citizenship then in force. The
customary leave of absence was about two years, and Holbein may well
have returned to Basel more often than is generally supposed. He did not
accede to the Council’s request contained in their letter of September
2nd, 1532, but at the end of two years, in the summer of 1534, he may
possibly have paid a visit of some duration to Switzerland, returning to
England in the summer or autumn of 1535. This is only conjecture, for
there is no evidence of his presence in Basel during that period, but it
would account for the lack of English portraits of that date, and would
also help to explain the fact—in some ways inexplicable—that he did not
enter the service of the royal house of England until about 1536.
Against this assumption it must be noted that when he paid his
well-known visit to Basel in September 1538 he was feasted and fêted by
his fellow-citizens in a way which seems to indicate that he had been
absent for a longer period than three years. Still, it is not impossible
that he was there in 1534-5, and that he even paid a final visit home,
about the winter of 1540-41, before his death in 1543, in this way
retaining until the end his citizenship and the pension paid by the
Basel authorities to his wife.
Footnote 132:
See p. 225.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 12
CHARLES DE SOLIER, SIEUR DE MORETTE
ROYAL PICTURE GALLERY, DRESDEN
]
The wonderful portrait of Morette in the Dresden Gallery (Pl. 12)[133]
must certainly have been painted during the period under discussion.
Charles de Solier, Sieur de Morette, a well-known French diplomatist and
fighting man of his day, who had paid more than one earlier visit to
England, in each case of short duration, arrived in London as French
resident ambassador in place of Castillon, on Good Friday, April 3rd,
1534, and returned to France on July 26th, 1535. This was his last and
longest sojourn in this country, and Holbein must have painted him
between these two dates. Even though the painter may have paid a visit
to Basel as suggested, it would still leave ample time for the portrait
to have been taken in the summer of either year. Probably Holbein’s
introduction to Morette was brought about through the good offices of
Jean de Dinteville. Though the Bailly of Troyes had left England in the
previous November, Morette may have seen the “Ambassadors” picture in
France in the interval, or have heard of it from Castillon, who
succeeded Dinteville in London. In any case, Morette, who was one of the
special ambassadors who came over for the signing of the treaty in the
spring of 1528, was acquainted with at least one work of Holbein, the
“Battle of Spurs,” in the temporary banqueting-hall at Greenwich, to
which the King had drawn the particular notice of the envoys.
Footnote 133:
Woltmann, 145. Reproduced by Davies, p. 156; Knackfuss, fig. 128;
Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 116.
[Sidenote: THE ARUNDEL COLLECTION]
The first known reference to the portrait of Morette occurs in the
correspondence of Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel and Surrey, the great
collector of Holbein’s work, who employed friends and agents on the
Continent to hunt up and buy everything from his brush that they could
discover. He got together a remarkably fine series of pictures and
drawings by Holbein, which, on his death at Padua, 1646, came into the
possession of his widow, then residing in Holland. Upon her decease in
1654, at Amsterdam, her youngest son, Lord Stafford, who was living with
her, propounded a nuncupative will in his own favour, and began as
quickly as he could to sell the pictures, which it had been the
intention of the Earl should become heirlooms, but the deed had never
been executed. The sale, however, was stopped by other representatives
of the Arundel family, and a lawsuit resulted. Among the documents in
connection with these proceedings was one of very great interest, an
inventory of the pictures and objects of art in the possession of the
Countess at the time of her death. The original list, which was in
Italian, and probably drawn up for the Earl in Padua, has disappeared,
but a copy of it has been recently discovered by Miss Mary L. Cox in the
Record Office. This valuable document was evidently copied from the
original by some clerk in Amsterdam ignorant of the Italian language,
for it is full of mistakes. The complete inventory was published by Miss
Cox, with an introduction by Mr. Lionel Cust, in the _Burlington
Magazine_.[134] From it we learn that Lord Arundel possessed no less
than forty-one works by or attributed to Holbein, in addition to the
drawings, which are not included in the inventory. Among the portraits,
some of which have been already noted, were those of the Duchess of
Milan, Jane Seymour, Anne of Cleves, Edward VI, the Duke of Norfolk and
his son the Earl of Surrey, Sir Thomas Wyat, Cromwell, Erasmus, the Earl
of Southampton, Thomas and John Godsalve, Sir Edward Gage, Sir Henry and
Lady Guldeford, Archbishop Warham, Dr. John Chamber, Derich Born, and
Sir Thomas More and his family, as well as several unnamed portraits, to
all of which reference will be found in these pages. Very possibly some
few of these pictures, such as the full-length of the Earl of Surrey,
were not by Holbein, though given to him in the list. Lord Arundel also
possessed several works which so far have not been traced, though the
titles may help towards their future rediscovery. Among them is a
portrait said to be of Holbein’s wife, which is most probably the
picture at the Hague;[135] one of a lady “con gli mani giunti e un agato
atacato al beretino”; another of a lady, aged 40, with the inscription,
“In all things, Lord, thy wilbe fulfilled”; the portrait of a
musician;[136] one of an armed man, which may possibly be the portrait
of Sir Nicholas Carew; the portrait of the goldsmith Hans of Zürich; the
Death’s-head and bones already referred to in speaking of Ambrosius
Holbein; a picture of gamblers or people playing games (“un quadretto
con divers figure Jocatori, &c.”); another with the title “Legge Vecchio
& Nove” (ancient and modern law); and the Arms of England in
water-colours. Before his relations could interfere Lord Stafford had
sold a number of pictures to the Spanish Ambassador in London, to
Eberhard Jabach, of Cologne, and to the agent of the Archduke Leopold,
and this may account for the fact that certain of them remained abroad,
such as the Jane Seymour and Dr. Chamber in Vienna, and the Thomas and
John Godsalve in Dresden.
Footnote 134:
Vol. xix., August and September 1911, and vol. xx., January 1912, from
which the above facts are taken.
Footnote 135:
See Vol. i. p. 106.
Footnote 136:
See above, p. 52.
In a letter from Turin, dated November 26th, 1628, from Sir Isaac Wake
to William Boswell, the former states: “The picture after which you do
seem to inquire was made by Hans Holbein in the time of Henry VIII, and
is of a Count of Moretta. My Lord of Arundel doth desire it, and if I
can get it at any reasonable price he must and shall have it.”[137] The
picture was evidently then in the market, under the true names of both
sitter and painter, but apparently the price was too high, and so
Arundel, who possessed the original drawing for it, was not able to
secure it. It was eventually bought by the Marquis Massimiliano
Montecucculi, ambassador of the house of Este at Parma and Rome, and
presented by him to the Duke Francesco d’Este, and so passed into the
Modena gallery. According to Venturi, the portrait was at that time
attributed by the Marquis Montecucculi to “Gio. Olben.” Some thirty
years after the date of Wake’s letter, Scannelli, in his
_Microcosmo_,[138] describes, under the name of “Olbeno,” a picture in
the Modena collection which can be no other than the “Morette.” He says:
“There was also lately among ultramontane painters a certain Olbeno, a
highly qualified master, and in painting individual portraits verily
stupendous. It is true in his execution there is something of that
native hardness which belongs to his country in other respects; yet
through his extreme diligence and truthful fidelity to nature it shows a
high degree of perfection. As we see, for example, in the already
noticed gallery of H.S.H. the Duke of Modena, where there is a
half-length portrait by him which in its exact imitation of nature is
quite wonderful.”
Footnote 137:
For this and other letters see Sainsbury, _Original Unpublished
Papers_, &c., 1859, Appendix, Nos. 44, 53, 55, 57. See also Appendix
(K).
Footnote 138:
Ed. 1657, Vol. ii. p. 265. See also Vol. i. p. 306.
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF MORETTE]
At a later date the true name of the sitter appears to have become lost.
It has been suggested[139] that, owing to the similarity of the sound,
the name Morette was first changed to Morus, as the name of Sir Thomas
More would naturally suggest itself in connection with Holbein. In
Italy, Morus, again naturally, would become Moro, and so in course of
time the picture was said to represent Lodovico Sforza, familiarly known
as Il Moro. There is no need, however, to bring in the name of Sir
Thomas More at all. The change must have been directly from Morette to
Maurus, which was Sforza’s second name, from which his popular nickname
“Il Moro” was taken.[140] Holbein’s name in connection with the picture
having been by this time forgotten, the title “Maurus,” combined with
the beauty of the work, gave rise to the supposition that it could only
be from the hand of Sforza’s great countryman, Leonardo da Vinci; and it
was as a portrait of Il Moro by Leonardo that it was purchased by
Augustus III, King of Poland and Elector of Saxony, from the Duke
Francesco of Este-Modena in 1746. It formed part of a collection of
about one hundred pictures, known as the “Modena Gallery,” some of which
are now among the chief masterpieces of the Dresden Gallery, which,
after long and secret negotiations, the Elector procured for his own
collection at the cost of one hundred thousand sequins and very liberal
largesse to various agents and go-betweens. For the next hundred years
it remained at Dresden as a portrait of Lodovico and a masterpiece by Da
Vinci. Then Rumohr, the critic, pointed out that the style and quality
of the painting proved it to be an undoubted work by Holbein, while at
the same time Von Quandt produced evidence to show that it did not
represent Il Moro, but a certain jeweller employed by Henry VIII named
Hubert Morett. The paper he contributed to the _Kunstblatt_ in 1846 was
accompanied by a reproduction of Hollar’s engraving of the original
drawing of the picture, upon which his case was based. This engraving is
inscribed “Mr. Morett” and “W. Hollar fecit, ex Collectione Arundeliana.
A^o 1647. 31 Decē.” In spite of Rumohr’s criticism, however, the picture
continued to be described in the official catalogues as by Leonardo, the
authorities, it is said, objecting to the change of name, as in so doing
the collection would be robbed of its sole work by Da Vinci; and it was
not until the death of King Frederick Augustus that Holbein was allowed
to come into his own again. There was considerable opposition, too, to
the change from Il Moro to Mr. Morett, the goldsmith, Hollar’s engraving
being a poor one, and not very much like the picture. The title was not
changed, nor was the final restitution made to Holbein until 1860, in
which year Holbein’s original drawing for the portrait made its
appearance in London, in the sale of Samuel Woodburne, the art dealer,
when it fetched £43, and was purchased immediately afterwards for the
Saxon Government by Herr L. Gruner, the director of the Dresden
Gallery.[141] For the next twenty-five years the picture was known as
“Mr. Hubert Morett, goldsmith to Henry VIII,” who was considered by all
writers to be an Englishman, his sumptuous apparel, quite unlike the
sober garments worn by jewellers in those days, being explained away by
a reference to the tradition that in the sixteenth century all
Englishmen, of whatever class of society, had a passion for finery in
dress.
Footnote 139:
Wornum, p. 301, and Dresden Catalogue, 1884.
Footnote 140:
See _Milan under the Sforza_, by C. M. Ady, p. 124.
Footnote 141:
Woltmann, 146. Reproduced by Wornum (photograph), p. 300.
As a matter of fact Hubert Morett was not an Englishman at all, nor
could he be rightly described as “goldsmith” to Henry VIII. He was a
Frenchman, one of several jewellers of Paris, who paid periodical visits
to London for the purpose of selling their wares to the King and Court.
Thus, in August 1536, in Gostwick’s accounts, is the entry: “Hubbert
Morret, jeweller of Paris, for jewels bought by the King £282, 6_s._
8_d._,”[142] while in January 1532 he received 242 crowns, or £56, 9_s._
4_d._, for similar goods.[143] Granger’s statement that Morett “did many
curious works after Holbein’s designs” has no foundation in fact.
Hollar’s engraving[144] simply calls the subject “Mr. Morett,” though
Parthey, in a second edition of his book, cites a second state of the
engraving, sold in 1844, with the added words, “Jeweller to Henry VIII”;
no one, however, has so far succeeded in discovering a proof of this
state, and, in all probability, these words were merely written on this
particular proof by someone who had noted the reference to Morett in the
_Privy Purse Expenses of Henry VIII_, published by Nicolas in 1827.
This, no doubt, was the source of the legend, adopted at Dresden, that
the picture represented a court jeweller.
Footnote 142:
_C.L.P._, vol. xi. 381.
Footnote 143:
_C.L.P._, vol. v., Privy Purse Expenses of Henry VIII, under January
1532.
Footnote 144:
Parthey, No. 1470.
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF MORETTE]
It remained for a Swedish critic, M. S. Larpent, finally to re-establish
the identity of the sitter as that Count of Moretta mentioned in Wake’s
letter in the seventeenth century. In a pamphlet published in
Christiania in 1881, _Sur le Portrait de Morett_, he proved conclusively
that the Dresden picture represents Charles de Solier, Sieur de Morette.
M. Larpent drew attention to the fact that the drawing for the head was
once in the possession of Richardson, the painter, and that at his sale
in 1746 it was included in his catalogue as “One Holbein, sieur de
Moret, one of the French hostages in England,” this, no doubt, being the
traditional title which had remained with the drawing since it was in
the Arundel collection. It has been suggested that Hollar’s engraving
was done neither from the Dresden picture nor from the drawing, as it
shows considerable differences in the dress and details, and is circular
in shape, while the inscription is “Holbein pinxit” not “delineavit,”
indicating that it was done from a painting and not a drawing, and thus
proving that the Earl of Arundel possessed another portrait of Morette,
which has disappeared. In this connection Sir Sidney Colvin draws
attention to the print by Hollar of an unknown man after a painting by
Holbein formerly in the Earl of Arundel’s collection, which he thinks
represents Jean de Dinteville.[145] “Now, this print of Hollar’s,” he
says, “is an exact companion to his other print from the ‘Mr. Morett’ in
the Arundel collection. Both are small rounds, apparently taken from
paintings of almost miniature size, such as Holbein is in several
instances known to have made of persons who had also sat to him for
full-sized portraits. I conclude that he had painted two such companion
miniatures, besides his larger pictures, of the two successive French
envoys, Dinteville and Morette, and that both came into the possession
of the Earl of Arundel.”[146]
Footnote 145:
This is the print, already mentioned (see p. 44), in connection with
the fine Windsor drawing to which Miss Hervey first drew attention as
a possible likeness of Dinteville.
Footnote 146:
In a letter to _The Times_, 11th September 1890.
The identity of the sitter was established beyond all possibility of
doubt in 1903 by the late Mr. Max Rosenheim’s discovery of a fine
contemporary medallion portrait of the same personage, carved in
boxwood, with his name and titles in full, and on the back his device of
a seaport, a horse, and a dolphin.[147] Charles de Solier was born in
1480, and was fifty-four years old when resident ambassador in England
in 1534, the year in which Holbein painted him. He represented him
life-size and half-length, standing facing the spectator, dressed in a
doublet of black satin, the sleeves of which, from the elbow downwards,
are slashed with white silk. His surcoat is of the same black material,
with a heavy collar and lining of fur. Both dress and black cap are
decorated with gold tags, and in the latter he wears a circular gold
enseigne with a figure of Fortune. Round his neck hangs a gold chain to
which is suspended a medallion or watch-case of open-work. In his right
hand he holds a glove, and his left, which is gloved, grasps the gilt
and elaborately chased sheath of a dagger, suspended from his girdle by
a chain with a large tassel, such as the one worn by Dinteville. His
long beard of a reddish colour is touched here and there with grey. The
background consists of a curtain of green damask. It is about 3 ft. 1
in. high by 2 ft. 6½ in. wide.
Footnote 147:
See _Burlington Magazine_, vol. ii., August 1903, p. 369. The
medallion is in the Salting Collection, and the costume is the same as
in the picture. The inscription runs: “CAROLVS · DE · SOLARIO · DNS ·
MORETY · ANNO · AGENS · L.”
Holbein’s art, both in the subtle insight it displays into character and
in its technical achievement, is seen in its highest manifestation in
this superb and nobly-dignified portrait, which bears the stamp of truth
in every touch. The handling is both brilliant and delicate in all the
accessories, in the fine modelling of the flesh, and in the wonderful
draughtsmanship of the right hand grasping the glove. As a likeness of a
living man and as an expression of the most intimate traits of his
character, it holds its own with any piece of portraiture in the world,
and is, indeed, complete in every respect, displaying the finest taste
in conception combined with consummate skill and unerring accuracy in
execution, and most harmonious colour. The original study for it, which,
no doubt, once formed a part of the Windsor collection, and now hangs by
the side of the picture in Dresden, is unsurpassed for its truth and
force, and the subtlety with which the likeness is expressed by the
simplest means, eye and hand acting in perfect accord and allowing
nothing essential to escape them.
[Sidenote: ROUNDELS OF ENGLISHMAN AND WIFE]
The two small roundels, about six inches in diameter, portraits of a
man, probably an Englishman, and his wife, in the Vienna Gallery[148]
(Nos. 1482, 1484), formerly in the Schloss Ambras collection, are dated
1534. They are fine works, almost in miniature, though they do not show
Holbein at his highest point of achievement. The man, who has a
dark-brown beard, wears a black cap and a scarlet surcoat on which the
letters H. & R. are embroidered in black and gold, indicating that he
was in the service of Henry VIII. Across the background is inscribed:
“ETATIS SVÆ 30. ANNO 1534.” The woman, of a very homely type of face, is
wearing a dark-brown and black dress, and a white head-dress, which
hides her hair and falls on her shoulders in the form of a cape. This
head-dress is identical with the one worn by the unknown lady in the
Windsor collection (Holmes No. 10), which Sir Richard Holmes thought
might be a portrait of “Mother Jack,” nurse to Edward VI. It is
inscribed: “ETATIS SVÆ 28. ANNO 1534.” Both portraits have now a very
dark blue-green background with a small circular ring of gold round the
outer edge. The two are evidently husband and wife, and the latter has
more the appearance of a German than an Englishwoman. It may be
suggested, therefore, though with diffidence, that it is not impossible
that these two small portraits represent Susanna Hornebolt and her
husband, John Parker, the King’s bowman and a yeoman of the robes. Dürer
speaks of Susanna as being “about eighteen” in 1521, which does not
quite tally with the age of the sitter in the Vienna roundel, who was
twenty-eight in 1834, but it is again not impossible that Dürer imagined
the young lady to be two or three years older than she was in reality.
Dr. Ganz draws attention to the close likeness between this portrait and
the one of an unknown man, also a small roundel, in the possession of
Herr F. Engel-Gros, at Château de Ripaille near Thonon,[149] which he
reproduces for the first time. The sitter is clean-shaven, facing
three-quarters to the right, with a small flat red cap, elaborate black
and white Spanish work on his shirt collar, and a red livery coat, lined
with blue, with black bands and the initials “H. R.” embroidered on it.
He considers him to be either a Netherlander or a German, and suggests
that he was possibly a painter in Henry VIII’s service. It may be
permitted to go a step further and to suggest that we have here a
portrait of Susanna’s brother, Lucas Hornebolt. It was first exhibited
in Basel in 1891, and nothing of its earlier history is known. It bears
no signature or date, but is evidently of the same period as the two
Vienna roundels. There is an excellent old copy on copper of this
roundel in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (No. 537),[150] in which,
however, the cap and coat are black, while no trace of the royal
initials on the latter can be discerned.
Footnote 148:
Woltmann, 256, 257. Reproduced in _Magazine of Art_, March 1897, p.
279; _Masterpieces of Holbein_ (Gowan’s Art Books, No. 13), pp. 46,
47; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 105.
Footnote 149:
Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 115. Purchased by the present owner
in Paris.
Footnote 150:
Reproduced in F. R. Earp’s _Descriptive Catalogue of the Pictures in
the Fitzwilliam Museum_, 1902, and in _The Principal Pictures in the
Fitzwilliam Museum_, Gowans & Gray, Ltd., 1913, p. 86.
Among the Windsor drawings there are three, two of them very fine, which
represent members of the Poyns or Poyntz family—John Poyns,[151] of
North Wokendon, Essex, a member of the royal household and one of Wyat’s
most intimate friends, in which the face is almost in profile to the
right, with the eyes turned upwards, and a small round black cap which
only covers the hair in part; and two of Nicholas Poyntz, of the
Gloucestershire branch of the family.[152] Both are inscribed “N. Poines
Knight,” and they are generally regarded as portraits of a father and
son, and are described as Sir Nicholas Poyntz the Elder, and Sir
Nicholas Poyntz the Younger. In the one he is represented almost
full-face, with beard and bare head, a free drawing without the black
lines, and somewhat rubbed. The other is a small head in profile to the
left, with a short beard and moustache, wearing a round cap with white
feather, and a gold chain on his shoulders. There seems to be no great
difference between the ages of the two, and as Nicholas Poyntz’s father
was named Anthony, probably the inscription on the first-named drawing
is incorrect, and the sitter is not a member of this family. There are
various portraits based upon the second drawing, all apparently
contemporary copies of a lost original.[153] One of them was lent by the
Marquis of Bristol to the Tudor Exhibition, 1890 (No. 79). It is a
life-size portrait, half-length, in a black dress, on panel, 24 × 17 in.
Another is described by Woltmann, who saw it in the possession of the
Marquis de la Rosière in Paris.[154] It was photographed by Braun, but
since then has disappeared. It agrees with the drawing and Lord
Bristol’s picture. Both are inscribed on the right-hand side of the blue
background:—“ETATIS SVÆ 25. ANNO 1535,” and above, a three-lined French
motto—“IE OBAIS A QVI IE DOIS. IE SERS A QVI ME PLAIST. ET SVIS A QVI ME
MERITE.” Woltmann regarded the Paris example as a fine and genuine work
by Holbein,[155] but it is only an old copy. There is another in the
possession of Lord Spencer at Althorp. Wornum notes a miniature on
vellum, with a plain blue background, then in the possession of Mr. R.
S. Holford, of Dorchester House, which corresponds with the Windsor
drawing.[156] Sir Nicholas Poyntz was the eldest son of Anthony Poyntz,
of Iron Acton, Gloucestershire, and Elizabeth, daughter and heir of
William Hudson, of Devonshire. He does not appear to have held any
office in connection with the Court. He married Joan, daughter of
Thomas, Lord Berkeley, and died in 1557.
Footnote 151:
Woltmann, 301; Wornum, i. 9; Holmes, i. 47. Reproduced by Davies, p.
220; and in _Drawings of Hans Holbein_ (Newnes), Pl. xx. A fine head
of “John Poines,” on a reddish ground, was in the recently dispersed
collection of Mr. J. P. Heseltine.
Footnote 152:
Woltmann, 299, 300; Wornum, i. 19, 36; Holmes, i. 37, ii. 26;
reproduced in _Drawings of Hans Holbein_, Pl. xxii. xxv.
Footnote 153:
This original is in Lord Harrowby's collection. See Appendix (K).
Footnote 154:
Woltmann, 239. Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 217. There was a
portrait of the “Cavaglier Points” in the Arundel Collection.
Footnote 155:
Woltmann, i. pp. 408-9.
Footnote 156:
Wornum, p. 404. It was included in the Exhibition of Miniatures held
at South Kensington in 1865, No. 763.
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF NICOLAS BOURBON]
Another portrait painted by Holbein in 1535 was that of the French poet,
Nicolas Bourbon de Vandœuvre, who was in England during that year.
Bourbon was court-poet to Francis I, but eventually fell into disgrace
owing to certain passages in his poems. In 1534 he was thrown into
prison, from which he was finally released through the intervention of
Henry VIII, whose interest in him had been aroused both by Anne Boleyn,
who had made his acquaintance during her residence at the French Court
in her younger days, and also by Henry’s physician, Dr. Butts. To show
his gratitude he came over to England in 1535, and found plenty of
employment in court circles as an instructor of youth. He returned to
France in 1536, leaving many friends behind him. While in London he
appears to have lodged with Cornelis Hayes, one of the chief goldsmiths
employed by the King. Among his more intimate friends were Kratzer and
Holbein, as may be gathered from a letter which he wrote after his
return to France to Thomas Solimar, the King’s secretary, in which he
says:—“I have yet to beg you to greet in my name as heartily as you can
all with whom you know me connected by intercourse and friendship: Mr.
Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury ... Mr. Cornelius Heyss, my
host, the King’s goldsmith; Mr. Nicolaus Kratzer, the King’s astronomer,
a man who is brimful of wit, jest, and humorous fancies; and Mr. Hans,
the royal painter, the Apelles of our time. I wish them from my heart
all joy and happiness!”[157]
Footnote 157:
Quoted by Woltmann, i. p. 404.
Bourbon held Holbein’s art in the greatest admiration, and more than one
reference to it, couched in terms of high praise, appears in his printed
works. The original study for the portrait Holbein painted of him is
among the Windsor drawings,[158] but the picture itself has disappeared.
In the sketch he is represented turned to the left, with a pen in his
hand, as though in the act of composing. He has a small beard, and wears
a black cap over his long hair, and looks thoughtfully in front of him,
the right arm and hand being only roughly indicated. It is inscribed
“Nicholas Borbonius Poeta,” and is a fine drawing, in excellent
condition, but some doubts have been expressed as to whether it really
represents the poet. Bourbon was delighted with the portrait Holbein
painted of him, and sings its praises in an epigram on the “incomparable
painter” Hans Holbein, which he published in his _Nugae_. It runs:
Footnote 158:
Woltmann, 311; Wornum, i. 30; Holmes, i. 54. Reproduced by Knackfuss,
fig. 123; _Drawings of Hans Holbein_, Pl. xxxv.
“Dum divina meos vultus mens exprimit Hansi,
Per tabulam docta præcipitante manu,
Ipsum et ego interea sic uno carmine pinxi:
Hansus me pingens major Apelle fuit.”
(“While the divine genius of Hans immortalises my features,
tracing them on the panel with skilful hand, I also have painted
him thus in verse; Hans, thus painting me, was greater than
Apelles.”)
Holbein made a smaller drawing of the portrait, which was produced as a
woodcut for the 1538 edition of Bourbon’s poems, the _Nugae_. In this
also the poet is engaged in writing, but the position is reversed. It is
inscribed “Nic. Borbonius Vandop. Anno Aetatis xxxii. 1535.” The
portrait is circular, within a square, the corners being filled in with
Renaissance ornament, and below two naked boys supporting a shield with
Bourbon’s coat of arms, a swan surmounted by a cross. On the last page
is printed the following:
“IN IMAGINEM SVI.
Corporis effigiem pictor saepe exprimit arte:
Forma animi nulla pingier arte potest.
Corpora corporeo mortalia lumine cernis,
O homo: noto Deus pectora solus habet.”
Both his friendship for Holbein and his admiration for his art find
expression in a further poem or epigram printed in the _Nugae_, headed
“In picturam Hansi regii apud Britannos pictoris et amici.” The verses
describe a miniature painting by Holbein:
“Sopitum in tabula puerum meus Hansus eburna
Pinxerat, et specie qua requiescit Amor:
Ut vidi, obstupui, Chaerintumque esse putavi,
Quo mihi res non est pectore chara magis
Accessi propius, mox saevis ignibus arsi;
Osculaque ut coepi figere, nemo fuit.”
(My Hans has painted on an ivory panel a slumbering boy, looking
like a reposing Cupid; I see him, I am astonished, I regard him
as Charintus, whom my heart loves most warmly; I approach
burning with passion, yet as I kiss him, it is only a
semblance.)
All traces of this miniature, which Bourbon extols so highly, have
disappeared. Two other laudatory references to Holbein occur in the
_Nugae_. In the 1538 edition, which was published in Lyon in the same
year as the “Dance of Death” cuts and the Old Testament illustrations,
the following lines have reference to the former designs:
“_De morte picta a Hanso pictore nobili._
Dum mortis Hansus pictor imaginem exprimit,
Tanta arte mortem retulit, ut mors vivere
Videatur ipsa: et ipse se immortalibus
Parem Diis fecerit operis huius gloria.”
(On the picture of Death by the noble painter Hans.
Painter Hans has expressed the image of Death with so much art,
that Death himself now seems a living being, and he by the glory
of his work has made himself the compeer of the immortal gods.)
[Sidenote: NICOLAS BOURBON AND HOLBEIN]
These verses read as though they were written to accompany the first
edition of the “Dance of Death” woodcuts, but for some reason were never
used. They are interesting, too, as containing the only contemporary
reference to Holbein as the actual designer of the series. In the same
edition occur the following lines:
“Videre qui vult Parrhasium cum Zeuxide,
Accersat a Britannia
Hansum Ulbium et Georgium Reperdium
Lugduno ab urbe Galliae.”
which may be paraphrased as—“Whoever wishes to see the painter equal to
Parrhasius or Zeuxis must call Hans Holbein from England and Georgius
Reperdius from the French town of Lyon.” Reperdius was the Italian
engraver Reverdino, about whom little is known, except that much of his
engraved work was after Primaticcio. The latter was working at
Fontainebleau at this period, and, if Bourbon is to be believed,
Reperdius was settled in Lyon, where the poet probably met him when
visiting that town for the purpose of making arrangements for the
republishing of his _Nugae_.
For the second edition of the “Old Testament” illustrations, published
in 1539, Bourbon furnished, as already noted,[159] a Latin poem in which
Holbein, as the designer of the woodcuts, is compared with and placed
above the greatest painters of antiquity. It describes a scene in
Elysium, in which the three great Greek painters, Apelles, Zeuxis and
Parrhasius appear:
Footnote 159:
See Vol. i. p. 227.
“Nuper in Elysio cum forte erraret Apelles
Una aderat Zeuxis, Parrhasiusque comes.”
Apelles breaks forth into a lament over the eclipse of their fame
brought about by Holbein, and exclaims:
“Holbius est homini nomen, qui nomina nostra
Obscura ex claris ac prope nulla facit.”
The verses are too long for quotation. Bourbon has added to them a Greek
distich, with its translation into Latin:
“Cernere vis, hospes, simulacra simillima vivis?
Hoc opus Holbinae nobile cerne manus.”
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 13
TITLE-PAGE OF COVERDALE’S BIBLE
1535
_From a copy in the British Museum_
]
No other portrait by Holbein can be definitely attributed to the year
1535. It was in this year that he lost two of his first English patrons,
and both on the scaffold—Sir Thomas More and Bishop Fisher, and his
distress must have been keen, more particularly over the death of the
former, who had done so much for him when he first arrived in London, a
practically unknown foreign painter, with no knowledge of the English
language. One other work of his, however, the design for the title-page
of Coverdale’s Bible, in the publication of which Thomas Cromwell was
greatly interested, was issued in this year, and possibly it was he who
placed the commission in Holbein’s hands. It is interesting to note that
Holbein, who illustrated the first translations of the Bible into German
in Switzerland, also supplied a design for its first complete rendering
into English, which was published under the title of “Biblia. The Bible,
that is, the holy Scripture of the Olde and New Testament, faithfully
and truly translated out of Douche and Latyn in to Englishe, M.D.XXV.”
This fine folio was printed in Zürich by Froschover, and no doubt
Holbein’s title-page[160] (Pl. 13) was also cut abroad, for there was no
one in England at that time capable of producing so excellent an
engraving. The design is divided into six little pictures which surround
the title. The one across the top contains the Fall and the Redemption;
on the left Adam and Eve stand under the Tree, and on the right Christ
rises from the tomb, triumphant over Death and Hell. On the left-hand
side of the page Moses is shown on Mount Sinai receiving the Tables of
the Law, and beneath him is a representation of Ezra reading the Old Law
to the Jews on their return from the Captivity. On the opposite side, in
the upper picture, Christ is sending forth His disciples into the world
to preach the gospel, and in the lower Paul is seen preaching. In the
panel across the bottom of the page Henry VIII is seated on his throne
under a canopy, with a sword of state in one hand and a Bible in the
other, which he presents to the high dignitaries of the Church and the
nobles of his Court, who kneel below him. On either side within arched
niches are the figures of King David playing the harp, and the Apostle
Paul. The King is represented with a beard, which became the fashion in
the year Coverdale’s Bible was published, but in facial likeness there
is little resemblance to Henry, due, possibly, to the fact that the
block was cut in Switzerland. The design, as a whole, is a particularly
fine and effective one, and has not suffered to any great extent from
the cutting, which is good, though not the handiwork of a Lützelburger.
Certain of the figures are of great beauty, in particular those of the
risen Christ, the Adam and Eve, and the Paul. The resemblance, in facial
type and movements, between the figure of the Saviour sending forth His
disciples to preach and the Christ in the “Noli me Tangere” picture at
Hampton Court, has been already noted.[161]
Footnote 160:
Woltmann, 237. Reproduced by Woltmann, i. dedication; Davies, p. 192.
Footnote 161:
See Vol. i. p. 97.
The few designs which Holbein made for woodcuts while in England appear
to have been all done at about this time, when the abuses of the Church
were being attacked most severely and the monasteries were being swept
away; though some of them were not actually published until some years
later. In them Holbein, just as he had done in his woodcuts produced in
Basel, in no way attempts to disguise his adherence to the reformed
religion. This feeling was shown very strongly in a series of twenty-two
small satirical drawings of the Passion which appear to have been
preserved in a little book, now unfortunately lost. At one time it was
in the possession of the Earl of Arundel, and was shown by him to
Sandrart as a work of Holbein’s. The latter mentions it in his _Teutsche
Akademie_, stating that each sheet was full of little figures of every
kind, that of the Redeemer always appearing under the form of a monk
attired in black. Sixteen of these designs were engraved in the
seventeenth century, no doubt while in the Arundel collection, and most
probably by Hollar, though they are unsigned and have not the customary
“Ex Collec. Arundell:” beneath them. In them “the enemies of Christ are
represented in the dress of monks and friars, and instead of weapons
they bear croziers, large candlesticks, and other church ornaments;
Judas appears as a capucin, Annas as a cardinal, and Caiaphas as a
bishop. In the subject of Christ’s Descent to Hades the gates are hung
with papal bulls and dispensations; above them are the Pope’s arms, and
the devil as keeper of the gate wears a triple crown.”[162]
Footnote 162:
Chatto, _Treatise on Wood Engraving_, p. 378, note. Described more
fully by Woltmann, i. 395-7. See also Walpole, _Anecdotes_, ed.
Wornum, i. p. 98.
Woltmann describes a second title-page, very finely cut, which he
considers to have been produced during Holbein’s sojourn in England. So
far it has not been discovered in any published book, but there is a
fine proof of it in the Munich Print Room. On either side stand St.
Peter and St. Paul, the latter pointing upwards, two tall slender
figures. They appear as pillars of the church, and are represented as
supporting the blank title itself, which is in the form of a paper
scroll. In an arch above is Christ risen from the Tomb, trampling upon
Death and Satan, and below are the arms of Henry VIII supported by two
heraldic beasts.[163]
Footnote 163:
Woltmann, 238.
Something of the same satirical feeling shown in the lost drawings of
the Passion is to be seen in two or three small woodcuts of this
period, which, from the inferiority of the cutting, were very probably
produced in England. Two of them appeared among the twenty-six little
cuts in _Cranmer’s Catechism_, a small octavo volume published in
1548, the full title being, “Catechismus, that is to say, a shorte
instruction into Christian religion for the singular commoditie and
profyte of childrē and yong people. Set forth by the mooste reverende
father in God, Thomas Archbyshop of Canterbury, primate of all
Englande and Metropolitane.—Gualterus Lynne excudebat, 1548.” The
first of Holbein’s two small pictures (folio CL) represents the
parable of the Pharisee and the Publican,[164] the scene taking place
in a church, with the Pharisee as a monk, kneeling at an altar, whom
Christ points out to His disciples, while the Publican stands with
head bent in front of them. On the edge of a book on the altar steps
are the initials “H. H.” The subject of the second cut (folio CCI) is
Christ casting out the Devil from the possessed man,[165] which, in
spite of the unsatisfactory cutting, is very dramatic and retains much
of the beauty and individuality of Holbein’s design. The Pharisees and
others who stand behind are represented as bishops, monks and priests.
It is signed in full “HANS HOLBEN.” A third woodcut, very similar to
these, but still more feeble in execution, represents Christ as the
Good Shepherd,[166] surrounded by His disciples, and pointing to the
“hired servant,” here again dressed as a monk, who is flying before
the wolf which scatters his frightened flock. This also is signed in
full “HANS HOLBEIN.” It appears in a small English pamphlet, “A lytle
treatise after the manner of an Epystle, wryten by the famous clerk
Doctor Vrbanus Regius,” which was also published by Walter Lynne, in
the same year, 1548, as the Catechism.
Footnote 164:
Woltmann, 198. Reproduced by Chatto, p. 380; and in _Hans Holbein_
(Great Engravers Series), ed. A. M. Hind.
Footnote 165:
Woltmann, 199. Reproduced by Woltmann, i. p. 391; Chatto, p. 381;
Wornum, p. 191; and in _Hans Holbein_ (Great Engravers Series), ed. A.
M. Hind.
Footnote 166:
Woltmann, 200. Reproduced by Woltmann, i. p. 399.
A third, and more important, publication of 1548, _Hall’s Chronicle_,
contains a large folio woodcut representing King Henry VIII in
Council,[167] which Woltmann regarded as undoubtedly of Holbein’s
design. The scene takes place in a magnificent chamber hung with
tapestries, with the King, his legs apart in his characteristic
attitude, seated on a throne beneath a baldachin bearing his arms. He is
surrounded by his councillors, twenty-seven in number, some listening,
others lost in thought, and others again whispering among themselves.
The cutting is excellent, and was probably done in Switzerland. The
socle with the framework enclosing the inscription “King Henry the
eyght,” and the two supporting sirens, are almost identical with the
socle and supports in the beautiful woodcut of Erasmus with the figure
of Terminus already described. These, with the small portraits of Wyat
and Bourbon, and the “Charitas” device for Reinhold Wolfe, constitute
almost the whole of Holbein’s work as a book-illustrator while in
England.
Footnote 167:
Woltmann, 210. Reproduced by Dibdin, _Typographical Antiquities_, vol.
iii. It bears the engraver’s initials, “I. F.,” possibly Faber.
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF SIR THOMAS WYAT]
There are several undated portraits and studies for portraits which must
have been produced between the years 1535 and 1537, among them the
likeness of Sir Thomas Wyat, the famous poet and courtier, whose father,
Sir Henry Wyat, had been painted by Holbein during his first English
visit. Wyat was about the Court during the period under discussion; a
few years later he was often absent from England on foreign embassies.
There is a study for his portrait among the Windsor drawings (Pl.
14)[168] which is one of the finest in the collection, though
considerably rubbed and stained, and also a good, possibly contemporary,
copy.[169] He is represented nearly full-face, wearing a cap, and with a
long flowing beard, both hair and beard being modelled with the brush.
The portrait which must have been painted from this singularly
attractive study is not now known to exist; a small painting in oils
corresponding to the drawing, but not by Holbein, was exhibited by Mr.
Bruce at the National Portrait Exhibition in 1866. A second portrait of
Sir Thomas was drawn by Holbein at a somewhat later date, which was
reproduced as a woodcut, shortly after the poet’s death, in the little
book entitled _Næniæ in Mortem Thomæ Viati Equitis Incomparabilis_,
written by John Leland, the antiquary, in honour of his memory, and
published in 1542. The portrait,[170] which is a small roundel in the
style of the circular portraits in wax or boxwood which were at that
time much in vogue, may have been drawn by Holbein himself on the block.
The engraving itself is somewhat crudely done, but was, no doubt, the
best that could be procured at that time in London; yet in spite of its
roughness the little portrait is a true likeness, full of character,
such as no one in England but Holbein could have produced. Wyat is
represented almost in profile to the right, with a long beard and a high
bare forehead, bearing out Leland’s description in his panegyric that
“nature had given the youth dark auburn hair, but this gradually
disappeared and left him bald, but the thick forest of his flowing beard
increased more and more.” The neck is bare, and bounded by a slight
drapery in the classical manner, giving it the appearance of a
medallion. Underneath the woodcut, which is printed on the reverse of
the title, are the following lines in praise of both painter and poet:
Footnote 168:
Woltmann, 289; Wornum, i. 18; Holmes, i. 32. Reproduced by Knackfuss
fig. 139, and elsewhere.
Footnote 169:
Woltmann, 290; Wornum, i. 40; Holmes, not numbered.
Footnote 170:
Woltmann, 209; reproduced by him, i. 364.
“_In Effigiem Thomæ Viati._
“Holbenus nitida pingendi Maximus arte
Effigiem expressit graphice; sed nullus Apelles
Exprimet ingenium felix animumque Viati.”
(Holbein, the greatest in the magnificent art of painting, has
sketched this portrait, yet no Apelles can express in painting
Wyat’s mind and happy genius.)
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 14
SIR THOMAS WYAT
_Drawing in black and coloured chalks_
WINDSOR CASTLE
]
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF SIR THOMAS WYAT]
The drawing, no doubt, was made by Holbein on purpose for the book, but
whether it was an original study from memory, or was based on a portrait
of Wyat he had painted some little time previously, is uncertain.
Several circular oil paintings exist which are either founded upon the
_Næniæ_ woodcut, or are contemporary copies of a portrait by Holbein
which cannot now be traced. The latter is the more probable supposition,
as in all the paintings the head is turned to the left, whereas in the
woodcut it faces to the right, not having been reversed when drawn on
the block. One of these versions, formerly in the collection of the
Marquis of Hastings, who lent it to the National Portrait Exhibition,
1866, is now in the National Portrait Gallery (No. 1035);[171] a second,
apparently a copy from the former, is in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
This latter was in the Tudor Exhibition, 1890 (No. 169), the Oxford
Exhibition of Historical Portraits, 1904 (No. 24), and the Burlington
Fine Arts Club Exhibition, 1909 (No. 50). It is a bust, three-quarters
to left, with dark hair, beard, and moustache, and bald forehead, red
drapery round the shoulders, and a plain brown background; and is
inscribed “SYR·THOMAS·WYAT.” A smaller circular portrait, also on an oak
panel, belonging to the Countess of Romney, showing Wyat in the same
position, but dressed in the costume of his day, with a black coat lined
with white fur, is attributed to Lucas Cornelisz.[172] It is inscribed,
“Sir Thomas Wiat. B.1503. D.1541. Lucas Cornelii,” but this is of a
later period than the painting, and the date of Wyat’s death is given
wrongly. The head is in the same position as in the _Næniæ_ woodcut. On
the back of this portrait was at one time another panel, which now hangs
by it in Lady Romney’s collection, representing Wyat’s “Maze,” and
painted as a record of an amusing incident in his diplomatic mission to
Italy in 1527. In the centre of the maze is shown a falling centaur with
the Pope’s triple crown on his head. There was a portrait of a Wyat in
the Arundel collection (_il ritratto del Cavaglier Wyat_), but whether
this was one of Sir Thomas, or the one of his father, now in the Louvre,
is uncertain.
Footnote 171:
Reproduced in Mr. Cust’s illustrated catalogue of National Portrait
Gallery, vol. i. p. 20.
Footnote 172:
Reproduced in _Burlington Magazine_, vol. xvi., December 1909, p. 155.
There are two very similar circular portraits in existence of Wyat’s
son, Sir Thomas Wyat, the younger, which bear so strong a likeness to
the portraits of his father that at first sight they appear to have been
painted from the same original. One of them was lent to the Burlington
Fine Arts Club, 1909 (No. 48), by the Rt. Hon. Lewis Fry, and the other
belongs to Lady Romney.[173] He is shown in profile, to the left,
looking upwards, the neck cut off at the beginning of the shoulders, as
in the portraits of his father, and wearing a slight, light brown
moustache, pointed beard, and short hair. Lady Romney’s version is of
the same size as the Cornelisz portrait, while Mr. Fry’s more nearly
approaches that of the National Portrait Gallery and Oxford portraits of
his father. Mr. Fry’s panel was once in the collection of Charles I,
having his brand on the back, and it is possibly the portrait which was
in the possession of John, Lord Lumley, in 1590. The “classical”
treatment followed in the cutting short of the bare neck has led to the
erroneous supposition that the portrait has reference to Wyat’s
decapitation in 1554 for rebellion against Queen Mary. It is possible
that these portraits of the younger Wyat are based on a lost original by
Holbein. He was born in 1521, so that he would have been twenty-two at
the time of Holbein’s death. Mr. Roger E. Fry sees in Mr. Lewis Fry’s
version a predominant Flemish influence. “It remains,” he says, “one of
the most inscrutable riddles of the exhibition. It is a work of such
great technical excellence that its authorship ought to be discoverable.
It seems probable that it was painted in England and from life.”[174]
Footnote 173:
Both reproduced in _Burlington Magazine_, vol. xvi., December 1909, p.
158; and the former in the illustrated edition of the Exhibition
Catalogue, Pl. xvi.
Footnote 174:
_Burlington Magazine_, vol. xv., May 1909, p. 75.
The very interesting and beautiful portrait of a lady lent by Major
Charles Palmer to the Royal Academy Winter Exhibition, 1907 (No. 13),
and to the Burlington Fine Arts Club, 1909 (No. 64) (Pl. 15),[175] is
now identified, with some degree of certainty, as a portrait of Sir
Thomas Wyat the elder’s sister, Margaret Wyat, Lady Lee. This
identification is based upon an enlarged version of the portrait in the
possession of Viscount Dillon at Ditchley, Oxfordshire, which, according
to family tradition, is said to represent that lady, who was the wife of
Sir Anthony Lee, and the mother of Sir Henry Lee, K.G. She is shown at
three-quarters length, three-quarters to the left. Her hair, of reddish
gold, is almost hidden by her black and white French hood decorated with
a band of pearls arranged in groups of four, alternating with small
panels of gold filigree work. Her dress is of dark-brown damask, puffed
at the shoulders, and ornamented with numerous gold tags or points, and
a rose-coloured petticoat. Her hands are clasped in front of her, and
she holds by a short ribbon a circular gold medallion on which is a
figure of Lucrece above a dark oblong stone. On her right hand are two
signet rings, one with a red and one with a dark stone. The dress, open
at the neck, shows a white collar or lining, and white ruffles cover her
wrists. A rose in red enamel is at her breast, and a gold chain round
her neck. Across the plain dark green background is inscribed,
“ETATIS·SVÆ·34.” It is on panel, 16½ in. × 12½ in. Her long, very sharp
nose resembles that of her brother, and her complexion is of a somewhat
unpleasant reddish tone. The drawing of the face, and particularly of
the hands, is very delicate. It is now in the Collection of Mr. Benjamin
Altman, New York.
Footnote 175:
Reproduced in _Burlington Magazine_, vol. xv., June 1909,
frontispiece; illustrated catalogue of Burlington Fine Arts Club
Exhibition, Pl. xxii.; and Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 143.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 15 PORTRAIT OF A LADY
(Probably Margaret Wyat, Lady Lee)
UNTIL RECENTLY IN THE COLLECTION OF MAJOR CHARLES PALMER, NOW IN THAT
OF MR. BENJAMIN ALTMAN, NEW YORK
]
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF MARGARET WYAT, LADY LEE]
Opinion, so far, is divided as to whether this fine work is by Holbein
or not. The first impression received is that it is certainly not by
him, from the flatness of the modelling of the face, a certain hardness
in the execution, and the rather unpleasant red tone of the complexion;
but further examination considerably modifies this opinion. It is
difficult, if the attribution to Holbein is rejected, to suggest the
name of any other artist then practising in England, who possessed the
ability to produce a portrait as fine and as remarkable as this one is.
To Sir Martin Conway “it appears to be obviously and all over
Holbein.”[176] Mr. Roger E. Fry says that “opinion is so divided that it
would be rash to dogmatize. The picture is in wonderful condition and is
entirely in Holbein’s manner. Indeed, it must in any case be derived
directly from a drawing by Holbein. The only question to be settled is
whether the master himself ever became so entirely the craftsman
absorbed in the technical perfection of his work to the exclusion of the
larger issues of expression; whether he could have ever so far lost his
sense of relief, treated line so entirely as a matter of edge with so
little sense of the mass it should define. Such questions can only be
decided by a gradual consensus of opinion. My own belief is that it will
be decided ultimately against Holbein’s having actually executed the
painting, though I am bound to admit no other known imitator comes as
near to Holbein himself as does the author of this.”[177] Dr. Ganz
regards it as a genuine work by Holbein, and dates it 1540, drawing
attention to the similarity of the enamelled rose fastened to her dress
to the one worn by Lady Butts, who was painted by Holbein at about that
date.[178] It will be seen that the critics are divided; and it is
certainly by no means easy to arrive at a definite conclusion. It is
interesting to note, as a minor point, that the gold tags with which
Lady Lee’s dress is decorated are very similar to those on the surcoat
of Sir Thomas Wyat in the Lucas Cornelisz portrait, and are arranged in
much the same manner.
Footnote 176:
_Burlington Magazine_, vol. xvi., December 1909, p. 159.
Footnote 177:
_Ibid._, vol. xv., May 1909, pp. 74-5.
Footnote 178:
See Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 245.
The dated portraits of the year 1536 are only three, one of which, the
Steelyard merchant, Derich Berck, has been already described.[179] The
second is the portrait of Sir Richard Southwell in the Uffizi Gallery,
Florence (Pl. 16),[180] of which there is an excellent replica in the
Louvre. It was finished on the 10th July 1536, when Southwell was
thirty-three years old. It is a small half-length figure, the face
three-quarters to the right, wearing a black dress, open at the neck,
with black satin sleeves, and a black cap with a circular gold medallion
with a negro’s head carved in cornelian. His hands are folded, and he is
wearing a gold ring with a green stone, and a gold chain round his neck.
He is closely shaven, and his black hair, which partly covers his ears,
is cut straight across the forehead. Across the plain dark green
background is inscribed on either side of the head in gold lettering:
Footnote 179:
See pp. 22-23.
Footnote 180:
Woltmann, 149. Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 108.
“· X^O · IVLII · ANNO ETATIS · SVÆ
· H · VIII · XXVIII ANNO XXXIII.”
It is on an oak panel about 19 in. high × 14 in. wide. This is one of
Holbein’s finest portraits of his second English period, and displays a
very subtle insight into what must have been an unattractive and in many
ways despicable nature. The small brown eyes have a look of cunning, and
the face with its smooth fat cheeks has few pretensions to comeliness.
Southwell was heir to great wealth, and was brought up with Henry
Howard, Earl of Surrey, and was intimate with the family of the Duke of
Norfolk. In 1531 he was obliged to pay a fine of £1000 before he could
obtain pardon for being concerned in a murder, yet three years later he
was Sheriff of Norfolk. From 1535 onwards he took an active share in the
dissolution of the monasteries, and was in all ways a willing and able
tool of his royal master. His treachery helped to bring Sir Thomas More
to the scaffold, and, later on, he played an even more treacherous part
at the trial of his early companion, the Earl of Surrey. He was knighted
in 1542, and appointed one of the King’s executors, and under Queen
Elizabeth he became Master of Ordnance. Something of his unsavoury
character is suggested by Holbein in his portrait, which is
distinguished by its remarkable individuality and its fine technical
qualities both in the flesh painting, more particularly in the hands and
the eyes, and in all the details of the costume. Nothing is known of the
history of the picture except that it belonged to the Earl of Arundel,
who presented it to Cosimo II, Grand Duke of Tuscany, in 1620,[181] as
one of the best Holbeins in his collection. It is still in its
seventeenth-century frame, with a silver tablet engraved with the arms
of England and the Medici, and an inscription, “Effigies domini Ricardi
Southwelli Equitis aurati, consiliarii privati Henrici VIII, Regis
Angliae.—Opus celeberrimi artificis Johannis Holbieni pictoris Regis
Henrici VIII.”
Footnote 181:
See _Rivista d’Arte_, vi. 5, 6, 1909.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 16
SIR RICHARD SOUTHWELL
1536
UFFIZI GALLERY, FLORENCE
]
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF SIR RICHARD SOUTHWELL]
The replica in the Louvre (No. 2719)[182] corresponds in all its details
with the Florence picture, and appears to be only a good old copy. It
has on the back the seal of the Newton family, and was brought by
Napoleon from Germany in 1806. Another copy was lent to the National
Portrait Exhibition at South Kensington, 1866, by Mr. H. E. Chetwynd
Stapylton. A portrait of Southwell, apparently based on Holbein’s
picture, was lent to the Tudor Exhibition, 1890 (No. 217), by Mr. W. H.
Romaine Walker. In this version Southwell’s coat of arms and the
inscription “Copley Stili” are on the right-hand side of the background,
and on the left “Richd. Southwell of Horsham St. Faith’s in Norfolk
ÆT.95.” The age in this inscription is altogether wrong, for Southwell
was fifty-seven at his death in 1561.
Footnote 182:
Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 218.
Holbein’s study for the portrait is one of the most remarkable among the
Windsor drawings.[183] The head and shoulders only are shown, but
otherwise it is almost identical with the Uffizi panel; even the four
black buttons which stand out against the white shirt are indicated in
the same position as in the finished work. It is inscribed “[A]NNO
ETTATIS SVÆ 33,” and bears the note in Holbein’s own handwriting, “die
augen ein wenig gelbass” (the eyes a little yellowish). This study,
which is about 16 in. × 11 in., is in excellent condition.
Footnote 183:
Woltmann, 304; Wornum, i. 20; Holmes, i. 34. Reproduced by Davies, p.
180; Ganz, _Hdz. von H. H. dem Jüng._, Pl. 37; _Drawings of Hans
Holbein_, Pl. xlvi; and elsewhere.
The third portrait of 1536 represents Sir Thomas le Strange. It is on
panel, 15¼ × 10½ in., and was exhibited at the Tudor Exhibition, 1890
(No. 113), and at the Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition, 1909 (No.
41), lent by Mr. Hamon le Strange.[184] It is a bust portrait,
three-quarters to the left. The sitter has greyish hair cut straight
across the forehead, and a short brown beard and moustache. His black
cap has a number of gold tags and a medallion, and he wears a gown with
a brown fur collar over a black dress, a pleated white collar from which
long tags hang down, and a long gold chain over his shoulders. Across
the top, on the green-blue background, is the repainted inscription
“ANNO D^E 1536 ÆTATIS SVÆ 43.” It has suffered considerable repainting
about the face, but it is a picture of much interest, and since it was
last exhibited has been acknowledged by most of the leading critics to
be a genuine work by Holbein. The original drawing for this picture,
which shows some slight differences, is in the Windsor collection.[185]
Sir Thomas Strange or le Strange, of Hunstanton, Norfolk, was born in
1493, and entered the service of Henry VIII as esquire of the body, was
knighted, and accompanied the king to the Field of the Cloth of Gold. He
was High Sheriff of Norfolk in 1532, and died in 1545.
Footnote 184:
Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 109, and in the illustrated
catalogue of the Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition, Pl. xii.
Footnote 185:
Woltmann, 294; Wornum, i. 32; Holmes, ii. 6.
A small, undated bust portrait of Lady Vaux, wife of Thomas, second Lord
Vaux, of Harrowden, the poet, has every appearance of belonging to this
period. There are two versions of it, one in the Prague Gallery (No.
608),[186] and one at Hampton Court (No. 591 (337)).[187] Dr. Ganz
regards both as old copies, but Sir Claude Phillips considers the former
to be the original work by Holbein, and A. von Zahn says that it is
indubitably original, but has suffered so severely and has been so
heavily over-painted that little of Holbein’s handiwork is left. The
Hampton Court version is the better of the two, and is apparently an
excellent copy, though in technique of a somewhat later date.[188] It
has been held, nevertheless, by most English writers to be a genuine but
badly-damaged work of Holbein. The head has been repainted, which gives
it that faded appearance noted by Mr. Wornum[189] and Dr. Waagen,[190]
though the latter attributed it to “the attempt to give the refinements
of the modelling in grey half-tones,” in doing which Holbein “sacrificed
the warm local colours observable in his earlier pictures.” On the other
hand, many of the accessories, such as the gold-and-enamel medallion,
the chain round her neck, the ring, and the cuffs, display a delicacy of
execution not easily attributable to anyone but Holbein. She is
represented to the waist, almost full-face, the body turned slightly to
the spectator’s left, and is dressed in black, with ermine upon the
sleeves, and the customary diamond-shaped hood, edged with pearls, and
with a black fall. She wears a thin black chain round her neck, and at
her breast a circular brooch with a figure of the Virgin enthroned. Her
hands rest in her lap, and in her right she holds a pink. It is on
panel, 1 ft. 3 in. high by 11¼ in. wide. Mr. Law suggests that it is
identical with “The picture of Madame de Vaux, by Holbein,” which was
among the Duke of Buckingham’s pictures sent to be sold at Antwerp,
whence it presumably returned with the “Dutch Gift,” and may, perhaps,
be identified with No. 410 in James I’s catalogue, described as “One of
King Henry VIII’s Queens, holding a gillyflower.”[191] There is a study
for the head among the Windsor drawings,[192] in which the strengthening
lines are exceptionally hard and pronounced, and mar an otherwise fine
drawing. Holbein also painted her husband, though the picture has been
lost, but the very beautiful drawing for it, described in a later
chapter,[193] remains at Windsor. There is a second study of Lord Vaux
by Holbein in the same collection.
Footnote 186:
Woltmann, 243. Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 220.
Footnote 187:
Woltmann, 163. Reproduced by Law, _Royal Gallery of Hampton Court_, p.
212; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 221.
Footnote 188:
See Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 252.
Footnote 189:
Wornum, p. 411.
Footnote 190:
_Treasures of Art in Great Britain_, vol. ii. p. 361.
Footnote 191:
Law, _Royal Gallery of Hampton Court_, p. 213.
Footnote 192:
Woltmann, 321; Wornum, ii. 30; Holmes, i. 24. Reproduced by Davies, p.
218; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. xxxvii.; and elsewhere.
Footnote 193:
See p. 257. See also pp. 52-53 with reference to the “Portrait of a
Musician” at one time considered to represent Lord Vaux.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 17
SIR NICHOLAS CAREW
_Drawing in black and coloured chalks_
BASEL GALLERY
]
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF SIR NICHOLAS CAREW]
The portrait of Sir Nicholas Carew, Henry’s Master of the Horse, was
probably painted during the earlier years of Holbein’s second residence
in London. It could not have been done later than 1537, for in 1538
Carew was thrown into prison for supposed connection with the conspiracy
of Cardinal Pole and the Marquis of Exeter, and was beheaded on March
3rd, 1539. There is a brilliant study for this portrait in the Basel
Gallery (Pl. 17), a drawing in black and coloured chalks.[194] He is
wearing body armour, and has a short beard and moustache; his hair is
concealed by a close-fitting coif, and there are an octagonal medallion
and a white feather in his black cap. It is one of the most masterly
drawings Holbein ever made, searching in its truth, and of exact and
delicate draughtsmanship.[195] As it was included among the collection
of works by Holbein formed by his friend and admirer, Bonifacius
Amerbach, it may have been presented to the latter by the artist himself
when he was in Basel in 1538.
Footnote 194:
Woltmann, 31. Reproduced by Davies, p. 212; Ganz, _Hdz. Schwz. Mstr._,
iii. 40, and _Holbein_, p. xxxiii. Dr. Ganz is of the opinion that
this drawing is of Holbein’s first English period, and that the
finished portrait was painted in 1527 or 1528. See _Holbein_, p. 238.
Footnote 195:
It has been suggested that the fine drawing of an English lady in the
same collection is a portrait of Lady Carew, but it more probably
represents Lady Guldeford. See Vol. i. p. 321.
The oil painting done from this study is in the collection of the Duke
of Buccleuch and Queensberry, K.G.,[196] and was last publicly exhibited
at the Burlington Fine Arts Club in 1909 (No. 45). It is a
three-quarters length, turned to the left as in the drawing. The beard
is brown, and the coif below the black hat is of cloth of gold. The
octagonal gold badge represents a tree stem raguly and a banderole
inscribed “SOLA.” He is wearing full plate-armour, and brown trunks
slashed with cloth of gold. With his right hand he holds a white
truncheon against his hip, and with the other grasps his sword by the
scabbard. The background is a green damask curtain, and on a small
cartellino in the left-hand bottom corner is inscribed in a cursive hand
“SR NICHOLAS CAREWE, MASTER OF THE HORSE TO KING HENRY YE 8.” It is on a
panel of unusual shape, being 36 in. high by 40 in. wide. This picture,
as a whole, is a fine and interesting example of Tudor portraiture, but
parts of it are certainly not by Holbein. The head is good, but the
armour and many of the details are by some other, and possibly a later,
hand. The probabilities are that it was begun by Holbein and finished by
someone else; perhaps the arrest of Carew may have brought the
completion of the work to an abrupt conclusion as far as Holbein was
concerned. The fact that his name is given on the cartellino suggests
that the portrait may be a posthumous one. It was not the usual custom
at that time to place more than the date and the age of the person
depicted upon the panel. Except in the form of a superscription to a
letter held by the sitter, as in the Kratzer, Cromwell, and some of the
Steelyard portraits, Holbein was not in the habit of adding the name to
the pictures he painted in England. The “Duchess of Milan” is an
exception,[197] but even here there is every probability that the
cartellino was painted in at a later date. It is difficult to decide
whether the Carew portrait was begun by Holbein and finished by some
other hand, or whether it is an almost contemporary copy from some lost
original. The head follows the Basel drawing closely, but as the latter
was owned by Amerbach it is improbable that a copyist could have made
use of it; so that, taking all things into consideration, it is safer to
assume that Holbein himself had a share in its painting.[198] This
portrait was in the possession of John, Lord Lumley, in 1590, and was
sold from Lumley Castle in 1785 for ten guineas. In the inventory of
1590 it is described as “Of S^r Nichls Carewe M^r of the horse to
K:H:8”; and it is interesting to note that the words “drawne by Haunce
Holbyn” are not added, as they are after several other works by the
master which Lord Lumley possessed. It has been suggested that this
portrait is the “Ritratto d’homo armato” of the Arundel inventory of
1655, but if the picture remained in the possession of the Lumley family
until 1785 this supposition cannot be correct. Symonds, in his
Note-Books, has an entry of “A Ritratto of an English knight by Holbein
who sits in a chayre and a table by him,” in the collection of the Earl
of Northumberland in Suffolk House, which seems to refer to this
picture.[199]
Footnote 196:
Woltmann, 142. Reproduced in illustrated catalogue of Burlington Fine
Arts Club Exhibition, 1909, Pl. xv.; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 77.
Footnote 197:
Also the Cheseman portrait.
Footnote 198:
Dr. Ganz, as already noted, considers it to be a genuine work of
1527-8.
Footnote 199:
Quoted by Mr. C. H. Collins Baker in _Lely and the Stuart Portrait
Painters_, Vol. ii. p. 184.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER XIX
“SERVANT OF THE KING’S MAJESTY”
Holbein’s entry into Henry VIII’s service—Painting of “Adam and
Eve”—Portraits of Henry VIII—The Whitehall fresco—Van Leemput’s copies
of it—The life-size cartoon of Henry VII and Henry VIII—Drawing at
Munich—Portraits of the King at Belvoir Castle, Petworth, St.
Bartholomew’s Hospital, Chatsworth, Warwick Castle, Hampton Court,
Windsor, Rome, and elsewhere—The portrait at Althorp—Portraits and
miniatures of Jane Seymour.
THE exact date of Holbein’s entry into the royal service is unknown.
Three records of the household expenditure of the King are in existence:
the Accounts of Bryan Tuke, Treasurer of the Chamber, which extend from
1st October, 20th Hen. VIII (1528) to May, 23rd Hen. VIII (1531), during
which period Holbein was out of England; the Privy Purse Expenses of the
King, from November 1529 to December 1532; and further Accounts of Tuke,
as Treasurer, from Lady Day, 29th Hen. VIII (1538) to Midsummer, 33rd
Hen. VIII (1541). Although Holbein was in England during the latter half
of 1532, his name does not occur in the Privy Purse expenses, as it
certainly would have done had he then been in the King’s employment.
Unfortunately, no accounts have been preserved for the period between
1533 and 1537, and so it is not until 1538 that we have definite proof
that the painter was in receipt of a regular salary from the royal
purse. The first entry referring to him is at Lady Day, 1538, when the
following occurs: “Item, for Hans Holben, paynter, vii_li._ x_s._” As
his salary of £30 a year, paid quarterly, was not as a rule paid in
advance, he must have already been in the royal service at least three
months earlier, that is in December 1537.
[Sidenote: HOLBEIN’S ENTRY INTO ROYAL SERVICE]
The first actual reference to him as painter to the King is contained in
the letter of Nicolas Bourbon, already quoted, written early in 1536, in
which he speaks of him as the “royal painter,” and it is to be inferred
from it that Holbein already held that position in 1535, when the poet
was in England and made his acquaintance. The circular miniature of Jane
Seymour by Hilliard in the Windsor Collection, apparently copied from an
original by Holbein, is inscribed “ANŌ DNĪ 1536 ÆTATIS SVÆ 27”; and the
great painting of Henry VII, Henry VIII, Elizabeth of York, and Jane
Seymour, with which Holbein covered one of the walls of the Privy
Chamber at Whitehall, was done in 1537. None of the earlier portraits of
Henry or of his two first queens, usually ascribed to Holbein, are
authentic works of his, which affords some proof that he did not enter
the royal service until after Jane Seymour had been crowned Queen in
1536, or, if Bourbon is to be believed, that at least he did not do so
until towards the end of Anne Boleyn’s life. The small portrait of Henry
VIII on the frontispiece of Coverdale’s Bible, printed in 1535, bears
little real likeness to the King, and may well have been designed by
Holbein without any sitting from him; though, on the other hand, it may
also be taken as some indication that he was already the King’s servant
in that year. It is safer, however, to assume, as the evidence for an
earlier year is so scant, that he received his first pay from the royal
purse in the autumn of 1536.
It is extraordinary, and indeed almost inexplicable, that Holbein was at
work for so long a time in England before he received royal recognition.
That this did not happen during his first sojourn in London is
surprising enough, but that on his return he should remain for three or
four years busily employed in painting portraits of people about Henry’s
court, some of which the King must have seen, is still more difficult of
explanation. Henry entered into keen but friendly rivalry with Francis I
in his patronage of art, and was anxious at all times to induce good
foreign artists to settle in England; and yet here was a painter of
gifts which placed him high above his fellows, who, apparently, went
quite unrecognised. This is the more remarkable when it is remembered
that the King was well acquainted with, and had expressed his delight
in, at least one work of Holbein done during his first English
visit—“The Battle of Spurs,” which decorated the back of the arch of the
temporary Banquet Hall at Greenwich. It is hardly possible that it was
owing to any disinclination on Holbein’s own part, however anxious he
may have been to retain his rights as a citizen of Basel. He could have
entered Henry’s service for a year or two without renouncing his
burghership, or becoming a naturalised English subject, and that he did
obtain the post in the end seems to indicate that the obstacle, whatever
it may have been, was not one of his own making. It was, on the other
hand, an honour to which he would aspire, and the possibility of holding
some such position must have been one of the reasons which induced him
to visit this country, as it was with all the foreign artists and
craftsmen who made London their temporary home. A satisfactory
explanation of this mystery is hard to find, and unless further evidence
is discovered, it must remain unsolved.
That there is some possibility that Holbein was indirectly employed by
the Crown even earlier than 1535 is suggested by an interesting
memorandum dealing with goldsmiths’ work published in the Calendars of
Letters and Papers. The paper is undated, but is placed by the editor
under the year 1534. It is an account rendered to the King’s Secretary,
Thomas Cromwell, by the Dutchman Cornelis Hayes, one of the leading
foreign goldsmiths in London during Henry’s reign, who was constantly
employed by the King and the court. The articles supplied were
apparently for the royal service, the chief among them being an
elaborately decorated silver cradle, which may possibly have been for
the use of the Princess Elizabeth, who was born on the 7th September
1533. The document runs as follows:
“Parcels delivered to Mr. Secretary by me, Cornelys Hayes, goldsmith. A
silver cradle, price 16_li._ For making a silver plate, altering the
images, making the roses underneath the cradle, the roses about the
pillars, and new burnishing, 13_s._ 4_d._ For the stones that were set
in gold in the cradle, 15_s._; for fringes, the gold about the cushions,
tassels, white satin, cloth of gold, lining, sypars, and swadyl-bands,
13_s._ 6_d._ Total, 18_li._ 1_s._ 10_d._ The silver that went to the
dressing of the Adam and Eve, the making of all the apples, the gilding
of the foot and setting of the currall (coral), 33_s._ 4_d._ To Hance,
painter, for painting the same Adam and Eve, 20_s._”[200] Other items
are included in the account which need not be quoted.
Footnote 200:
_C.L.P._, vol. vii. 1668.
The “Hance, painter,” who supplied this picture of “Adam and Eve,” was
undoubtedly Holbein, who was acquainted with Hayes, as we learn from
Bourbon’s letter, and for whom he almost certainly provided designs for
jewellery.[201] The document is not very clear, and on a first reading
it would appear that the “Adam and Eve” formed part of the decoration of
the cradle; but it is more probable that it had nothing to do with it,
but was a separate piece of work, either a picture or a carving in wood,
honestone, or alabaster, which Holbein was employed to colour; possibly
the latter, as the fee paid, twenty shillings, was a small one for an
original painting from his brush. Whether picture or carving, it was
evidently set in a very elaborate silver frame, decorated with silver
apples in relief, as appropriate to the subject it contained, and with
coral inset. No trace of this work remains, but the possibility that
Holbein’s share in it was a small picture recalls that earlier “Adam and
Eve” of the first Basel years, which, as already noted,[202] bears a
considerable resemblance to the heads in the picture of the same subject
by Mabuse in Hampton Court.
Footnote 201:
The same paper contains an item for “the garnishing of two books with
silver-gilt, 66 oz. at 6_s._,” which recalls Holbein’s designs in the
British Museum for work of a similar kind. The velvet for covering
them was supplied by William Lock, the leading London mercer, at a
cost of 43_s._ 9_d._
Footnote 202:
See Vol. i. p. 56.
[Sidenote: PORTRAITS OF HENRY VIII]
Among the numerous portraits of Henry VIII to be met with in so many of
the great houses of this country and in several European museums, which,
in almost all cases, are attributed by their owners to Holbein, only
three[203] can be ascribed to him with any certainty. These are the
large cartoon for the left-hand half of the Whitehall wall-painting,
belonging to the Duke of Devonshire; the beautiful little panel portrait
in Earl Spencer’s collection at Althorp; and the crayon study in the
Munich Gallery. The greater number of the remaining portraits of him,
most of them based on the Whitehall likeness, are merely inferior
copies, and copies of copies, “shop” pieces supplied to order by Henry’s
painters for presentation to foreign potentates and ambassadors, and to
his own statesmen and courtiers as a reward for faithful service. Less
frequently one is met with which is a good and original work by some
painter of lower rank than Holbein, and such portraits, in their turn,
have been multiplied by assistants in order to meet the constant demand
for the King’s likeness.
Footnote 203:
A fourth work, the portrait in the National Gallery, Rome, is,
however, considered by Dr. Ganz and other critics to be an original
work by Holbein.
The great Whitehall fresco was painted in 1537, and was the first work
of importance which Holbein undertook for the Crown. It achieved immense
popularity, and for one hundred and fifty years or so every foreign
visitor of distinction was taken to see it, while all artists who had an
opportunity of examining it spoke loudly in its praises. It covered one
of the walls in the Privy Chamber at Whitehall, and was painted on
either side and over the top of a window, or, more probably, the
fireplace, and consisted of four great figures, Henry VIII and his
father, Henry VII, on one side, and his mother, Elizabeth of York, and
his third wife, Jane Seymour, on the other, arranged within an
elaborately designed architectural setting. This great work, which added
so much to Holbein’s fame among his contemporaries, was destroyed in the
fire at Whitehall in January 1698; but happily, owing to the foresight
of Charles II, we still possess, in the small copy of it by the Flemish
artist Remigius van Leemput, in Hampton Court[204] (No. 601 (308)), a
very valuable record of the composition of the work. The copy is
evidently a very faithful one, and though, of course, it lacks all the
greatness of style, the vividness of character, and the beauty of colour
of the original—for Remée was a poor artist—it reproduces the
composition with some exactitude, and so is invaluable to students of
the master. This copy was made by Van Leemput in 1667, the probable
reason being that the fresco was then beginning to show signs of decay,
and that Charles was anxious to retain an accurate record of it before
it was ruined. Patin, who visited England about 1670, and saw both the
painting and the copy, said that the latter was ordered by the King
“pour en estendre la posterité s’il faut ainsi dire, et n’abandonner pas
une si belle chose à la fortune des temps.”[205] Walpole says that
Remée, as he was familiarly called here, received £150 for his
work,[206] which was a very large fee for those days, and shows how
highly the King valued the original.
Footnote 204:
Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 179, from Vertue’s engraving.
Footnote 205:
Patin, _Relations historiques_, Basel, 1673, p. 211 _et seq._
Footnote 206:
Walpole, _Anecdotes_, ed. Wornum, 1888, i. p. 82.
Footnote 207:
“Zo wel getroffen, dat het den beschouwer met verbaastheid aandoet.”
[Sidenote: THE WHITEHALL WALL-PAINTING]
The wall-painting itself was still in perfect condition when Van Mander
saw it in 1604. He was deeply impressed by this “over-heerlijk Portret”
of Henry, which, he wrote, was so true to life that it filled the
spectator with dismay.[207] “The King, as he stood there, majestic in
his splendour, was so life-like, that the spectator felt abashed,
annihilated, in his presence.” Earlier travellers who saw it and praised
it were Johann Fischart, in 1576,[208] and Hentzner, who visited England
in 1598; while Duke Johann Ernst of Saxony, who was here in 1613, was
also taken to see it; it is noted in the records of his journey, “upon
this his Royal Highness was conducted into the King’s apartment; it was
small but hung with beautiful tapestries on all sides. In this room were
the full-length portraits of Henrici VIII, and his father, Henrici VII.
They were regarded as special works of art, and similar works are said
not to be seen throughout England.” Both Pepys and Evelyn mention it in
their diaries. The latter, under the date 11th February 1656, says he
was glad to find, on revisiting Whitehall for the first time for many
years, that “they had not much defac’d that rare piece of Hen. VII, &c.,
don on the walles of the King’s privy chamber.” This entry proves that
ten or eleven years before Charles II ordered the copy to be made the
fresco was beginning to show signs of decay. It narrowly escaped
destruction in the earlier fire at Whitehall in 1691, but the
conflagration of 1698 was a much more serious one. It burnt down the
entire Palace, with the exception of the Banqueting House and a few
buildings adjoining it. More than a thousand apartments perished in the
flames, and a number of pictures in the Matted Gallery and elsewhere,
mentioned by Evelyn, were destroyed. “This terrible conflagration, which
broke out about four in the afternoon and lasted upwards of seventeen
hours, originated through the neglect and carelessness of a laundress, a
Dutch woman, who had left some linen to dry in front of a fire, in the
lodging of a certain Colonel Stanley. She and twelve other persons, so
it is reported, perished in the flames.”[209]
Footnote 208:
Quoted by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. xxxviii.
Footnote 209:
Dr. Sheppard, _The Old Royal Palace of Whitehall_, 1901, pp. 385-6.
According to Scharf, _Old London_, p. 322, the fresco was destroyed in
the fire of 1691.
By the aid of the large cartoon and Van Leemput’s copy a very good idea
of the general effect and composition of the picture can be obtained. It
is divided into two stages. On the spectator’s left hand stands Henry
VIII, turned fully to the front, with arms akimbo, and legs stretched
widely apart, and opposite him, on the other side of the picture, is
Jane Seymour. Behind and above the King, and to the right of him, on a
raised step or low platform, stands his father, Henry VII, and in a
corresponding position on the other side, his mother, Elizabeth of York.
Henry was very proud of his legs, and Holbein has depicted him in his
favourite attitude. He holds a glove in his right hand, and with the
left the cord of his dagger, gold hilted, with a gold and blue velvet
sheath. His gold-brown doublet is richly jewelled, and his red surcoat
is trimmed with fur and elaborately brocaded with gold thread; a heavy
jewelled chain crosses his shoulders, and from another hangs a pendant.
His flat black bonnet is ornamented with pearls, devices in gold, and
white feathers. The figure is rather larger than life-size, but looks
colossal. His shoulders appear enormous, partly owing to the dress, and
partly, no doubt, through some exaggeration on the artist’s part to
flatter the vanity of his royal sitter. Henry VII is shown in simpler
costume; with his right hand he holds together the folds of his long
ermine-trimmed gown, his left elbow resting on the marble pedestal which
Van Leemput has placed in the centre in lieu of the window or
chimney-piece which occupied the same position in the wall itself. He
holds his gloves in his left hand, and has the Garter collar across his
breast. Unlike his son, he is beardless, and his long hair falls to his
shoulders. Jane Seymour is wearing a dress of tawny gold, full ermine
sleeves, and several necklaces of pearls. Her hands are clasped in front
of her, and a small white dog is lying on the long skirt of her gown.
Behind her, Elizabeth of York stands with her arms crossed, and holding
up her dress with her right hand. The floor is covered with a Turkey
carpet, and the background consists of richly-decorated pilasters and
capitals, niches, and a frieze, in various coloured marbles, in the
Renaissance style of which Holbein made such brilliant use. In the
frieze on either side are figures supporting a shield. The shield shown
in the cartoon bears the initials H and J; the other, no doubt, gave the
date. In Van Leemput’s copy the initials have been changed to “AN^o.
Dō.” with “1537” in the corresponding panel, while the centre of the
picture is filled with a high marble pedestal, with two cushions on the
top, and on the front of it a long Latin inscription in praise of the
two monarchs. Below this is inscribed: “Prototypvm Magnitvdinis Ipso
Opere Tectorio Fecit Holbenivs Ivbente Henrico VIII,” and a little
below, on a plinth: “Ectypvm A Remigio Van Leempvt Breviora Tabella
Describi Volvit Carolus II. M.B.F.E.H.R. A°. DNI. M.DCLXVII.”
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 18
HENRY VII AND HENRY VIII
_Cartoon_
Duke of Devonshire’s collection
UNTIL RECENTLY AT HARDWICK HALL, NOW AT CHATSWORTH
]
[Sidenote: CARTOON OF HENRY VII & HENRY VIII]
Van Leemput’s inferiority as an artist is shown most clearly in his
rendering of the faces. In that of Henry VIII, in particular, the
drawing is weak and lacking in character, and as a likeness it bears no
close resemblance to the many portraits still existing which were copied
or adapted from the fresco. It must be regarded, therefore, as a not
very reliable record of the facial appearance of the four sitters as
Holbein painted them.
The pedestal was, no doubt, Van Leemput’s own invention, and the Latin
verses must have been specially written for the purpose of his copy. As
already pointed out, the wall on which the fresco was painted contained
either a window or a fireplace. Charles Patin describes it as “sur le
pignon de la croisée”; but it has been suggested that “croisée” is a
typographical error for “cheminée.” Patin, however, was not a very
careful observer, for he speaks of the subject as “de la main d’Holbein,
le portrait d’Henry huit et des Princes ses enfants.”[210] In this,
nevertheless, he may not be so completely wrong as at first sight
appears. In 1897 Mr. Ernest Law, the historian of Hampton Court Palace,
discovered another copy of the great wall-painting, also by Van Leemput,
and of the same size and scale as the Hampton Court example, but with
one important difference. In the middle foreground the copyist has
placed a standing figure of Edward VI. This interesting little picture
belongs to Lord Leconfield, and is in one of the private bedrooms at
Petworth, Sussex. Patin may have seen this copy, and afterwards may have
confused it with the wall-painting; or again, he may have confused the
fresco with the picture of Henry VIII and his family, by an unknown
artist of the school of Holbein, now in Hampton Court, No. 340 (510),
but probably in Patin’s day hanging in Whitehall.[211]
Footnote 210:
Patin, _Relations historiques_, Basel, 1673, p. 211 _et seq._
Footnote 211:
It is hardly possible that the figure of Edward VI was added to the
wall-painting itself after the death of Holbein, or otherwise it would
appear in both Van Leemput’s copies. It was, no doubt, taken from some
independent portrait of the young king then hanging in Whitehall.
The life-size cartoon of Henry VIII and his father, belonging to the
Duke of Devonshire, until recently at Hardwick Hall (Pl. 18),[212] is,
though only a working drawing, a superb example of Holbein’s mastery of
composition on a monumental scale. It is the original design for the
left-hand part of the Whitehall fresco, and along its outlines the
prickings are still visible by means of which the design was pounced on
the wall. It provides evidence that Van Leemput’s copy was a faithful
one, for, with one important exception, the two agree in all points. The
exception is in the position of the King’s head. In the cartoon it is
about three-quarters to the right, but in the copy it has been turned so
that the monarch is looking directly at the spectator. Woltmann is, no
doubt, right when he suggests that the change was made by the express
wish of Henry himself while the wall-painting was in progress.[213] He
desired to be shown full-fronted to the world, for he was proud of his
appearance, more particularly of his calves, as more than one
contemporary anecdote shows. In his younger days, at the beginning of
his reign, he was the most commanding figure at the English court,
praised by all for his good looks, and celebrated for his great bodily
strength and for his proficiency in all manly sports and exercises. He
is thus described by the Venetian ambassador Pasqualigo in 1515; “His
Majesty is the handsomest potentate I ever set eyes on; above the usual
height, with an extremely fine calf to his leg; his complexion very fair
and bright, with auburn hair combed straight and short in the French
fashion; and a round face so very beautiful, that it would become a
pretty woman, his throat being rather long and thick.”[214]
Footnote 212:
Now (1913) at Chatsworth. Woltmann, 167. Reproduced by Davies, p. 168;
Ganz _Holbein_, p. 180; _Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition_, 1909,
_Catalogue_, Pl. i.
Footnote 213:
Woltmann, i. 421.
Footnote 214:
_C.L.P._, vol. ii. pt. i. 411.
When Holbein painted him he was forty-six years old, and his face had
coarsened and had lost all its youthful freshness and good looks, but
his figure was still erect and kingly, and retained much of its earlier
vigour. In the cartoon he stands boldly and firmly on his legs, active
and alert, though massive in build, and made still broader in appearance
by his rich apparel, heavily padded about the shoulders. It is in the
face that his age and the habits of his life are beginning to leave ugly
indications, though this is not to be gathered from the cartoon, in
which his features, badly rubbed, are now barely discernible. This,
however, may not be entirely due to the accidents of time, for as the
cartoon was made for the purpose of transferring the leading lines of
the composition to the wall, Holbein possibly only indicated the main
outlines, leaving the more careful modelling to be done on the wall
itself. Sadly damaged as the cartoon is, a mere fragment of the first
conception of a great masterpiece, it nevertheless remains a remarkable
and precious work of art, doubly valuable in that it not only shows us
Holbein’s methods of work, but is also the only record from his own hand
we possess to-day in this country of the most important and celebrated
painting he produced while in England. The whole composition is drawn in
with the point of the brush, in the manner, as Mr. S. Arthur Strong
points out, at once broad and minute, of which Holbein seems to have
been the solitary master. In this crowd of particulars almost everyone
else would have lost sight of the whole, and given us a map instead of a
view.[215] Mr. Roger E. Fry speaks of it as one of Holbein’s greatest
creations. “It has all the grandeur of style, the lucidity and ease of
arrangement of the greatest monumental design of Italy, together with a
particularity and minuteness which would seem incompatible with those
greater qualities of style had they not been thus wonderfully united. In
all the decorative details, too, this great work gives us a measure of
Holbein’s impeccable taste at a time when taste was by no means as
universal as it had been in earlier centuries.”[216]
Footnote 215:
S. Arthur Strong, _Reproductions of Drawings by the Old Masters at
Chatsworth_, 1902; republished in _Critical Studies and Fragments_,
1905, p. 132.
Footnote 216:
_Burlington Magazine_, vol. xv., May 1909, p. 74.
[Sidenote: DRAWING OF THE KING AT MUNICH]
This cartoon was in 1590 in the possession of John, Lord Lumley, at
Lumley Castle, and is entered in the inventory of the pictures as “The
Statuary of King Henry the Eight and his father Kinge Henry the Seventh
Joyned together, doone in white and black by Haunce Holbyn.” It passed
subsequently into the collection of the Duke of Devonshire, and has been
preserved ever since at Hardwick Hall.[217]
Footnote 217:
See p. 97, note 3.
When it was decided to change the position of the face, it became
necessary for the King to give the painter another sitting, and the
full-face drawing now in the Munich Gallery[218] is, no doubt, the very
study Holbein made for the purpose. This is not only evident from its
agreement with Van Leemput’s copy, but also from its dimensions. It is
life-size, and thus considerably bigger than any other preliminary
portrait-study by Holbein which has survived. It is in black and red
chalks, on paper prepared with body-colour in the manner practised by
the painter at that period. The study is of the face alone, part of the
hat, the collar, and a small portion of fur on the shoulders being
roughly indicated. The short, scanty beard and the still scantier
whiskers do not conceal the shape of the massive, almost square face,
with its thin eyebrows, fat, heavy cheeks, which from their size make
the mouth look small. He gazes in front of him, his eyes unconscious of
the spectator, as though the thoughts of the sitter were entirely given
to himself. The modelling is masterly, and is obtained by the simplest
means; but the sketch, simple as it appears to be, produces a wonderful
effect of perfect truth to life. Here is the King exactly as he was, as
none other but Holbein could have drawn him. He has given not only an
absolutely faithful rendering of the face itself, but has laid bare much
of the complex character which lurked behind it, and the drawing must
always remain both one of the artist’s very finest portrait-studies and
also a living document of the utmost value in the history of Tudor
England. How this drawing came to be in Munich is not known. It was
discovered among a number of other drawings, put aside as of no
particular value, by Herr J. H. von Hefner-Alteneck when he was keeper
of the Print Room. It does not appear to have ever formed a part of the
Windsor series of drawings.
Footnote 218:
Woltmann, 221. Reproduced by Davies, p. 166; Knackfuss, fig. 125; A.
F. Pollard, _Henry VIII_, p. 220.
The Whitehall painting became the prototype of nine-tenths of the very
numerous portraits of Henry which were produced during his reign and for
some little time afterwards. With one possible exception, these works
are not from Holbein’s own hand; they were all the work of the less
important artists attached to the English court. These, again, are of
very varying degrees of skill, some being but coarse and common
productions, while others have considerable artistic merits. There is
great probability that some of the best of them were from the workshop
of Gerard and Lucas Hornebolt, more particularly those half-lengths of
which the portrait in Warwick Castle is perhaps the finest example. All,
however, had their real origin in the Whitehall painting; in every one
of them the King is shown full-face, and in the same characteristic
attitude.
[Sidenote: OTHER PORTRAITS OF THE KING]
Interesting as the subject is, the scope of this book does not permit
any attempt to describe, or even to compile a list of, all the portraits
of Henry VIII still remaining in England. A few of the principal ones
may be mentioned briefly. Several of them are full-lengths. Among these
one of the most interesting is in Belvoir Castle.[219] It was purchased
by the fourth Duke of Rutland at Lord Torrington’s sale in 1787 for
£211. Except in some minor details of the dress, it follows the
Whitehall painting very closely. The King is wearing “white hose, with
the Garter on his left leg; a gold chain round his neck with the letter
H, with a pendant circular gold case without any device; another gold
chain or collar across the shoulder over the surcoat is mounted in
jewels set in gold-and-enamel. The whole of the dress and ornaments is
most elaborately painted and gilded, and in excellent effect of light
and colour, being in an absolutely perfect state of preservation.”[220]
The copyist has made the face younger and more handsome, and much more
lacking in expression than the Munich sketch. The background is a
curtain with an elaborate design in panels, each one surmounted by a
crown. Dr. Waagen thought it to be a genuine work by Holbein. “Although
painted on canvas,” he says, “the picture is of such truth, delicacy,
and transparency, that I consider it an original.” A similar
whole-length on wood, belonging to the Seymour family, is described by
Dr. Woltmann, who regarded it as an excellently painted contemporary
copy, which very possibly came into the possession of that family
through their connection with Jane Seymour.[221] There is a far finer
example at Petworth, much more transparent and delicate in its tones,
which Wornum describes as “really magnificent.”[222] This work is by no
means an exact copy; it differs in various details, more particularly in
the dress, which is of silver brocade with a blue mantle lined with
ermine. It is possibly the work of a Fleming. The background is
architectural. There is another full-length version at St. Bartholomew’s
Hospital, with a further variation of the background and the floor.
Other repetitions are at Chatsworth,[223] Trinity College, Cambridge,
and in the possession of Viscount Dillon at Ditchley, Enstone.[224]
Footnote 219:
Reproduced in _The Connoisseur_, vol. vi. No. 22, June 1903,
frontispiece.
Footnote 220:
_The Connoisseur_, vol. vi. No. 22, June 1903, p. 68 (quotation from
Radford’s catalogue of the collection).
Footnote 221:
Woltmann, ii. 20.
Footnote 222:
Wornum, p. 308.
Footnote 223:
Described by Mr. S. Arthur Strong as “one of the best of the royal
effigies that are all probably based in common upon the Hardwick
cartoon. The artist, whoever he was, had a manner of his own, and was
more than a mere copyist. The cold grey scheme of colour is a contrast
to the depth and richness at which Holbein aimed, and is more akin to
what we afterwards appreciate as characteristic in Honthorst and
Mytens.”—_Critical Studies and Fragments_, p. 91. The figure is
evidently copied directly from the wall-painting. The position and the
details of the dress agree exactly with the Hardwick cartoon. It is
reproduced by Dr. Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 181.
Footnote 224:
Reproduced by A. F. Pollard, _Henry VIII_, p. 150.
The half-length and three-quarter-length versions, of which the
portraits at Rome and in Warwick Castle are, perhaps, the most
important, are still more numerous. In these the King is shown in the
same position, and apparently several years older, the cheeks fatter and
more shapeless, and with greyer beard, while in a number of them,
instead of holding his dagger, he has a stick in his left hand. The
Warwick picture, which is life-size, to the knees, and full-front, was
considered by Dr. Waagen to be a genuine work by Holbein of about the
date 1530, but more recent criticism has shown him to be wrong in both
these assertions. “The square face is so fat,” he says, “that the
several parts are quite indistinct. There is in these features a brutal
egotism, an obstinacy, and a harshness of feeling, such as I have never
yet seen in any human countenance. In the eyes, too, there is the
suspicious watchfulness of a wild beast, so that I became quite
uncomfortable from looking at it a long time; for the picture, a
masterpiece of Holbein, is as true in the smallest details as if the
king himself stood before you. In the very splendid dress much gold is
employed. The under-sleeves are of gold, with brown shadows; the hands
most strikingly true to nature; in the left he has a cane, and in the
right a pair of gloves; on his head a small cap. The background is
bright green. The want of simplicity of the forms, the little rounding
of the whole, notwithstanding the wonderful modelling of all the
details, the brownish red local tone of the flesh, the grey of the
shadows, and the very light general effect, show this picture to be a
transition from the second to the third manner of Holbein, and that it
may have been painted about 1530.”[225]
Footnote 225:
Waagen, _Treasures of Art in Great Britain_, iii. p. 215.
It is, however, impossible that the portrait can have been painted in
that year, when Henry was not forty. He appears to be at least fifteen
years older than this. The head and hands are good, but the style of
painting has little in common with that of Holbein, while the details of
the dress lack the beauty, delicacy, and truth of draughtsmanship which
are to be found in his work. There is a portrait in the collection of
the Marquis of Bute, which, according to Dr. Waagen, is “exactly like
the picture by Holbein at Warwick Castle, only less finished.”[226] When
he saw it, as far back as 1854, it was ascribed to “Gerard Horebout,”
and there is every probability that this attribution is the correct one,
for it is not to be expected that the almost forgotten name of Hornebolt
would have been substituted for the much better known one of Holbein,
and the fact that the former name has clung to the picture for so long
is strong evidence in favour of the contention that Hornebolt was the
painter of it. For this reason the Warwick portrait, and others like it,
are now tentatively attributed by most modern writers to the workshop of
Gerard and Luke Hornebolt.
Footnote 226:
_Ibid._, vol. iii. p. 482.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 19
HENRY VIII
NATIONAL GALLERY, ROME
]
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF HENRY VIII AT ROME]
The portrait in the National Gallery, Rome (Pl. 19),[227] which was
formerly in the Corsini Collection, is a three-quarter length, and is
inscribed across the plain background, on either side of the head, “ANNO
· ÆTATIS · SVÆ · XLIX,” and was, therefore, painted in 1539 or 1540. In
dress and position it closely follows Van Leemput’s copy, and the
Windsor and other versions, in which the left hand holds the
dagger-cord. With the exception of the substitution of brown fur for
ermine, and different embroidery on the upper sleeves, the Rome and the
Windsor portraits are in exact agreement as to the costume. The face in
the Rome portrait is decidedly younger than in the Warwick and Windsor
versions, as the date would indicate, so that it is possibly one of the
earliest of the contemporary copies, taken directly from the
wall-painting under Holbein’s own supervision. It is undoubtedly the
best of the later portraits of the King, the face being full of
character finely rendered, and it is regarded by a number of modern
critics, including Dr. Ganz, as a work from Holbein’s own brush.
Footnote 227:
Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 125.
An important example of this type of the portraits of Henry VIII is the
three-quarter length belonging to St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, London,
which was last exhibited at the Burlington Fine Arts Club in 1909 (No.
23). The dress is very similar to the Warwick portrait. The King is
grasping in his left hand a black staff mounted in gold. The background
is dark, and on it is inscribed: “ANNO [~D][~N]I 1544. ÆTATIS SVÆ 55,”
which is incorrect, as Henry did not enter his fifty-fifth year until
1545.[228] The portrait in Windsor Castle,[229] which, as Mr. Ernest Law
points out, is the only contemporary likeness of Henry in the whole of
the royal collections which has anything of an Holbeinesque character,
was evidently copied from the Whitehall fresco. In the attitude and in
the details of the dress it follows the original with considerable
closeness, though slight differences are to be noted, as in the position
of the right hand, which is here placed over the sword-belt, instead of
below it as in Van Leemput’s copy. Its agreement with the Rome portrait
has been already pointed out. The face, however, more closely resembles
the Warwick portrait. Mr. Ernest Law suggests that it was executed
several years later than the Holbein prototype, by some pupil or
imitator, such as Guillim Stretes, after the master’s death,[230] the
general attitude, pose, dress, and accessories of the original being
carefully adhered to, but the features modified, and the beard shown as
thinner and turning grey, to suit his added years, though in outline
they still closely resemble Holbein’s drawing at Munich. The size of the
panel is 3 ft. 3¾ in. high × 2 ft. 5½ in. wide. It may be the picture
which was No. 866 in James II’s catalogue: “King Henry VIII at
half-length, with gloves in his right hand”; though this description
suits equally well the smaller portrait (18 in. × 16 in.) at Hampton
Court, No. 606.
Footnote 228:
There is another version of this portrait with the black staff in the
left hand at Chatsworth, in which, Mr. S. Arthur Strong says, “the
drawing of the features is masterly, and the detail is minute and
searching without being petty; but here again the effect is flat, and
we feel that Holbein himself would have better conveyed the sense of
roundness and depth.... On the whole, there is a French rather than a
German look about this picture, which suggests the possibility that it
may have been painted at the time of the Field of the Cloth of
Gold.”—_Critical Studies and Fragments_, p. 91, and Pl. ix. i.
Footnote 229:
Reproduced by Law, _Holbein’s Pictures_, &c., Pl. v.; Davies, p. 165;
Knackfuss, fig. 126; Pollard, _Henry VIII_, frontispiece (in colour);
Cust, _Royal Collection of Paintings, Windsor Castle_, Pl. 49; Ganz,
_Holbein_, p. 222.
Footnote 230:
_Holbein’s Pictures_, &c., p. 13.
Another good version of this portrait, with the left hand on the
dagger-cord, is the half-length belonging to the Earl of Yarborough,
while an excellent example of the Warwick Castle type, with a cane
substituted for the dagger, was lent by Lord Sackville to the Burlington
Fine Arts Club in 1909 (No. 21).
There is also an excellent portrait of the Warwick type in the
collection of the Duke of Manchester at Kimbolton Castle.[231] It is on
panel, 35 in. × 25 in., and closely resembles the picture in the
National Portrait Gallery (No. 496) (35⅛ in. × 26¼ in.), which is
attributed to Luke Hornebolt.[232] The latter had at one time a coat of
arms on the frame indicating that it belonged at some period to the
Nassau family. It may have been taken over to Holland at the time of the
marriage of Princess Mary, daughter of Charles I, to William of Orange,
in 1641. There are three other portraits of the King in the National
Portrait Gallery, while other versions or old copies exist at Castle
Howard, and at Serlby, the seat of Viscount Galway. The latter (35 in. ×
27 in.) has an inscription on the background giving the King’s titles
and the date 1547, the year of his death. Another (36 in. × 30 in.), at
one time in the collection of Mr. Henry Willett, and now in the Brighton
Art Gallery, is said to have been taken from a wainscot in King’s Walden
House, Herts, formerly the residence of Anne Boleyn.
Footnote 231:
Tudor Exhibition, 1890, No. 97, and reproduced in the Catalogue, p.
48.
Footnote 232:
Reproduced in Mr. Cust’s illustrated Catalogue of _National Portrait
Gallery_, vol. i. p. 23.
[Sidenote: “HENRY VIII WITH A SCROLL”]
All these portraits, whether by the Hornebolts or less important
copyists attached to Henry’s court, are based on Holbein’s Whitehall
painting. There is, however, one other representation of Henry VIII, of
about the date of Holbein’s first entry into the royal service, which is
of a very different character, and was not painted under the influence
of the great German. This is the fine picture at Hampton Court (No. 563
(313)), generally known as “King Henry VIII with a Scroll.”[233] He is
seen at half-length, with head turned slightly to the right, but eyes to
the front. He has reddish hair, and a small thin beard and moustache,
and his eyes are dark grey. He wears a doublet of cloth of gold, cut
square across the chest, covered with strings of pearls, and slashed
with rows of white puffs, above which his white frilled shirt is seen.
Over this is a sable-furred cloak. His black cap has a medallion, with
figures of the Virgin and Infant Christ in enamel, and a white jewelled
feather. In front of him is a table or ledge with a crimson cushion, on
which his right hand is placed, and a scroll of white paper, one end of
which he holds between the thumb and forefinger of his left. On it is
inscribed a sentence from the Gospel of St. Mark in Roman lettering:
“Marci—16. Ite in Mũdvm Vniversṽ et predicate Evangelivm omni creatvræ.”
The background is a rich green. It is on panel, 2 ft. 4 in. high × 1 ft.
10 in. wide.
Footnote 233:
Reproduced by Law, _Royal Gallery at Hampton Court_, p. 204.
The probable authorship of this painting has given rise to much
discussion and difference of opinion. It has been attributed at
different times to Holbein, Janet, Joos van Cleve, and Girolamo da
Treviso, and even to Toto or Penni. Dr. Woltmann considered it to be the
work of a Frenchman, whereas Mr. Wornum was inclined to attribute it to
an Italian hand, possibly Da Treviso. The one thing certain about it is
that it is not by Holbein. There is an equal difference of opinion as to
the date. The King has so youthful a look, as compared with the Hardwick
cartoon and the Munich drawing, that some writers hold that he cannot
have been more than thirty-eight—certainly not more than forty—when it
was painted. This would make the date about 1529, in which year Holbein
was in Switzerland. On the other hand, there are two facts which point
to a later date—the arrangement of the hair and beard, and the text on
the scroll, which, taken together, make it highly probable that the
portrait was painted in 1536. It was on the 8th of May 1535 that Henry,
in imitation of Francis I, ordered all about his court to cut their hair
short and to grow their beards—“the King commanded all about his court
to poll their heads; and to give them example he caused his own head to
be polled, and from thenceforth his beard to be knotted and no more
shaven.”[234] In the picture both hair and beard are treated in the new
fashion. Again, on October 4th of the same year the printing of
Coverdale’s English version of the whole Bible, for which Holbein
designed the title-page, was finished, and in 1536 Henry ordered a copy
of it to be laid in the choir of every church, “for every man that will
to look and read therein; and shall discourage no man from reading any
part of the Bible, but rather comfort, exhort, and admonish every man to
read the same.” To this the text on the scroll which Henry holds in the
portrait clearly refers; and further evidence is supplied by the Bible
frontispiece, in which the King is shown under a canopy, with a sword in
his right hand, and a clasped Bible in his left, which he is handing to
his kneeling bishops. One of the little pictures which form the border
of the title-page, in which our Saviour is exhorting His disciples to
preach the Word throughout the world, has the same text (Mark xvi. 15)
inscribed below it. The evidence, therefore, is very strongly in favour
of the assumption that the portrait was painted to commemorate Henry’s
share in the publication of Coverdale’s English version of the Bible.
Against these two arguments in favour of the date 1536, the compilers of
the catalogue of the Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition point out that
the King does not look more than thirty, which would place the portrait
at about the date of the meeting with Francis I at the Field of the
Cloth of Gold in 1520. “The portrait of Eleonora of Spain, wife of
Francis I, also at Hampton Court,” they say, “is evidently by the same
hand; and the smaller portrait of Francis I, also at Hampton Court, is
either by, or a copy after, the same painter. These circumstances would
point to a possible French origin, and lend some colour to the
ascription of the portrait either to “Sotto” Cleef, who worked in France
before coming to England, or to Jean Clouet—more probably the latter,
who may very well have been in attendance on Francis I at the Field of
the Cloth of Gold.”[235] It is difficult, however, to follow these
writers in their conclusion that the portrait of Eleonora, almost
certainly by the elder Clouet, and the portrait of Henry VIII are by the
same hand, while the fact that in all the earlier portraits of the King
he is shown with long hair, cut straight across the forehead, and no
beard, makes it still more difficult to accept the date as that of the
meeting of the two monarchs in France, unless much stronger evidence as
to its French origin be forthcoming. It is not safe to go farther than
to ascribe it to a Franco-Flemish origin. It should be noted in passing
that a small point in favour of those who see in it a work by an Italian
hand lies in the scroll or cartellino, a feature not often met with in
French or English portraits of that time.
Footnote 234:
Stow’s _Annales_.
Footnote 235:
_Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition Catalogue_, p.bv 81.
[Sidenote: “HENRY VIII WITH A SCROLL”]
On the back of the panel is branded Charles I’s cypher, and there is
also a slip of paper on which is inscribed in contemporary handwriting,
“Changed with my Lord Arundel, 1624.” In Charles’ catalogue, compiled in
1639, it is entered as “King Henry VIII when he was young, with a white
scroll of parchment in his hand; the picture being to the shoulders;
half a figure so big as the life, in a carved gilded frame. Length 4 ft.
0. A Whitehall piece, said to be done by Jennet or Sotto Cleve.” It is
possibly the picture in the Commonwealth inventory—“King Henry y^e
8^{th} by Gennett,” which was “sold to M^{r.} Baggeley y^e 23^{rd} Oct.
1651 for £25.” It may also be the “Table with the picture of King Henry
VIII, then being young,” in Edward VI’s catalogue. An early and
interesting copy of this picture, on canvas, 28¾ in. × 22¼ in., is in
the possession of the Merchant Taylors’ Company, which was in the Tudor
Exhibition, 1890 (No. 120), and the Burlington Club Exhibition, 1909
(No. 24). In the catalogue of the former exhibition it was attributed to
Paris Bordone. It was presented to the Company in 1616 by Mr. John
Vernon. There is a third version of the picture in the Marquis of
Exeter’s collection at Burleigh House, in which the same Latin verse is
inscribed on the scroll. Dr. Waagen says that “it is very carefully
painted in a brownish tone.”[236]
Footnote 236:
Waagen, _Treasures of Art_, &c., iii. p. 407.
In addition to the Hardwick cartoon and the Munich drawing there is a
third portrait of Henry existing which can be attributed almost
certainly to Holbein’s hand. This is the beautiful little panel in Lord
Spencer’s collection at Althorp (_frontispiece_),[237] which measures
only 10½ in. × 7½ in. It is a half-length, three-quarters to the right.
No hair is visible under the cap or beside the ears; the hairs of the
close-cropped fair beard and moustache are drawn with minute care. The
eyes are clear blue-grey. He wears a black cap trimmed with jewels and
loops of pearls and a white feather falling to the left. His gown of
cloth of gold is lined with brown fur, over a light grey doublet cut low
at the neck, embroidered with an elaborate pattern in black, trimmed
with jewels and slashed and puffed with white. The white shirt has a
high collar fitting close round the neck, embroidered with a rich design
in gold, and with a very small frill. On his breast is a round jewel
suspended by a chain of spiral black and gold beads and H’s. The hands
are shown in part, the left at his side, and the right holding a glove.
The background is a plain bright blue.
Footnote 237:
Woltmann, 1. Reproduced (in colour) by the Medici Society;
_Masterpieces of Holbein_ (Gowan’s Art Books, No. 13), p. 7;
_Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition Catalogue_, Pl. x.; Ganz,
_Holbein_, p. 120.
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF HENRY VIII AT ALTHORP]
It is a miniature painting of unusual size, and is drawn with
extraordinary delicacy and truth, and there is an exquisite finish in
all the details of the dress and ornaments, and a harmony in the colour,
which no other painter then practising at the English court but Holbein
was capable of producing. The first impression it gives is that, in
spite of its beauty and brilliance, it yet displays certain differences
from Holbein’s usual style which renders its attribution to him not
absolutely certain; but repeated examination modifies this first
impression, and it becomes impossible not to agree with such critics as
Dr. Woltmann, Mr. Lionel Cust, and Dr. Ganz, who are emphatically of
opinion that Holbein was the author of it. It is impossible, again, to
find any other painter who could have produced so vivid and striking a
portrait of the King, and so accomplished a work of art. Mr. Roger E.
Fry describes it as one of Holbein’s most miraculous pieces of
craftsmanship. “It is little more in scale than a large miniature, and
Holbein has treated it with all the skill in minute delineation which he
alone possessed, and that without losing for a moment unity of tone and
breadth of feeling; but, wonderful as it is, it gives one scarcely any
idea of an actual character. Holbein seems never to have read anything
behind the expansive mask of his royal patron; whether he abstained out
of discretion or failed from want of interest one can but guess.”[238]
After examining the Munich head, however, it is difficult to agree with
Mr. Fry’s opinion that Holbein saw nothing of Henry’s real character.
The Althorp panel is almost identical in position and dress with the
original cartoon for the Whitehall wall-painting, and it is probable
that Holbein intended to use it as his model for the latter. It must
have been painted in 1537, before the wall-painting itself was begun, or
at least before the change in the position of the King’s head was
decided upon. It may be the portrait which in the inventory of Henry
VIII’s pictures, made at his death, was joined to that of Queen Jane
Seymour in a diptych—“Item, a table like a booke, with the picture of
Kynge Henry theight and Quene Jane”; though, if so, the corresponding
portrait of Jane Seymour is lost, for the one of that queen in the
Vienna Gallery is much larger than Lord Spencer’s portrait. The latter
was at South Kensington in 1862 (No. 2651), and again in 1865 (No.
2028), and at the Burlington Fine Arts Club, 1909 (No. 38).
Footnote 238:
_Burlington Magazine_, vol. xv., May 1909, p. 74.
There is an excellent contemporary copy of it in the National Portrait
Gallery (No. 157),[239] 10¾ in. × 7½ in., on copper, which was purchased
in 1863, and was formerly in the collection of Mr. Barrett, of Lee
Priory, Kent. When in his possession it was engraved in line for
Singer’s edition of Cavendish’s _Life of Wolsey_, 1825. The background
is now very dark, but in the engraving it is shown to be a curtain. This
is the chief point of difference between it and Lord Spencer’s panel.
There is also a somewhat weak copy of it among the miniatures in the
Duke of Buccleuch’s collection, which, like the original, has no
inscription. It has suffered extensive repairs at some time or other,
and the eyes are now a bright chestnut colour, evidently due to the
ignorance of the restorer. Other miniatures of Henry VIII, attributed to
Holbein, are dealt with in a succeeding chapter.[240]
Footnote 239:
Reproduced in the illustrated Catalogue, National Portrait Gallery,
vol. i. p. 23.
Footnote 240:
See pp. 233-236.
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF QUEEN JANE SEYMOUR]
Jane Seymour was the first of Henry’s queens to be painted by Holbein.
The various portraits of Katherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn still
existing are not by him, and it is evident that the artist did not enter
the royal service until after Anne’s execution on 19th May 1536, and
Henry’s very precipitate marriage with Jane Seymour on the following
day. Portraits of both these ladies are usually ascribed to Holbein by
their owners, according to the prevailing fashion of earlier days, when
everything dating from Tudor times was unhesitatingly given to him.
Shortly before Holbein’s return to England in 1532, Katherine of Aragon
had permanently retired from court, and in the seclusion of The Moor,
deserted by the King, her thoughts fully occupied with her impending
divorce, it is not likely that she would have any desire to sit for her
portrait, or to command Holbein to visit her for that purpose. There is
more probability that Anne Boleyn may have been painted by him, but as
no such portrait has been discovered, it must be taken for granted that
he did not. The head among the Windsor drawings, inscribed “Anna Bollein
Queen,”[241] has been wrongly named, and bears no likeness to the few
portraits which may be said with some degree of certainty to represent
her. Much information respecting the portraits of these two queens will
be found in the papers read by Mr. John Gough Nichols and Sir George
Scharf before the Society of Antiquaries in 1863 and published in
_Archæologia_.[242]
Footnote 241:
Woltmann, 323; Wornum, ii. 18; Holmes, i. 25. Reproduced by Davies, p.
214, and elsewhere.
Footnote 242:
Vol. xl. pt. i. pp. 71-88.
There is no evidence to show that Holbein painted either Katherine’s
daughter, Mary, or Anne’s daughter, Elizabeth, though here again
portraits of them exist which in less critical days were said to be by
him. The drawing in the Windsor Collection inscribed “The Lady Mary
after Queen,”[243] has no claim to represent Queen Mary, nor is there
any known portrait of her which bears any likeness to Holbein’s style of
painting. The Princess Elizabeth was ten years old at the time of the
painter’s death, whereas the youngest portrait of her extant is the very
interesting one at the age of about fifteen or sixteen in the Royal
Collection,[244] which was included in Charles I’s catalogue as “A
Whitehall piece of Holben,” and said to represent “Queen Elizabeth when
she was young, to the waist.” This is probably a work of Franco-Flemish
origin, and has nothing to do with Holbein, who, if he had painted her,
must have shown her as a little girl. Mr. Nichols, in his paper
mentioned above, states that “there can be little doubt that Holbein
drew the King’s natural son, Henry FitzRoy, Duke of Richmond and
Suffolk, who lived until the 22nd July 1536,” but no such portrait or
drawing of him can be discovered. There is, however, among the Windsor
heads, a drawing of his wife, Mary,[245] daughter of Thomas, third Duke
of Norfolk, and sister of Henry, Earl of Surrey, both of whom sat to
Holbein. It is a fine drawing, but very badly rubbed. She is represented
full-face, with the eyes cast down, and wearing a close-fitting white
cap or hood, and a large flat black hat with a big ostrich feather. The
dress is powdered with the letter R, which in some cases seems to be
formed of pearls, while the letter M also occurs twice. This fashion of
wearing an initial letter, usually as a pendant ornament, was by no
means unusual at that period, and occurs in more than one of Holbein’s
portraits. The drawing of the Duchess is inscribed “The Lady of
Richmond.”
Footnote 243:
Woltmann, 331; Wornum, ii. 39; Holmes, ii. 15. Reproduced by Davies,
p. 216.
Footnote 244:
Reproduced by Cust, _Royal Collection of Paintings, Windsor Castle_,
Pl. 48.
Footnote 245:
Woltmann, 324; Wornum, ii. 17; Holmes, ii. 23.
It is not until we come to the portrait of Queen Jane Seymour in the
Imperial Gallery, Vienna (No. 1481) (Pl. 20),[246] that we are on
certain ground. This is a genuine work of Holbein of very fine quality.
She is shown almost to the knees, the body and head turned slightly to
the left, and her hands clasped in front of her. She is dressed in red
velvet, with hanging sleeves covered with gold embroidery, and
under-sleeves of lilac-grey watered silk with an elaborate pattern,
worked with seed pearls, and slashed and puffed with white. The cuffs
have a deep border of wonderfully painted black Spanish work. She wears
two heavy necklaces, of jewels and pearls, and a band of similar
ornament along the edge of her square-cut bodice, and an ornament at the
breast composed of the initials I.H.S. and three pendant pearls. Her
head-dress is of the angular English pattern. The inner cap, which
completely hides her hair, is of brown silk with a black stripe, and the
jewelled band or framework is of the same pattern as the border of the
dress. The body of the head-dress is cloth of gold, with the customary
black fall. The background is of dark grey-blue without inscription. The
colour scheme is rich and harmonious, but delicate and pearly in tone,
and a considerable amount of gold has been used in the painting of the
jewels, and the gold tissue and embroidery of the cap. Once again the
extraordinarily fine painting of the hands has to be recorded; they are
full of expression and character. There is less expression in the face.
She has no great pretensions to beauty, and her complexion is pale, thus
agreeing with all contemporary accounts of her appearance. In a
singularly frank letter from Chapuys to Antoine Perrenot, dated London,
18th May 1536, which was intended for the Emperor’s ears, the Spanish
ambassador says: “She is sister to one Edward Semel, of middle stature,
and no great beauty, so fair that one would call her rather pale than
otherwise.... The said Semel is not a woman of great wit, but she may
have good understanding. It is said she inclines to be proud and
haughty. She bears great love and reverence to the Princess (_i.e._
Mary). I know not if honors will make her change hereafter.”[247] He
then proceeds to throw doubts upon the lady’s virtue, and to speak in
coarse innuendo of Henry’s matrimonial ventures. The panel, which is
probably the one which was in the Arundel Collection, measures 65 cm. by
48 cm., and is of the same size as the portrait of Dr. John Chamber;
they are the largest of Holbein’s works in the Vienna Gallery. This
portrait was evidently the one seen by Van Mander in Amsterdam in 1604.
He says: “There was, at Amsterdam, in the Warmoesstraat, a portrait of a
Queen of England, admirably executed, and very pretty and nice; she was
attired in silver brocade, which appears to be genuine silver with some
admixture, and it was depicted so transparently, curiously, and
exquisitely, that a white foil seemed to lie beneath.”[248]
Footnote 246:
Woltmann, 252. Reproduced by Davies, p. 170; Knackfuss, fig. 127;
Vienna Catalogue, p. 345; A. F. Pollard, _Henry VIII_, p. 232; Ganz,
_Holbein_, p. 119.
Footnote 247:
_C.L.P._, vol. x. 901.
Footnote 248:
Quoted by Woltmann, Eng. trans., p. 398.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 20
QUEEN JANE SEYMOUR
IMPERIAL GALLERY, VIENNA
]
[Sidenote: PORTRAITS OF QUEEN JANE SEYMOUR]
The original study for this portrait is in the Windsor Collection.[249]
It is a fine drawing of very delicate draughtsmanship, and shows more of
the figure than most of the sketches in the series, the folded hands
being included. Several replicas of the picture still remain in England,
the two best of which, excellent contemporary copies, are in the Duke of
Bedford’s collection at Woburn Abbey, and in that of Lord Sackville at
Knole. The latter was in the Tudor Exhibition, 1890 (No. 44), and the
Burlington Fine Arts Club, 1909 (No. 46). Another version is in the
possession of the Duke of Northumberland. Hollar made an admirable
engraving from the Arundel version, a small circle dated 1648 (Parthey
1427); and there is at Windsor, as already noted, a miniature painted
from it by Nicholas Hilliard, which is inscribed “ANŌ DNĪ 1536 ÆTATIS
SVÆ 27.”[250] Hilliard, no doubt, found this inscription on the original
from which he worked, but nothing of the kind is now discernible either
on the picture in Vienna or Lord Sackville’s version. It may, however,
have been taken from one of the numerous miniatures of this Queen, dealt
with in a later chapter.[251] This inscription is valuable as giving the
probable date at which Holbein painted the Queen, and proves that he was
in the royal service as early as in the summer of 1536. Very probably
the portrait was afterwards used by him as the basis for the head and
position of Jane in the Whitehall wall-painting. There is an excellent
old copy of the portrait in the Hague Gallery (No. 278) which shows
slight differences.[252]
Footnote 249:
Woltmann, 325; Wornum, ii. 22; Holmes, i. 1. Reproduced by Davies, p.
170, and elsewhere.
Footnote 250:
See p. 91. Reproduced in _Burlington Magazine_, vol. viii., Jan. 1906,
Pl. ii. (9), in an article on “Nicholas Hilliard” by Sir Richard
Holmes.
Footnote 251:
See pp. 237-238.
Footnote 252:
Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 195.
In addition to this portrait, Holbein prepared a design for a large gold
cup, bearing the initials of Henry and Jane, and the latter’s motto,
evidently intended as a present from the King to his consort. The
finished drawing is in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, and there is
another version of it in the British Museum. It is the most important of
Holbein’s designs for goldsmith’s work which has been preserved, and is
described in a later chapter.[253] Henry VIII appears to have been
genuinely devoted to his third wife, but his happiness was short-lived,
for she died on October 24, 1537, twelve days after the birth of her
son, Edward VI, her death being due to carelessness on the part of her
attendants.
Footnote 253:
See pp. 274-275.
Not a single dated portrait of the year 1537 remains, nor is there one
which can be ascribed with any certainty to this year. Possibly the
great Whitehall wall-painting and other works for the King occupied much
of Holbein’s time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER XX
THE DUCHESS OF MILAN
Search for a queen to succeed Jane Seymour—Negotiations in France and
Brussels—The Duchess of Milan—Hutton’s description of her—Her portrait
by some unknown Netherland painter—Philip Hoby sent over with Holbein
to obtain her portrait—Cromwell’s instructions to them—Hutton’s letter
describing their visit—The small oil painting at Windsor—Description
of the picture in the National Gallery—Continuation and final failure
of the marriage negotiations—History of the picture—Purchased for the
English nation by the National Art-Collections Fund for
£72,000—Portrait of the Duchess as a child by Mabuse.
ON the very day of Jane Seymour’s death, the King and his Council began,
with almost indecent haste, their search throughout the Courts of Europe
for a new queen to fill her place. Henry’s ambassadors and agents were
instructed to make discreet inquiries as to suitable candidates, and
before the close of the year a number of names had been submitted to him
for his consideration. In spite of this unseemly expedition, however,
nearly two years were to elapse before the final choice was made, for it
was not until the very end of 1539 that Anne of Cleves came to England
as Henry’s fourth queen. Throughout the whole of 1538 marriage
negotiations, which in the end proved fruitless, were carried on
simultaneously with Francis I and the Emperor Charles V. Though Henry
was anxious to marry again, in order that the succession, which rested
on the precarious life of one infant Prince, might be made more assured,
yet his search for a bride both in France and in Imperial circles at one
and the same time was undertaken quite as much for political as for
matrimonial reasons. It was his main object at that time to prevent any
close understanding between his two rivals. With Charles and Francis
united, and Europe at peace, there was nothing to prevent a coalition
against England and an enforcement of the papal excommunication of Henry
by force of arms. By playing off one monarch against the other with the
bait of a proffered matrimonial alliance he hoped to keep the two apart,
and by such means ensure the security of his throne, and be at liberty
to continue the severe methods by which he sought to maintain his
supremacy as self-appointed head of the English Church.
[Sidenote: SEARCH FOR A FOURTH QUEEN]
In the course of these negotiations quite a number of ladies were
suggested, and in most, if not in all, cases, portraits of them were
procured for Henry’s inspection. In some instances he sent his own
painter for the purpose; in others, what may be termed “official”
portraits, painted by foreigners, were forwarded to England by his
ambassadors abroad. Of these portraits, two—those of the Duchess of
Milan and of the Princess Anne of Cleves—were painted by Holbein, who
was despatched to Brussels and to Düren in order to take their
likenesses; but the authorship of the others is less certain, and as the
portraits themselves cannot now be traced, it is difficult, if not
impossible, to arrive at any final conclusion respecting them. There is
much probability, however, amounting in two instances almost to
certainty, that Holbein made other special journeys, in addition to the
two just mentioned, for the purpose of painting ladies who had been
reported to the King as beautiful or desirable. These journeys were to
France, and solve, in the writer’s opinion, the mysterious journey to
Upper Burgundy; but as the negotiations for a French marriage were
running concurrently with those for the hand of the Duchess of Milan, it
will be better, in order to avoid confusion, to deal separately with
each of these proposed alliances, and the various portraits to which
they gave rise. For this reason the present chapter is concerned with
Holbein’s painting of the Duchess, while in the following one evidence
is brought forward which indicates that he also received orders from the
King to take the likenesses of several high-born ladies of France.
Shortly after the imposing funeral ceremonies of Queen Jane Seymour,
Cromwell wrote to John Hutton, the English agent in Brussels at the
court of the Regent of the Netherlands, Queen Mary of Hungary, the
Emperor’s sister, to ask him to make secret inquiries as to suitable
brides for the King, and in Hutton’s reply, dated December 4, 1537,
occurs the first mention of the Duchess of Milan as a possible Queen of
England. Hutton wrote:
“Uppon the recept of your letters addressid unto me by this
berrar, I have made as myche secret sherche as the tyme wold
permyt. The which, albeit had byn of lengar contenewance, I cold
not perceve that anny sherche cold have found wone soo notable a
personage as were meit to be lykynd to that noble Raynge. In the
Court ther is wayttyng uppon the Queyn a lady of thage of 14
yerres, daughtar unto the Lord of Breidrood, of a goodly
statwre. She is noted varteos, sadde, and womanly; hir beautie
is competent, hir mother is departid this world, who was
daughter to the Cardynall of Luikes sister. It is thought that
the said Cardinall wold give a good dote to have hir bestoid
after his mynd. Ther is a widdowe, the wiche also repayrithe
offten to the Court, beyng of goodly personage. She was the
wyffe of the late Yerle of Egmond, and, as I ame inffarmyd, she
parsithe fortie yeres of age, the wich dothe not apeire in my
judgement by hir face. Ther is the Duches of Myllayn, whom I
have not seyn, but as it is reportid to be a goodly personage
and of excellent beawtie. The Dewke of Clevis hathe a daughter,
but I here no great preas neyther of hir personage nor beawtie.
I have not myche exsperiens emonges ladies, and therfore this
commission is to me very hard; soo that, yf in anny thyng I
offend, I beseche your Lordshipe to be my mean for pardon. I
have wryttyn the treuthe, as nighe as I canne possible lerne,
levyng the further judgment to other, that are better skillid in
such matters.”[254]
Footnote 254:
_C.L.P._, vol. xii. pt. ii. 1172. _St. P._, viii. 5.
* * * * *
The Duchess reached Brussels shortly after this letter was despatched,
and Hutton wrote again to Cromwell on the 9th of December, after a
personal inspection of the lady, whom he thought to be very like Mrs.
Shelton, one of Anne Boleyn’s ladies, as follows:
[Sidenote: HUTTON’S LETTERS ABOUT THE DUCHESS]
“The Duches of Myllan ... arived here as ystarday, very
honorably acompenyd as well of hyr owen treyn as withe suche
that departed from hence to meit hyr. I ame inffurmyd she is of
the age of 16 yeres, very high of stature for that age. She is
highar then the Regent, a goodly personage of boddy, and
compytent off beawtie, of favor excellent, sofft of speche, and
very gentill in countenance. She werythe moornyng aparell aftre
the maner of Ytalie.... She resemblythe myche wone Mystris
Shelton, that somtyme watid in Court uppon Queyn Anne. She
ussithe most to spek Frenche, albeit that as it is reportid she
can [speak] Ytalian and Highe Almeyn. I knowlige my self of
judgment herein very yngnorant, albeit I have inployd my wittes
to sartiffie your Lordshipe off the trewthe.”[255]
Footnote 255:
_C.L.P._, vol. xii. pt. ii. 1187. _St. P._, viii. 6.
In a transcript of the same letter, addressed to Thomas Wriothesley, one
of Cromwell’s secretaries, and despatched to England on the same date,
Hutton added:
“Ther is non in theis parties off parsonage, beawtie, and
byrthe, lyke unto the Duches off Myllayn. She is not soo pewre
whyt, as was the late Qweyn, whois soal God pardon; but she
hathe a syngular good countenaunce, and when she chancesithe to
smyl, ther aperithe two pittes in hir cheikes, and wone in hyr
chyne, the wiche becommythe hyr right excellently well.”[256]
Footnote 256:
_C.L.P._, vol. xii. pt. ii. 1188. _St. P._, viii. 7.
* * * * *
He wrote still further in her praise in a third letter to Cromwell,
dated December 21:
“Synns my letter of the 4th sent unto your Lordshipe by Fraunces
the corror, I wrot your Lordshipe wone other of the 9th, wherin
I sartified the arivall of the Duches of Myllan, withe my
judgement of hir personage and beawtie. Synns wiche tyme I have
dayly notid hir gestur and countenance, the wiche presentithe a
great majestie with myche sobrenes, soo that in the furtherance
of that matter I thynke your Lordshipe shuld doo highe sarvis to
the Kynges Highness, and to the whole commune welthe of his
Realme like proffit.”[257]
Footnote 257:
_C.L.P._, vol. xii. pt. ii. 1243. _St. P._, viii. 8.
* * * * *
These descriptions were considered to be so satisfactory that Hutton’s
other suggestions were discarded, and the young Duchess selected as a
possible wife for Henry, if good terms could be arranged. Christina of
Denmark, youngest daughter of King Christian II of Denmark and Isabella
of Hungary, sister of Charles V, was born in 1523, and had been married,
in 1534, when only eleven years of age, to Francesco Maria Sforza, the
last Duke of Milan, who died in the following year, October 24, 1535.
She was now in her sixteenth year, and as the niece of the Emperor, a
marriage with her, so Henry and his Council considered, would be of
great political advantage, as it would give the world a proof that his
quarrel with Charles over the divorce of Katherine of Aragon was at an
end. Henry, therefore, wrote on January 22, 1538, to Sir Thomas Wyat,
his ambassador in Spain, ordering him to suggest the marriage to the
Emperor, who in his reply, sent through his representative in London,
Eustace Chapuys, declared that he would be glad to treat of it. Henry,
who naturally wished to see the lady, if possible, before committing
himself too far, began to throw out suggestions that she should be
brought to Calais, in order that he might make her acquaintance, but
this proposal was displeasing to the other parties concerned; and so, as
the next best thing, it was determined to obtain her portrait. Hutton
was instructed to procure one if he possibly could, and he wrote to
Cromwell on February 21, describing a dinner-party he had attended given
by the “Ladie Marqueis of Barrough,” at which she promised to show him,
when finished, a portrait for which the Duchess of Milan was sitting,
and for the purpose of which she had put off her mourning dress. This
picture, apparently, was to be given to the Lady Marquis. He told
Cromwell:
“The Lady Marqueis demaundid of me, yff the letters, wiche I had
delyverid the Queyn, cam from the Kynges Highnes my master. Unto
wiche I made answar that the cam frome the Empror. Then she said
that when she sawe me delyver them, hir hart rejoissid, thynkyng
ther had byne some good newis consarnyng the Duches of Myllain,
of whom she made great preis, as well for hir beawtie, favor,
wisdom, as for hir myche gentilnes. All wiche saynges I
affirmyd. Withe that she said, yf I had seyn hir owt of hir
mornyng aparell, so gorgeosly as she had seyn hir the day
beffore, I wold have marveillid, for she said, to tell me in
secret, she cawssid hir pikture to be made, wiche beyng
fenisshed, the Duches had promissid to give it unto hir, soo
that she of hir owen motion said, assone as it cam to hir handes
I shuld have a sight therof.”[258]
Footnote 258:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. i. 326. _St. P._, viii. 14.
He goes on to describe an interview with the Duchess on the following
day, in which she complained of the rain, telling Hutton, “This wether
likythe not the Queyn, for She is therby pynnyd upp, that She cannot
ride abrode to hunt. Then I demandid if Hir Grace did not love huntyng.
She answered, ‘Non better,’ and soo pawssid.
“She spekithe French, and semythe to be of fewe wordes. In hir
spekyng she lispithe, wiche dothe nothyng mysbecom hir. I canot
in anny thyng perceve, but she shuldbe off myche sobreness, and
very wisse and no les gentill. It may pleis your Lordship to
consedar that my poore knowlege is not to give anny judgement in
suche matters, but only to showe my openyon. And for that it
wilbe yet theis 8th dais, beffore I can com by hir pikture, I
thought it my duetie to sartiffie your Lordshipe the premissis;
and incontinent the said pikture shall com to my handes, it
shalbe sent your Lordshipe with spedy deligence. Advertissyng
the Lady Marques that I did send it unto Barough, for that my
wiffe had myche dessire to se the Duches.”[259]
Footnote 259:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. i. 326. _St. P._, viii. 14.
[Sidenote: HOBY AND HOLBEIN GO TO BRUSSELS]
Matters seemed now to be progressing so favourably that it was decided
to send over Philip Hoby to Brussels, with some show of secrecy, for the
purpose of a personal interview with the young lady, and, as Henry was
very anxious to obtain an accurate likeness of her, it was also arranged
that Holbein should go with him, without waiting for the portrait which
Hutton hoped to secure.
Philip Hoby, who was born in 1505, was the son of William Hoby, of
Leominster. His zeal for the Reformation commended him to Henry VIII and
Cromwell, by whom he was constantly employed from 1538 onwards in
diplomatic services at the courts of Spain and Portugal, and on special
missions elsewhere. He was one of the gentlemen ushers of the King’s
Privy Chamber, and took part in the siege of Boulogne, being rewarded
with knighthood immediately after the conquest of that town in the
autumn of 1544. He was made Master of the Ordnance and admitted to the
Privy Council in 1552, and died in 1558. From his correspondence he
appears to have been a man of culture and refinement. Holbein made two,
if not three, journeys abroad in his company, and painted his portrait,
though its whereabouts is not now known, but the drawing for it, in
which he is shown with a scanty beard and long thin moustache, is in the
Windsor Collection.[260]
Footnote 260:
Woltmann, 302; Wornum, ii. 7; Holmes, i. 40.
Cromwell’s instructions to Hoby were as follows:
“Instructions given by the L. Cromwell to Philip Hoby sent over
by him to the duchess of Lorraine then [to the] duchess of
Milan.
“To repair to Mr. Hutton and tarry secretly at his lodging until
he shall have been with the Regent. Then upon Hutton’s
advertisement to go to the Duchess, present Cromwell’s
commendations and say that no doubt she had heard from the Lady
Regent and by the relation of the King’s ambassador there, the
cause of his coming and Cromwell’s inclination to the
advancement of the same as is declared ‘in the letter.’ He shall
then beg her to take the pain to sit that a servant of the King,
who is come thither for that purpose, may take her physiognomy;
and shall ask when Mr. Hanns shall come to her to do so. The
said Philip shall as of himself express a wish that both for my
Lord’s reports of her virtues and for his own view of them, it
might please the King, being now without a wife, to advance her
to the honour of a queen of England. ‘And he shall well note her
answers, her gesture and countenance with her inclination, that
he may at his return declare the same to the King’s Majesty.’
Her picture taken, he and Hanns shall return immediately.”[261]
Hoby was also supplied with a second document, in which all that
he was to say to the Duchess was carefully drawn up for his
guidance.
Footnote 261:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. i. 380(2).
In the heading to these instructions, which is written in a later hand
than the body of the document, the words “to the” in square brackets
have been inserted by the editor of the _Calendars of Letters and
Papers, &c._ In doing this he has been misled by a very similar set of
instructions issued to Hoby on the eve of a mission to Lorraine in
August of the same year, which is dealt with in the next chapter. He
thus reads the heading as indicating that Hoby was to go first of all to
the Duchess of Lorraine and afterwards to the Duchess of Milan, and that
the one set of instructions was to serve for the two visits. The
inserted words, “to the,” however, are not needed. Christina, a few
years after Holbein painted her, married, in 1540, François, Duke of Bar
and Lorraine, and the writer who added the heading to the copy of Hoby’s
instructions quite correctly describes her as the Duchess of Lorraine,
“then (or “at that time,” _i.e._ at the time of Hoby’s journey to
Brussels) Duchess of Milan.” This is a small point, but it is necessary
to draw attention to it, as it has to do with Holbein’s subsequent
journey to Upper Burgundy.
[Sidenote: HOBY AND HOLBEIN IN BRUSSELS]
The two travellers left London on the 2nd or 3rd of March, and reached
Brussels on the evening of the 10th. The next day was spent in
preliminary interviews, Hutton having audience with the Lady Regent and
the Duchess in the morning, and Hoby delivering his message to the
latter in the afternoon. All going smoothly, Holbein was fetched to the
court at one o’clock on the 12th, and accomplished all that he had to do
within three hours, to the great admiration of Hutton, who considered
that he showed himself to be a master, and that the likeness was very
perfect. The English agent, the day before their arrival, had already
despatched a portrait of the lady to London—in all probability the one
promised him by the Lady Marquis—but after seeing Holbein’s beautiful
drawing, he sent a messenger post haste to stop the bearer of the first
picture, which he now regarded as but “slobbered” in comparison with the
other. Hoby and Holbein, who started upon their homeward journey on the
evening of the 12th, appear to have taken this inferior picture with
them, so that Cromwell might compare the two. There is no evidence to
indicate by whom it was painted, but as the lady was represented in gay
apparel, it must have been in marked contrast to Holbein’s study and the
full-length portrait he afterwards painted, representing her in her
Italian widow’s weeds. It is possible that this picture is still in
existence in England, and its discovery would be most interesting.
Hutton’s letter to Cromwell, describing all that took place on the
occasion, is a long one, but as it is one of the few important documents
still existing in which Holbein is mentioned by name, it cannot well be
omitted here. It is dated March 14, 1538, and runs as follows:
“My moste bounden duetie remembered unto Your good Lordshipe.
Pleasithe the same to be advertissid, that the 10th of this
present monethe in the evenyng arivid here your Lordshipis
sarvand Phillip Hobbie, acompenied with a sarvand of the Kynges
Majesties namyd Mr Haunce, by wiche Phillip I recevyd your
Lordshippis letter, beryng date at Saynct Jamys the second day
of this present. Theffect wherof apercevyd, havyng the day
beffore sent wone of my sarvandes towardes youre Lordshipe withe
a picture of the Duches of Myllain, I thought it very nessisarie
to stey the same, for that in my openion it was not soo
perffight as the cawsse requyrid, neyther as the said Mr Haunce
coold make it. Uppon wiche determination I dispached another of
my sarvandes, in post, to returne the same, wiche your Lordshipe
shall receve by this berrar. The next mornyng aftre the arivall
of your Lordshippis said sarvand, I did adresse my selff unto
the Lady Regent, declaryng unto Hir that the night past ther
arivid at my lodgyng a sarvand of your Lordshippis, withe wone
other of the Kynges Majesties; by wiche your Lordshippis sarvand
I had recevyd commiscion to sartiffie Hir Grace that thEmprors
Ambassadors, resident with the Kynges Majestie my master, had
made ernyst overture unto your Lordshipe for a marriage to be
treatid betwixt the Majestie of my said master, and the Duches
Grace of Millain. To the wiche albeit your Lordshipe was of no
les good inclination for the furtherance of the same, then the
said Ambassadors were, yet your Lordshipe thought it not
exspedient to be broken unto the Kynges Highnes, withowt havyng
some further occation mynistrid for the openyng of the same. And
for as myche as your Lordshipe had hard great commendation of
the furme, beawtie, wisdom, and other verteos qualiteis, the
wiche God had indewid the said Duches with, you cold perceve no
mean more meit for the advauncement of the same, than to procure
her perffight pictur; for wiche your Lordshipe had sent, in
compeny of your said sarvand, a man very excellent in makyng off
phisanymies; soo that your Lordshippis desire was that your said
sarvand myght in moste humbleist wisse salute the Duches Grace,
requyryng that hir pleisur might be to apoynt the tyme and
place, wher the said paynter might acomplische his charge. The
Regent, when I began to declare this forsaid purpos, stud uppon
hir feit; but, aftre She had a littill ynclyng to what effect
the same wold com, She did sit dowen, not movyng, till I had
fenisshid all that I had to say, and then answered as foloythe:
‘I thanke yow for your good newis. This is not the first report
that I have had of the good inclination that the Lord Crumwell
hathe to thEmprores afferris, for recompence wheroff I trust he
shall not fynd Us ingrat. And as to his desire in this behalff,
it shall gladly be accomplisshid.’ Then I said, ‘Madam, I have
yet further commiscion, wiche is to sartiffie the same unto the
Duches Grace.’ Hir answar was, that She wold goo to Councell,
and when the Duches cam to hir oratorie, I myght [have] very
good oportunitie to talke withe hir. Withe that the Regent
departid towardes the Councell Chamber, and I taried the Duches
commyng; who beying com to hir oratorie, wher as remenyd no moo
but two of hir ladeis, I sartiffied Hir Grace the woll effect of
your Lordshippis commission consarnyng Phelipe Hobbie, whom,
when Hir Grace wold give awdiens, wold more ample sartiffie your
Lordshippis pleisur. She made answar that, if ever it shuld ly
in hir powar, the good will of your Lordshipe shoid towardes
hir, wiche she in no part had desarvid, shuld not remeyn
unrecompencesid; and that as to your said request it was not to
be denyed, albeit that she, beying ther withe the Queyn hir
awnt, thought it not meit to make anny graunt therunto withowt
hir consent, wiche she wold move to obteyn at the first
convenient leisar, that she myght have with the Queyn consarnyng
the same. Commandyng to be called unto hir wone, naymd the Lord
Benedike Court, who next unto Monsur de Correra is cheiff about
hir; whoo beyng com, she said unto hym, ‘Goo withe thAmbassadour
and entarteyn a gentilman that is at his lodgyng, and knowe wher
you shall fynd hym at suche tyme as I shall send yow for hym.’
This done, wee tooke ower leve of Hir Grace, and cam to my
lodgyng, wher the said Lord salutid Phillip Hobbie, communyng
together in the Italian tunge a sarten space, and then tooke his
leve to repaire agayn to the Court; wiche I percevyng, requyrid
hym to take the portion withe us at dynnar, wiche he promissid
to doo; but aftre beyng otherweis myndid, he sent us woord that
he cold not com, but wold see us aftre dynnar; wiche apoyntment
he kept. For at two of the cloke in the aftrenoon he cam for
Phillipe to com speke withe the Duches his mystres: who can make
relation to your Lordshipe more at large what passid at the
tyme. The next day foloyng, at wone of the cloke in the
aftrenoon, the said Lord Benedike cam for Mr. Haunce; who havyng
but thre owers space hathe shoid hym self to be master of that
siens, for it is very perffight; the other is but sloberid in
comparison to it, as by the sight of bothe your Lordshipe shall
well aperceve. The same night Phillipe tooke his leve of the
Duches. I inffurmyd the Lady Regent that the said Phillipe wold
gladly, accordyng to your Lordshippis commandment, have com to
have done his duetie unto Hir, to have knowen what further
sarvis Hir Grace wold commaund hym; but dowttyng he should be
notid, wherby myght be discoverid that wiche till then was kept
secret as coldbe. She answarid that it shuld not neid, reqwiring
me, that I wold make hir most effectios commendations, by my
letters, unto your Lordshipe, and that yow shuld here frome Hir
more at large by thEmprors Ambassadour resident with the Kynges
Majestie. To sartiffie your Lordship of hir sobreness, wisdom,
and other varteos qualities shulde be but superfluitie, for this
berrar can sartiffie your Lordshipe therof at length.”[262]
Footnote 262:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. i. 507. _St. P._, viii. 17.
[Sidenote: HUTTON’S ACCOUNT OF HOLBEIN’S VISIT]
The Queen Regent wrote to Eustace Chapuys in London, directly after
Hoby’s departure, saying that: “I deem it opportune to acquaint you with
a fact, of which you are not perhaps aware, namely, that Sieur Cromwell
has sent here expressly a man, besides a message by ambassador Hauton,
to the effect that the Emperor had proposed to the King, his master, the
marriage of my niece, the dowager duchess of Milan, with honourable and
advantageous conditions; that he (the Emperor) offers to help
efficiently towards it, and wishes it to take place before King Francis
becomes aware of it. Cromwell asks that the man be allowed to see and
talk with my said niece, and take her portrait in order to show it to
the King and give him greater desire to see her. This I have allowed,
and the man has actually returned to England with the portrait, well
satisfied with the personal appearance and manners of my said niece, who
has not failed on the occasion to thank Cromwell for his offers and show
of affection.”[263]
Footnote 263:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. i. 419. _Spanish Calendar_, vol. v. pt. ii.
217.
From Chapuys’ reply to her, dated March 23, we learn that Hoby and
Holbein reached London on March 18, and that the King was delighted with
the latter’s handiwork. He tells her:
“On the very same day, the 18th, the painter sent by this King
to Flanders came back with the Duchess’ likeness, which, I am
told, has singularly pleased the King, so much so, that since he
saw it he has been in much better humor than he ever was, making
musicians play on their instruments all day long. Two days after
he went to dine at a splendid house of his, where he had
collected all his musicians, and, after giving orders for the
erection of certain sumptuous buildings therein, returned home
by water, surrounded by musicians, and went straight to visit
the duchess of Suffocq, the mother-in-law of the duke of
Norfolk, and the wife of his brother, and ever since cannot be
one single moment without masks, which is a sign he purposes to
marry again, unless he does all that by way of dissimulation
whilst the bishop of Tarbes is here still.”[264]
Footnote 264:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. i. 583. _Spanish Calendar_, vol. v. pt. ii.
220.
* * * * *
For the cost of this journey Hoby received £23, 6_s._ 8_d._ from the
royal purse, which is noted in the book of the King’s household expenses
for March 1538. “Item paid to Philip Hoby by the kinges commandment
certifyed by my lord privy seal lettre for his coste and expences sent
in all possible diligence for the kinge affaires in the parties of
beyonde the See. xxiij _li._ vj_s._ viij_d._”[265]
Footnote 265:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. ii. 1280 (f. 6).
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF THE DUCHESS AT WINDSOR]
No doubt the portrait which so delighted the King was one of those
masterly studies in black chalk touched with colour, such as the “John
Godsalve” among the Windsor drawings, from which Holbein afterwards
painted the magnificent full-length now in the National Gallery. He
could not have done much more than this in the three hours which was the
whole time allowed him for the sitting. Sir Claude Phillips, however, is
of opinion that it must have been something more than a drawing, however
consummate—perhaps a finished sketch of the head only in oils. “It is
difficult to believe,” he says, “that a layman would express so
enthusiastic an approval of a drawing of modest dimensions, and (if it
followed the usual Windsor type) of modest aspect. Neither sketch,
however, nor drawing is known to exist.”[266]
Footnote 266:
_Daily Telegraph_, May 8, 1909.
It was suggested by the late Sir George Scharf, F.S.A., that the small
oil panel, showing the Duchess to the waist, which is practically a
replica of the upper half of the National Gallery picture, is the
original study made by Holbein in Brussels. This portrait, then unnamed,
he discovered in 1863, in a small apartment in Windsor Castle, and it
was described by him in a paper read before the Society of Antiquaries,
and published in _Archæologia_, with a good lithograph of the picture by
T. H. Maguire.[267] It is on wood, 17 in. high by 13 in. wide.
Footnote 267:
“Remarks on a Portrait of the Duchess of Milan, recently discovered at
Windsor Castle, probably painted by Holbein at Brussels in the year
1538,” _Archæologia_, 1866, vol. xl. p. 106.
“The picture by Holbein,” says Sir George, “could only have been a
drawing or a painting on rather a small scale, inasmuch as it had at
once to be conveyed by a messenger to England, and one of the objects of
Hutton’s letter was to show the diligence with which the King’s commands
were executed and to announce the coming of the picture. The scale and
workmanship of the picture before us are exactly such as might have been
expected from a first-rate painter and tactician under such
circumstances. All essential points are observed with scrupulous
fidelity, and, certainly, as far as internal evidence extends, without
flattery. It is not to be supposed that Holbein did nothing to the
picture beyond the term of the three hours’ sitting afforded by the
Duchess. Having secured all the essential points of likeness, and given
the general colouring, he doubtless spent some time in further
finishings from memory. But time must have been given for the picture to
dry.”
Wornum, however, refuses to accept Sir George’s ascription. “The head is
vigorously painted,” he says, “and very natural; it shows, however, no
complete finish, which, if the picture referred to, is exactly what one
would expect; but it lacks also the mastery one would expect to find in
a free sketch by Holbein. The hands are inferior, but they appear to
have been partly repainted; the background has also been entirely
repainted.... In its present state, it looks much more like a clever
study from the Arundel picture, than its pattern; anyhow the distance
between them is immense, but this does not prove much, for a very
inferior master to Holbein could elaborate a magical effect from a mere
rough sketch, provided this possessed the real germs of truth in
it.”[268]
Footnote 268:
Wornum, p. 313.
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF THE DUCHESS AT WINDSOR]
Woltmann, too, was of opinion that this small panel was not an original
work by Holbein. “We cannot find in the picture at Windsor,” he says
“that freedom and bold masterly style which absolutely belong to a
sketch from life, and which alone could have excited such lively
admiration in John Hutton. The picture at Windsor is very pretty and
graceful, but has something almost sober in its treatment. It can indeed
be just as little a copy from the large painting. It exhibits some
differences in the costume, for instance, a somewhat larger fur collar,
and another position of the fingers, although the characteristic
attitude of the hands is essentially the same. Christina also wears
three rings instead of a single one; namely, a black widow’s ring on the
little finger of the right hand, and on the next finger a gold hoop with
a square black stone. We might, therefore, believe that this is a copy
by another hand of the sketch Holbein painted from life. In favour of
this opinion, we find the head, which the sketch naturally gave most
distinctly, by far the best part of the painting, while the rest, which
was only indicated in the sketch, appears far weaker.”[269]
Footnote 269:
Woltmann, 1st ed., English translation, pp. 426-7.
Sir George Scharf describes with care the many small differences between
the two works. In addition to the three rings instead of one, mentioned
by Woltmann, the fur of the dress in the smaller picture is much deeper
and has every appearance of being a wide fur collar separate from and
placed over the black dress. In the larger portrait the fur is much
narrower, and evidently forms the lining and collar of the outer robe, a
narrow edging of it being shown down the front. In the National Gallery
picture, too, this outer robe is open several inches in front, showing
the under-dress of black and the knotted ribbon at the waist, all of
which are missing in the Windsor panel. Again, though the hands holding
the gloves have the same general position in both, the position of the
fingers shows considerable variation. In the smaller portrait the two
last fingers of the right hand and the two middle ones of the left are
bent inwards; in the larger, the only bent fingers are the two last of
the left hand. There are some other minor differences which need not be
specified.
Both pictures at one time belonged to Henry VIII, and are included in
the inventory of that King’s “money, jewels, plate, utensils, apparel,
wardrobe stuffs, goods and chattels, consigned to the care of Sir
Anthony Denny at Westminster.” The volume, now in the Record Office, is
dated April 24, 1542. They appear again in a similar inventory, made
after Henry’s death, taken “by vertue of a Commission under the greate
seale of England, bearing date at Westminster the viij day of September,
in the first year of our Sovereyne Lord Edwarde the Sixte” (1547). In
these, the smaller panel is described as “Item, a Table with a Picture
of the Duchesse of Myllayne.”
Woltmann’s conjecture that it is a contemporary copy made from Holbein’s
original sketch appears to be the true one, though for whom made it is
now impossible to say. There seems to be no reason why Henry, having the
full-length panel in his possession, should have commissioned this
smaller and inferior one. If ordered by Thomas Cromwell, which is not
very likely, it may have reached the King in the form of plunder after
the former’s execution; if done in order to be sent to the Duchess
herself, it is strange that it should have remained in England. In any
case, it cannot have been the “slobbered” work which Hutton, in his
eagerness to serve his royal master, had hurriedly despatched on its way
to London on the eve of Holbein’s arrival in Brussels. All the evidence
points to the latter as being the portrait of the Duchess “out of her
mourning apparel” which was to be given to the Lady Marquess, who had
promised to show it to Hutton when finished, as his letter tells us.
Hutton, pleading urgency, and knowing that the latter lady was in favour
of the match, in all probability borrowed it, or begged it as a gift.
This portrait of the Duchess of Milan,[270] 70 in. by 32 in. (Pl. 21),
is incomparably the greatest work from Holbein’s brush now remaining in
England; it is, indeed, in many respects his masterpiece. It is of
additional interest and value, too, as being the only full-length,
life-size portrait of a lady painted by him. She is represented
standing, facing and looking towards the spectator, her hands in front
of her holding her gloves. She is dressed in mourning apparel as the
widow of Sforza, a gown of plain black satin tied round the waist with a
black cord, and a long black cloak reaching to her feet, lined with
yellow sable, with a collar of the same fur, open in the front
sufficiently to allow a part of her dress to be seen. At her neck and
wrists are white frills with a narrow black edging, and on her head a
closely-fitting black cap, which covers all her hair, and a part of her
forehead. The gloves are pale buff, and her only ornament is a gold ring
with a red stone, probably a cornelian, on the third finger of her left
hand. The floor on which she stands is of pale yellow-brown colour,
though no floor-boards are indicated, and the background is a plain one
of deep blue, now almost black, only broken by the white cartellino over
the sitter’s left shoulder, which is affixed to the wall with four dabs
of red sealing-wax.
Footnote 270:
Woltmann, 2. Reproduced by Pollard, _Henry VIII_, p. 250; Davies, p.
172; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 121; and elsewhere.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 21
THE DUCHESS OF MILAN
1538
NATIONAL GALLERY, LONDON
]
Holbein made the choice of a true artist in thus depicting her in her
widow’s weeds instead of in all the bravery of the court dress which she
was again beginning to assume. The effect of fine rich colour produced
by this wonderful rendering of a plain black costume is masterly, but in
no way detracts the attention of the spectator from the grace of the
slender form and the vitality and subtle expression of the face, as more
elaborate accessories might have done. The whole panel is painted with
the utmost simplicity and directness, and yet is stamped with real
grandeur of style in every delicate stroke of the brush. The modelling
of the flesh is rendered with extraordinary delicacy, while the tints
are unusually transparent, and a faint rosy glow of health just flushes
her cheeks. Her dark-brown eyes, from under fair eyebrows, look out upon
the world with an intensity of expression which is surpassed in few, if
any, portraits by the greatest masters; the red lips are full of
character, but not more so than the hands, which are exquisitely
painted. In the painting of hands Holbein was always a master, but he
never accomplished anything finer in this direction than those of the
young Duchess. The portrait, indeed, bears the stamp of truth in every
line. The painter, who never exaggerated, has made no attempt to add to
the lady’s beauty; such as she was he painted her. The draperies are
admirably arranged, and the painting of fur and satin as good as
anything Holbein ever did, even in such portraits as that of Gisze. The
restrained but stately attitude of the young girl, still only on the
threshold of womanhood, the refined, reserved, and dignified character
in the fresh young face, which, though gentle, is in no way lacking in
strength, and the sense of humour lurking in the lips, combine to
produce an effect which is fascinating in the highest degree; indeed, in
the simplicity of its methods, the strength, refinement, and elegance of
its conception, and in its extraordinary vitality, it must always remain
not only Holbein’s masterpiece in the portraiture of women, but one of
the greatest portraits in the world.
[Sidenote: NATIONAL GALLERY PORTRAIT]
There is no doubt that Holbein painted the portrait immediately after
his return from Brussels, although some writers have suggested that it
is a year or so later in date than 1538. This conclusion is based
largely on the supposition that Holbein’s visit to High Burgundy later
in the same year was for the purpose of obtaining further sittings from
the Duchess; but this is an error, as will be shown in the next chapter.
The portrait was painted for Henry, and would naturally be done at once,
before the negotiations for the marriage were broken off, and it
remained in his collection throughout his life. Holbein was out of
England more often and for a longer period in 1538 than has been
generally supposed. In addition to at least one other continental
journey on the King’s service, he was absent from about the middle of
August until nearly Christmas, and thus everything indicates that this
important panel was painted in April or May.
Another argument, advanced by Sir George Scharf in favour of the
contention that it was painted some time after 1538, is that the name
and titles of the lady written on the fictitious piece of paper attached
to the dark background near to her left shoulder, by four dabs of
sealing-wax, designate her “Duchess of Lorraine.” This inscription Sir
George reads as: “Christine, Daughter to Christierne K. of Deñarke, and
Dutchess of Lotragne and heretofore (?) Dutches of Milan.” The writing,
however, is much rubbed, and is by no means easy to decipher; thus the
word which Sir George read as “heretofore,” Mr. Wornum considered to be
“hered” (hereditary). “This,” Sir George goes on to say, “would, if the
writing be contemporary with the picture, bring the date to 1541, the
year of her second marriage to Francis, Duke of Lorraine and Barr. The
style of writing on the paper may perhaps raise some question, and may
possibly be found to belong to the period of James I, when through his
Queen and the occasional presence of Christian IV in England, a
considerable interest was felt in matters connected with Denmark.”[271]
Footnote 271:
_Archæologia_, xl. p. 109. The date of her marriage to Lorraine
appears to have been 1540.
The inscription as it now is was probably painted over an earlier one
from Holbein’s brush, for it is too badly done to be original; but there
is no need to place it as late as Sir George suggests, for the Lumley
inventory speaks of her as the Duchess of Lorraine, so that the
alteration may have been due to Lord Lumley or his father-in-law. It is
even possible that Holbein may have placed no title of any kind on the
picture, but that the whole label was added by some other painter
employed for the purpose by the owner of Nonsuch.
In spite of Henry’s admiration for the picture, the proposed match came
to nothing, though for some time Hutton continued to write letters in
her praises. Thus, on the 1st April 1538, he wrote to the King:
[Sidenote: FAILURE OF MARRIAGE NEGOTIATIONS]
“Pleasithe Your Majestie to be advertissid that synns the
departyng frome hence of Phillipe Hobbie, I have for the most
part byne dayly in the Queyns chambre, by cawse I myght withe
the more commoditie aperceve, whether the great modestiosnes,
that is in the Duches of Myllayn, proceid of a symple
yngnorance, or of a naturall inclination acompenid withe wisdom;
to that intent I myght the better sartiffie Your Highnes of the
same. Wherunto I have inployid my selff withe all celeritie,
havyng bothe seyn and hard hir, aswell in matters off weight, as
playing at the cardes and other pastymys, not apercevyng in hir
anny liklihod that ther is want off wit, but rather to be
estemyd, emonge the nombre of wise, the wissist. Hir sobre and
gentill demenewre is myche lawdid by all them that knowe hir.
Soo that I take it to be above the compas off a womans wit to
dissemble longe withe that is graven in the hart to the
contrary, but I noot that in all hir acttes she uttrithe such a
myldnes, the wiche maniffestithe to be wroght in hir by nature,
and presarvid withe grace and wisdom.”[272]
Footnote 272:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. i. 656. _St. P._, viii. 21.
In the following month (May 17) he informed Wriothesley that “the Lady
Regent, acompenyd with the Duches Grace of Myllayn have byne dayly a
huntyng, wiche is the exarsis, that the bothe moste desyre, and have
greatest delit in; and by cawsse I have thought it my bounden duetie to
repayre wher the Duches Grace was, procuryng occation many tymis to
talke withe Hyr Grace, whom I fynd of myche wisdom, and of as great
modestiosnes, as ever I knewe anny woman. Sithe the tyme that Phelip
Hobbie departid frome theis parteis, Hir Grace hathe, bothe by woordes
and countenance, ussid towardes me myche benyngnitie.”[273]
Footnote 273:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. i. 1018. _St. P._, viii. 29.
He added that he had presented the Regent with four couple of young
hounds and an ambling gelding, and had promised the same to the Duchess,
“wiche offre she gently acceptyd.”
Early in June an obstacle to the match was suggested which proved that
the Emperor and his sister were only using the Duchess as a pawn on the
political chess-board, and that there was no real intention of giving
her to Henry. This obstacle was the fact that the Duchess was a near
kinswoman of the late Queen Katherine, Henry’s first wife, and that the
Pope’s dispensation was therefore necessary. The negotiations dragged on
throughout the year, Hutton suddenly dying in the middle of them, on
September 5, just when the King his master was sending over two
commissioners, Thomas Wriothesley, one of his secretaries, and Stephen
Vaughan, to treat personally with the Regent. There is no need to record
their adventures, or the manner in which that lady continually put them
off with plausible excuses. They followed her about the country on her
journey to Compiègne to meet the King and Queen of France. On neither
side was there any real sincerity, but the Englishmen, although Dr.
Edward Carne[274] was sent over to help them, could not score a point in
the game. They had several personal interviews with the Duchess, after
one of which they reported that “she is a godly personage, of stature
hiegher thenne eyther of us, a very good womans face, and competently
faire, but very wel favored, a lytle browne.”[275]
Footnote 274:
Knighted by the Emperor some years later.
Footnote 275:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. ii. 550. _St. P._, viii. p. 59.
After another interview Wriothesley wrote to the King, on February 1,
1539:
“A blinde man shuld judge no colours, but surely, Sir, after my
poure entendement, for that lyttel experyence that I have, she
is mervelous wise, very gentel, and as shamfast as ever I sawe
soo wittye a woman. I thinke her wisdome no lesse thenne the
Quenes, which in my pouer opinion is notable for a woman. Her
gentlenes excedeth. Asferre as I canne judge or here for this
lytel tyme that I have been here, I am deceyved, if she prove
not a good wief, if God send her a wise husbande; and sumwhat
the better I lyke her, for that I have been enformed that of all
the hole stock of them, her mother (Isabella, sister of Charles
V) was of best opinion in religion, and shewed it soo farre,
that bothe thEmperour and al the pack of them were sore greved
with Her, and seamed in thende to have Her in contempte. I wolde
hope no lesse of the doughter, if she might be so happye as to
nestle in Englande. Very pure, faire of colour she is not, but a
mervelous good brownishe face she bathe, with faire redd lippes,
and ruddy chekes; and oneles I be deceyved in my judgement,
which in all thinges, but specially in this kynde of judgement,
is very basse, she was yet never soo wel paynted, but her lyvely
visage dothe muche excel her poincture.”
* * * * *
Later on in the same interview Wriothesley pressed her as to her own
desire in the matter, and sang his master’s praises:
“At this she blusshed excedingly, and said: ‘Asfor myn
inclination,’ quod she, ‘what shuld I saye? You knowe that I am
at thEmperrurs commaundement,’ and again, ‘You knowe I am
thEmperours poore servaunt, and must followe his pleasour.’ Your
Majesties wisedom shall easly judge uppon this, of what
inclination the women be, and specially the Duchesse, whose
honest countenaunce, with the fewe woordes that she wisely
spake, together with that which I knowe by the meane of her most
secrete chamberers and servauntes, maketh me to thinke there
canne be no doubt in her.”[276]
Footnote 276:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiv. pt. i. 194. _St. P._, viii. 137.
[Sidenote: HISTORY OF THE PICTURE]
This letter seems to indicate that there is no truth in the well-known
story told by Sandrart, and repeated by Walpole, that the Duchess
herself was not anxious to become Queen of England, telling Henry’s
ambassadors that “she had but one head; if she had two, one of them
should be at his Majesty’s service.” On the contrary, Carne and his
fellow-commissioners frequently mentioned that she seemed bent on the
alliance, and could not bear to hear of any other marriage proposals.
Among the frequenters of the English court it was common gossip that she
was very likely to be the next queen. Thus, Robert Warner, of the Earl
of Sussex’s household, writing to Lord Fitzwater on November 21, 1538,
tells him that “there is small speaking of any queen; merely a report
that it should be the duchess of Milan. In any case it will be an
outlandish woman and will not happen till the spring.”[277] There was
also a report that the King had sent her a diamond worth 16,000 ducats.
Footnote 277:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. ii. 884. _Ellis_, 1st series, ii. 96.
Early in 1539 Francis and Charles V were in full accord, and Henry was
making every possible preparation for war. The Regent and the Emperor no
longer attempted to keep up the farce of a possible matrimonial alliance
with England, though even then Wriothesley was writing for Henry’s
“phisnamy,” which he thought would make the Duchess leave Emperor and
all rather than be frustrated of so great a match. In the end the three
ambassadors departed for home on March 19, though not without some
trouble, as war appeared imminent; and thus Holbein’s famous portrait
remained as the only record in Henry’s possession of these long and
futile negotiations.
The picture has never left England since the day it was painted. It was
in the possession of Henry VIII at the time of his death, and is
described in the inventory already mentioned, in which it is the twelfth
entry, as—“Item, a greate table with the picture of the Duchyes of
Myllayne, beinge her whole stature.” According to Mr. Lionel Cust,[278]
it passed from King Henry’s collection to that of the King’s cousin,
Henry Fitz-Alan, Earl of Arundel, after whose death it belonged to his
son-in-law, John, Lord Lumley, husband of the Earl’s eldest daughter and
co-heiress, Lady Joan Fitz-Alan. It is included in the manuscript
inventory of pictures and other objects of art belonging to Lord Lumley
in the reign of Queen Elizabeth already mentioned more than once. This
inventory is entitled “A Certyficate from Mr. John Lampton, Stewarde of
Howseholde to John, Lord Lumley, of all his Lo: Monumentes of Marbles,
Pictures and tables in Paynture, with other his Lordshippes Howseholde
stuffe, and Regester of Bookes. Anno 1590.” The picture is described as
“The statuary of the Duchess of Myllayne, afterwards Duches of Lorreyn
daughter to Christierne King of Denmarke doone by Haunce Holbyn,” the
word “statuary” being used for a standing whole-length figure.
Footnote 278:
Letter to _The Times_, May 5, 1909.
Against the contention that the picture passed directly from Henry’s
collection into the possession of the Earl of Arundel must be placed
Carel van Mander’s statement that in 1574 Zuccaro saw it in the Earl of
Pembroke’s house in London. “The said Zucchero,” he says, “was also
delighted with the portrait of a certain Countess, dressed in black
satin, life-size, a full-length figure, unusually pretty and well
painted by Holbein, and kept in Lord Pembroke’s house, where he saw it
in company with some painters and lovers of art, and took such great
delight in it, that he declared he had not seen its like in art and
delicacy even in Rome; therefore went away filled with admiration.”[279]
Footnote 279:
See Woltmann, English translation, p. 426.
Van Mander’s book was not published until 1604, thirty years later than
this incident, and it is, of course, quite possible that either he or
Zuccaro made a mistake as to the ownership of the picture and the place
where it had been seen; but the statement is very definite, and must be
taken into consideration in tracing the portrait’s history. In any case,
there is no doubt that Lord Lumley owned it in 1590, and that he was a
lover of Holbein’s works, of which he possessed a considerable number,
most of which have been referred to individually in preceding pages,
among them the great cartoon of Henry VII and Henry VIII belonging to
the Duke of Devonshire, and portraits of Erasmus, Sir Thomas More, and
Sir Henry and Lady Guideford, and the book of the Windsor drawings, all
of which are entered in the inventory as “drawne” or “doone” by “Haunce
Holbyn.” In Lord Lumley’s collection were also portraits of Sir Nicholas
Carew, Sir Thomas Lovell, the elder and the younger Sir Thomas Wyat, and
Sir Thomas Hennege, some of which also may well have been by Holbein,
though no artist’s name is placed against them in the list.
[Sidenote: HISTORY OF THE PICTURE]
For many years Lord Lumley resided at Nonsuch. The erection of this
palace was begun by Henry VIII in the year in which the Duchess was
painted. The house, of which Toto was probably the chief architect or
decorator,[280] was unfinished at the King’s death, and remained so
during the reign of Edward VI; but in that of Mary it was completed by
the Earl of Arundel, who had become possessed of it, “after the first
intent and meaning of the said King his old maister.” Here Lord Lumley
resided with his wife and father-in-law until the Earl’s death in 1580,
when he became its owner. He added the front quadrangle, and entertained
Queen Elizabeth there on more than one occasion. From his hands it
reverted to the Crown in 1591 in exchange for other property. No doubt
Lord Lumley’s collection of pictures remained at Nonsuch until that
year, and very possibly the inventory, dated 1590, was drawn up in
preparation for the removal of the works of art when this transfer of
estates took place.[281]
Footnote 280:
See Vol. i. pp. 276-7.
Footnote 281:
See Cust, _Burlington Magazine_, vol. xiv., March 1909, pp. 366-8, and
_The Times_, May 5, 1909; A. W. Franks, _Archæologia_, vol. xxxix. p.
35.
Upon the death of Lord Lumley without issue, it is evident that the
picture passed, with other portraits of the Fitz-Alan family, into the
possession of Philip Howard, Earl of Arundel, son of Thomas, fourth Duke
of Norfolk, and Lady Mary Fitz-Alan, younger daughter and co-heiress of
Henry, Earl of Arundel. Philip Howard was father of Thomas Howard, Earl
of Arundel, probably the greatest art-collector the world has ever
known. When in the latter’s possession it was seen by Sandrart, in 1627,
who mentions it as the portrait of the King’s “incomparable beloved one,
a princess of Lorraine” (unvergleichlicher Liebstin, einer Prinzessin
von Lothringen). It was entered in the Arundel inventory of 1655 as
“Duchessa de Lorena grande del naturale.”
From that time until 1909 it remained in the possession of the Howard
family. Walpole adds to his _Anecdotes_ a note to the effect that
“Vertue saw a whole length of this princess at Mr. Howard’s, in Soho
Square.”[282] It was afterwards at Worksop Manor, then belonging to the
Duke of Norfolk, and later on was removed to Arundel Castle, where it
was described in the catalogue as “a very curious portrait of a Duchess
of Milan.” It was included in the exhibition of Old Masters at
Burlington House in 1880, and the Duke of Norfolk then lent it to the
National Gallery, where it remained on loan for nearly thirty years.
About 1908 the Duke informed the Trustees that he was receiving large
offers for the picture, which he felt bound to consider, but that he was
most anxious that, if possible, it should be secured for the nation; and
he, therefore, gave an undertaking that before closing with any
purchaser he would first offer it to the Gallery at the same price.
Footnote 282:
Walpole, _Anecdotes_, ed. Wornum, p. 72.
On April 22, 1909, his Grace told the authorities that he had been
offered a sum of £61,000, which he had accepted, subject to the option
granted to the National Gallery of purchasing at the same price, and
that the purchasers had consented to wait until May 1 for the completion
of the transaction. As the Trustees were unable to find so great a sum
in so short a time, the Duke sold the picture to Messrs. P. & D.
Colnaghi & Co. for £61,000 on the latter date. The purchasers then in
turn offered it first of all to the nation, at the enhanced price of
£72,000, giving the Trustees a month in which to raise the necessary
fund. A determined effort to secure the picture was then made by the
chairman, Lord Balcarres, and committee of the National Art-Collections
Fund, but in spite of strenuous endeavours, the amount subscribed up to
within a few days of the expiration of the time-limit fell far short of
the great sum required. Most happily, however, at the last moment a
munificent anonymous donor came forward with a gift of £40,000, which,
with £10,000 from the Government, and other subscriptions, including one
from the vendors, enabled the Fund to complete the purchase, and thus
this great picture, undoubtedly the finest portrait Holbein ever
painted, for which more than one millionaire collector was prepared to
give an even greater price for its possession, was saved for the English
nation, and has at last found a permanent home in the National Gallery.
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF THE DUCHESS AS A CHILD]
It is interesting to note that this Duchess of Milan is identical with
the little dark-eyed girl wearing a peculiar hood in the well-known
picture of the three children of the King of Denmark by Mabuse, in the
English Royal Collection, now in Hampton Court. This picture was
engraved by Vertue in 1748, and was removed at that date from Kensington
Palace to Windsor. It was thought at that time—possibly the mistake was
Vertue’s—to represent the three children of Henry VII, Prince Arthur,
Prince Henry, and Princess Margaret, though in Henry VIII’s catalogue
they were correctly named as the “three children of the Kynge of
Denmarke.” The whole matter was cleared up by Sir George Scharf in a
paper read before the Society of Antiquaries in 1860, and printed in
_Archæologia_.[283] The original picture appears to have been painted in
the spring of 1526 at Malines, where Mabuse was then engaged, amid other
work, in restoring pictures for the Lady Regent. From a letter from Sir
Robert Wingfield to Wolsey, written from that city on the 14th March
1526, we learn that the young Prince of Denmark and his two sisters were
then on a visit to their aunt, “which be right goodly and fair children,
specially the daughters.”[284] A letter from the Emperor to the Archduke
Ferdinand, of about the same date, also mentions this visit. “I am sorry
to hear of the death of the Queen of Denmark. Her children are with my
aunt in Flanders.”[285]
Footnote 283:
Vol. xxxix. p. 245.
Footnote 284:
_C.L.P._, vol. iv. pt. i. 2025.
Footnote 285:
_C.L.P._, vol. iv. pt. i. No. 2051.
In Charles I’s catalogue this picture was attributed to Janet (“a
Whitehall piece thought to be of Jennet”); and the earliest instance of
its rightful ascription to Mabuse is in the Commonwealth inventory,
among the pictures at St. James’s, where it is entered as: “Three
children in one piece by Mabuse, sold to Mr. Grinder for £10, 23rd Oct.
1651.”
Sir George Scharf, comparing this juvenile likeness with the one painted
by Holbein some thirteen years later, says: “The same features and
expression of countenance, notwithstanding the difference of years, may
be traced in both. The look of the eyes is quite the same, and I would
also invite attention to the form of the upper eyelids which, especially
in the Arundel picture, become remarkably broad on the side away from
the nose.”[286] There are five or six replicas of the Mabuse picture in
this country, at Wilton, Sudeley Castle, Longford Castle, Corsham House,
and elsewhere. Other likenesses of the Duchess are to be found on
existing medals both of Sforza and Lorraine, and in the fine engraving
or etching of her by Agostino Carracci, published in Campo’s _History of
Cremona_.
Footnote 286:
_Archæologia_, vol. xl. p. 140.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER XXI
THE VISIT TO “HIGH BURGONY”[287]
Negotiations for a French wife for the King—Marie of Lorraine, Duchess
of Longueville, afterwards Queen of Scotland—Visit of Peter Mewtas
to France to obtain her portrait—Pierre Quesnel—Louise of
Guise—Holbein receives a royal licence to export beer—Hoby and
Holbein sent to Havre to take portraits of Louise of Guise and some
other lady—Renée of Guise—Expedition of Hoby and Holbein to
Joinville and Nancy to obtain portraits of Renée and her cousin,
Anne of Lorraine—Cromwell’s instructions—Letter from the Duchess of
Guise to her daughter, the Queen of Scotland, describing their
visit—Holbein’s salary and advances of his wages—Letter from Niklaus
Kratzer to Cromwell—Confusion as to the dates of Hoby’s and
Holbein’s continental journeys in 1538 owing to a wrong entry in the
_Calendar of Letters and Papers_—Holbein goes on to Basel from
Nancy.
Footnote 287:
The greater part of this chapter appeared in the _Burlington
Magazine_, vol. xxi., April 1912, pp. 25-30.
AS already stated in the last chapter, during the whole of the time the
negotiations for the hand of the Duchess of Milan were in progress,
others were being carried on concurrently for a French bride for Henry.
The King’s personal inclination, indeed, leant much more strongly
towards an alliance with France than one with the Emperor; and on
October 24th, the very day of Queen Jane Seymour’s death, Cromwell wrote
to Stephen Gardiner and Lord William Howard, then at the French court,
informing them of Henry’s loss, and urging them to make secret inquiries
as to a possible successor among the princesses of France. “Our Prince,”
he said, “our Lord be thanked, is in good health, and suckethe like a
child of his puissance, which youe, my Lord William, canne declare. Our
Mastres, thoroughe the faulte of them that were about Her, whiche
suffred Her to take greate cold, and to eate things that her fantazie in
syknes called for, is departed to God.”[288]
Footnote 288:
_St. P._, vol. viii. (pt. v. _continued_) 478.
He went on to say that the Council were unanimously of opinion that the
King should marry again as soon as possible:
[Sidenote: THE DUCHESS OF LONGUEVILLE]
“Soo considering what personages in Christendom be mete for Him,
amonges the rest there be two in Fraunce, that may be thought
on, thone is the Frenche Kinges doughter (Margaret, afterwards
Duchess of Savoy), whiche, as it is said, is not the metest, the
other is Madame de Longevile, whom they say the King of Scottes
dothe desire. Of whose conditions and qualities in every pointe
His Majeste desireth you both, with all your dexterite and good
meanes, to enquire; and likewise in what pointe and termes the
said King of Scottes standeth towards either of them; whiche His
Highnes is soo desirous to knowe, His Graces desire therin to be
nevertheles in any wise kept secret to your selfes.”
The details of the careful search which was made throughout France for a
suitable successor to Jane Seymour are to be found in the very
entertaining letters written by Louis de Perreau, Sieur de Castillon,
the French ambassador in London, to Francis I and his Grand Master, Anne
de Montmorency. The negotiations necessitated the despatch of numerous
envoys and messengers, and the painting of four or five portraits; and
there is very good evidence for the belief that two or three of these
were painted by Holbein, for which purpose he made at least two
journeys—to Le Havre in June 1538, and to Joinville and Nancy at the end
of the following August.
In the first instance, Henry’s inclinations were very strongly set upon
Marie of Lorraine, the eldest daughter of Claude, Duke of Guise, and the
young widow of Charles d’Orléans, Duke of Longueville, although she had
been promised to James V of Scotland before Jane Seymour’s death. Henry
knew quite well that this arrangement had been made, but he would not
listen to the names of other ladies which were suggested to him, and
maintained with great pertinacity to Castillon that the match with
Scotland had not yet been settled, and that Madame de Longueville had
not herself agreed to it. “He is so amorous of Madame de Longueville,”
wrote Castillon to Francis, on December 30, 1537, “that he cannot
refrain from coming back upon it.” “I asked him,” he goes on, “who
caused him to be more inclined to her than to others, and he said Wallop
was so loud in her praises that nothing could exceed them. Moreover, he
said that he was big in person, and had need of a big wife—that your
daughter was too young for him, and as to Madame de Vendosme, he would
not take the King of Scots’ leavings!”[289]
Footnote 289:
_C.L.P._, vol. xii. pt. ii. 1285.
Either in December 1537 or early in the following January, Henry sent
over Peter Mewtas, of the Privy Chamber, to see the Duchess secretly,
and to find out from her whether she considered herself bound to James;
and as a result of this mission he appears to have convinced himself
that, whatever Francis I might have arranged, the lady herself and her
parents were attracted by his offer, considering an alliance with so
powerful a sovereign to be preferred to one with the “beggarly and
stupid King of Scots,” as Henry termed his nephew to Castillon. There
was a political attraction, also, about the proposal, from Henry’s point
of view, for if he succeeded in taking James’s bride from him it would
tend to alienate the Scots from France.
Formal articles of marriage, however, between the lady and James V were
drawn up in January; but in spite of this Henry stuck to his point, and
about the 1st of February Peter Mewtas was again despatched by Cromwell
to find out definitely if she were still free, and also to obtain her
portrait. The instructions given him need not be quoted here. They
concluded by saying that if he perceived any towardness in the lady, he
was, if possible, to get and bring with him “her picture truly made and
like unto her.”[290]
Footnote 290:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. i. 203. _St. P._, viii. 10.
[Sidenote: PIERRE QUESNEL AND HIS SONS]
Mewtas’ mission proved fruitless, and he was back in London some time
before the 6th March. There is no evidence to show that he succeeded in
obtaining a portrait of Madame de Longueville, or that he took Holbein
or any other painter with him for that purpose. The Duchess seems to
have been in Normandy, possibly at Longueville or Le Havre, and it may
have been left to Mewtas to obtain the services of some local French
painter, if such an one were to be procured. It is more likely, however,
that a painter would be taken over for the purpose, though this was not
mentioned in the instructions, as it was in the case of Hoby’s mission
to Brussels. If any one were taken, it may have been Holbein, who was
known personally to Mewtas, for among the Windsor drawings there is one
of the latter’s wife.[291] This, however, is mere conjecture, and there
is no evidence, either in writing or in the shape of a drawing, to show
that Holbein took the portrait of this particular duchess; indeed, the
fact of his journey to the Netherlands seems to point to the contrary,
for Mewtas only returned to England from France early in March, so that
if Holbein had accompanied him, he would have had to start off again
without a moment’s delay with Hoby in order to reach Brussels as he did
on the 10th of the same month. It was, of course, possible for him to
have made both journeys, but the interval between the two was so short
that extreme expedition would have been necessary.
Footnote 291:
Woltmann, 339; Wornum, ii. 20; Holmes, ii. 16. See pp. 257-8.
There was, however, a French painter, Pierre Quesnel, who may possibly
have been attached to Madame de Longueville’s court at the time of
Mewtas’ visit; in any case, he accompanied her to Edinburgh two months
later, and entered the service of James V. He came of a family of
portrait painters, and also practised historical painting. His works are
now unknown, but he returned to France in 1557, and designed a painted
window for the Augustins of Paris. He had three sons, François, Nicolas,
and Jacques. François,[292] who was born in Holyrood about 1543 and died
in 1619, was a portrait-painter of exceptional ability, as may be seen
from the fine portrait of “Mary Ann Walker” belonging to Lord Spencer at
Althorp Park, of which an excellent reproduction in colour has been
issued by the Medici Society in their National Portrait Series. It is
signed “F. Q.” in monogram, and dated 1572. This picture was brought
from France about one hundred years ago, and was obtained from a
descendant of the lady’s family. In this connection it may be suggested
that the double portrait of “James V and Marie of Lorraine,”[293] in the
collection of the Duke of Devonshire at Hardwick, may possibly have
been, in its original state, the production of the elder Quesnel’s
brush.[294] It must be noted, in conclusion, that there is no record in
the English State Papers of the result of Mewtas’ mission, and so it is
doubtful if Henry VIII ever possessed a portrait of the lady, whether by
Quesnel, or Holbein, or any other painter, such as Hornebolt, in the
King’s pay.
Footnote 292:
See Dimier, _French Painting in the Sixteenth Century_, pp. 191 and
289.
Footnote 293:
Reproduced in the _Burlington Magazine_, Oct. 1906, p. 41, in an
article on “The Portraits of Mary Queen of Scots,” by Mr. Lionel Cust
and Miss K. Martin.
Footnote 294:
This picture was exhibited at the Golden Fleece Exhibition at Bruges
in 1907 (No. 130), as the work of an unknown Scottish painter.
Marie was married to the King of Scots on the 9th May, thus putting a
final end to Henry’s plans in that direction. In her place, Francis
offered him, through Castillon, the choice of any other lady in his
kingdom. He was told that “she had a sister as beautiful and as
graceful, clever and well-fitted to please and obey him as any other.”
This remark bore fruit, and the next morning the King sent Sir John
Russell, a member of his Privy Council, to make further inquiries.
Castillon told the latter that France was a warren of honourable ladies,
from which Henry might choose, and that Louise of Guise was the very
counterpart of Madame de Longueville. He had not seen her for a long
time, but had heard her esteemed above any other lady in the kingdom.
Russell then asked Castillon “to find some way that Francis (to show it
was not as a refusal that he could not have Madame de Longueville, but
because she was promised beforehand) should offer him her sister, and
say something of it to M. Briant (Sir Francis Brian, Master of the
Toils, then ambassador to France), who would then send her
portrait.”[295] “Probably,” added Castillon, in writing to Francis, “he
is troubled that it must be known that his great instance made for the
one is so suddenly changed for the other.” Francis sent word in reply
(May 25) that he would very willingly conclude a match with Henry and
Louise of Guise; and on the 31st of the same month Castillon wrote to
the Grand Master, Montmorency, urging greater expedition in the matter.
“If he (Henry) is to marry in France,” he said, “three or four must be
put forward, but let them be of the best and such as Montmorency shall
advise as well to M. Brian as in letters from the King to Castillon, who
should also have portraits of these put forward.”[296]
Footnote 295:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. i. 994. Kaulek, 47.
Footnote 296:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. i. 1102. Kaulek, 54.
[Sidenote: PROBABLE VISIT TO HAVRE]
The narrative may be broken off here to note that Holbein, who remained
in London throughout April and May, engaged, among other things, upon
the full-length portrait of the Duchess of Milan, received, on the 29th
of the latter month, the grant of a royal licence to export “600 tuns of
beer.” It runs as follows: “Hans Holbeyn, the King’s servant. Licence to
buy and export 600 tuns of beer. _Del._ Westminster, 29th May 30 Hen.
VIII.”[297] The painter was evidently prepared, when the opportunity
arose, to engage in small commercial speculations in order to augment
his income, as was the case with more than one of his brother artists
attached to Henry’s court. Thus, in April 1531, Luke Hornebolt received
a licence to export 400 quarters of barley,[298] and Anthony Toto, “the
King’s painter,” was granted one in April 1541,[299] exactly similar to
Holbein’s, for the exporting of 600 tuns of beer. Again, Alard Plumier,
“the King’s jeweller,” in March 1542,[300] obtained grants for importing
400 tuns of Toulouse woad and Gascon wine, and exporting 400 tuns of
beer; while, as already mentioned, Holbein’s friend and compatriot,
Niklaus Kratzer, the King’s astronomer, received a very similar licence
in October 1527.[301]
Footnote 297:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. i. 1099 and 1115(65).
Footnote 298:
_C.L.P._, vol. v. 220(21).
Footnote 299:
_C.L.P._, vol. xvi. 779(18).
Footnote 300:
_C.L.P._, vol. xvii. 220(3).
Footnote 301:
_C.L.P._, vol. iv. pt. ii. 3540(28).
Henry rose promptly to the bait of Louise of Guise as a wife in place of
her elder sister, now unattainable, and as usual no time was wasted. On
the 3rd of June he despatched Philip Hoby and a painter to Havre to
obtain the lady’s portrait. This we learn from a letter of Castillon’s
to Montmorency, dated June 4th, describing an interview between the Duke
of Norfolk and the ambassador’s “secretaire a cachetter” respecting the
suggested marriage, which concludes with the following passage: “Finally
he (Norfolk) said that yesterday he (Henry) despatched the gentleman,
who wanted to go to see” (“vouloit aller”; Kaulek reads “souloit”)
“Madame de Longueville, to Hâvre de Grâce to see Mademoiselle de Guyse;
for a Scotchman has come hither who has said he wonders at the King of
Scots taking a widow rather than a young girl, her sister, the most
beautiful creature that ever he saw.”[302] In the same letter Castillon
again urges that portraits of two or three of the ladies mentioned in
his previous despatch should be sent as quickly as possible, as the
matter is pressing. In this document there is no reference to Hoby by
name, nor mention of any painter accompanying him; nor is there any
entry in the King’s Book of Payments as to any expenses paid for such a
journey either to Hoby or any other special envoy. Hoby had paid a visit
to France earlier in the year in connection with his master’s
matrimonial affairs. He had been sent over in February, at about the
same time as Mewtas, and evidently, like the latter, for the purpose of
urging Madame de Longueville to throw over James V. For this expedition
he received exactly the same sum, £23, 6_s._ 8_d._, as for his journey
to Brussels in the following March. It is entered among the royal
payments for February as “Philip Hoby, sent into France about the King’s
necessaries and affairs of importance, £23, 6_s._ 8_d._”[303]
Footnote 302:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. i. 1135. Kaulek, 37.
Footnote 303:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. ii. 1280 (f. 2_b_).
But although there is no record of payment for this second journey in
June to Havre, or mention of him by name, there is no doubt that Hoby
was the envoy sent, and that Holbein accompanied him. Evidence of this
is contained in a letter, quoted below,[304] from the Duchess of Guise
to her daughter Marie in Scotland, dated September 1, which speaks of
the arrival of Hoby and Holbein at Joinville, and mentions their earlier
visit to Havre. Contributory evidence is contained in Castillon’s letter
of June 4, in which he describes the messenger sent as one who had
already been over to see, or to try to see, Madame de Longueville, which
undoubtedly refers to Hoby’s journey in February. According to the same
letter from Joinville, two portraits at least were painted at Havre, or
rather studies made, which would only occupy the artist for an hour or
two, as in the case of the Duchess of Milan, the sitters in question
being Louise of Guise, who was then eighteen, and some other
lady—possibly Marie or Margaret of Vendôme.
Footnote 304:
See p. 148.
Somewhere about the date of Hoby’s return from Havre, a third French
candidate for Henry’s hand appeared upon the scene. This was Renée, the
third daughter of the Duke of Guise, who afterwards became abbess of St.
Pierre de Reims. Castillon wrote to Montmorency on June 19: “If you wish
to entertain this King urge always the marriages; for he only waits for
them to be presented, and the pictures must be sent immediately. He has
heard that Mons, de Guyse has a daughter still more beautiful than the
second. I hear she is in a religious order, but not professed (_qu’elle
est en une religion, mais elle n’est pas religieuse_). You can say
something of it to Mr. Bryant; for he (Henry) expects to be asked and to
have several offered to him.”[305]
Footnote 305:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. i. 1217. Kaulek, 64.
It will be seen from this letter that Castillon, who was probably
unaware of the steps Henry was taking to obtain likenesses by means of
his own artists, was doing his utmost, on his own account, to get
portraits of likely ladies sent over from France. In a later letter
(July 3) he harps upon the same theme. After reporting that Henry is
still in the best of humours, and is ready to meet Francis at a house
which he will have made between Boulogne and Calais, where they can both
stay for six or seven days without pomp or great expense, he concludes
by saying: “The principal point to bring him over to the interests of
Francis is that he take a wife in France, and they must be more
energetic than they have been, and let his ambassador see and send
portraits and write news; for he wishes to be sought, and in the seeking
they will put him so far in that he cannot draw back.”[306]
Footnote 306:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. i. 1320. Kaulek, 65.
[Sidenote: HENRY’S SEARCH FOR A BRIDE]
In his reply, dated July 10, Montmorency stated that a portrait of
Louise of Guise had been obtained for Brian, who must have already
despatched it to England. “If the King does not decide upon her,” he
said, “others shall be shown to Brian.”[307] Castillon, who, on account
of the plague in London, was then living in Chelsea, in Sir Thomas
More’s old house, which had been lent to him by the King for the summer,
announced to Francis I on July 25 that Brian “has sent the portrait of
Mademoiselle de Guise, whom this King does not think ugly, as I know by
his face.”[308] In spite, however, of Henry’s appreciation of the lady’s
charms, Castillon, in a letter to Montmorency of the same date, urged
that portraits of Mademoiselle de Vendôme and the young de Guise (_i.e._
Renée) should be despatched with all diligence.[309]
Footnote 307:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. i. 1356.
Footnote 308:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt i. 1451. Kaulek, 73.
Footnote 309:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. i. 1452. Kaulek, 74.
Throughout these negotiations Henry frequently suggested that a
selection of ladies should be brought to Calais for his personal
approval, in charge of Francis’ sister, Margaret of Navarre, or some
other high personage, such as the Duke of Guise. “The ladies he means,”
wrote Castillon to Francis on August 12, “are Mesdemoiselles de
Vendôsme, de Lorraine, and the two de Guise. He has heard something of
the younger of the two last, and I think he will settle on one of them.
He has a great opinion of their house.”[310] This request of Henry’s
gave great offence in France, which was voiced in a letter from
Montmorency to Castillon on July 29: “To bring him thither (_i.e._ to
Calais), as he asks, young ladies to choose and make them promenade on
show! They are not hackneys to sell, and there would be no propriety in
it. Henry has his choice of Mdlle. de Vendosme, or Mdlle. de Guise, and
can judge of their beauty by the portraits and reports made to him; and
if these be not approved, there are many other ladies from whom to
choose. The selection might be left to his ambassador, Briant, who could
send portraits.”[311] Even this did not quell the King, and in the end
he was informed that Lorraine was not under the sway of Francis, and
that he would have to apply for the hand of the damsel (Anne of
Lorraine) to her father and mother, and as for the two daughters of
Guise, one had already professed as a nun, while the other, as well as
the daughter of M. de Vendosme, could not be disposed of as though they
were on sale.
Footnote 310:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. ii. 77. Kaulek, 80.
Footnote 311:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. i. 1496.
This official portrait of Louise of Guise by some French painter, which
Brian sent over—and possibly a second one of Marie of Vendôme, as may be
inferred from the last quoted letter—must not be confused with those
privately procured by Hoby at Havre in June. These later French
portraits cannot now be traced, and it would be mere guesswork to
attempt to name the artist who was employed to produce them; but a
careful search through the royal collections or in some of the older
houses in England might possibly result in their discovery.
Some time in August Holbein and Hoby set out together upon their journey
“into the parties of high Burgony.” The purpose of their expedition was
to obtain portraits of Renée of Guise, the Duke’s third daughter, and of
her cousin, Anne of Lorraine, while Hoby was to sound the latter’s
father as to his inclinations towards a possible marriage between his
house and England. Hoby’s instructions from Cromwell, as given in
abstract in the State Papers, run as follows:
“‘A memorial [by Cromwell] to my friend Philip Hoby touching
such matters as he hath now committed to his charge.’
“To repair with diligence where the young duke of Longueville
lies, where he shall find the two daughters of Mons, de Guyse,
whom he shall salute, declaring that having business in these
parts he could not omit to visit the one of them ‘of whom he
hath by his late being there some acquaintance.’ And therewith
he shall view well the younger sister, and shall require the
Duchess, her mother, or whoever has the government of them, that
he may take the physiognomy of her, that he may join her sister
and her in a fair table. Which obtained, he shall go to the duke
of Lorraine, deliver my letter of credence, and declare that no
doubt he has heard of my good will to advance some personage of
his house to the marriage of the King my master; and albeit my
purpose has not taken the effect I desired, yet my affection
remains the same; and learning lately that his Grace has a
daughter of excellent quality, I directed the said Philip, who
has other affairs there, to see her and get her picture.
Requiring him to show his inclination and devise some overture
to the King, upon which I may set forth this thing. Philip shall
also speak in the same manner to the young lady. As soon as he
has gotten her physiognomy and known the Duke’s pleasure he
shall return with all possible diligence.”[312]
Footnote 312:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. i. 380(i).
[Sidenote: JOURNEY TO JOINVILLE AND NANCY]
When Marie of Guise married James V of Scotland she left her son
François, Duke de Longueville, behind her in charge of his maternal
grandmother, Anthoinette of Bourbon, Duchess of Guise, who throughout
1538 was at Joinville, one of the chief residences of the family, or at
places in the immediate neighbourhood. Joinville is a small town in
Champagne, situated on the Marne between Chaumont and Saint-Dizier, and
was made a principality by Henri II in 1552 in favour of Duke Claude’s
eldest son, François II of Guise. Mary Queen of Scots resided there for
some time when a young girl, under the care of her maternal grandmother,
the Duchess of Guise. Miss Jane T. Stoddart, in her recently-published
book, _The Girlhood of Mary Queen of Scots_, describes Joinville as
follows:
“The train from Bar-le-Duc passes through a fertile, well-wooded
country, with many sparkling streams and closely planted
villages. There are few more picturesquely situated towns in
Eastern France than Joinville, which lies on a branch of the
Marne, in a valley overshadowed by undulating tree-clad heights,
on one of which, until near the end of the eighteenth century,
stood the Castle of the Guises.... The woods of Joinville to-day
are full of singing birds. Every variety of foliage clothes the
deep ravines. The high road leading towards Wassy is fringed
with innumerable small, well-kept gardens, and the air, on May
evenings, is not only light and bracing, but sweet with the
scent of flowers. The little town must have changed very much in
appearance since the sixteenth century. It once possessed a wall
and three gates, and an old map in the Hôtel de Ville shows more
than a dozen spires.... It acquired great importance under the
first Dukes of Guise, who used it as their habitual country
residence, and entertained royal personages in the Castle with
regal magnificence. That proud Castle was allowed to fall into
ruins during the eighteenth century.... The picturesque quays
near the church, where the grass-impeded Marne runs between rows
of tall, irregularly built houses, cannot have altered greatly
since Queen Mary’s time. In unexpected corners we find
whitewashed houses adorned with old and costly sculptor’s work,
with carved pillars, and scrolls of vine-leaves surrounding the
porch.”[313]
Footnote 313:
Stoddart, _Girlhood of Mary Queen of Scots_, chapter xxi. p. 346 _et
seq._
* * * * *
For Joinville, then, the diplomatist and the artist set out about the
middle of August. The journey was a long one, and Hoby received in
advance for travelling expenses, £66, 13_s._ 4_d._, nearly three times
as much as he had been paid for his earlier journeys to Havre and
Brussels, thus showing that the expedition was to be of considerably
longer duration. This payment is entered in the royal accounts under
August, anno 30, and is undated, but as may be gathered from entries
preceding and following it, it was on some day between August 11 and 22.
The place of destination is not mentioned; Hoby is said merely to be
“sent into the parts of beyond the sea with all diligence.”[314]
Footnote 314:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. ii. 1280 (f. 32).
All the information so far to be gained about this journey is contained
in a letter from the Duchess of Guise to her daughter in Scotland, dated
September 1, which is preserved among the Balcarres MSS. in the
Advocates’ Library in Edinburgh. From it we learn that the two
travellers reached Joinville on August 30. The letter begins by
describing the health of the youthful Duke of Longueville, who was not
quite three years old, and was growing very tall and plump, and goes on
to give an account of the illnesses of various members of the family.
Louise was still ill of the fever, and had not moved from her bed for
eight days. Her brother Claude had been ill, even to death, at Autun,
but was now quite out of danger. “Your sister Anthoinette is also ill of
a fever and of a rheum, but I think she will do well. Your aunt (the
Duchess of Lorraine) is sent for to be at Court at the coming of the
Queen of Hungary, who is to be presently at Compiègne, where the King
and all the Court will be in a few days.”
The letter then continues:
[Sidenote: HOLBEIN AT JOINVILLE AND NANCY]
“It is but two days since the gentleman of the King of England
who was at Havre and the painter were here. The gentleman came
to me, pretending that he was going to the Emperor, and having
heard that Louise was ill, would not go without seeing her, that
he might report news of her to the King his master. He saw her
(it was the day of her fever), and talked with her as he had
done to me. He then told me that, being so near Lorraine, he
wished to go to Nency to see the country. ‘Je me doute (doubtai)
in contynent il y allet voir la demoyselle (_i.e._ Anne of
Lorraine) pour la tirer comes les aultres;’ for which reason I
sent to their lodging to see who was there, and found the said
painter was there. In fact they have been at Nency, where they
spent a day, and were well entertained, and at every meal the
_maître de hôtel_ came to eat with them, with plenty of
presents. ‘Vella se que j’en ay encore seu; au pis alle sy
navyes pour voysine vostre seur se pouret estre vostre
cousine.’”[315]
Footnote 315:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. ii. 262. Balcarres MS., ii. 20. For the
original text of this letter, see Appendix (L).
* * * * *
This letter fully bears out Cromwell’s instructions to Hoby. It is plain
from its wording that Hoby had already obtained a portrait of Louise at
Havre, and at least one other, of some unnamed lady (“pour la tirer
comes _les aultres_”); and that the painter who had drawn them was the
painter now at Joinville. Their journey was, however, in part at least,
a failure, for their chief purpose in visiting the Duchess was to obtain
a portrait of her daughter Renée, the “religieuse.” Hoby was ordered “to
take the physiognomy of her, that he may join her sister and her in a
fair table”; in other words, he was to get a drawing of the younger girl
in order that her portrait might be painted as a companion to the one of
her sister Louise already completed, so that they might be hung side by
side in one of those double frames hinged together of which Henry VIII
had several in his collection. Unfortunately for their purpose, Renée
was not at Joinville, so that nothing could be done, and Hoby had to be
content with an interview with Louise in her bedchamber. The fourth
daughter, Anthoinette, was at home, but she was then only a child of
seven. Thanks to the curiosity of the Duchess, however, we know that
they succeeded in the second half of their mission. They spent a day at
Nancy, where they were well received by the Duke of Lorraine, and
evidently procured the drawing required, which Holbein would easily make
in a few hours. Hoby attempted to conceal the real purpose of this visit
to Nancy from the Duchess of Guise, but the lady was sharp enough to
guess what was in the wind. Whether Louise or Anne, however, it was all
in the family. “If the worst comes to the worst,” she tells the Queen of
Scots, “if you do not have your sister for neighbour, it may well be
your cousin.”
The letter is far from easy to decipher, owing to its extraordinary
spelling and grammar. It is difficult to gather from it which of the two
places Hoby and his companion first visited. The Duchess, writing only
two days after they had been with her, says that the envoy told her that
“he wished to go to Nency,” which seems to indicate a prospective
journey; but, on the other hand, she says “they have been to Nency,” and
a journey from Joinville to Nancy and back again, together with a whole
day spent at the latter place, could not possibly have been accomplished
between August 30 and September 1, so that it looks as though they had
gone straight to the Duke of Lorraine in spite of Cromwell’s
instructions, and then from there on to Joinville. The point, however,
is of little importance.
Neither in Cromwell’s instructions nor the Duchess’s letter is Holbein
mentioned by name, but that he was the painter who accompanied Hoby
seems certain. In less than a fortnight afterwards he was in Basel, an
easy journey from Lorraine, where he made a stay of at least some weeks,
returning to England some time before Christmas, when he received from
the royal purse a special reward of £10 for his journey into “high
Burgony.” The entry runs as follows: “December, A^o xxx:—Item payde to
Hans Holbyn, one of the Kingis paynters, by the Kingis commaundement,
certefyed by my Lorde pryviseales lettre, x _li._ for his costis and
chargis at this tyme sent aboute certeyn his gracis affares into the
parties of high Burgony, by way of his Graces rewarde, x _li._”[316]
Footnote 316:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. ii. 1280 (f. 48).
Wornum and other writers have assumed that this journey to High Burgundy
had to do with the painting of the portrait of the Duchess of Milan. The
former even suggests that the £10 might be a deferred payment for the
visit to Brussels in March.[317] But the title “High Burgony” was quite
appropriate to the district in which Joinville and Nancy are situate.
Woltmann says that High Burgundy was the name given to the county of
Burgundy (Franche Comté), which belonged to the Emperor, in distinction
to the duchy of Burgundy, which was French, and added that, in those
days, the denomination would not have been impossible for
Switzerland.[318] It may be taken, therefore, considering the lack of
accurate geographical knowledge then existing in England, that the
expression “High Burgony” sufficiently indicated, in the mind of the
keeper of the royal accounts, that part of the world in which Guise and
Lorraine had their headquarters.
Footnote 317:
Wornum, p. 315.
Footnote 318:
Woltmann, i. p. 455.
[Sidenote: THE PAYMENT OF HOLBEIN’S SALARY]
That the payment of this special reward to Holbein—his travelling and
other expenses would be included in the sum of £66, 13_s._ 4_d._ paid to
Hoby—was deferred until Christmas was owing to the fact that, finding
himself so near Switzerland when at Joinville, he seized the opportunity
of paying a visit to his family in Basel, and so remained absent from
England for about three months in all. Another point in favour of the
contention that Holbein was abroad on the King’s business during 1538
more often than has been generally supposed, is to be found in the fact
that at the Midsummer quarter he received three-quarters of a year’s
salary in advance. At Lady Day he had been paid his customary quarter’s
salary: “Lady Day, Anno xxix:—Item for Hans Holben, paynter, vii _li._
x_s._”
At Midsummer he received £30, a whole year’s salary, but it included the
quarter from Lady Day then owing to him. The entry reads: “Midsummer,
Anno xxx:—Item for Hans Holbyn, paynter, for one hole yere’s annuitie
advaunced to him beforehand the same yere, to be accomptedde from o^r
Ladye dey last past, the somme of xxx _li._”
On the two following quarter-days, owing to this payment in advance, he
is entered as receiving nothing:
“Michaelmas, A^o xxx:—Item for Hans Holbyn, paynter, wages
nihil^a quia solutum per warrantum.” “Christmas, A^o xxx:—Item
for Hans Holbyn, paynter, Nihil.”
This payment in advance has generally been regarded as a mark of the
King’s special favour and as an acknowledgment of his talents as an
artist, but it was more probably due to his frequent absences from
England at that time. On the one hand, his several journeys might well
entail some amount of extra expenditure not covered by his travelling
allowances, while on the other his income would be reduced through the
limited time left him for painting the portraits of English courtiers or
German merchants. There is, in fact, no portrait from his brush bearing
the date 1538. Added to this, his great success in painting the Duchess
of Milan must be taken into account. The King was delighted with this
portrait, and his choice would naturally fall upon the man who had
painted it when a similar journey was in contemplation.
There is one piece of evidence, however, against the assumption that
Holbein was the painter who went to Joinville, which must not be
overlooked—a letter from Niklaus Kratzer, the King’s astronomer, to
Cromwell. It is a much-mutilated epistle, written in somewhat halting
and incorrect Latin. Kratzer begins by saying that he had received, the
day before writing, by a ship from Antwerp, two little books by Georgius
Spalatinus, which the author had sent to him in order that he might
present them to Cromwell. “These,” he says, “I gave to Hans Holbein
(Joanni Holbein), in order that he might give them to you.” At first
sight this looks as though Kratzer might have given Holbein the books to
deliver, knowing that he was about to visit Cromwell for final
instructions on the eve of his departure for High Burgundy. The
letter,[319] however, is dated St. Bartholomew’s Day, August 24 (Datum
Lunduni, in [festo Sancti] Bartholomei), so that if Kratzer had seen
Holbein on August 23, the latter could not possibly have reached
Joinville by the 30th; for although the King’s messengers were
accustomed to travel with great expedition—Castillon complains to
Montmorency that the English couriers took only five or six days between
Paris and London, whereas the French messengers took double that time—it
would have been impossible, even with the utmost speed then attainable,
to reach the far borders of eastern France within a week. But although
the letter is dated “St. Bartholomew’s Day,” it has no year-date. It has
been placed under the year 1538 by the editor of the _Calendars of
Letters and Papers_ from such internal evidence in it as it is possible
to decipher; but it is so badly mutilated that it is impossible to make
much sense of the greater part of it. It contains news from abroad, and
mentions Burgratus, vice-chancellor of the Duke of Saxony; and Burgratus
was certainly in London in the summer of 1538, with other envoys from
the German Protestant princes. These envoys, however, paid more than one
visit to England. As, therefore, the letter contains no evidence
absolutely conclusive of the date 1538, it may, perhaps, be permitted to
hold the opinion that it was written in some other year, and that, by
itself, it is not sufficient to negative the strong proofs brought
forward to show that Holbein was the painter who made this particular
journey into France. Nor was this the only occasion on which Spalatinus
used Kratzer as the medium for sending copies of his writings to
Cromwell. On February 5, 1539, Cromwell wrote to the King, enclosing “a
book brought this morning by Nic. Cratzer, astronomer, which Geo.
Spalatinus, some time schoolmaster to the duke of Saxony, desired him to
deliver to the King, on ‘The Solace and Consolation of Princes.’”[320]
Footnote 319:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. ii. 179.
Footnote 320:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiv. pt. i. 227. _St. P._, i. 592.
[Sidenote: THE DATE OF HOBY’S INSTRUCTIONS]
One other point in connection with this subject must be mentioned before
leaving it. Hoby’s instructions for visiting the courts of the Duchess
of Guise and the Duke of Lorraine are not dated. The editor of the
_Calendars_ has entered them under February 1538, together with the very
similar instructions for the visit to the Duchess of Milan, which are
also undated, placing both under the one heading, “Philip Hoby’s
Missions.” For the latter instructions, which he puts second, February
is, of course, the correct date, but the former should be under August,
as the preceding pages prove. Dr. Gairdner was misled, in the first
place, by the fact that in February Hoby received payment from the royal
purse for a journey to France, and, in the second, through his
misreading of the heading to the Brussels instructions, as explained in
the last chapter.[321] By the insertion of two unnecessary words,[322]
the last-named instructions are made to read as though it was Cromwell’s
intention that Hoby, on this particular journey, should go first of all
to the Duchess of Lorraine, and then to the Duchess of Milan. He
concludes from this, in his preface to vol. xiii. pt. i. of the
_Calendars of Letters and Papers_, that Hoby went to France in February
for the purpose of obtaining the portraits of Marie of Guise and her
sister Louise in a single picture, and immediately upon his return set
out for Brussels to get one of the Duchess of Milan. There is no need to
quote the whole of his argument, as it is based upon a misapprehension,
for the instructions in question were undoubtedly drawn up in August, as
the letter of the Duchess of Guise, of the 1st of September, clearly
proves.[323]
Footnote 321:
See above, pp. 119-20.
Footnote 322:
“Instructions given by the L. Cromwell to Philip Hoby, sent over by
him to the Duchess of Lorraine then [to the] Duchess of Milan.”
Footnote 323:
After pointing out that the instructions order Hoby to return home at
once after obtaining portraits of the two Guises and the daughter of
the Duke of Lorraine, he continues: “Yet instructions for his
proceeding on another very similar mission seem to have been drawn up
at or near the same time; and by these second instructions he was not
to come home at all, but proceed at once from the duchess of Lorraine
in France to the duchess of Milan in the Netherlands. It would seem,
however, that the heading to the second set of instructions has been
supplied by a transcriber of a later date, and it is clearly
inaccurate.” _C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. i., preface, p. xxxviii.
In spite of this anxiety to obtain portraits, Henry’s negotiations for a
French marriage were as unsuccessful as his advances for the hand of the
Duchess of Milan. In each case, no doubt, the proposed alliance was
largely political, though Henry seems to have been genuinely anxious to
marry Madame de Longueville, or to prevent his nephew of Scotland from
doing so, and was afterwards by no means unwilling to take one of her
sisters. Throughout the whole proceedings the French and the Imperial
ambassadors in London kept each other well informed of what was going
on, though each one was of the private opinion that Henry was more
inclined towards a bride from his country than from the other’s. Thus
Chapuys, writing to Charles V early in 1539, reports that “everybody
says he is much inclined to the duchess of Milan, whom, as I was
informed three days ago, by one who knows almost all secrets, he would
willingly take, even if she were delivered to him naked without a
penny.”[324] On the other hand, Castillon told Montmorency: “He,
however, says the practice of his marriage with the duchess of Milan
still continues, ... but I know he would willingly return to marry
Mademoiselle de Guise. If you think the King (Francis) and Emperor
should have the pastime of seeing him thus ‘virolin virolant,’ I can
easily get it up, provided a little good cheer is made to his
ambassador, and that M. le Cardinal or M. de Guise caress him a
little.”[325] Henry, however, finally turned his attentions in another
direction, while two of the ladies he had sought were soon married
elsewhere, Louise of Guise to Charles de Croi, Prince de Chimaix, in
1541, and Anne of Lorraine to René, Prince of Orange, in 1540. The
third, Marie of Vendôme, died unmarried, aged twenty-two, on 28th
September 1538, a week or two after Holbein was at Joinville.[326]
Footnote 324:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiv. pt. i. 37 (9 Jan. 1539.)
Footnote 325:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. ii. 1120 (2 Dec. 1538.)
Footnote 326:
She was betrothed to François, Duke of Nevers, who married her sister
Margaret before the end of the same year.
[Sidenote: HOLBEIN’S MOVEMENTS IN 1538]
Whether Holbein painted pictures of one or all of these ladies from the
drawings he made in France it is impossible to say. The drawings
themselves cannot be traced, but this does not prove that they were not
taken, for the preliminary studies of Christina of Milan and of Anne of
Cleves and her sister Amelia have so far remained undiscovered. Holbein
and Hoby parted company at Nancy early in September, the former to visit
his wife and family in Basel, while the latter returned post-haste to
London, no doubt taking with him Holbein’s sketch of Anne of Lorraine in
order to show it to his royal master. In October Hoby set out for Spain,
in connection with the negotiations for the Milan marriage.
The contents of this chapter and the preceding one may be summarised as
follows:
_February 1, 1538._—Peter Mewtas sent over to France to obtain the
portrait of Marie of Lorraine, Duchess of Longueville. Early in
the same month Philip Hoby was also sent into France for the
same purpose (about the King’s “necessaries and affairs of
importance”), for which he was paid £23, 6_s._ 8_d._
_March 2 or 3, 1538._ —Hoby and Holbein left London for Brussels to
obtain the portrait of the Duchess of Milan, reaching the latter
place on the evening of the 10th.
_March 12, 1538._—Holbein made his drawing of the Duchess, and the
two men started home on the evening of the same day, reaching
London on March 18.
_April and May 1538._—Holbein at work on the full-length portrait of
the Duchess of Milan.
_May 29, 1538._—Holbein received a royal licence to export 600 tuns
of beer.
_June 3, 1538._—Hoby and Holbein left London for Havre to obtain the
portrait of Louise of Guise, and of some other lady, possibly
Marie or Margaret of Vendôme.
_June 30, 1538._—Holbein received three-quarters of a year’s salary
in advance.
_August 11-22, 1538._—On one of the days between these dates Hoby
and Holbein left London for Nancy and Joinville to obtain
portraits of Renée of Guise and Anne of Lorraine, receiving £66,
13_s._ 4_d._ for their travelling expenses. They arrived at
Joinville on August 30, to find Renée absent, but were
successful at Nancy in getting a likeness of Anne. From
Joinville Hoby returned to London, and Holbein went on to Basel,
which he reached before September 10. He remained there until
after October 16.
_December 1538._—Holbein, upon his return to London, received a
special reward of £10 “for his costis and chargis at this tyme
sent aboute certeyn his gracis affares into the parties of high
Burgony, by way of his Graces rewarde.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER XXII
BASEL REVISITED
Holbein’s return to Basel—Fêted by his fellow-citizens—His prosperous
condition—Proposes to repaint his wall-decorations—Offer of a pension
of fifty gulden from the Basel Town Council, with permission to remain
in England two years longer—Death and will of Sigmund Holbein—Holbein
returns to England, probably by way of Paris, in order to apprentice
his son Philip to Jacob David, goldsmith—Back in London before
Christmas 1538—Receives a special reward for his journey to “High
Burgony”—Portraits of Edward, Prince of Wales—Guillim Stretes.
SOME nine days after Hoby and Holbein parted company at Nancy the latter
was home again in Basel after an absence of six years.[327] The journey
across the Vosges mountains would not be a long one. On September 12,
1538, Rudolph Gwalther, then studying in Basel, wrote to the antistes
Heinrich Bullinger in Zürich: “Hans Holbein came recently to Basel from
England, and he gives such a glowing account of the happy condition of
that kingdom, that after a few weeks’ stay he means to go back
again.”[328] He received a very hearty welcome from the citizens, who,
now that his reputation was much more than a local one, were naturally
proud of the fact that he was one of themselves. On September 10 his
fellow-burghers gave a banquet in his honour in the Guild-house in the
St. Johanns-Vorstadt, the quarter of the city in which Holbein’s own
residence was situated. Matthäus Steck, the steward of the Dominican
Monastery, notes in his Book of Accounts that he and the schoolmaster,
Brother Jacob, with their wives, were present on the occasion, and that
they spent eight shillings.
Footnote 327:
Unless, as suggested above (see p. 63), he had paid an earlier visit
to Basel, about 1534-5, of which, however, there is no actual
evidence.
Footnote 328:
“Venit nuper Basileam ex Anglia Johannes Holbein, adeo felicem ejus
regni statum praedicans, qui aliquot septimanis exactis rursum eo
migraturus est.” This letter, which was first quoted by Hegner (_Hans
Holbein der Jüngere_, p. 246), is now among the Zürich State Papers in
the Antistical Archives.
[Sidenote: PROPOSAL TO REPAINT WALL-PAINTINGS]
There is a most interesting reference to this home-coming in Dr. Ludwig
Iselin’s additions to the Faesch manuscript (discovered by Dr.
His-Heusler), in which he says: “When he returned to Basel for a time
from England, he was attired in silk and velvet; before this he was
obliged to buy wine at the tap.”[329] In Basel, a city where wine was
both cheap and plentiful, and all men of means kept a well-stocked
cellar, to be obliged to procure it, from day to day, from the tavern
was a sign of poverty, and Iselin thus contrasts Holbein’s worldly
condition before leaving Switzerland and after his entry into the
service of Henry VIII. Iselin adds, after stating that Holbein died soon
after his return to England, that “his intention was, had God lengthened
his life, to paint many of his pictures again, at his own expense, as
well as the apartment in the Town Hall. The house ‘zum Tanz,’ he said,
was ‘rather good.’” The pictures which he wished to put in order were,
of course, his wall-paintings on the exterior of several of the Basel
houses, done in his youth, some eighteen years earlier, which even then
were beginning to suffer from exposure to the weather, and his frescoes
in the Town Hall, some of which were already damaged by damp. No doubt,
too, he felt that he could improve upon them, though it is interesting
to note that he expressed himself satisfied with the “House of the
Dance” façade, in which he had given the freest play to his imagination.
Footnote 329:
See Woltmann, i. p. 456 and ii. p. 43.
Twice during his absence in England, on November 23, 1533, and January
7, 1537, he had been “laid out for the banneret” by his Guild “zum
Himmel”—that is, appointed as one of those who had to perform the
military service of the Guild, but he had ignored the summons.[330]
Possibly he knew nothing about it. He had even disregarded the letter
from the burgomaster, sent to him in September 1532, shortly after his
return to England, in spite of the offer of a pension which it
contained; for England afforded far better opportunities than
Switzerland for the making of money.
Footnote 330:
See Woltmann, i. p. 457. English translation, p. 430.
The two items, from the Banner Book of the Guild “zum Himmel,” are as
follows:
“Item A^o 1533 Jar vff Sunthag vor kattrinen Sind dise her noch
geschriben von beyden Zünfften vss gelegtt vom Himels vnnd
Sternen.
Erstlich zum Fenlin vnd Baner.
. . . . . . . . . . Zum Baner.
. . . . . . . . . . Hanns Holbein der Moller” (his name
being at the head of a number of other guildsmen).
“A^o 1537 Jar vf Sunthag noch dem nuwen Jar Sindt dise Hemach
geschriben zum Fenlin vnd zu dem Baner vss geleytt erstlich Himels
vij Mann (here follow the seven names).
Zum paner xiij man.” Here follow the thirteen names, among them being
“Hanns Holbein der maller.”[331]
Footnote 331:
Woltmann, ii. p. 32, quoting from His, _Die Baseler Archive_, &c.
The first entry is brought forward by Mr. W. F. Dickes as one of the
strongest pieces of evidence in favour of his contention that Holbein
obeyed the request contained in the Burgomaster’s letter, and returned
to Basel in the winter of 1532, and remained there throughout the
following year, so that he could not have painted “The Ambassadors” in
England in 1533. He entirely misreads the entry, however, which he
regards as a record “of monies due to Holbein for festal decorations on
behalf of the two city guilds”[332] (Von Himmel und von Sternen); and he
ignores the second entry, which, to be logical, should prove that
Holbein was also in Basel in January 1537. No “monies” are entered
against these items, as one would gather from his description, so that
it is difficult to see how they record sums due to the painter. They
were merely lists of names, as Woltmann points out,[333] of members of
the Guilds appointed to take their turn of military service on festal
occasions. The second entry shows this even more clearly than the first,
and from it we learn that Holbein was one of thirteen members thus
appointed as banner-bearers.
Footnote 332:
Dickes, _Holbein’s Ambassadors Unriddled_, p. 3.
Footnote 333:
Woltmann, i. p. 457.
[Sidenote: OFFERED PENSION BY BASEL COUNCIL]
It is probable that one of the chief reasons for Holbein’s visit to
Basel, in addition to a natural desire to see his family, was to make
some arrangement with the Town Council for a further leave of absence.
He was now in the actual service of a foreign sovereign, and he ran the
risk of losing his rights of citizenship unless he could come to some
understanding with the civic authorities. He had taken, as we have seen,
no notice of the Council’s urgent request, sent after him to England in
the autumn of 1532, and he had ignored the calls made upon him by the
Painters’ Guild during the six years of his absence, for fulfilling his
share of various official and ceremonial duties. Probably he was quite
unaware that such calls had been made. Now, however, that he was in
Henry VIII’s pay, it was necessary that some definite arrangement should
be made, which would enable him to remain in England at least some years
longer without risk of unpleasant consequences. The Council, seeing that
he had become a painter of high reputation, known far beyond the
confines of Switzerland, were more anxious than ever to keep him in
Basel. Aware, however, that they were not rich enough to find him
employment as remunerative as that enjoyed by him at the English court,
they effected a compromise. A document was drawn up, after consultation
with the painter, in which a much more generous offer was made to him
than the one proposed in 1532. This agreement, which was signed on
behalf of the Council by Jakob Meyer, “zum Hirschen,” after extolling
Holbein’s reputation as a painter, offered him a pension of fifty gulden
a year, with permission to remain in England for two years longer,
during which time they would pay his wife a pension of forty gulden.
After his final return to Basel, he was still to be permitted to receive
service money from foreign kings, princes, nobles, and cities, and, in
order to sell his pictures, was to be allowed to visit France, England,
Milan, or the Netherlands once, twice, or thrice a year for that
purpose.
The document runs as follows:
“Master Hans Holbein the painter’s Pension.”
“We, Jacob Meyger, Burgomaster, and the Council of the city of
Basel, do make known and acknowledge with this letter that:
“From the special and favourable will which we bear to the
honourable Hans Holbein, the painter, our dear citizen, since he
is famous beyond other painters on account of the wealth of his
art; weighing further that in matters belonging to our city
respecting building affairs and other things which he
understands, he can aid us with his counsel, and that in case we
had to execute painting work on any occasion, he should
undertake the same, for suitable reward, we have therefore
consented, arranged, and pledged to give and to present to the
above-named Hans Holbein a free and right pension from our
treasury of fifty gulden, though with the following conditions,
and only during his lifetime, whether he be well or ill, yearly,
in equal parts at the four quarters.
“As however the said Hans Holbein has now sojourned for some
time with the King’s Majesty in England, and according to his
declaration it is to be feared that he can scarcely quit the
Court for the next two years, we have allowed him under these
circumstances to remain in England the two years following this
date, in order to merit a gracious discharge, and to receive
salary, and have consented during these two years to pay his
wife residing among us forty gulden yearly, _i.e._ ten gulden
quarterly, which are to begin from next Christmas, as the end of
the first quarter. With the addition that in case Hans Holbein
should receive his discharge from England within these two years
and should return to us at Basel and remain here, that we should
from that moment give him his pension of fifty gulden, and let
it be paid to him in equal parts at the end of the quarter. And,
as we can well imagine that the said Holbein, with his art and
work being of so far more value than that they should be
expended on old walls and houses, cannot with us alone reap much
advantage, we have therefore allowed the said Holbein, that,
unimpeded by our agreement, for the sake of his art and trade,
and for no other unlawful and crafty matters, as we have also
impressed upon him, he may gain, accept, and receive service
money from foreign kings, princes, nobles, and cities; that
moreover he may convey and sell the works of art which he may
execute here once, twice, or thrice a year, each time with our
special permission, and not without our knowledge, to foreign
gentlemen in France, England, Milan, and the Netherlands. Yet on
such journeys, he may not remain craftily abroad, but on each
occasion he shall do his business in the speediest manner, and
repair home without delay and be serviceable to us, as we have
before said, and as he has promised.
“In conclusion, when the oft-mentioned Holbein has paid the debt
of nature according to the will of God, and has departed from
this valley of tears, then shall this warrant, pension, and
present letter be at an end, and we and our descendants
therefore are not pledged to give aught to anyone. All upright,
honourable, and with integrity. This letter, signed with our
official seal, we have given into the hand of the oft-mentioned
Holbein as a true document. Wednesday the sixteenth day of
October, anno xxxviii.”[334]
Footnote 334:
Woltmann, i. pp. 458-9. English translation, pp. 430-1.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: DEATH AND WILL OF SIGMUND HOLBEIN]
This document shows very clearly that though the civic authorities of
Basel were anxious to retain Holbein in their service, they were
doubtful whether they would be able to find much work for him except in
the direction of an occasional wall-painting or decoration of a
house-front; and his talents, they acknowledged, were too great to be
devoted to nothing but the covering of “old walls and houses” with
designs. They, therefore, made many concessions, which would enable him
to pursue his art with almost the same freedom he had hitherto enjoyed.
In spite of the liberality of the terms, however, the document remained,
as far as Holbein was concerned, a dead letter throughout the five
remaining years of his life; at least, no evidence has so far been
discovered to show that he ever visited Basel again, though, as
suggested in an earlier chapter,[335] he may have done so about the year
1541. Whether his wife received the pension of 40 gulden for the first
two years is not known. There is no mention of it in the Council’s
accounts, but Woltmann suggests that it may have been given, as was
often the case with pensions of this kind, out of the monastery
revenues.
Footnote 335:
See p. 63.
Holbein was bound to return to England for at least another six months,
as he had received nine months’ salary in advance, but there can be
little doubt that he had, at the time, every intention of accepting the
Council’s conditions. He was, however, so popular in England, and had so
much work on hand, that he found it increasingly difficult to leave, so
that in the end his arrangement with the Basel Council fell to the
ground. It has been suggested, too, that the death of his uncle Sigmund
in Berne, in November 1540, at about the time when Holbein was due to
return to Basel, may have had something to do with his determination to
remain in England; for Sigmund bequeathed all his property to his “dear
brother’s son Hans,” and it was handed over to the latter’s wife in his
absence. The will, from which we learn that “Sigmund Holbeyn” was then a
citizen of Berne, and being old, was about to make a journey to Augsburg
to see his relations, continues:
“In the first place, I will and bequeath to my dear brother’s
son Hans Holbeyn, the painter, citizen at Basel, both as my
blood relation and my own race and name, as well as from the
especial love I bear him and from the affinity in which he
stands to me, the free gift of all my goods and property which I
have and leave in the city of Berne, namely, my house, and
courtyard, and the garden behind, standing in the Brunnengasse,
on the sunny side, above by the Trom Wall, near Görg Zimmerman,
the tailor’s, house. The said property is free from taxes, with
the exception of five pounds interest, including the
commutation-capital, which I owe out of it to Herr Bernhard
Tillman, treasurer of the council at Berne, for money lent.
Item, my silver utensils, household furniture, colours,
painter’s gold and silver, implements for painting, and other
things, nothing excepted, that he shall appropriate the same as
my appointed heir, have it in his possession, do with it and
live as with his own possession and property, unmolested by my
sisters and by any one. What I have here bequeathed to him, will
be found noted on a separate roll, so that my cousin can better
inquire after it.”[336]
Footnote 336:
Woltmann, English translation, p. 106. Original text in Woltmann, ii.
p. 33-5.
He left what property he possessed in Augsburg to his three sisters,
Ursula Nepperschmid and Anna Elchinger in Augsburg, and Margreth Herwart
in Esslingen. The will is dated September 6, 1540, and the testator died
very shortly afterwards.
On the 18th of November the Berne Town Council wrote to both Basel and
Augsburg notifying his heirs of his decease, and on the 10th January in
the following year the property was handed over to Holbein’s stepson, as
the authorised agent of his mother. The confirmation of the testament,
in the name of Hans Franz Nägely, burgomaster of Berne, speaks of him as
“the honourable and wise Franz Schmid, citizen of Basel,” and says that
he brought “a procuracy and a letter from Elsbeth, the wife of Master
Hans Holbein, the painter, citizen of Basel, and also a letter from the
burgomaster and council of the town of Basel.”
This legacy would serve to some extent in place of the annuity of 40
gulden paid by the Council to Elsbeth Holbein, which would cease when
her husband failed to carry out his part of the agreement. Woltmann
suggests that she probably settled in Berne in consequence of this
bequest, in the house on the sunny side of the Brunnengasse, although
there is no documentary proof of this. On the other hand, the inventory
of her household goods and property, drawn up after her death in 1549,
and preserved in Basel, indicates that she never permanently severed her
connection with that city.
[Sidenote: PHILIP HOLBEIN AND JACOB DAVID]
Holbein must have set out again for England shortly after the drawing up
of this agreement, and there is some reason to suppose that he travelled
back by way of Paris, taking his elder son, Philip, with him, and
apprenticing him in that city for six years to Jacob David, the
goldsmith, who was a native, and still remained a citizen, of Basel.
This information is obtained from a letter addressed to David from the
Burgomaster Adelberg Meyer and the Council of Basel, dated 19th November
1545,[337] with reference to a dispute between the apprentice and his
master, the latter refusing to give him his discharge on the completion
of his six years’ service. This letter speaks of Holbein as deceased,
and refers to Philip as a “good, pious youth,” still in his minority,
and under the care of his step-brother, Franz Schmid.
Footnote 337:
Discovered, and first published, by Dr. His-Heusler.
David is informed that “it has credibly reached our ears that thou wilt
give no discharge to Philipp Holbein (but that thou hast brought him
moreover in Paris before the Lord-Lieutenant), although he has served
thee honestly and honourably his six years, which were promised by his
father, the deceased Hans Holbein, our citizen, now when he, at
befitting opportunity, desires to depart from thee, and this not alone
on account of his honest and honourable service, as was thy duty before
God and in all honour. Thus thou addest one cause of complaint to
another, and aimest at oppressing the good, pious youth as far as thou
canst and in causing his ruin. This thine unfriendly conduct has caused
us not a little regret; we had in no wise foreseen it, but had rather
hoped that if any one sought to hinder another in his success and
welfare, thou would’st have taken up his cause and protected him....
Besides, this Philipp Holbein is in his minority, and is under the care
of Franz Schmid, his brother, our citizen, and without his help and
authority is qualified for no lawsuit; it is our pleasure, therefore,
and we herewith request thee as our citizen, that thou forthwith and
immediately breakest off the complaint brought by thee against Philipp
Holbein and allowest him, kindly and friendly to depart from thee, and
because he has served thee honestly and truly, that thou givest him a
good sealed letter of discharge, of which he may make use. In all this
we express our earnest will and command; we have also written to the
Lieutenant who is judge between you both, our citizens, not to continue
the proceedings, and to refer you both hither.” The letter concludes by
saying that if David feels he has a just claim against Philip, he is to
cite him before the municipal court of Basel, when full justice shall be
done. A letter to the same effect, and of the same date, was sent to
Philip, ordering him not to enter into any further law proceedings in
Paris, but to take his discharge and return to Basel, where his case
would be decided by the municipal authorities.[338]
Footnote 338:
Woltmann, English translation, pp. 329-30.
It seems clear from this letter to David that the dispute arose shortly
after the completion of Philip’s six years of apprenticeship, in which
case the boy must have been left in Paris in the autumn of 1539, and not
of 1538. If that was so, then Holbein cannot have personally apprenticed
him on his return to England from Basel, and Philip must have gone there
a year later in charge of someone else. It is possible, however, that
Holbein took his son with him to England, and kept him there for twelve
months or so, sending or taking him to Paris in 1539. It is usually
supposed that the boy in the family group of 1528 represents Philip, the
elder son, born about 1522. In the picture he appears to be five or six
years old. He would thus be about fifteen or sixteen in 1538—rather a
late age upon which to enter his apprenticeship—and twenty-two at the
date of the letter, which, however, speaks of him as still a minor.[339]
Footnote 339:
It is possible that the boy in the picture is not the one who was
taken to Paris, but that the latter was a second son, born during
Holbein’s second residence in Basel (1528-32), whose age would thus be
in better accord with the evidence of the letter.
Holbein was back again in London some time before Christmas, 1538, when
he received the special reward of £10 for his journey into Upper
Burgundy. His first work of importance after his return was a portrait
of the infant Prince Edward, then some fourteen months old. This was
presented to the King on January 1, 1539, being entered in the roll of
New Year’s gifts as: “By Hanse Holbyne a table of the pictour of the
p^ince (Prince’s) grace.” In return he received from his royal master a
silver-gilt covered cup supplied by Cornelis Hayes, one of the King’s
goldsmiths. “To Hans Holbyne, paynter, a gilte cruse w^t a cover
(Cornelis) weing x oz. quarter.”
[Sidenote: PORTRAITS OF PRINCE EDWARD]
Holbein died when Edward was just six years old, so that he cannot have
painted the various portraits of the Prince in which he is represented
at a somewhat later period of life and after he was King, though at one
time they were all attributed to him. There are only three portraits of
him, and a few drawings, which show him as a child of tender years, of
which the authorship can be given to Holbein. The picture in the
Provinzial Museum, Hanover, is generally regarded as the original work
which he painted as a New Year’s gift for the King. An almost identical
picture is in the possession of the Earl of Yarborough, which some
writers regard as an unquestionable work of Holbein, while others
consider it to be merely an excellent old copy.
The Hanover picture[340] is a life-size, half-length figure, facing the
spectator. The child is dressed in a red velvet coat trimmed with gold,
and sleeves of gold brocade. A red hat, with gold tags and a large
ostrich feather, tied under the chin, surmounts the closely-fitting cap,
from beneath which his fair hair falls over his forehead. His right hand
is held out with open palm, and in his left he grasps a gold rattle. In
front of him is a stone or panel on which eight lines of Latin verse
from the pen of Sir Richard Morysin are inscribed, exhorting the Prince
to imitate his wonderful father. “Little one, imitate your father,” the
lines run, “and be the heir of his virtue, the world contains nothing
greater—Heaven and Nature could scarcely give a son whose glory should
surpass that of such a father. You only equal the acts of your parent,
the wishes of men cannot go beyond this. Surpass him, and you have
surpassed all the kings the world ever worshipped, and none will ever
surpass you.”[341] The head stands out well against the sky-blue
background. The round, chubby face, and small fat hands, are most
truthfully and delightfully rendered, while the colour scheme is very
harmonious. It is, indeed, in all ways, a most sympathetic and
delightful study of childhood.
Footnote 340:
Woltmann, 165. Reproduced by Knackfuss, fig. 130; Pollard, _Henry
VIII_, p. 242; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 122.
Footnote 341:
Wornum, p. 324, note.
The almost equally charming little work in the Earl of Yarborough’s
collection (Pl. 22)[342] is practically a replica of the one in the
Hanover Museum. According to Wornum, it was at one time in the Arundel
Collection, at Stafford House, and was sold in 1720, subsequently
passing into the possession of Sir Richard Worsley, of Appuldurcombe,
Isle of Wight, and afterwards to the present owner. The same writer
notes some few peculiarities in its execution—“some defects in the right
hand, and a certain want of transparency, or a mealyness in the
colouring, that are not entirely consistent with Holbein’s
practice.”[343] It is most probably an old and careful copy after the
original at Hanover. It was in the Tudor Exhibition, 1890 (No. 174), and
the Burlington Fine Arts Club, 1909 (No. 62).
Footnote 342:
Reproduced in the Catalogue of the Tudor Exhibition, 1890, p. 80; and
_Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition Catalogue_, 1909, Pl. xxi.
Footnote 343:
Wornum, p. 323.
Charles I had a copy of this portrait made by Peter Oliver, signed “P.
O.,” and inscribed “Edwardus Princeps Filius Henrici Octavi Regis
Angliae.” In the King’s catalogue it is described by Van der Doort as:
“22. Item, the picture of King Edward VI in his infancy, in a red cap
with a white feather, and a red coat laced with gold, and golden cloth
sleeves, holding in his left hand a round golden rattle, and with his
right hand in some action; by a green table, whereupon is written in
white and black letters. Being in a black shutting frame. Painted upon
the wrong light. 4¾ in. × 2 in.” A marginal note describes it as “copied
by Peter Oliver after Hans Holbein, whereof my Lord Arundel has the
principal limning.” Wenceslaus Hollar engraved the picture in 1650,[344]
when it was in the Arundel Collection.[345]
Footnote 344:
Parthey, 1395.
Footnote 345:
There were two portraits of the Prince in the Arundel Collection, both
attributed to Holbein in the 1655 inventory, and entered as “Eduardo
Sesto Re d’Inghilterra.”
The Duke of Northumberland’s version, at Syon House,[346] is larger, and
the Prince is shown at full-length. It resembles the two others in most
particulars, and appears to be based on the same original drawing,
though the sitter looks somewhat younger. He is wearing a jacket of
patterned cloth of gold, and over it a crimson frock or coat embroidered
with golden stripes. His head is covered with a white-edged, striped
skull-cap, beneath which a fringe of fair hair falls on the forehead;
over this is worn a red hat with a dark feather in it. Thick-soled,
broad-toed shoes complete his costume. He is standing on a green velvet
cloth edged with gold, which is thrown over an ornamental stone tablet
containing, as in the other versions, Morysin’s Latin verses. The
background is a dark green curtain. It is painted on panel, 4 ft. 3 in.
high by 2 ft. 5 in. wide.
Footnote 346:
Woltmann, 246.
This picture has suffered considerably from rubbing and cleaning. The
preliminary chalk drawing can be plainly seen through the thin painting.
The position of the hands—which are beautifully painted—is somewhat
altered, and the child is without his rattle. In one corner of the
tablet is inscribed “Edwardus Princeps,” and in the other “Filius
Henrici 8,” now almost obliterated. Mr. Wornum[347] thought it probable
that this was the New Year’s gift picture, as the child appears to be a
little younger than in the Hanover and Yarborough versions, and with a
still brighter expression of face.
Footnote 347:
Wornum, p. 325.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 22
EDWARD VI
1538-9
LORD YARBOROUGH’S COLLECTION
]
[Sidenote: DRAWINGS OF PRINCE EDWARD]
All three pictures seem to have been based upon the same drawing in the
Windsor Collection, in which the Prince is shown full-face, as a young
child, with a close skull-cap, and a black cap with a feather above it,
and a single frill round his neck.[348] This drawing has been badly
rubbed. There is a second drawing in the same collection, also
full-face, with hair cut closely across the forehead, and a plain black
hat (Pl. 23).[349] This, too, has suffered considerable damage. The
strong brush-work of the outlines stands out with undue emphasis, owing
to the destruction of the more delicate modelling of the crayons. In
this drawing the Prince appears to be at least a couple of years older
than in the other drawing, or in the Hanover picture and its variants.
He looks quite four or five years old. Mr. Wornum thought it might
represent Henry Brandon, afterwards Duke of Suffolk, from its likeness
to the boy in Holbein’s beautiful miniature, the proportions of the face
not quite agreeing with those of the infant Prince;[350] but it is
undoubtedly a portrait of the latter.
Footnote 348:
Woltmann, 326; Wornum, ii. 1; Holmes, not given.
Footnote 349:
Woltmann, 327; Wornum, ii. 2; Holmes, i. 2. Reproduced by Davies, p.
176; Knackfuss, fig. 146; Ganz, _Hdz. von H. H. dem Jüng._, 39.
Footnote 350:
Wornum, p. 407.
There is a third drawing of Edward VI at Windsor, in which he seems to
be quite six, if not older. It is one of the least pleasing of the
series, and if by Holbein, must be almost the last drawing he made, as
the Prince was but six when the painter died. He is shown in profile to
the left, with hat and feather, and almost yellow hair.[351] Several
portraits exist which are based on this drawing, though they are not by
Holbein, among the best of them being the versions in the National
Portrait Gallery,[352] the Victoria and Albert Museum,[353] and the
collection of Lord Sackville. The last-named was at the Burlington Fine
Arts Club in 1909 (No. 60). In this the Prince has golden hair, a black
cap with a white plume, and a purple gown lined with white fur over a
pale pink doublet. His right hand, raised, holds a rose, and his gloves
are in his left. The background is a greenish blue.
Footnote 351:
Woltmann, 328; Wornum, ii. 3; Holmes, ii. 1. Reproduced in _Drawings
of Hans Holbein_ (Newnes), Pl. ii.
Footnote 352:
Reproduced in the illustrated catalogue, National Portrait Gallery,
vol. i. p. 27.
Footnote 353:
Jones Bequest.
There is a very interesting drawing in coloured crayons by Holbein in
the Basel Gallery,[354] which is described as a portrait of Edward VI,
and bears considerable likeness to the various paintings and drawings in
England. The face, however, is decidedly longer and more oval in shape
than in the Windsor drawings; but much of the delicate modelling of the
flesh has vanished during the passage of time, so that it is difficult
to speak with absolute certainty as to the likeness. Most probably the
attribution is the correct one. The boy, who appears to be about five
years old, is dressed in a princely costume, and is holding a meerkat in
the bend of his right arm, and stroking its back with his left hand.
There is no portrait known which follows this drawing.
Footnote 354:
Woltmann, 30. Reproduced by Ganz, _Hdz. Schwz. Mstr._, ii. 37.
Upon one of the leaves of Holbein’s sketch-book, preserved in the Basel
Gallery, there is a delightful little circular drawing of Edward when a
small child,[355] evidently of about the same date as the Hanover
portrait. His costume is much the same as in the pictures described, and
he is seated on a cushion on the grass, fondling a small dog with his
left hand. The background on either side of him is filled in with
branches of oak with acorns. It may have been the first study for a
miniature, or possibly a design for a medallion or hat-badge to be
carried out in gold-and-enamel by one of Holbein’s goldsmith friends. In
spite of its small size the likeness is evident.
Footnote 355:
Woltmann, 110 (82). Reproduced by Ganz, _Hdz. von H. H. dem Jüng._,
Pl. 46, and woodcut in Woltmann, i. p. 449.
The scope of this book does not permit any attempt to give a detailed
list of the numerous portraits of the young prince painted after the
death of Holbein, in which he is represented at an age varying from
about ten to sixteen, some of them being works of very considerable
merit. In the days when it was believed that Holbein lived until 1554,
all these portraits were attributed to him, whereas now some other
authorship must be sought. It is known that Guillim Stretes, the Dutch
painter, was responsible for at least two of these portraits of the
young King. According to Strype,[356] in 1551 Stretes was paid by the
Privy Council “fifty marks for recompence of three great tables, made by
the said Guillim, whereof two were the pictures of his Highness sent to
Sir Thomas Hoby and Sir John Mason (ambassadors abroad); the third a
picture of the late Earl of Surrey, attainted, and by the council’s
commandant fetched from the said Guillim’s house.” In 1553 “Gillam
Strettes, Dutchman,” was the King’s painter, in receipt of the high
salary of £62, 10_s._ a year, and he continued in favour during the
reign of Queen Mary.
Footnote 356:
_Memorials_, &c., Vol. ii. p. 494. Quoted by Walpole, _Anecdotes_, ed.
Wornum, i. p. 138.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 23
EDWARD, PRINCE OF WALES
_Drawing in black and coloured chalks_
WINDSOR CASTLE
]
[Sidenote: LATER PORTRAITS OF EDWARD VI]
The excellent little bust portrait of Edward, formerly in the possession
of the Cokayne family at Rushton Hall, Northamptonshire, which was lent
by Lord Aldenham to the Burlington Fine Arts Club in 1909 (No. 63), has
been attributed to this painter. It is dated 1550. Mr. Roger E.
Fry,[357] on account of the delicate and personal scheme of blonde and
cool colouring which it displays, considers this portrait to be by the
same hand as the portraits of Henry VIII and Jane Seymour, lent to the
same exhibition (Nos. 21 and 46) by Lord Sackville, which have been
mentioned in an earlier chapter.[358] Others exist of the same type to
which Stretes’ name has been provisionally given. The Duke of Portland
has a fine small full-length, undated,[359] probably from the same hand
as Lord Aldenham’s panel; another whole-length belongs to Mr. Vernon J.
Watney, while a third is at Southam Delabere, near Cheltenham. A very
interesting portrait of a different type is at Petworth, an
elaborately-painted likeness of the young King at full-length, seated on
his throne, with a canopy over his head, which is dated 1547, when he
was in his tenth year. This is attributed by Mr. Wornum to Stretes.[360]
There is another in Christ’s Hospital which closely resembles it, and in
the same building there is a second portrait of the Prince at the age of
nine. There is also a fine example in the Royal Collection at Windsor
Castle,[361] in which the head is of the same type as that in Lord
Aldenham’s picture. It is apparently by the same hand as that of the
Princess Elizabeth, also at Windsor, and whether by Stretes or not,
seems to be of Franco-Flemish origin. The large picture at Bridewell
Hospital, representing Edward VI transferring Bridewell Palace to the
City of London, was regarded in Walpole’s day as an excellent example of
Holbein’s brush, and both he and Vertue, who engraved it in 1750,
asserted that one of the figures in the background represented Holbein
himself.[362] The occurrence which the picture commemorates, however,
took place in 1553, ten years after Holbein’s death. This picture, too,
has been tentatively given to Stretes, but it is a work of no great
mastery, though of undoubted historical interest. Descriptions of other
portraits of Edward VI will be found in a paper contributed by Mr. J.
Gough Nichols, F.S.A., to _Archæologia_.[363] No less than sixteen, of
varying degrees of merit, were lent to the Tudor Exhibition in 1890. In
the inventory of King Henry VIII’s pictures made shortly after his
death, dated September 8, 1547, three of the earlier portraits of the
young Prince of Wales were included. Two of these were full-lengths:
“The Kynge’s Majestie, the whole stature, in a gowne like crymsen satten
furred with lusernes,” which was protected by a curtain of white
sarcenet; and “The Kynge’s Majesty, the whole stature, stayned upon
clothe” (_i.e._ canvas), with a curtain of green sarcenet. The first
named was not included in the earlier list of King Henry’s pictures
drawn up in 1542, but the latter is in that inventory, and so must have
been painted before 1542, and thus represented Edward as a little child.
The third portrait is merely described as “The Kynge’s Majestie.” This
may have been the curious “perspective” portrait of the young Prince,
now in the National Portrait Gallery (No. 1300),[364] a head within a
circle surrounded by a well-painted landscape, done in 1546, which has
been attributed to Stretes. According to Walpole,[365] who considered it
to be the work of Marc Willems, “Gulielmus pinxit” was written on the
frame. It formed part of the Royal collections from the time it was
painted, but was sold by the Commonwealth in 1650 for £2. It was seen in
Whitehall and described by the German traveller, Paul Hentzner, in 1598.
Two miniatures of Edward were lent to the Burlington Fine Arts Club
Exhibition (Case C, 13 and 19) by the Duke of Buccleuch, but these are
not by Holbein.
Footnote 357:
_Burlington Magazine_, vol. xv., May 1909, p. 75. Reproduced by Miss
Hervey, “Notes on some Portraits of Tudor Times,” _Burlington
Magazine_, vol. xv., June 1909, p. 155.
Footnote 358:
See pp. 104 and 112.
Footnote 359:
Burlington Fine Arts Club, 1909, No. 68.
Footnote 360:
Wornum, p. 326.
Footnote 361:
Reproduced by Cust, _Royal Collection of Paintings, Windsor Castle_,
Pl. 50; and Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 223.
Footnote 362:
Walpole, _Anecdotes_, ed. Wornum, i. p. 88.
Footnote 363:
Vol. xxxix. p. 20.
Footnote 364:
Reproduced in the Illustrated Catalogue, National Portrait Gallery,
vol. i. p. 27.
Footnote 365:
Walpole, _Anecdotes_, &c., ed. Wornum, i. p. 135.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER XXIII
ANNE OF CLEVES: 1539
Henry VIII’s fresh matrimonial negotiations with Protestant
Germany—Christopher Mont sent to the Court of the Duke of Saxony with
reference to a political alliance and the King’s marriage—Anne of
Cleves and her sister—Portraits of them by Lucas Cranach—Difficulties
in obtaining portraits of the ladies—Richard Beard and Holbein go over
to Düren for that purpose—The written descriptions of Anne—The legend
woven round Holbein’s portrait of her—Henry’s disappointment on Anne’s
arrival in England—Description of the portrait in the Louvre—Miniature
in the Salting Collection—Drawing at Windsor—Portrait in St. John’s
College, Oxford.
WITH the exception of works executed for his royal master, such as the
“Duchess of Milan” and the lost French portraits, the likeness of the
infant Prince Edward, and that of Anne of Cleves, there is nothing by
Holbein which can be ascribed with absolute certainty to the years 1538
and 1539.[366] It is possible that the portraits of Thomas Howard, Duke
of Norfolk, and his son, Henry, Earl of Surrey, were produced in the
latter year, but no dated likeness by him is known of any member of the
court circle, or, indeed, of any Englishman or German, painted during
these two years. It is true that more than one of his undated works may
be of this period, but there is no actual proof, beyond that of style,
in favour of such a contention. This may be accounted for to some extent
by his frequent absences from England on the King’s business, which
would leave him less time than usual for private practice, while there
is also the possibility that at least some of the works he produced
during these two years have been lost.
Footnote 366:
The portrait of Henry VIII in the National Gallery, Rome, now
attributed to Holbein, was painted, according to the King’s age
inscribed on the background, in 1539 or 1540. See above, p. 103.
By the beginning of 1539, when alarms of war were in the air, and the
alliance between Francis and the Emperor was growing closer every week,
Henry had abandoned all idea of a marriage in France or with the Duchess
of Milan, and was turning his thoughts towards Protestant Germany. The
project of this fresh matrimonial venture was not entirely a new one; it
was under consideration during the previous summer in the midst of the
more active negotiations elsewhere. There is a curious passage in one of
Eustace Chapuys’ letters to the Emperor, dated London, 17th June 1538,
in which he infers that Henry had grown less anxious for the Milan match
because the Germans were making him offers. “Indeed it is a fact,” he
says, “that about that time the King sent to Germany a painter (_ung
paintre_) and one gentleman of his chamber for the express purpose of
pourtraying the personages ‘au naturel’; for, although Cromwell at first
denied this, or at least dissembled, he afterwards owned to me (Chapuys)
that the report was true, that both from France and Germany several
marriages had been proposed.” These marriages, he adds, according to
report, were to be between the son of the Duke of Cleves and the
Princess Mary, and Henry and one of the Duke’s kinswomen.[367]
Footnote 367:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. i. 1198. _Spanish Calendar_, v. ii. 225.
This is the only reference in the State Papers to the despatch of one of
the King’s painters to Germany in the earlier part of 1538, but it is
interesting as containing a possible reference to Holbein and to some
journey of his of which we have no further knowledge. It is much more
likely, however, that Chapuys was misinformed, and that no such
expedition actually took place, though it may have been suggested but
afterwards abandoned.
[Sidenote: SEARCH FOR A BRIDE IN GERMANY]
About the middle of January 1539, Christopher Mont, or Mount, a German
in Henry’s service, was sent abroad with letters of credence to the Duke
of Saxony and the Landgrave. The ostensible purpose of his mission was
to promote the attempted agreement between the English and German
divines which had been the subject of numerous conferences in the
previous year; but the real object was to find out to what extent Henry
might rely upon the German Protestant princes in any trouble which might
arise between England and the Pope or Emperor. At the same time, Mont,
who was accompanied by Thomas Paynell, took with him private
instructions from Cromwell, which included a secret message to Francis
Burgartus,[368] the Duke of Saxony’s vice-chancellor, with respect to a
marriage between the young Duke of Cleves and the Princess Mary, which
he and Cromwell had discussed in London in the previous year. If, the
instructions ran, Burgartus desire “the picture of her face,” Mont is to
remind him that she is a King’s daughter, and that it was not the custom
to send the picture of persons of such degree abroad. Burgartus, too,
had seen her, and could testify of her proportion, countenance, and
beauty. But there was a matter of still greater importance about which
Mont was to sound the vice-chancellor, whose master, the Duke of Saxony,
had married the eldest daughter of the Duke of Cleves, and was one of
the most interested parties in any alliance proposed between England and
Germany. Mont was to inquire diligently of the beauty and qualities of
the elder of the two unmarried daughters of the Duke of Cleves, her
shape, stature, and complexion, and, if he heard she was such “as might
be likened unto his Majesty,” he was to throw out suggestions as to a
marriage between her and the King. The proposal, however, must come from
the side of Cleves, as the overtures made to his Grace in France and
Flanders had not been finally refused. Mont, in short, was not to speak
as if demanding her, “but rather to give them a prick to offer her;” but
first of all, “it is expedient that they should send her picture
hither.”[369] In this way the Princess Anne of Cleves first appears on
the scene, and the Duchess of Milan, and the ladies of Guise and other
royal French houses finally vanish from it.
Footnote 368:
Or Burgratus (Burchardt).
Footnote 369:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiv. pt. i. 103.
Shortly afterwards other diplomatists were sent abroad for the same
purpose. Dr. Barnes went over to Frankfurt to attend the diet of the
Evangelic League, while Dr. Edward Carne and Dr. Nicholas Wootton,
together with Richard Byrd, Bird, or Beard, one of the gentlemen of the
King’s Chamber, were despatched to Düren, to the court of the young Duke
of Cleves, whose father had recently died. Their instructions were very
similar to those given to Mont. They were to offer an offensive and
defensive league and an English bride to the Duke, but were merely to
throw out hints with regard to Anne. Here again they were to demand a
picture of the lady before the match could be considered, for Henry was
always most anxious to see what his proposed bride was like before
committing himself too far.[370] If she were ill-favoured he would have
none of her, however useful for political reasons such an alliance might
prove to be. A portrait was always asked for, but was by no means always
considered sufficient. The King feared that such pictures might flatter
the subject, and so it became his habit, in order to avoid such
possibilities, to send over one of his own painters to procure an
independent likeness. Holbein, in particular, he knew to be capable of
bringing back a true portrait, more valuable in all ways than the
efforts of some unknown foreign painter, or the written opinions of his
ambassadors, whose taste might not always agree with his own.
Footnote 370:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiv. pt. i. 489, 490.
Mont, after an interview with the Duke of Saxony, wrote to Cromwell to
say that he seemed favourable to the proposed marriage, and that he
promised to send a portrait as soon as possible, but said that “his
painter Lucas was sick at home.” “Everyone,” he added, “praises the
lady’s beauty, both of face and body. One said she excelled the Duchess
(of Milan) as the golden sun did the silver moon.”[371] The Lucas
referred to in this letter was Lucas Cranach the elder, and if it had
not been for his illness Holbein might not have been sent over, for
Cranach, no doubt, would have painted a portrait which would have
satisfied the King. Towards the end of April, Cromwell wrote to Beard
and Wootton, again urging them to get a portrait of the lady, which the
former was to bring to London as quickly as possible.[372] In their
reply, dated May 3—the letter, unfortunately, is badly mutilated—they
describe a recent interview with Dr. Henry Olisleger, the
vice-chancellor of Cleves, the young Duke being away at the Diet. “He
said also he would cause the portraits of both the Duke’s younger
sisters to be delivered to us in fourteen days. They were made, he said,
half a year before. We said there was no occasion to declare the King’s
goodwill to the Duke, which was manifest.... And as for the ij pictures,
we wer verye w[ell] contentyd to receyve theym, and specyallye the
imaige of my l[ady Anne] ... that yf eny of bothe shulde lyke his Grace
... yet wolde we gladdelye receyve and sende bothe. [And for a]s muche
as we hadde not seene the ij ladyes, we shulde [not be] able to
advertise his Majestye whether theyr imaiges were [l]yke to theyr
persones, and so shulde his Majestye be never the nerre by the syht of
the pictures.” Dr. Olisleger, however, assured them that the portraits
were faithful likenesses, but the ambassadors were not satisfied. “We
sayde, we hadde not seene theym, for to see but a parte of theyr faces,
and that under such a monstruouse habyte and apparell, was no syght,
neither of theyr faces nor of theyr persones. Why, quod he, wolde yow
see theym nakydde?” What they said in answer to this last remark is lost
through the mutilation of the letter, but they evidently did not approve
of the court costume of Cleves. They concluded by saying: “A Moneday,
God willing, we wylle departe to Duisseldorpe, and, excepte the Duke
have enye bysynesse with us, we wyll thence to Coleyn, where we ar
apoyntyd to receyve the said ij pictures, the which we wille send ynto
England as soone as we canne convenyently.”[373]
Footnote 371:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiv. pt. i. 552. _St. P._, i. 604.
Footnote 372:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiv. pt. i. 834. _St. P._, i. 613.
Footnote 373:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiv. pt. i. 920.
[Sidenote: HOLBEIN AND BEARD GO TO DÜREN]
In spite of these constant demands for portraits, the ambassadors do not
appear to have received them at the time promised. Early in July Dr.
William Petre, one of the Clerks of Chancery, was sent to Cleves with
further messages and instructions to Dr. Wootton. The new ambassador and
the old were to make a further demand to see the ladies, and if Beard
had not already started with the portraits, they were to send them “if
they may be possible gotten,” with their opinion of them as
likenesses.[374]
Footnote 374:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiv. pt. i. 1193.
Beard was back in London for a short time in July, but whether he came
empty-handed or not there is no record to show. It is possible that he
brought with him the two portraits promised by Olisleger, which were to
be handed to him at Cologne. There is a portrait of Anne in England,
described below, which may be one of the two in question, but in any
case it cannot have satisfied Henry, for Beard was sent back almost
immediately to Düren, taking Holbein with him, in order that he might
paint the two sisters. They were allowed £40 for travelling expenses,
while Holbein received a further sum of £13, 6_s._ 8_d._ for his own
personal outlay in connection with his craft.
The following is the entry in the Treasurer’s accounts:
“July, A^o xxxi—Item, to Mr. Richard Bearde, one of the gromes
of the Kingis privi-chambre, and Hans Holbyn, paynter, by like
lettre sent into the parties of High Almayne upon certain his
gracis affaires, for the costes and chardgis of them both, xl.
_li._ And to Hans Holben, for the preparation of such thingis as
he is appoynted to carie with him, xiij. _li._ vi._s._
viii_d._—in alle the some of liij _li._ vi._s._ viii_d._”[375]
Footnote 375:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiv. pt. ii. 781 (f. 85).
According to Dr. Woltmann, the extra fee of £13, 6_s._ 8_d._ paid to
Holbein for “the preparation of such things as he is appointed to carry
with him,” was, “without doubt a portrait of the King, perhaps a
miniature in a costly frame, which he had to paint and to present to the
Princess as a gift from his monarch.”[376] This explanation, however, is
not at all likely to be the correct one. As already pointed out, Henry
never sent portraits of himself to the lady he was preparing to honour
with his hand until he had first of all seen what she herself was like.
He was too cautious a lover to commit himself so far. In all these
transactions he was the one who was to be sought, and the first offer
must come from the lady’s side. The simplest explanation is that the
money was for the provision of the necessary painting materials, and the
cost of their carriage. The sum was, no doubt, a large one if for such a
purpose alone, but Holbein was then high in the King’s favour, and well
paid for all that he did, while his absence from England on the royal
business put an end for the time to his general practice, and this might
have been considered in fixing the amount of his allowance.
Footnote 376:
Woltmann, i. p. 463.
The travellers reached the castle of Düren, where the ladies were
living, early in August, and Holbein at once set to work. He had
finished portraits of both Anne and her sister Amelia before the 11th of
the month, as we learn from a letter of that date from Dr. Wootton to
Henry VIII. In the course of it he says: “Your Grace’s servant Hanze
Albein hathe taken th’effigies of my ladye Anne and the ladye Amelye and
hath expressyd theyr imaiges verye lyvelye.”[377]
Footnote 377:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiv. pt. ii. 33.
It seems probable that in this instance Holbein did more than make mere
studies in crayons such as he had done in the case of the Duchess of
Milan and the French ladies; and the fact that the portrait of Anne of
Cleves, now in the Louvre, is on parchment fastened down on a wood panel
affords some proof of this. The portrait would be painted on the
parchment directly from the sitter, and afterwards mounted and the
finishing touches given to it. Owing to the haste required, and the
safer conveyance of the portrait, the latter process was probably not
carried out until the artist was back in London.
[Sidenote: GOSSIP ABOUT THE KING’S MARRIAGE]
No time appears to have been wasted. Henry not only demanded but
obtained speed from his servants on their numerous journeys. Travelling
post, the journey to and from Düren, which was usually made via Antwerp,
took about eleven days. Holbein was in England again before the end of
August, as we learn from Marillac, the new French ambassador, who, on
September 1, writing from Grafton, where he had followed the King fifty
miles from London, informed Francis I that he “has learnt that an
excellent painter whom this King sent to Germany to bring the portrait
of the sister of the Duke of Cleves, recently arrived in Court, and,
immediately afterwards, a courier, bringing, among other news which is
still kept secret, news that the said Duke’s ambassadors have started to
come hither to treat and conclude the marriage of this King and the said
lady.”[378]
Footnote 378:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiv. pt. ii. 117. Kaulek, 124.
The proposed marriage afforded opportunity for much speculation on the
part of the King’s subjects, as more than one of his earlier matrimonial
projects had done. An excellent idea of the kind of gossip which
prevailed can be gathered from the evidence taken in the case of a
certain George Constantyne, who talked so much that he got himself
charged with treason. It occurs in the report of a conversation between
Constantyne and the Dean of Westbury during a journey they made together
to South Wales, and in the course of it Holbein’s visit to Cleves is
mentioned. “The Dean asked also if Constantyne had any news of the
King’s marriage. Replied, he could not tell; he was sorry to see the
King so long without a queen, when he might yet have many fair children:
his own father was ninety-two years old, and yet, last summer, rode
thirty-two miles one day before two o’clock, and said he was not weary;
the duchess of Milan and that of Cleif were both spoken of, as the Dean
knew. Asked, ‘How call ye the little doctor that is gone to Cleif?’ The
Dean said, it was Dr. Woten, and that he that was with him of the Privy
Chamber, whom Woten sent home lately, was Berde; adding that this Berde
was sent thither again with the King’s painter, and that there was good
hope of the marriage, for the duke of Cleif favoured God’s word and was
a mighty prince now, having possession of Gelderland against the
Emperor’s will.... Said also that the matter of the duchess of Milan was
really broken off, for she would have the King accept the bishop of
Rome’s dispensation and give pledges. ‘Why pledges?’ asked the Dean.
‘Marry,’ said Constantyne, ‘she sayeth that the King’s Majesty was in so
little space rid of the Queens, that she dare not trust his Council,
though she durst trust his Majesty; for her Council suspecteth that her
great aunt was poisoned, that the second was innocently put to death,
and the third lost for lack of keeping her in childbed.’ Added, that he
was not sure whether this was her answer or that of Cleif, but that he
heard a muttering of it before Whitsuntide.”[379] It will be seen from
this gossip that the legend respecting the Duchess of Milan’s refusal to
accept Henry because she had fear for the safety of her head was
commonly believed at the time.
Footnote 379:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiv. pt. ii. 400. _Archæologia_, xxiii. 56.
The written descriptions of Anne which Henry received from his
representatives and agents were all favourable, but not enthusiastic.
Wootton in the letter referring to Holbein, already quoted, says of her:
“She has been brought up with the lady Duchess her mother (as the lady
Sybille also was till she was married and the lady Amelye has been and
is) and in manner never from her elbow, the lady Duchess being a wise
lady and one that very straitly looketh to her children. All report her
to be of very lowly and gentle conditions, by the which she hath so much
won her mother’s favour that she is very loth to suffer her to depart
from her. ‘She occupieth her time most with the needle, wherewithall
she.... She canne reede and wryte her ... Frenche, Latyn, or other
langaige she [hathe no] ne, nor yet she canne not synge nor playe [upon]
enye instrument, for they take it heere in Germanye for a rebuke and an
occasion of lightenesse that great ladyes shold be lernyd or have enye
knowledge of musike.’ Her wit is good and she will no doubt learn
English soon when she puts her mind to it. ‘I could never hear that she
is inclined to the good cheer of this country and marvel it were if she
should, seeing that her brother, to whom yet it were somewhat more
tolerable, doth so well abstain from it.’”[380]
Footnote 380:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiv. pt. ii. 33.
Sir Michael Mercator, the German factor of musical instruments, knighted
by Henry, wrote to Cromwell later in the year, giving praise to God “for
this alliance with the most illustrious, beautiful, and noble lady Anna
de Clefves, who has a great gift from God, both of sense and wit. It
would be difficult to describe her good manners and grace, and how
Gueldres, Cleves, and all the country of the Duke, rejoice at the
alliance.”[381]
Footnote 381:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiv. pt. ii. 500.
[Sidenote: THE “FLANDERS MARE” LEGEND]
Around Holbein’s portrait of Anne there has been woven a legend which
upon examination is found to have no foundation in fact. The story is to
be traced back to Bishop Burnet, who, in his _History of the
Reformation_, says:[382] “Hans Holbin having taken her picture, sent it
over to the king. But in that he bestowed the common compliment of his
art somewhat too liberally on a lady that was in a fair way to be queen
the king liked the picture better than the original, when he had the
occasion afterwards to compare them.” Instead of the promised beauty,
continues the bishop, they brought him over a “Flanders mare.”
Footnote 382:
Vol. i. pt. i. p. 543.
Walpole, following Burnet, elaborates this: “Holbein was next despatched
by Cromwell to draw the lady Anne of Cleve, and by practising the common
flattery of his profession, was the immediate cause of the destruction
of that great subject, and of the disgrace that fell on the princess
herself. He drew so favourable a likeness, that Henry was content to wed
her; but when he found her so inferior to the miniature, the storm which
really should have been directed at the painter, burst on the minister;
and Cromwell lost his head, because Anne was _a Flanders mare_, not a
Venus, as Holbein had represented her.”[383]
Footnote 383:
Walpole, _Anecdotes_, ed. Wornum, i. p. 72.
There is no truth at all in this story. The leading characteristic of
Holbein’s portraiture is its complete truth; he was not in the habit of
flattering his sitters, and the portrait of Anne affords one of the most
striking testimonies of this. He certainly did not paint her as a Venus,
nor was Cromwell’s fall owing to the picture. He was, indeed, made Earl
of Essex after the lady’s marriage to the King. Letters in the State
Papers show very clearly that Henry complained only of the spoken and
written words of his ambassadors, and made no mention of portraits.
Russell, the Lord High Admiral, in his deposition in connection with the
divorce, quoted Henry as saying to him: “How like you this woman? do you
think her so fair and of such beauty as report hath been made unto me of
her? I pray you tell me the truth.” Whereupon the said Lord Admiral
answered, that he took her not for fair, but to be of a brown
complexion. And the king’s highness said, “Alas! whom should men trust?
I promise you,” said he, “I see no such thing in her as hath been showed
me of her, and am ashamed that men hath praised her as they have done,
and I like her not.” Stow, in quoting this, adds without authority the
words: “either by pictures or report,” after “I see no such thing in her
as hath been showed me of her.”
Stow, apparently drawing upon his own imagination, makes exaggerated
references to the part portraits played in the negotiations for the
marriage. “Some went over by the king, some by the Lord Cromwell, and
some went voluntary, to view the Lady Anne of Cleave, and to negotiate
her marriage with the king. All which, either by letters, speech, or
both, made very large and liberal reports in praise of her singular
feature, matchless beauty, and princely perfections, and for proof
thereof presented the king with sundry of her pictures, which the
bringers ever affirmed to have been truly made, without flattery.”[384]
Footnote 384:
Stow, _Annales_, ed. Howes, p. 576.
Henry, however, in his own declaration, never refers to a portrait. He
entered into the marriage, he said, “because I heard so much both of her
excellent beauty and virtuous conditions.” In addition, he told Sir
Anthony Browne, “I see nothing in this woman as men report of her, and I
mervail that wise men would make such report as they have done.” He also
told Cromwell, in reply to his question as to how he liked the lady,
“Nothing so well as she was spoken of; if I had known as much before as
I know now, she should never have come into the realm. But what remedy?”
After all, however, the praises of her sent home by Henry’s ambassadors
were not very hearty ones. In Hutton’s letter from Brussels, already
quoted,[385] written shortly after Jane Seymour’s death, in answer to a
request that he would search for a possible bride for the King at the
Court of the Regent, he reported, among other princesses, that “the
Dewke of Clevis hathe a daughter, but I here no great preas neyther of
hir personage nor beawtie.” Wootton’s account, given above, is a
remarkably cautious one, and lays most stress on Anne’s domestic
virtues. He had also complained that he had found it impossible to judge
of the personal appearance of the two ladies on account of the ugly
head-dresses they wore.
Footnote 385:
See p. 116.
Had the fault been Holbein’s, he would, no doubt, have fallen under the
King’s displeasure. At the least his appointment would have been taken
from him, even if he had not been forced to leave England; but the
contrary was the case. In September, after his return from Cleves, he
received, for a second time, a whole year’s salary in advance. This was,
of course, before the King had seen the original of the portrait; but,
strangely enough, if the accounts are to be believed, in addition to
this year’s advance, Holbein continued to receive his salary every
quarter day for the next year, so that he was paid twice over.[386] It
is thus very evident that the painter suffered no disgrace or lack of
employment or patronage, so that the legend must be abandoned.
Footnote 386:
See p. 190.
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF ANNE OF CLEVES]
The fine portrait of Anne of Cleves now in the Louvre (Pl. 24) is in all
probability the picture which Holbein painted in Düren.[387] It is
almost three-quarter length, less than life-size. She is shown standing,
facing the spectator, her hands folded in front of her, and dressed in a
very elaborate costume. Her sumptuous gown of red velvet with wide
hanging sleeves has heavy bands of gold embroidered with pearls. The
bodice is cut square, and is edged with a band of ornament decorated
with jewels, and a similar one round the neck with a pendant jewelled
cross. She also wears two gold chains, and several rings on her fingers.
The open front of the dress is filled in with fine white linen with
bands of embroidery. Her hair is covered with an almost transparent
head-dress worked with an elaborate pattern and the motto “A BON FINE,”
over which is a cap wrought all over with gold, pearls, and other
jewels. Her lace cuffs are also gold-embroidered. The background is
blue-green, without inscription. Her brown eyes look straight at the
spectator. More than one writer, influenced no doubt by these stories of
her lack of beauty, has described this portrait as the likeness of a
heavy, expressionless, ill-favoured woman; but this is far from being
the case. Without any pretensions to extraordinary good looks, the face
is a pleasant one, and by no means as plain as it has been described;
indeed, in many ways it compares favourably with that of Queen Jane
Seymour. That it is a truthful representation is certain, for Holbein
never failed in this respect. Nothing is known of the history of the
picture, or how it came to find a home in France, except that it was at
one time in the Earl of Arundel’s possession,[388] and afterwards in the
collection of Louis XIV.
Footnote 387:
Woltmann, 228. Reproduced by Davies, p. 174; Knackfuss, fig. 131; A.
F. Pollard, _Henry VIII_, p. 260; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 124.
Footnote 388:
Entered in the 1655 inventory as “ritratto d’Anne de Cleves.”
Walpole speaks of the portrait done by Holbein in Düren as a miniature.
He was inclined to believe that the beautiful miniature of Anne, now in
the Salting Collection at South Kensington, which in his days belonged
to the Barretts of Lee Priory, was the very miniature painted by Holbein
on this occasion. “This very picture,” he says, “as is supposed, was in
the possession of Mr. Barrett, of Kent.... The print among the
illustrious heads is taken from it: and so far justifies the king, that
he certainly was not nice, if from that picture he concluded her
handsome enough. It has so little beauty, that I should doubt of its
being the very portrait in question—it rather seems to have been drawn
after Holbein saw a little with the king’s eyes. I have seen that
picture in the cabinet of the present Mr. Barrett, of Lee, and think it
the most exquisitely perfect of all Holbein’s works as well as in the
highest preservation. The print gives a very inadequate idea of it, and
none of her Flemish fairness. It is preserved in the ivory box in which
it came over, and which represents a rose, so delicately carved as to be
worthy of the jewel it contains.”[389]
Footnote 389:
Walpole, _Anecdotes_, ed. Wornum, i. p. 72, note.
It is not known in what way this miniature,[390] together with the
companion portrait of Henry VIII,[391] in a similar ivory box, in the
late Mr. Pierpont Morgan’s collection, came into the possession of the
Barrett family. They were offered for sale by auction in 1757, but
bought in; and subsequently sold by Mr. T. B. Barrett in 1826 to a
dealer named Tuck, who resold them for fifty guineas to Francis Douce,
by whom they were bequeathed, in 1834, to Sir Samuel Rush Meyrick, of
Goodrich Court. At a later date the miniature of Anne of Cleves was
bequeathed by General Meyrick to Miss Davies, from whom it was acquired
by the late Mr. George Salting. This miniature follows very closely the
portrait in the Louvre, though there are slight differences in the
details and colour of the dress. The background is blue, without
inscription. It is in water-colours, and is 1¾ in. in diameter. It was
from this miniature, which is regarded as an undoubted work by Holbein,
that Houbraken engraved, in 1739, the portrait of Anne for his
“Illustrious Heads.”
Footnote 390:
Woltmann, 158. Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 148 (2); and in
_Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition Catalogue_, Pl. xxxii.
Footnote 391:
Woltmann, 157. See p. 235.
When the Louvre picture was in the Arundel Collection it was etched by
Hollar, but reversed. This print is 9¼ in. by 7 in., and is dated 1648
and inscribed—“Anna Clivensis, Henrici VIII Regis Angliæ Uxor IIIIta. H
Holbein pinxit. Wenceslaus Hollar fecit aqua forti, ex Collectione
Arundeliana, A. 1648.”[392]
Footnote 392:
Parthey, 1343. There is a second print by Hollar, of the same year,
taken from a picture or drawing in the Arundel Collection, of a lady
in profile to the right, wearing a flat black cap, which, it has been
suggested, also represents Anne of Cleves (Parthey, 1545). The
likeness is not very apparent, nor does the original appear to have
been by Holbein, as Hollar states. It is reproduced by Dr. Ganz,
_Holbein_, p. 198 (2).
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 24
ANNE OF CLEVES
1539
LOUVRE, PARIS
]
[Sidenote: OTHER PORTRAITS OF ANNE OF CLEVES]
There are several other portraits in existence which are said, with
little authority, to represent Anne of Cleves; among them a drawing in
the Windsor Collection,[393] which appears at one time to have become
separated from the others. It came into the possession of Dr. Meade, and
at his sale in 1755 was bought by Mr. Chetwynd. After the latter’s death
it was restored by his executors to the royal collection. It bears
little or no resemblance to the Louvre portrait, and is almost certainly
a likeness of some English lady. She is shown full-face, with a
close-fitting cap covering the ears, and a hat over it. The drawing has
been damaged by having been cut out round the outline. The face is a
refined one. There are notes in German as to the material and colours of
the dress, and the pattern of the Spanish work on the collar is drawn in
detail on the margin. It has no inscription. In the National Portrait
Exhibition at South Kensington in 1865, a small head of “Anne of Cleves”
was exhibited by the Earl of Derby. It was in oil on panel, oval, about
3 in. by 2½ in., and signed “H. H.” It had been injured, and was then in
a somewhat dirty condition; the face had considerable likeness to the
Louvre picture.[394]
Footnote 393:
Woltmann, 357; Wornum, not included; Holmes, ii. 2.
Footnote 394:
Wornum, p. 330, note.
There is, however, one other portrait in addition to the Louvre panel
which is a contemporary likeness of Anne of Cleves, though not by
Holbein. This is the small picture in St. John’s College, Oxford, a fine
work by some unknown painter of the Flemish School. It is a half-length,
standing three-quarters to the left, behind a parapet upon which lie an
orange and a pair of jewelled gloves. The head-dress is of cloth of gold
and white gauze, the latter worked with the motto, “A BON FINE,” as in
the Louvre picture. She is wearing a low-cut dress of striped gold and
black, filled in with white with embroidered bands, gold and jewelled
necklaces, and a pendant cross, and several rings on her fingers. Her
left hand is placed against her waistbelt, and in her right she holds
three carnations. The background is dark, with a small canopy or curtain
over her head. It is on panel with arched top, 19¾ in. by 14¼ in. The
costume is of the same style and period as the Louvre portrait, though
it differs in numerous small details, more particularly in the colours
of the materials, the shape of the sleeves, and the jewelled bands of
the head-dress. The general tone of colour is golden, and there is
excellent painting in all the details of the elaborate costume. It was
included in the Oxford Exhibition of Historical Portraits in 1904 (No.
30), and was one of the most interesting pictures in the
collection.[395] As a likeness it bears a strong resemblance to
Holbein’s portrait, and if not of Anne may well be of her sister. The
suggestion may be hazarded that it is one of the two portraits, painted
six months before Holbein and Beard were in Düren, which Olisleger had
promised to procure for Henry VIII’s ambassadors, portraits which Beard,
apparently, took with him to London early in July 1539.
Footnote 395:
Reproduced in the Oxford Catalogue, p. 24; _Burlington Magazine_, vol.
v., May 1904, p. 214. A very similar picture was lent by Dr. Wickham
Flower to the New Gallery Winter Exhibition, 1899-1900, No. 44, as a
work of the Early Flemish School. It was described in the catalogue
as: “Half-length, turned towards left, habited in a rich Flemish
costume of gold tissue covered with jewellery; head-dress ornamented
with pearls, and inscribed with the motto ‘A bon fine’; in her right
hand she holds a red carnation; flat green background. Painted on
vellum and strained on fine canvas, 15 in. × 14 in. This portrait is
supposed to have been executed by a Flemish painter a year or two
previous to Anne’s marriage in 1540.”
There is no need even to touch upon the concluding stages of this
miserable story, with which Holbein had nothing to do. Henry married
Anne at Greenwich on January 6, 1540, and finally divorced her on July
12 in the same year. She settled at Richmond in the enjoyment of the
rank of a princess and a pension of £3000 a year, and survived the King
by ten years, dying in 1557.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER XXIV
THE LAST YEARS: 1540-1543
Holbein’s work at Whitehall—His residence in the parish of
St. Andrew Undershaft—In high favour at court—Payments of
his salary—Possible visit to Basel—Portraits and miniatures
of Catherine Howard—Portraits of the Duke of Norfolk—The
Earl of Surrey—Unknown men at Berlin and Vienna—Unknown
Englishman at the Hague—Earl of Southampton—Unknown man,
aged 54, at Berlin—Unknown English lady at Vienna—Simon
George—Dr. John Chamber—Sir William and Lady Butts—Unknown
Englishman at Basel—Young English lady in the collection of
Count Lanckoronski—Lady Rich—Holbein’s self-portraits—A
newly-discovered one at Basel—Portraits, now lost, etched by
Hollar—The Duke of Buckingham’s Collection.
Though there is no actual evidence in support of the statement of the
older writers that Holbein, after he entered the royal service, had the
use of a permanent studio in Whitehall Palace, granted to him by the
King, there is every possibility that such was the case. “One of the
earliest of the famous non-royal residents in Whitehall Palace,” says
Dr. Edgar Sheppard, “was the artist Holbein. He had been presented to
Henry VIII by Sir Thomas More, and the King assigned him a permanent
suite of apartments in Whitehall, and commissioned him to paint the
interior of the new Palace, for which work he received two hundred
florins per annum.”[396] While the great wall-painting in the Privy
Chamber was in progress, it would be necessary for him to have a room
for his own use within the building, for the storage of the materials
required for the work, and it is not impossible that he was permitted to
retain the room as his own, perhaps one of those over the so-called
“Holbein’s Gate,” for the short remainder of his life, more particularly
as his practice was almost entirely confined to the court, so that a
studio in Whitehall would best suit the convenience both of the painter
and his sitters.[397] That he had a “permanent suite of apartments”
there, as Dr. Sheppard states, is much less probable. This would
indicate residence, whereas it is known that during his last years he
occupied a house in the east of London.
Footnote 396:
_The Old Royal Palace of Whitehall_, 1901, p. 266.
Footnote 397:
See Appendix (M).
It is doubtful, too, whether Holbein carried out any important
decorative work in the Palace beyond the famous wall-painting already
described.[398] According to a curious entry in Pepys’ _Diary_, under
the date August 28, 1668, which is not easy to understand, the room
known as the Matted Gallery had a painted ceiling of Holbein’s
handiwork. The passage runs as follows: “With much difficulty, by
candle-light, walked over the matted gallery, as it is now with the mats
and boards all taken up, so that we walked over the rafters. But strange
to see how hard matter the plaister of Paris is, that is there taken up,
as hard as stone! And pity to see Holben’s work in the ceiling blotted
on, and only whited over!” The exact sense of the concluding words is
not very clear, but Pepys appears to mean that the ceiling had been
formerly painted by Holbein, and that, having become damaged in course
of time, it had recently been given a coat of whitewash. The ceiling was
probably decorated with coloured plaster-work in relief, and though
Holbein may have supplied the design, and may even have been responsible
for the painting, it is much more likely that the plaster-work itself
was done by some Italian, such as Nicolas Beilin of Modena, who had
carried out similar undertakings at Fontainebleau.
Footnote 398:
In 1576 Johann Fischart, quoted by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. xxxviii., in a
description of the Palace, speaks of several of the galleries as
decorated on both sides with fine emblematic histories, and actions
and stories in the style of Michelangelo and Holbein. Henry Peacham,
in his _Graphicè_ (1606), and again in _The Compleat Gentleman_
(1634), speaks of works by Holbein in Whitehall. He says: “He painted
the Chappell at White-Hall, and S. _James_, _Joseph of Arimathea_,
_Lazarus_ rising from the dead, &c., were his.” (See _The Compleat
Gentleman_, ed. G. S. Gordon, 1906, p. 128. Also Walpole, _Anecdotes_,
ed. Wornum, i. p. 82.) There is a drawing in the British Museum
representing Henry VIII seated at table under a lofty canopy, in a
large chamber, with a number of standing courtiers in attendance,
which appears to be a sixteenth-century copy of a preliminary study by
Holbein for a wall-decoration, possibly for one of the rooms in
Whitehall. It is inscribed “Holbein Inven^t.” Reproduced by Ganz,
_Holbein_, p. 183.
[Sidenote: “DANCE OF DEATH” AT WHITEHALL]
The legend that Holbein also painted a “Dance of Death,” composed of
life-size figures, upon the walls of one of the rooms in Whitehall, is
probably pure fiction, or, at least, there is much less to be said in
its favour than for Pepys’ attribution of the ceiling in the Matted
Gallery to the painter. The writer who first gave currency to the story
was Francis Douce, in his “Dance of Death,” published in 1833. According
to his statement, “very soon after the calamitous fire at Whitehall in
1697,[399] which consumed nearly the whole of that palace, a person,
calling himself T. Nieuhoff Piccard, probably belonging to the household
of William III, and a man who appears to have been an amateur
artist,”[400] made etchings after nineteen of the cuts in the Lyon
“Dance of Death.” Impressions of these etchings, accompanied with
manuscript dedications, are said to have been presented by this Piccard
to his friends and patrons, and among others to a Mynheer Heymans, and
to the “high, noble, and well-born Lord William Denting, Lord of Rhoon,
Pendreght,” &c. In these addresses Piccard speaks of a “wall-painting”
of the “Dance” by Holbein which he himself had seen in Whitehall. In the
dedication to Heymans he says:
Footnote 399:
Should be 1698.
Footnote 400:
_Holbein’s Dance of Death_, ed. 1858, p. 124.
“Sir,—The costly palace of Whitehall, erected by Cardinal
Wolsey, and the residence of King Henry VIII, contains, among
other performances of art, a _Dance of Death_, painted by
Holbein in its galleries, which, through an unfortunate
conflagration, has been reduced to ashes.”
In the dedication to “Lord William Benting” Piccard is more precise:
“Sir,—In the course of my constant love and pursuit of works of
art, it has been my good fortune to meet with that scarce little
work of Hans Holbein neatly engraved on wood, and which he
himself had painted as large as life in fresco on the walls of
Whitehall.”
* * * * *
As far as can be ascertained, there is not the slightest truth in this
legend. Nothing is known as to the identity of Heymans, but Lord William
Benting was evidently William Bentinck (1704-1774), of Rhoon and
Pendrecht in Holland, and Terrington St. Clements, Norfolk, third son of
Hans William Bentinck, first Earl of Portland, and a Count of the Holy
Roman Empire. Douce, who gave undeserved authority to this story, made
no attempt to trace the history of the manuscript “addresses” which
accompanied the etchings, and though he saw them, does not say to whom
they then belonged, or even in what language they were written. They may
be safely set down as forgeries, as far as any wall-paintings of the
“Dance of Death” by Holbein are concerned. Piccard, whoever he may have
been, is the sole authority for the existence of these mythical works,
which are not mentioned by Van Mander or Sandrart, or by any of the
foreign travellers who visited this country in their descriptions of
Whitehall, though the wall-painting of Henry VIII with his wife and
parents in the same palace is more than once spoken of in such records
in terms of high praise. Both Pepys and Evelyn are equally silent on the
subject, though the latter mentions the “Dance of Death” woodcuts, and
ascribes them to Holbein by name. “We have seen,” he says, “some few
things cut in wood by the incomparable Hans Holbein the Dane, but they
are rare and exceedingly difficult to come by; as his _Licentiousnesse
of the Friers and Nuns_; _Erasmus_; _Moriae Encomium_; _the Trial and
Crucifixion of Christ_; _The Daunce Macchabree_; the _Mortis Imago_,
which he painted in great in the Church at Basil, and afterwards graved
with no lesse art.”[401] What he says is by no means free from mistakes,
but as, in speaking of a visit paid to Whitehall in 1656, he describes
the condition of the large wall-painting of the two kings Henry VII and
Henry VIII, and their consorts, it is not probable that he would have
failed to mention any other important wall-paintings in the palace had
they existed. Douce thought he had discovered a corroboration of
Piccard’s story in an entry in Van der Doort’s catalogue of Charles I’s
collection, which runs: “A little piece, where Death with a green
garland about his head, stretching both his arms to apprehend a Pilate
in the habit of one of the spiritual Prince-Electors of Germany. Copied
by Isaac Oliver from Holbein”; but this, no doubt, was painted from the
woodcut of the Elector in the Lyon “Dance of Death,” and not from a
large wall-painting.
Footnote 401:
Evelyn, _Sculptura_, ed. 1769, p. 69.
As already stated, though Holbein may have had a workroom within the
precincts of Whitehall, his permanent home in London was elsewhere. The
public records show that in 1541 he was living in the parish of St.
Andrew Undershaft, in Aldgate Ward. How long he had been there is not
known, but possibly for the greater part of his second sojourn in
England. This information is contained in a subsidy roll for the City of
London, dated 24th October, 33 Hen. VIII (1541). Among the “straungers”
taxed were:
“Barnadyne xxx. _s._
Buttessey, xxx.
_li._
Hanns Holbene iij. _li._”
in fee, xxx.
_li._
Why Holbein was obliged to pay twice the amount charged to Buttessey on
an equal assessment of £30 a year is explained by the fact that in these
subsidies it was usual to tax “lands, fees, and annuities,” at double
the rate of goods. “In the royal accounts,” says Sir Augustus W. Franks,
“the payments to Holbein are sometimes noticed as wages, sometimes as an
annuity; while other payments of a similar kind, although fees or
annuities, are included under the general term “wages,” and evidently
looked upon as synonymous terms for the salaries paid by the King to
various members of his household. In any case, the salary of Holbein,
the painter, rendered him liable to be rated, as a foreigner, at the
high amount above-mentioned.”[402] There can be no doubt that this
Holbein of the subsidy roll was the artist. The amount of his fee, £30,
corresponds with the salary he received from the royal purse, while
Holbein’s will gives his place of residence as the parish of St. Andrew
Undershaft.
Footnote 402:
_Archæologia_, vol. xxxix. p. 17.
[Sidenote: HOLBEIN’S RESIDENCE IN LONDON]
According to a story told by Walpole, Holbein once resided in a house on
London Bridge. He says: “The father of Lord Treasurer Oxford passing
over London Bridge, was caught in a shower, and stepping into a
goldsmith’s shop for shelter, he found there a picture of Holbein (who
had lived in that house) and his family. He offered the goldsmith
100_l._ for it, who consented to let him have it, but desired first to
show it to some persons. Immediately after happened the fire of London,
and the picture was destroyed.”[403] This story is apparently a mere
legend, and there is no evidence to support it; nor is it very probable
that an important painting by Holbein would have remained in the same
small house for more than one hundred and twenty years. Dallaway, in his
notes to Walpole, includes in a supplementary list of works by Holbein
in England a small picture of Holbein, his wife, four boys, and a girl,
at Mereworth Castle, Kent, which he suggests may be either a repetition
or the original picture of the London Bridge story; but in the first
place, Holbein never had a family of four sons, and, secondly, the
picture bears no traces of Holbein’s manner. He quotes Gilpin’s
description of it: “As a whole, it has no effect; but the heads are
excellent. They are not painted in the common flat style of Holbein, but
with a round, firm, glowing pencil, and yet exact imitation of nature is
preserved—the boys are very innocent, beautiful characters.” If some
such “family” picture existed in London at that time, it is much more
likely to have been a copy or a replica of the genuine family group in
the Basel Gallery.
Footnote 403:
Walpole, _Anecdotes_, ed. Wornum, i. p. 86, note.
The favour with which Holbein was now regarded at court is shown by the
frequency with which he received a year’s or half a year’s salary in
advance, a mark of royal condescension which was most unusual. Thus
under “September A^o xxxi” (1539) is the following entry: “Item paide by
the Kingis highnesse commaundement certefied by my lorde privyseales
lettres to Hans Holbenne, paynter, in the advauncement of his hole yeres
wagis beforehande, aftre the rate of xxx _li._ by yere, which yeres
advauncement is to be accompted from this present Michaelmas, and shall
ende ultimo Septembris next commynge, the somme of xxx _li._”[404]
Notwithstanding this payment in advance, it appears, as already pointed
out,[405] from the four following quarterly entries in the accounts
having reference to Holbein, from Michaelmas 1539 to Midsummer 1540,
that he continued to receive his salary of £7, 10_s._ each quarter as
usual.[406] If these entries are to be depended upon, he clearly
received his money twice over, either by accident, owing to carelessness
in the keeping of the King’s accounts, or of set purpose as a further
reward for his services.
Footnote 404:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiv. pt. ii. p. 313, _The King’s Payments_, f. 90 _b_;
and _Archæologia_, vol. xxxix. p. 9.
Footnote 405:
See p. 180.
Footnote 406:
The first of these was due to him, and not covered by the year’s
advance.
[Sidenote: HIS WORK ABOUT THE COURT]
In September 1540 he received an advance of half a year: “September, A^o
xxxii—Item paide to Hans Holbyn, the Kingis paynter, in advauncement of
his wagis for one half yere beforehande, the same half yere accompted
and reconned fromme Michaelmas last paste, the somme of xv _li._” This
time, however, he did not receive his salary twice over, for in the two
following entries, at Michaelmas and Christmas, 1540, the accounts
merely state: “Item, for Hans Holbyn, paynter, wages, nihil, quia prius
per warrantum.” In the following March 1541 he again obtained a
half-year’s advance: “March, A^o xxxii: Item paied to Hans Holben, the
Kingis painter, in advauncement of his half yeres wages before hande,
after the rate of xxx _li._ by yere, which half yere is accompted to
beginne primo Aprilis A^o xxxij. domini Regis nunc, and shall ende
ultimo Septembris then next ensuynge, the somme of xv _li._” The two
remaining entries of which we have record, at Lady Day and Midsummer
following, are as follows: “Item for Hans Holben, paynter, wages, nil,
quia praemanibus”; and “Item for Hans Holbyn, paynter, nihil, quia
prius.” The volume of accounts closes with the payments for this
quarter, and no details of the royal expenditure during the next two
years and a half exist, so that there is no record of the salary Holbein
received for the remaining years of his life. In a later volume of
Tuke’s accounts, as treasurer of the household, extending from October,
35 Hen. VIII (1543) to November, 36 Hen. VIII (1544), the first
quarterly payments are for Christmas 1543, and Holbein’s name does not
occur in them, as he had then been dead for about two months. It is
rather strange, however, that it does not appear among the Christmas
payments with “Nihil quia mortuus” after it, as this was the usual
procedure in case of death. This omission, however, may have been due to
the fact that he had once again received his salary beforehand.
The remaining years of Holbein’s life must have been busy ones, judging
from the number of preliminary studies for portraits of the men and
women of Henry’s court which exist in the Windsor Collection and in many
of the great European museums. These drawings are all undated, and cover
the whole period of his English career, but there are so many of them
that his time must have been always fully occupied. It is strange,
therefore, that so few of his finished portraits can be ascribed with
any certainty to the year 1540. Although it was by no means his
invariable custom to put the date on his paintings, yet this was his
more usual practice, and there is no known picture by him which is
inscribed 1540, though there are a few dated 1541 and 1542. Several
portraits of the Howard family can be given with some certainty to the
earlier year, but beyond this nothing has been so far discovered. It may
be suggested, as some explanation of this, that Holbein paid another
visit to Basel during the last quarter of 1540, as the two years’ leave
of absence granted him by the Town Council came to an end in the middle
of October. The Council, who had been paying his wife the promised
yearly pension of forty gulden, expected him to make Basel his permanent
residence on the completion of this further extension of leave. The
terms of their agreement with him were fairly generous, and it is not to
be supposed that the painter would risk losing his rights of citizenship
and the stoppage of the pension to his wife through a total disregard of
the Council’s wish. It seems possible, therefore, that he went over to
Switzerland in order to make personal application for a further and
longer leave of absence in England than the agreement of 1538 permitted.
Unlike many of the foreign artists and artificers then resident in this
country, he never became a naturalised British subject, and this, no
doubt, was due to the fact that he was determined to end his days as a
citizen of Basel, and regarded his residence here as merely a temporary
one, and England as a profitable field which, as time passed, would
become worked out. He could not, of course, foresee that he was to be
suddenly cut down when a comparatively young man and still in the full
maturity of his powers. At Michaelmas in the year in question he
received half a year’s salary in advance, so that it was impossible for
him to leave England permanently for some time to come.
In the summer of 1540 Holbein lost another of his English patrons. Henry
formally divorced Anne of Cleves on the 12th of July, and on the 28th of
the same month Thomas Cromwell, then Earl of Essex, who had been a good
friend to the painter, was beheaded for high treason, after a period of
eight years during which his influence with both King and Parliament had
been paramount. During the same month Henry privately married Catherine,
daughter of Lord Edmund Howard, a cousin of Anne Boleyn, and niece of
Thomas, third Duke of Norfolk. By this marriage the Howards, and through
them the Catholic party, regained that ascendancy in the councils of the
King which had received a severe check at the fall of Anne Boleyn; and
at least three members of this family were painted by Holbein. The new
Queen was publicly acknowledged on August 8 at Hampton Court Palace.
[Sidenote: MINIATURES OF CATHERINE HOWARD]
Although it was to be supposed that Henry would employ Holbein to paint
the portrait of his new queen, until quite recently the only known
likeness of her from his brush was the miniature portrait in the royal
collection at Windsor Castle, and the replica of it belonging to the
Duke of Buccleuch. In 1909, however, the discovery was made by Mr.
Lionel Cust of a genuine and very beautiful portrait of this Queen. In
the Windsor miniature (Pl. 31 (4)),[407] which shows her in a similar
position to the one in the newly-discovered picture, she is represented
nearly to the waist, turned to the left, her hands folded in front of
her, the left over the right. Her hair and eyes are brown, and she wears
a circular hood of the then fashionable French pattern, with a fall of
black velvet. Her square-cut bodice is of dark cloth of gold, with
sleeves of grey-green silk embroidered with gold, and white ruffles with
black embroidery. Round her neck, over the white cambric filling of the
dress, falls an elaborate necklace of pearls, rubies, and sapphires. The
background, which is bright blue, has no inscription. It is painted on
the back of a playing card, the eight of diamonds, and is 2⅓ inches in
diameter. The hands, and the lower part of the arms, are badly painted,
and appear to be a later addition.
Footnote 407:
Woltmann, 271. Reproduced by Law, Pl. vii.; Knackfuss, fig. 132;
Williamson, _History of Portrait Miniatures_, Pl. ii. No. 2; Pollard,
_Henry VIII_, p. 245; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 149 (4), and Cust,
_Burlington Magazine_, July 1910, p. 195.
Nothing is known of its history, or as to the date of its acquisition,
but it did not belong to the Crown in Tudor or Stuart days. Dr. Ganz
describes it as badly over-painted, and possibly only a copy. Doubts
have been thrown from time to time on its right to be called a portrait
of Catherine Howard. Mr. Ernest Law considers the attribution to be
“very problematical indeed,” and states that it “does not at all accord
with the Holbein drawing inscribed as ‘Queen Katherine Howard.’”[408] In
this he follows earlier writers. Nichols says that though the position
and head-dress of the drawing agree with the miniature, “the features do
not appear to correspond.”[409] It is difficult, however, to agree with
them in this, for a careful comparison of the two makes it quite evident
that they represent the same lady. The version belonging to the Duke of
Buccleuch is almost identical with the Windsor miniature, but is a
better work and slightly smaller, being only two inches in diameter. It
was last publicly exhibited at the Burlington Fine Arts Club, in
1909.[410] It was formerly in the collection of the Earl of Arundel, and
when there was etched by Hollar in 1646. It was afterwards owned by
Jonathan Richardson the younger (1694-1771), and subsequently by Horace
Walpole. Walpole describes it as: “Catherine Howard, a miniature,
damaged, it was Richardson’s, who bought it out of the Arundelian
collection. It is engraved among the Illustrious Heads [of Houbraken];
and by Hollar, who called it Mary, Queen of France, wife of Charles
Brandon, Duke of Suffolk.”[411] In this he is wrong, for no name is
attached to it in Hollar’s etching, and it was first identified as
Catherine Howard by Mr. Cust. In his _Description of Strawberry Hill_,
however, Walpole calls it merely “a lady painted by Holbein,” and says
that it is “probably Mary Tudor, Queen of France, sister of Henry VIII,
but among the Illustrious Heads called Catherine Howard.” According to
Granger, it was Vertue who first named it Mary, Queen of France. The
Duke of Buccleuch also possesses a small oil painting on panel, 5⅜ in. ×
4½ in., which was likewise at the Burlington Fine Arts Club (Case C,
24). It is inscribed, by a hand later than that of the painter of the
portrait, “Catherine Howard Henry VIII.” According to Scharf, this is
“apparently a French work, and, indeed, thoroughly so in personal
characteristics.”[412] It is in the style of Clouet, and the compilers
of the Burlington Fine Arts Club catalogue suggest that it may represent
Anne de Pisseleu, Duchesse d’Estampes.
Footnote 408:
Law, _Holbein’s Pictures_, &c., p. 24. This was before Mr. Cust’s
discovery of the larger portrait.
Footnote 409:
_Archæologia_, vol. xl. p. 78.
Footnote 410:
Case C, 4. Reproduced in _Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition
Catalogue_, Pl. xxxiii.; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 148 (4); and Cust,
_Burlington Magazine_, July 1910, p. 195. Only a part of one hand is
shown.
Footnote 411:
Walpole, _Anecdotes_, ed. Wornum, i. pp. 94-5. Hollar’s etching
(Parthey, 1546) is reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 198 (3); and by
Cust, _Burlington Magazine_, July 1910, p. 195.
Footnote 412:
_Archæologia_, vol. xl. p. 87. Reproduced in _Burlington Fine Arts
Club Catalogue_, Pl. xxxiv.
The Windsor drawing[413] bears no inscription, and the sitter is turned
to the right, as in Hollar’s engraving, instead of to the left, but
otherwise it shows the same type of features, smooth auburn hair, and
French cap or hood, as in the miniature. The dress, however, in
Holbein’s usual fashion, is merely indicated with a few lines, showing a
plain bodice cut square, filled in with white cambric, with a
diamond-shaped opening revealing neck and bosom. It agrees in the same
way with the newly-discovered portrait, of which, though reversed, it is
evidently one of the preliminary studies. The identity with Catherine
Howard is further proved, as Mr. Lionel Cust points out, by the family
resemblance, plainly visible, in certain of the features, such as the
over-accentuated lower jaw, to the portraits of her uncle, the Duke of
Norfolk, and of his son, the ill-fated Earl of Surrey.
Footnote 413:
Woltmann, 329; Wornum, ii. 9; Holmes, i. 42. Reproduced in _Burlington
Magazine_, vol. xvii., July 1910, p. 195, together with the two
miniatures and Hollar’s etching.
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF CATHERINE HOWARD]
In 1898 the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery acquired a
portrait of Catherine Howard[414] at the sale of the Cholmondeley
pictures at Condover Hall, Shropshire, which closely follows the Windsor
drawing, although in the reverse position. The excellence of the
painting of the hands, and of the details of the dress and jewels, led
at first to the supposition that it might be a genuine work by Holbein
which had undergone some damage and restoration, but closer examination
proved that it was merely a careful contemporary school copy, or
repetition of some lost original. It is inscribed “ETATIS SVÆ 21,” which
corresponds with the known facts of Catherine Howard’s life. In the
summer of 1909 the original picture of which it is a copy was submitted
to Mr. Cust, who recognised it at once as not only a portrait of
Catherine Howard, but as most possibly a genuine work of the great
master, which proved to be the case on the removal of much dirty varnish
and some repaints.[415] It came from a private collection in the west of
England, where it had formed part of a series of historical portraits
which had been in the possession of the same family for several
generations, and had been regarded at one time as a portrait of Eleanor
Brandon, Countess of Cumberland, and at another as Princess Mary Tudor.
It is now in Canada, in the collection of Mr. James H. Dunn.
Footnote 414:
No. 1119. Reproduced by Pollard, _Henry VIII_, p. 268; and in the
Illustrated Catalogue, National Portrait Gallery, vol. i. p. 25.
Footnote 415:
See Cust, _Burlington Magazine_, vol. xvii., July 1910, pp. 193-9,
reproduced, frontispiece; and by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 126.
Henry’s fifth Queen is shown seated, at a little more than half length,
turned to the left. The hands are in the same position as in the
miniature, though the fingers are more closely interlaced. Her hair is
auburn, parted in the middle, and the eyes are blue-grey. She wears,
too, a costume of a similar fashion, though of different materials. The
circular French hood, with its heavy band of gold ornament and black
fall, appears to be the same, but the dress is of black satin, with a
square black velvet yoke across the bosom, open at the neck and turned
back to show the white lining. A band or piping of gold ornament
elaborately pierced, with pairs of gold tags at intervals, runs along
the outer seam of the sleeves from shoulder to wrist, and the white
ruffles are embroidered all over with a floral design in black. The
ornaments she wears are of exceptional interest, as they afford actual
evidence that Holbein not only painted portraits of royal ladies, but
also designed their jewellery. Round her neck is a small necklace, set
with pearls and diamonds, less heavy and elaborate than the one
represented in the miniatures, and of greater beauty and delicacy of
design, to which a large pendant jewel is attached. At her breast is a
brooch from which hangs a circular jewel or medallion of chased gold
work, with a large oblong diamond in the centre, on which is represented
the story of Lot’s wife and the flight from Sodom. This jewel was
designed for Catherine by Holbein. It corresponds exactly, as Mr. Cust
points out, with a most characteristic study, a small roundel placed
within an octagon, among the wonderful series of Holbein’s original
drawings for jewellery in the Print Room of the British Museum,[416] and
thus gives particular interest to a portrait which in all ways forms a
very important addition to the master’s work, both on account of the
brilliance of its execution and of its value as an historical document.
Suspended from a chain round her waist hangs a still larger circular
jewel, only the upper part of which is seen. That portion of the subject
which is visible represents two angels with hands raised in adoration on
either side of a crowned and bearded figure, most possibly the Almighty.
The background of the portrait is a plain one, of Holbein’s favourite
blue, across which is inscribed, as in the National Portrait Gallery
copy, “ETATIS SVÆ 21,” on either side of the head. It is on an oak panel
29 inches high by 20 inches wide. It must have been painted between
August 1540, the date of her marriage, and November 1541, when she was
deprived of her dignity as Queen, and forbidden to wear jewels; most
probably in the latter year, according to Mr. Cust, which would
correspond with her accepted age at the time of her marriage. Its
importance and its genuineness have been accepted by such leading
authorities as Dr. Bode, Dr. Friedländer, Dr. Paul Ganz, and Sir Sidney
Colvin.
Footnote 416:
British Museum Catalogue, 35(E) Vol. ii. p. 339. Reproduced in
_Burlington Magazine_, vol. xvii., July 1910, p. 195. See p. 283 and
Pl. 50 (2).
Catherine Howard’s reign as Queen of England was a short one. There is
no need to describe her tragic fate in detail. Before the close of the
year 1541 it was discovered that not only had she had two lovers, one of
them her cousin Francis Dereham, before her marriage, but that she had
also been unfaithful to the King almost from the beginning of her
married life, her paramour being one of her gentlemen, Thomas Culpeper.
The Queen and her accomplice, Lady Rochford, were confined in Syon
House, pending a parliamentary inquiry. Dereham and Culpeper were tried
at Guildhall in December, pleaded guilty, and were hanged at Tyburn
twelve days afterwards; and in February 1542, Catherine and Lady
Rochford were condemned to death, and were beheaded on the 13th of the
month, on the same spot on which the Queen’s cousin, Anne Boleyn, had
suffered the same penalty for the same crime.
This fresh tragedy in his life greatly aged the King, as can be seen in
the portraits of him painted about this period, usually attributed to
Lucas Hornebolt. A month after the execution, Marillac wrote to Francis
I, on March 17, 1542, that Henry was “already very stout and daily
growing heavier, much resembling his maternal grandfather, King Edward,
being about his age, in loving rest and fleeing trouble. He seems very
old and grey since the mishap (_malheur_) of this last queen, and will
not yet hear of taking another, although he is ordinarily in company of
ladies, and his ministers beg and urge him to marry again.”[417]
Footnote 417:
_C.L.P._, vol. xvii. 178.
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF THOMAS HOWARD]
The portrait of Thomas Howard, third Duke of Norfolk, uncle by marriage
to Henry VIII, was painted at about the same time as that of Catherine
Howard. The inscriptions on the fine original version by Holbein in
Windsor Castle (Pl. 25),[418] and the excellent contemporary copy in
Arundel Castle, both state that it was taken in his sixty-sixth year,
and as he is said to have been born in 1473, this gives the date of the
picture as 1539 or early in 1540. He is shown standing, at half-length,
slightly turned to the left. He is wearing a doublet of dusky red silk,
edged with brown fur, and a white collar embroidered with black silk.
His outer robe of dark velvet has a deep collar and border of ermine,
and on his head is a plain, flat black hat, without a badge, over a
black skull-cap which covers the ears. In his left hand he holds the
long white wand of his office of Lord High Treasurer, and in his right
the shorter gold baton, tipped with black, which he carried as
hereditary Earl Marshal of England. Across the shoulders hangs the
magnificent and richly-jewelled collar of the Order of the Garter with
the pendant George, which is painted with all Holbein’s wonderful
mastery in the clear rendering of minute ornament. The face,
clean-shaven, and of a brown complexion, displays remarkable subtlety in
the delineation of a proud and cruel nature. The cold, unflinching eyes,
the thin, compressed lips with their faint, ironic smile, and the bony
hands clasping the staves, reveal the sitter’s true character as it has
come down to us in the pages of history, pride of race, cruelty almost
remorseless in its pursuit of power, and inflexibility of purpose both
in personal aggrandisement and in the service of his royal master.
Footnote 418:
Woltmann, 267. Reproduced by Law, Pl. vi.; Davies, p. 179; Knackfuss,
fig. 133; Pollard, _Henry VIII_, p. 188; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 123.
The background is green, and across the top of the panel runs the
inscription: “THOMAS · DVKE · OFF · NORFOLK · MARSHALL · AND TRESVRER
OFF · INGLONDE THE · LXVI YERE · OF · HIS · AGE.” It is now almost
illegible, through the passage of time and over-painting, but can be
deciphered by the aid of the exactly similar inscription on the Arundel
picture. This, as already stated, gives the date of the portrait as
about 1540. The inscription, however, is not contemporary, but was
probably added some hundred years later, in the reign of Charles I, when
the picture was in the collection of the Earl of Arundel. It was finely
etched by Vorsterman when in the Earl’s possession, in 1630, though
without the inscription, but beneath the plate is engraved: “Hans
Holbein pinxit. Visitur in Ædibus Arondelianis Londini.” This does not
necessarily prove that the inscription on the panel did not exist at
that date, as Vorsterman may have omitted it as disfiguring. That it was
certainly there fifteen years later is proved by a coloured drawing on
vellum by Philip Fruytiers, the Antwerp painter, dated 1645, a copy of a
study by Van Dyck representing a large group of Thomas Howard, Earl of
Arundel, his wife, and family. On the wall in the background Van Dyck
had inserted, and Fruytiers has copied, on the one side, this very
portrait of the Duke of Norfolk by Holbein, in which the inscription
across the top of it in gold letters can be plainly seen, and on the
other side the portrait of his son, the Earl of Surrey, also evidently a
work by Holbein, though the original painting is now lost, which is
inscribed: “HENRY HOWARD ERLE OF SUHRY ANNO ÆTATIS SVÆ 25.” This
water-colour drawing, which is signed “An. Vandyke inv. Ph. Fruytiers
fecit 1645,” is in the collection of the Duke of Sutherland, and there
is a small copy of it in oils on copper at Norfolk House, which also
shows the inscription. It was engraved by Vertue in 1743. The original
sketch or composition by Van Dyck has been lost.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 25
THOMAS HOWARD, DUKE OF NORFOLK
WINDSOR CASTLE
]
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF THOMAS HOWARD]
It is supposed that the Windsor version is the one which was in the
Arundel Collection, but its subsequent history is uncertain. That
collection was divided in 1686, and the share which fell to the Duke of
Norfolk may possibly have contained this portrait of his ancestor.[419]
The Duke’s pictures were sold in 1692, and nothing further is to be
heard of this portrait until it is mentioned by Walpole as being then
(1762) in Leicester House, at that time the dower-house of the Dowager
Princess of Wales, widow of Frederick, Prince of Wales.[420] “There can
be no doubt,” says Mr. Ernest Law, “that the picture passed, on the
death of the Princess in 1772, into the possession of the Crown with the
rest of the collection which had been formed by Prince Frederick.”[421]
It is not known from whom that Prince acquired it, but many of his
pictures were purchased for him on the Continent by his agent, Bagnols,
and it is not unlikely that Woltmann’s surmise is correct, and that it
is to be identified with the portrait of the Duke which appeared in the
catalogue of an anonymous sale of pictures at Amsterdam on April 23,
1732, as “Een zeer konstig uitmuntent stuk door Hans Holbeen, zynde de
Hartog van Nortfolk nooit zoo goet gezien,” which must have been a fine
work, as it fetched the relatively high price of 1120 florins.[422] It
is quite possible, therefore, that the portrait was one of those sold by
Lord Stafford in Amsterdam in 1654, immediately after the death of the
Countess of Arundel, and that it was never in the possession of the Duke
of Norfolk, but remained in that town until 1732.
Footnote 419:
The only portrait of the Duke mentioned in the Arundel inventory of
1655 has no artist’s name placed against it, but it comes next to the
portrait of the Earl of Surrey, which is given to Holbein. It is
entered as “Ritratto de Tomaso Howard, Ducha de Nordfolk.”
Footnote 420:
Walpole, _Anecdotes_, &c., ed. Wornum, i. p. 83.
Footnote 421:
Law, _Holbein’s Pictures_, &c., p. 19.
Footnote 422:
Woltmann, ii. pp. 57 and 156.
The copy at Arundel Castle, about which still less is known, is so good
that it is only when it is placed side by side with the Windsor version,
as it was in the Tudor Exhibition in 1890, that the latter is seen to be
by far the finer work of the two. The Arundel picture is slightly the
smaller, and was last exhibited at the Burlington Fine Arts Club in 1909
(No. 49). There is a second version of this portrait in the Norfolk
collection, at Norfolk House, in which various alterations have been
made in the position and the dress, and a more elaborate background has
been added. It is a work of comparatively little merit, and appears to
have been painted during the seventeenth century by some inferior
artist.
At the time he sat to Holbein the Duke was at the height of his power.
He had been the bitter enemy of both Wolsey and Cromwell, and had
assisted to bring about the downfall of both, and had arrested the
latter with his own hands. After Cromwell’s execution he became the most
powerful of Henry’s subjects, and reached his highest summit of
greatness. His influence over the King, however, waned after the fall of
his niece, Catherine Howard, when he was supplanted by his enemies, the
Earl of Hertford and the Seymours. In 1546 he was attainted, together
with his son, the Earl of Surrey, for high treason, and only escaped the
latter’s fate by the death of the King on the day the warrant for his
execution was made out. He remained in the Tower throughout the reign of
Edward VI, but was released on the accession of Queen Mary in 1553, and
his titles and estates were restored to him, but he only lived to enjoy
them for a year.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 26
HENRY HOWARD, EARL OF SURREY
Wrongly inscribed “Thomas Howard”
_Drawing in black and coloured chalks_
WINDSOR CASTLE
]
[Sidenote: PORTRAITS OF HENRY HOWARD]
That Holbein painted his son, Henry, Earl of Surrey, is proved by the
small portrait on the wall in Fruytiers’ version of Van Dyck’s picture
of the Arundel family. The inscription on this miniature copy gives his
age as twenty-five; and as he was born about 1517, Holbein must have
painted him about 1541. He is represented with reddish hair and beard,
and brown eyes, the head slightly turned to the right, and wears a black
cap with a feather, and a black mantle from the folds of which the right
hand appears. There is a small drawing in the Windsor Collection wrongly
inscribed “Tho. Howard E. of Surrey,”[423] which bears some likeness to
the Earl in the Fruytiers drawing, and is supposed to represent Henry
Howard. It is badly rubbed, and has suffered from retouching and certain
coarse alterations, and has the slightly-wavering touch which marks the
so-called “Melanchthon” in the same collection. It is apparently the
original study for the portrait which was engraved by Hollar when it was
in the Arundel Collection.[424] There are two other heads at Windsor
also named Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey, but the attribution cannot be
correct, as Surrey’s son, Thomas, was a small boy of only six or seven
at the time of Holbein’s death. Whether the drawings represent the poet
himself is also doubtful. One of them, inscribed “Thomas Earl of Surry”
(Pl. 26),[425] in which he is shown full-face, clean-shaven, with hair
cut straight across the forehead and partly covering the ears, and
wearing a black cap with scalloped edges and an ostrich feather, is one
of the finest drawings in the whole collection, conspicuous for the
delicacy of the modelling and the freedom and expressiveness of the
draughtsmanship. The face is one of considerable charm, which is not to
be seen in the third drawing,[426] inscribed “Tho. Earle of Surry,”
perhaps a little later in date, in which the head is turned slightly to
the left, and the hair entirely covered with the black skull-cap he
wears beneath the feathered bonnet. The dress is only slightly
indicated, and is rubbed, and a circular medallion suspended from a
broad ribbon hangs on his breast. A portrait of his wife is also to be
found among the Windsor heads,[427] full-face, wearing the angular
English head-dress with black fall, and a round jewelled ornament
hanging from a chain round her neck, and a second medallion on her
breast. The dress which, like the ornaments, is badly rubbed, was of
rose-coloured velvet, according to a note in Holbein’s handwriting. The
portrait for which this drawing was the study, like that of her husband,
cannot now be traced. The two full-length portraits of Henry Howard,
dated 1546, at Arundel Castle and at Knole respectively, are usually
ascribed to the Netherlandish painter Guillim or Gillam Stretes, on
account of Strype’s statement, already quoted,[428] that in 1551 the
Privy Council ordered a picture “of the late Earl of Surrey, attainted,”
to be fetched away from “the said Guillim’s house.” The Duke of
Norfolk’s version of the portrait[429] has a very elaborate
architectural setting, coarsely painted in stone colour, and apparently
of a somewhat later date than the rest of the picture, while the one
belonging to Lord Sackville at Knole shows the figure only, and is
looked upon by some authorities as the original. The attribution of
these two pictures to Stretes is extremely doubtful. The Arundel
portrait, in particular, suggests the hand of an Italian, and the name
of Nicolas Beilin of Modena may be tentatively suggested. One of them
was in the collection of Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, where it was
attributed to Holbein. It is described in the inventory of 1655 as “il
ritratto del Conte de Surry grande del naturale.”
Footnote 423:
Woltmann, 312; Wornum, ii. 8; Holmes, ii. 19.
Footnote 424:
Parthey, 1509. Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 197 (2). The portrait
itself is described in the Arundel inventory of 1655 as “Ritratto de
Henrico Howard, Conte de Surrey.”
Footnote 425:
Woltmann, 314; Wornum, ii. 6; Holmes, i. 20. Reproduced by Davies, p.
180, and elsewhere.
Footnote 426:
Woltmann, 313; Wornum, i. 35; Holmes, i. 21.
Footnote 427:
Woltmann, 330; Wornum, ii. 24; Holmes, i. 22.
Footnote 428:
See p. 168.
Footnote 429:
Exhib. Burlington Fine Arts Club, 1909, No. 54. Reproduced Arundel
Club, 1907, No. 3; Pollard, _Henry VIII_, p. 284.
Only three dated works of the year 1541 remain; the two fine portraits
of men in the Berlin and Vienna Galleries, and the miniature of Charles
Brandon, the younger son of the Duke of Suffolk. The Berlin panel,[430]
(No. 586 C), is inscribed at the top, in gold, on either side of the
cap, “ANNO 1541,” and lower down, in smaller letters, level with the
sitter’s ears: “ETATIS : SVÆ : 37.” The coat of arms, enamelled in red
and white, on the gold ring on his left hand, indicates that in all
probability this young man was a member of the Dutch family of Vos van
Steenwijk, though the writer has failed to trace the name, or any
indication of a sojourn in or visit to England on the part of its
bearer, in the Calendars of the English State Papers. It is a
half-length portrait, considerably less than life-size, head and body
turned to the right, but both eyes shown. The eyes are grey, and the
finely painted beard and moustache are a reddish brown. In his clasped
hands he holds a pair of brown gloves. He wears a black silk under-dress
and a surcoat of black or very dark brown, with the collar turned over
to show the lining of black watered silk, and his flat cap of the same
colour has a turned-down brim. He is gazing to the spectator’s right
with a far-away and slightly melancholy look in his eyes, which are
wonderfully painted, as is the beautiful and expressive left hand. It
comes from the Von Sybel, Elberfeld, Merlo of Cologne, and Suermondt
collections, having been purchased from the last-named owner in 1874.
Footnote 430:
Woltmann, 117. Reproduced by Knackfuss, fig. 134; Ganz, _Holbein_, p.
128.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 27
PORTRAIT OF AN UNKNOWN YOUNG MAN
1541
IMPERIAL GALLERY, VIENNA
]
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF A MAN WITH A FALCON.]
The picture of an unknown man, aged twenty-eight, at Vienna[431] (No.
1479) (Pl. 27), is still finer in expression, and, indeed, is one of the
most brilliant portraits of Holbein’s later years. It is one of his
customary half-length figures, less than life-size, seated at a table,
the body turned to the right, and the face looking out at the spectator.
His doublet is of purple-brown silk, and over it he wears the usual
black cloak with a deep collar and lining of brown fur, and black cap
with a brim. The collar of his white shirt is beautifully embroidered
with black Spanish work and tied with black laces. His grey gloves are
held in his left hand, and his right rests on the olive-green cloth of
the table, the forefinger being thrust within the pages of a gilt-edged
book, near which is placed an inkstand with a red cord. On one of his
rings is an intaglio. The clean-shaven face, showing blue on chin and
upper lip, is of a ruddy brown complexion, and the hair, which does not
cover the ears, is almost concealed by the hat. The unknown sitter, who
appears to be an Englishman, is comely in features, and the eyes have a
far-seeing, visionary expression, which Holbein has rendered with
extraordinary vividness and subtlety of drawing. The upper part of the
background consists of a blue-grey wall, with wooden panelling, or the
back of a long wooden seat, below, and the panel is inscribed on either
side of the head: “ANNO · DNI · 1541 · ETATIS · SVÆ · 28.” It was in the
collection of the Archduke Leopold William in the seventeenth century.
There is an old copy of this picture in the Palermo Gallery (Woltmann,
223).
Footnote 431:
Woltmann, 254. Reproduced in the Vienna Catalogue, p. 343; Knackfuss,
fig. 136; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 127.
To the year 1542 belongs the small portrait of an unknown Englishman in
the Hague Gallery (No. 277) (Pl. 28),[432] which, again, is brilliant in
execution, the details painted with the minutest care, but with a touch
both delicate and free from all hardness, and unusual richness of
colour. The head is full-face, the body turned slightly to the left. His
closely cropped hair is chestnut in colour, turning to red at the ends
of his moustache and short pointed beard. It is almost the only portrait
by Holbein in which the sitter is shown without a hat. He wears a dress
of black velvet and watered silk with a pattern, slashed with red silk
at the shoulder and wrist. On his left hand, which is gloved, stands his
falcon, a large bell on its claw. His right hand, in which he holds the
bird’s hood, is ungloved, with a gold ring set with a stone on the
little finger. The light falls from the right, and the shadow on the
left side of the face is more strongly marked than in most of Holbein’s
portraits. The modelling is fine, the face full of strong character,
and, as usual, the hands are most expressively painted, the whole
presentment being most vivid and life-like. The background is a plain
blue-grey, of much the same tone as that in the portrait of 1541 at
Vienna. Across the panel is inscribed, on either side of the head, the
date 1542, and lower down “ANNO · ETATIS · SVÆ · XXVIII.” Little is
known about the history of this picture, except that it was at one time
in the royal collections of England, and that it was taken to Holland by
William III, and was included in the list of works of art reclaimed by
Queen Anne after that King’s death.[433] Like the portrait of Cheseman,
however, it remained abroad. It is inscribed on the back “The manner of
Holbein,” and in old catalogues was absurdly described as a portrait of
Sir Thomas More.
Footnote 432:
Woltmann, 160. Reproduced by Mantz, p. 171; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 129.
Footnote 433:
No. 21. “A man’s head with a hawk by Holbein.”
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 28
PORTRAIT OF AN UNKNOWN MAN WITH A FALCON
1542
ROYAL PICTURE GALLERY, MAURITSHUIS, THE HAGUE
]
[Sidenote: UNDATED PORTRAITS OF LAST YEARS]
It is probable that during this year Holbein painted Sir William
Fitzwilliam, created Earl of Southampton in 1538, who died at Newcastle
in 1543. There is a fine drawing of the head in the Windsor
Collection,[434] turned three-quarters to the right, wearing a black cap
with a medallion, and ear-flaps, or a coif, tied under the chin; slight
whiskers are indicated on the cheek-bones. It is a face of strong
individuality, with a big nose, finely and boldly drawn, the dress only
roughly indicated. There is a full-length portrait of the Earl, 6 ft. ×
3 ft. 3 in., in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (No. ii. 164),[435]
which is described in the catalogue as probably a copy of the original
picture by Holbein which, in 1793, was destroyed by fire at Cowdray
House, the estate purchased by the Earl in 1528. He is represented
standing to the right, and wearing a black cap tied under the chin as in
the Windsor drawing, a long black cloak with fur collar reaching to the
knees, dark hose and shoes, and the collar and jewel of the Garter round
his neck. He grasps a gold-headed staff in both hands, and stands on a
terrace with a low parapet and a pavement of black and red tiles,
overlooking a distant landscape consisting of wooded country and a
land-locked harbour or estuary of a river with ships. His coat of arms
is in the top left-hand corner, and in the right an inscription giving
his titles and offices, as Lord Privy Seal and Chancellor of the Duchy
of Lancaster, and the date 1542. The supposition that this picture is a
copy after a lost original by Holbein is probably correct; it is quite
in his manner, though in workmanship it in no way reaches to his
mastery, the landscape background in particular showing an indecisive
touch quite unlike his firm handling. A copy of the head, evidently
taken from this picture, a small panel, 13⅛ in. × 9¾ in., was lent to
the Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition, 1909 (No. 34),[436] by the
Duke of Devonshire, which is inscribed across the brown background, in
an eighteenth-century hand, “SIR THOMAS MOORE.” The compilers of the
Burlington Club catalogue do not accept the Cambridge portrait on which
it is based as a copy after Holbein, but as an original work, and
clearly by the same hand as the Earl of Surrey at Knole, the full-length
of a young man in Hampton Court Palace, and the Sir Thomas Gresham in
Mercers’ Hall, with which the name of Guillim Stretes has been
connected, though on somewhat flimsy foundations.[437] The Windsor head,
however, is in such close accord with the Fitzwilliam Museum picture
that it seems reasonable to suppose that the latter was based on it, or,
rather, upon some painting of Holbein’s for which it formed the
preliminary study. There were two portraits of the Earl in the Arundel
Collection, both attributed to Holbein.[438]
Footnote 434:
Woltmann, 291; Wornum, i. 5; Holmes, i. 17. Reproduced in _Drawings of
Hans Holbein_ (Newnes), Pl. xl.
Footnote 435:
Reproduced in F. R. Earp’s Catalogue of the collection, 1902, p. 96;
and in _Principal Pictures of the Fitzwilliam Museum_, Gowan & Grey,
Ltd., p. 85.
Footnote 436:
Reproduced in the Catalogue, Pl. v.
Footnote 437:
See _Burlington Catalogue_, p. 86. In one of his articles on the
Arundel Collection (see _Burlington Magazine_, vol. xxi., August 1912,
p. 257), Mr. Lionel Cust speaks of this head of the Earl, at Hardwick
Hall, as “perhaps by Holbein himself,” and states that, according to
Vertue, in the sale of the Earl of Oxford’s pictures, 1741, there was
sold “Lord Fitzwilliams,” a head by Holbein, for fifteen guineas.
Footnote 438:
“Ritratto de ffitzwilliams Conte de Southampton,” and “Conte de
Southampton Fitzwilliams.”
In 1542 John Leland’s “Naeniae” on the death of Sir Thomas Wyat was
published, with the small circular woodcut of the poet after a drawing
by Holbein, which has been already described;[439] but otherwise the
only dated portrait of this year is the one of the young man with the
falcon at the Hague, though there are several which must have been
painted shortly before his death. Those of Dr. John Chamber and Sir
William Butts and his wife must have been produced in 1542 or the
earlier half of 1543, while others, such as the “Elderly Man” at Berlin,
the small portrait of an English lady at Vienna, and the Simon George at
Frankfurt, may be attributed with some certainty to the last seven or
eight years of Holbein’s life. It is probable, too, that he painted at
about this time another portrait of the Prince of Wales. No such
painting now exists, but the full-faced head with a cap in the Windsor
Collection[440] represents Edward as a boy of about five or six years of
age, and certainly older than in the Hanover picture, while in the
profile head with cap and feather in the same collection of
drawings,[441] which forms the basis of numerous portraits in the
National Portrait Gallery and elsewhere, the boy seems even older,
though he was only six at the time of Holbein’s death.
Footnote 439:
See p. 80.
Footnote 440:
Woltmann, 327; Wornum, ii. 2; Holmes, not included. See above, p. 167.
Footnote 441:
Woltmann, 328; Wornum, ii. 3; Holmes, ii. 1. See above, p. 167.
The portrait of an Unknown Man, aged fifty-four, in the Berlin Gallery
(No. 586 I) (Pl. 29 (1)),[442] is another work of great power in its
suggestion of life-like portraiture, and of high technical excellence.
He is shown to the waist, slightly turned to the right. The face is a
dignified one, with a long nose, and a slight droop in the right eyelid,
and a look of melancholy absorption about his dark grey eyes. The hair
and long beard are black, the latter with numerous grey hairs finely
indicated with all Holbein’s customary minute care. The hands are thrust
out of sight within the sleeves. His doublet, of which only the lower
part of the sleeves is visible, is of ruby-red silk or satin, over which
is a black or dark-brown coat with bands of black velvet, and lined with
a patterned watered silk. The black cap has gold tags. The plain
background is a greyish-blue, and on either side of the head is
inscribed in gold lettering, “ÆTATIS · SVÆ · 54.” On the back of the
panel are the letters “W.E.P.L.C.,” apparently in a sixteenth-century
hand, probably the mark of some early English collector. The same
letters appear on the back of the portrait of Robert Cheseman at the
Hague, and on the portrait of a young man by Joos van Cleve in Berlin
(No. 633 A), which was formerly in the Marlborough Collection, where it
was at one time attributed to Holbein. Nothing of the early history of
the portrait under discussion is known. It belonged at one time to Sir
J. E. Millais, and was lent by him to the Holbein Exhibition in Dresden
in 1871, where it was acknowledged by the leading German critics to be a
splendid example of the master’s later English period. It was purchased
at the Millais sale, in 1897, for 3000 guineas for the Kaiser Friedrich
Museum. There is a poor and lifeless copy of the head of this portrait
in the collection of Mr. John G. Johnson, of Philadelphia.[443] The
panel is a pastiche, for the copyist has attached the head of the
Millais portrait to the body of the Unknown Young Man aged twenty-eight
in the Vienna Gallery. In the copy of the head the hat is without the
gold tags, the beard is slightly shorter, and the sitter appears to be
somewhat younger. In that of the body the dress, hands, the rings,
gloves, and book follow the Vienna picture closely, but the copyist has
removed the two rings on the little finger of the right hand to the more
usual ring-finger. Mr. C. Ricketts regards it as “almost certainly
modern. In draughtsmanship it is without subtlety, the nostril is
preposterous, the under lip like a muffin.”[444] Mr. F. J. Mather
considers it to be old, and of fair quality.
Footnote 442:
Woltmann, 211. Reproduced in the Berlin Catalogue, p. 178; Ganz,
_Holbein_, p. 142; and in colour in _Early German Painters_, folio vi.
Footnote 443:
Reproduced in the _Burlington Magazine_, vol. ix., August 1906, p.
357; and Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 228. It has no inscription.
Footnote 444:
_Burlington Magazine_, vol. ix., September 1906, p. 426.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 29A
PORTRAIT OF AN UNKNOWN ELDERLY MAN
KAISER FRIEDRICH MUSEUM, BERLIN
]
* * * * *
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 29B
PORTRAIT OF AN UNKNOWN ENGLISH LADY
IMPERIAL GALLERY, VIENNA
]
“It is pretty surely of Holbein’s century, and of better quality than
the reproduction indicates.”[445]
Footnote 445:
_Burlington Magazine_, vol. x., November 1906, p. 138.
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF SIMON GEORGE]
The portrait of an unknown English lady in the Imperial Gallery, Vienna
(No. 1483) (Pl. 29 (2)),[446] is almost miniature in size, and is
characterised by the most delicate brush-work and great charm and
richness of colour. She is shown to the waist, full-face, the body
turned slightly to the left, and her hands clasped in front of her. The
dress is of dark brown or puce, with the yoke and central hanging part
of the sleeves of black velvet. The sleeves from the elbow are of red
velvet slashed with white at the wrists. She wears a French head-dress
of white and gold, with black fall, closely resembling the one in the
portrait of Catherine Howard. The hair is a dark reddish brown. At her
breast is suspended a circular gold ornament upon which is represented
figures sacrificing at an altar, possibly of Holbein’s designing. The
background is a deep grey-blue, surrounded by a frame imitating
stonework. It has no inscription.
Footnote 446:
Woltmann, 253. Reproduced in Vienna Catalogue, p. 346; Knackfuss, fig.
138; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 140; and in colour in _Early German
Painters_, folio iii.
Another small work of much beauty and delicacy of workmanship, and charm
of expression, is the portrait of Simon George, of Quocote, in Cornwall,
in the Städel Institut in Frankfurt (No. 71),[447] a profile portrait to
the left, showing the head and shoulders only, and the right hand, in
which the sitter holds a carnation. He has dark, closely-cropped hair
and pointed beard, with a black cap over the right ear, elaborately
ornamented with a white feather, many gold tags, an oval medallion with
a representation of Leda and the Swan, and a small bunch of enamelled
pansies. His dress is a rich one, and the open collar of the shirt is
covered with black embroidery of a floral pattern of conventional
design. The background is of greenish blue, and some letters of a
two-lined inscription, of later date than the painting, mutilated by the
reduction of the panel, which appears to have been originally round, can
still be traced, including the letters NOB and part of the painter’s
signature, “IOHA : H.” It was acquired in 1870 from the
Brentano-Birckenstock sale. The original study for the head is in the
Windsor Collection,[448] and shows the same slight frown wrinkling the
forehead as in the picture. The hairs of the moustache are very
carefully drawn, but the beard only shows a few days’ growth. It is
inscribed at the bottom, in cursive writing, “S. George of Cornwall.”
Footnote 447:
Woltmann, 151. Reproduced by Knackfuss, fig. 137; Ganz, _Holbein_, p.
139; and in colour in _Early German Painters_, folio vi.
Footnote 448:
Woltmann, 309; Wornum, i. 15; Holmes, i. 49. Reproduced in _Drawings
of Hans Holbein_, Pl. xviii.
The portrait of Dr. John Chamber or Chambre in the Imperial Gallery,
Vienna (No. 1480) (Pl. 30),[449] is one of Holbein’s most powerful
portraits of old men, the deeply-lined, clean-shaven face being full of
individuality. He is shown to the waist, turned three-quarters to the
right, in a plain black doctor’s cap, which covers the hair and hides
all but the lobe of the ears, and a black gown with brown fur collar;
and he holds a pair of grey gloves in his hands. The background is a
very dark blue, and is inscribed, on either side of the head, “ÆTATIS
SVE 88.” The date of John Chamber’s birth has not been traced, but the
portrait was probably painted in 1541 or 1542, when Holbein was engaged
upon the big “Barber-Surgeons” picture, in which Chamber is introduced
in much the same position as in the Vienna portrait. He died at an
advanced age, well over ninety, in 1549. He was one of the King’s
physicians, and his name was the first on the roll of six doctors who in
1518 received letters patent from the Crown giving them the privilege of
admitting other physicians to practise medicine in London, which was the
original foundation of the Royal College of Physicians. Chamber was
joint author with Dr. Butts and two others of a manuscript
“Pharmacopœia” for the use of Henry VIII. As Court physician he attended
Anne Boleyn at Greenwich Palace at the birth of the Princess Elizabeth,
and it was he who reported to the Privy Council the critical condition
of Jane Seymour when Edward VI was born. He married Joan Wardell in
1545, when he was nearly ninety, and their son was christened in the
following year, both he and his wife dying within a few weeks of one
another in 1549. His career, however, was more remarkable for the many
religious preferments he gained, than for his medical skill. Born in
Northumberland, he became a priest in early life, and was a Fellow, and
afterwards Warden, of Merton College, Oxford. In 1502 he went to Italy
and graduated in physic in Padua. On his return to England he succeeded
Linacre as the King’s chief physician. In 1522 he was Canon of Windsor,
in 1536 Dean of the Collegiate Church of St. Stephen, and later on
Archdeacon of Meath. A very excellent copy of this portrait is in the
possession of Merton College, Oxford, and was included in the Oxford
Exhibition of Historical Portraits in 1904 (No. 27). It is inscribed on
the back: “Dr. Chamber, phisician of King Henry VIII, copied from Hanns
Holbein’s original by H. Reinhart. The original, once belonging to the
collection of King Charles I, was, together with several other pictures
of the same master, after the execution of this Monarch, sold and became
the property of Archduke Leopold, Stadtholder of the Low Countries, from
whence by legacy it passed into the Gallery of the Emperors of Austria
(Ob. 1549).” The original portrait, however, does not appear at any time
to have been included in the collection of Charles I, but it formed part
of the wonderful series of works by Holbein got together by Thomas
Howard, Earl of Arundel. In the _Dictionary of National Biography_ the
date of his birth is given as 1470, while the Oxford catalogue suggests
the date 1469, but neither can be correct, or otherwise the date of the
Vienna picture would be 1557 or 1558, fourteen years or so after
Holbein’s death. If the age of the sitter, eighty-eight, as given on the
panel, is correct, and it is accepted that the portrait was painted
about 1542, Chamber must have been born about 1454. The Merton College
copy was exhibited at the Royal Academy Winter Exhibition, 1901-2 (No.
155), as a work of the school of Holbein. In 1894 the Royal College of
Physicians became possessed of a miniature portrait of Chamber, painted
on the back of the ten of clubs, and said to be by Isaac Oliver. This is
a careful copy of the Vienna picture, and has a long Latin inscription,
giving Chamber’s titles, and the date of his death, round the frame. The
original, when in the Arundel Collection, was engraved by Hollar
(Parthey, 1372), with the inscription “D. Chambers Anno Ætatis Svæ 88.
Holbein pinxit.” In the Arundel inventory it is described as “Doctore
John Chambers.” It is possibly one of the pictures which remained on the
Continent after the death of the Countess of Arundel in 1654.
Footnote 449:
Woltmann, 255. Reproduced in Vienna Catalogue, p. 344; Knackfuss, fig.
147; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 131.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 30
DR. JOHN CHAMBER
IMPERIAL GALLERY, VIENNA
]
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF DR. JOHN CHAMBER]
The portraits of Sir William and Lady Butts,[450] which have suffered,
more particularly the former, from coarse repainting, are probably of
about the same date as the Dr. Chamber, for Butts is also one of the
prominent figures in the “Barber-Surgeons” group. The portrait of the
husband has an inscription which has been repainted by an ignorant
copyist, and now reads “ANNO ATATS SVE LIX.” Unfortunately, as in the
case of Chamber, the year of Butts’ birth is not known, so that the
exact date of the portrait cannot be proved. It is given in the National
Portrait Gallery Catalogue as 1485 (?). His tombstone at Fulham bears
only the date of his death, 1545. The portraits show the heads and
shoulders only. Sir William is represented in profile to the right, in
black cap and furred gown, and a heavy gold chain upon his shoulders.
His face is clean-shaven, and his grey hair almost covers the ears. Lady
Butts is painted almost full-face, but turned slightly to the left. She
wears the angular English head-dress with black fall, a plain dress with
fur-trimmed mantle, and a large enamelled rose at her breast. Above her
head is inscribed “ANNO ÆTATIS SVE LVII.” Both portraits were in the
National Portrait Exhibition, 1866, lent by Mr. W. H. Pole-Carew, and
are now in the collection of Mrs. John Gardner, Fenway Court, Boston,
U.S.A. They are about 18 in. × 14 in., and the green backgrounds and
inscriptions of both pictures have been badly repainted. There is a good
copy or replica of Sir William in the National Portrait Gallery[451]
(No. 210), and copies of both husband and wife, apparently
seventeenth-century work, in the collection of Mr. F. A.
Newdegate-Newdigate, at Arbury, Warwickshire. There is no head of Butts
among the Windsor drawings, but that collection contains a masterly one
of his wife,[452] in which the lines of the face are very strongly
marked. She was a daughter of John Bacon of Cambridgeshire. The portrait
of their third son, Edmund Butts, of Thornham, Norfolk, who died at the
age of thirty in 1549, is in the National Gallery (No. 1496), and is
regarded as a work of that little-known English painter John Bettes.
This portrait is dated 1545, and the age of the sitter is given as
twenty-six, and on a card on the back is the inscription “_faict par
Johan Bettes Anglois_.”[453]
Footnote 450:
Woltmann, 204, 205. Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, pp. 132-3; and in
Gowan, _Masterpieces of Holbein_, pp. 41, 42. The portrait of Lady
Butts engraved by Hollar, 1649.
Footnote 451:
Reproduced in the illustrated edition of the National Portrait Gallery
Catalogue, vol. i. p. 21.
Footnote 452:
Woltmann, 343; Wornum, ii. 36; Holmes, ii. 13. Reproduced by Davies,
p. 220, and elsewhere.
Footnote 453:
For some account of Bettes, see pp. 308-9.
In the exhibition held at the Burlington Fine Arts Club in 1909, Prince
Frederick Duleep Singh lent a portrait (No. 30), also dated 1545, said
to represent Edmund Butts, and attributed by the owner to Bettes. The
armorial bearings on this picture indicate a member of the Butts family,
but the person represented is certainly not the same as in the National
Gallery portrait, nor do the two appear to be the work of the same
painter.
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF SIR WILLIAM BUTTS]
Dr. Butts was in receipt of a salary of £100 a year from the King, and
was the favourite physician about the Court. He was a native of Norfolk,
and educated at Cambridge. Many prescriptions in his handwriting are
preserved in the British Museum. He appears as one of the characters in
Shakespeare’s _Henry VIII_ (Act v. sc. 2), and his name occurs in a
number of contemporary letters. Thus, in 1537, the Earl of Shrewsbury
wrote thanking Cromwell “for asking the King to licence Dr. Buttes to
come to him”;[454] and on October 6, 1542, the Earl of Southampton wrote
to Wriothesley from York, when upon the expedition against Scotland:
“Recommend me to Butts, and thank him for his pills. I would not have
foregone them at this time for all the good I have.”[455] In spite of
the pills, however, the Earl died at Newcastle nine days later.
Footnote 454:
_C.L.P._, vol. xii. pt. i. 328.
Footnote 455:
_C.L.P._, vol. xvii. 912.
A small half-length portrait of an Unknown Man in the Basel Collection
(No. 327),[456] belongs to the later period of Holbein’s English
residence. He is turned three-quarters to the left, and wears the
customary dark fur-lined surcoat and black cap, and dark purple sleeves,
and holds his gloves and a paper, upon which the inscription is now
illegible, in his clasped hands. The beard, moustache, and hair are
dark. This picture, which was purchased in Basel in 1862, has been more
than once restored, so that Holbein’s handiwork has suffered
considerably. Another small picture which is also now in a damaged state
is the portrait of a young English lady in the collection of Count
Lanckoronski in Vienna,[457] which was regarded by Woltmann as probably
by Holbein, but when exhibited in the Dresden Exhibition of 1871 was
declared by the critics to be a genuine work. It is similar in style to
the small portrait of a Lady in the Vienna Gallery, and of about the
same date. She is shown at half-length, turned a little to the
spectator’s right, with clasped hands, and wearing a dark dress with red
puffings and gold tags from shoulder to wrist, and a French hood with
bands of gold ornaments and a black fall. Round her neck is a gold chain
with a pendant with seven flat stones, a second gold chain, and a large
brooch fastened at her breast with a cameo of a double head, a young
man’s shown full-face, attached to one of a lady in profile. Across the
plain green background, on either side of her head, is inscribed “ANNO
ETATIS SVÆ XVII.” In appearance she is stolid and unattractive, but this
may be partly due to the present state of the picture.
Footnote 456:
Woltmann, 22. Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 141.
Footnote 457:
Woltmann, 260. Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 144.
There remains one other portrait of a lady of about this date—that of
Lady Rich,[458] which until 1912 had been for many years in the
possession of the Moseley family at Buildwas Park, Shropshire. The
sitter is represented to the waist, slightly turned to the right, and
wears the English diamond-shaped hood with black fall, and a black dress
with a gold medallion decorated with the figures of a man and woman by a
corpse, which, according to Wornum, are “exquisitely put in.”[459]
According to the same writer, it is “a fine expressive portrait, with a
thin rich carnation.” It is painted on wood, 17 in. by 13 in., and has
suffered some retouching. The face is a most determined one, as can be
seen from the fine preliminary drawing in the Windsor Castle
Collection.[460] Lady Rich was the daughter and heiress of William Jenks
or Gynkes, a rich London grocer, and she married, in 1535, Lord
Chancellor Rich, of notorious memory, who helped to ruin many of the
prominent men of his day, such as More and Fisher. In the seventeenth
century the portrait became the property of the Rev. Herbert Croft,
Bishop of Hereford, whose granddaughter, Elizabeth Croft, married Acton
Moseley, of Staffordshire. In 1792 the portrait, with some other
pictures, was bequeathed by Sir Archer Croft to his cousin, Mr. Walter
Michael Moseley. The latter’s descendant, Captain H. R. Moseley, parted
with the picture in 1912, and it is now in an American collection.[461]
It was last exhibited at the National Portrait Exhibition at South
Kensington in 1866 as a portrait of “Queen Katherine of Arragon.” There
is also a drawing of her husband, Richard Rich,[462] at Windsor, and
Holbein must almost certainly have painted his portrait, but all traces
of it have been lost. A version of it was among the pictures destroyed
by fire at Knepp Castle in 1904.
Footnote 458:
Woltmann, 128.
Footnote 459:
Wornum, p. 296.
Footnote 460:
Woltmann, 319; Wornum, ii. 37; Holmes, ii. 10.
Footnote 461:
For a fuller history of the picture, see an article in _The Morning
Post_, May 23rd, 1912.
Footnote 462:
Woltmann, 318; Wornum, i. 8; Holmes, ii. 9.
[Sidenote: HOLBEIN’S SELF-PORTRAITS]
Among the very last works from Holbein’s hand must have been the various
miniature portraits of himself, dated 1543, described in the next
chapter.[463] The self-portrait in the Uffizi Gallery, Florence,[464]
which is evidently founded on one of them, or on one of the small
oil-paintings, now lost, has few pretensions, in the writer’s opinion,
to be regarded as an original work, though it is, of course, possible
that beneath the brush-work of some later and inferior painter there may
be an original work by Holbein now practically obliterated. It is only
right, however, to point out that Dr. Ganz considers it to be an
original though damaged drawing, and other writers are in agreement with
him. It is in coloured crayons on a gold ground, and the comparatively
modern inscription with the date 1543 has been painted over an earlier
one, which can be still traced below. Dr. Ganz suggests that it is
probably one of the two portraits which Van Mander saw in Amsterdam in
1604.
Footnote 463:
See pp. 230-231. Also Vol. i. pp. 27-8.
Footnote 464:
Woltmann, 150. Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 134, and elsewhere.
Of far greater interest is the recently-discovered portrait, first
published in 1912 by Dr. Ganz,[465] which he considers to be a genuine
self-portrait by Holbein, hitherto unknown. The likeness both to the
numerous miniatures and to the Uffizi portrait is so great that the
attribution is most certainly the correct one. It is in all ways much
more attractive than the last-named work, and has far greater vitality
and a more subtle expression of character. It is a drawing of the head
and shoulders only, turned slightly to the spectator’s right, and the
painter is wearing a dark fur-lined cloak and black cap. Part of the
left hand only is shown. It is a coloured-crayon drawing touched with
water-colour, on white paper which has been covered with a
flesh-coloured ground. The paper has a Zürich water-mark, and was only
manufactured between 1536-1540, so that the date of the drawing can be
fixed with some accuracy, and was very probably done in Basel during
Holbein’s short visit home in the autumn of 1538. It has, unfortunately,
suffered considerable damage, and here and there has been touched up
with Indian-ink. On the top right-hand comer of the blue background is
inscribed, in a later hand, “H. H. 15 ...” It was purchased in England
in the summer of 1910, and is now in Basel in the collection of Dr.
Rudolph Geigy-Schlumberger.[466]
Footnote 465:
Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 138.
Footnote 466:
See Ganz, _Holbein_, pp. xxxix. and 244. He suggests that this drawing
is perhaps the “ritratto d’homo aquazzo” of the Arundel inventory.
Several portraits by Holbein, which so far have not been traced, were
etched by Hollar when they were in the Arundel Collection, and these
prints, in the absence of the originals, form invaluable records for the
use of students. Some few of them, however, though Hollar has placed
Holbein’s name on them, cannot have been painted by him, as, for
instance, the portrait of Thomas Chaloner,[467] which is dated 1548. All
the more important of them are reproduced by Dr. Ganz in his _Holbein_
(1912),[468] and several have been already described in these pages.
Among those remaining there is one of an unknown bearded man in a black
cap,[469] and two of unnamed boys.[470] The second of these boys, whose
head is turned three-quarters to the left, appears, from the details of
the dress he is wearing, to be a Swiss. Holbein’s original silver-point
study for the portrait from which the etching was taken is in the
Louvre, and is dated 1520. The connection between the two was first
pointed out by Dr. Ganz.[471] The circular portrait of Sir Anthony Denny
is inscribed “ANNO 1541 ÆTATIS SVÆ 29.”[472] The original painting, a
small roundel, descended, according to Mr. W. Barclay Squire, to the
Howards of Greystoke Castle, and is now in the collection of Mr. J.
Pierpont Morgan, junr. There is an old copy of it at Longford
Castle.[473] The large print of an elderly, grey-bearded man, with fur
coat, and cap with a feather,[474] is usually said to represent Charles
Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, but though it bears considerable likeness to
the authentic portraits of him, the attribution is doubtful. There are
several portraits of English ladies among Hollar’s work. Of one, in
which the sitter is turned to the right, and is wearing a round
head-dress surmounted by a flat black cap with a large feather,[475]
there is no study known, but for two others, which Hollar has reproduced
as small roundels, the preliminary drawings are to be found in the
Windsor Collection, one of them of an unknown lady, full-face, wearing
the angular head-dress,[476] and the other the drawing inscribed “The
Lady Mary after Queen.”[477] The profile portrait of a lady, which has
been considered by some writers to represent Anne of Cleves,[478] does
not appear to be after an original by Holbein, though Hollar has placed
his name on it. It is possible, though not very probable, that some of
these circular etchings were based on the drawings, and not on finished
pictures.
Footnote 467:
Parthey, 1371.
Footnote 468:
pp. 196-200.
Footnote 469:
Parthey, 1544.
Footnote 470:
Parthey, 1551 and 1543.
Footnote 471:
See _Holbein_, p. 250. The drawing reproduced by Ganz, _Hdz. von H. H.
dem Jüng._, Pl. 9; and by Mantz, p. 34.
Footnote 472:
Parthey, 1387.
Footnote 473:
Reproduced in _Magazine of Art_, May 1897, p. 42; and in the catalogue
of the collection of the Earl of Radnor, W. Barclay Squire, 1909, No.
144. It is 4 in. in diameter, and is given to Holbein in the
catalogue. Engraved by C. Picart, 1817.
Footnote 474:
Parthey, 1554.
Footnote 475:
Parthey, 1550.
Footnote 476:
Parthey, 1549. Woltmann, 350; Wornum, ii. 38; Holmes, ii. 24.
Footnote 477:
Parthey, 1465. For the drawing, see p. 258.
Footnote 478:
Parthey, 1545. See p. 182, note 4.
[Sidenote: DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM’S COLLECTION]
Holbein’s practice during his last English period seems to have been
devoted almost entirely to portraiture, so that an entry in an inventory
of the Duke of Buckingham’s pictures at York House, made in 1635,[479]
is of exceptional interest, as it shows that he did occasionally paint
subjects other than portraits. It runs as follows: “Hans Holbin.—Jupiter
and Jo in Water Coulers.” This picture, of which all traces are lost,
was hanging in the Vaulted Room. The Duke possessed a number of other
works by or attributed to Holbein, but unfortunately the entries in the
inventory are so tantalisingly vague that it is impossible to gather
much information about them, though two of them seem to have been
portraits of Steelyard merchants. They included “Erasmus Rotterodamm
after Holbin”; “A Dutchman Sealing a Letter” (possibly the John of
Antwerp now at Windsor);[480] “A Rare piece, being a Dutchman”; “A
Queen”; “An other Lady”; “A little picture in Linnen”; and “A little
picture of Holbin himself,” which was probably one of the miniatures.
With the exception of the last-named, all are described as by “Holbin”
or “Hans Holbin.”
Footnote 479:
See Randall Davies, _Burlington Magazine_, vol. x., March 1907, pp.
376-82. Also Walpole, _Anecdotes_, ed. Wornum, vol. i. p. 94.
Footnote 480:
See pp. 9-14.
[Sidenote: THE “DANCING PICTURE”]
Another subject-picture by Holbein is mentioned by Evelyn in his
_Diary_, but so vaguely that it is impossible to guess what it could
have been. He says, under the date May 8, 1654: “I also call’d at Mr.
Ducie’s, who has indeede a rare collection of the best masters, and one
of the largest stories of H. Holbein.” This, however, may have been some
picture similar to “The Battle of Spurs” at Hampton Court, attributed to
Holbein in Evelyn’s day, and not a genuine work of the master. His
judgment was not always infallible, as he speaks of the well-known
“Dancing Picture,”[481] which he saw at the Duke of Norfolk’s at
Weybridge (23rd August 1678) as “that incomparable painting of
Holbein’s.”
Footnote 481:
This picture was traditionally said to have been begun in France by
Janet (Clouet), and Vertue thought it might have been retouched by
Holbein, “as it was probably painted for his patron, the Duke of
Norfolk, from whom it descended immediately to the Earl of Arundel,
out of whose collection the father of the present possessor (Colonel
Sotheby) purchased it.” (See Walpole, _Anecdotes_, ed. Wornum, i. p.
95.) It was lent to the Tudor Exhibition, 1890, by Major-Gen. F. E.
Sotheby, No. 145. The only entry in the Arundel inventory which it is
just possible might refer to this picture is “Un quadretto con diverse
figure Jocatori, etc.,” which is given to Holbein.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER XXV
HOLBEIN AS A MINIATURE PAINTER
Early references to Holbein as a miniature painter—Receives instruction
from Lucas Hornebolt—Rareness of genuine miniatures by him—Sir Thomas
More—Lord Abergavenny—Lady Audley—Henry and Charles Brandon—Drawing in
the British Museum of a lady and children on a bench—Miniature of Mrs.
Robert Pemberton—Unknown youth in the Queen of Holland’s
Collection—Miniature paintings of Holbein himself—Thomas Cromwell—Anne
of Cleves—Jane Seymour—Edward VI—Livina Teerlinc—Miniatures of the
Holbein school—Miniature of an unknown man, possibly the painter Harry
Maynert, at Munich.
The old tradition that Holbein did not practise miniature painting until
after he had settled in England is probably true. Van Mander says that
it was only at a late period, after he had entered the King’s service,
that he, who knew how to adapt himself almost to everything, took up the
art of miniature painting, in which he had before done nothing. At that
time he met at the Court a very famous master in this art, named Master
Lukas. “With Lukas he kept up mutual acquaintance and intercourse, and
learned from him the art of miniature painting, which, since then, he
pursued to such an extent, that in a short time he as far excelled Lukas
in drawing, arrangement, understanding, and execution, as the sun
surpasses the moon in brightness.”[482] Seventy years later Sandrart
repeated this statement, which he evidently took from Van Mander’s book.
The Master Lukas in question was undoubtedly Lucas Hornebolt, who was in
the employment of the King throughout the whole period of Holbein’s
residence in England. So far, the only pictures extant which have been
attributed with some certainty to the studio of Lucas and Gerard
Hornebolt are the portraits of Henry VIII, of the type of the Warwick
Castle portrait, when that monarch was drawing towards the end of his
life; but the sister, Susanna, wife of John Parker, Yeoman of the Robes,
and one of the King’s bowmen, was well known in her day as an excellent
miniaturist, while Guicciardini speaks of Lucas as not only a very great
painter, but as exceptionally good in the art of illuminating, so that
it is extremely probable that a number of the miniatures still in
existence, representing Henry, his wives, and members of his Court,
which though very excellent, have not the brilliance of execution and
the unfailing insight into character which mark the few genuine
miniatures by Holbein, were the work of the members of this family.
Guicciardini published his book only twenty-four years after Holbein’s
death, so that his account of the position they occupied at Henry’s
court, and the estimation in which they were held in England, borne out
as it is by the royal accounts, is evidently an accurate one.
Footnote 482:
Quoted by Woltmann from Van Mander, i. p. 407; English translation, p.
370.
Further confirmation of the fact that Holbein was famous for his skill
in miniature painting during his residence in England is to be found in
a manuscript “Treatise concerning the Arte of Limning,” which was
written, at the request of Richard Haydock, by Nicholas Hilliard, the
first and one of the finest of English native-born miniature painters,
who was born in all probability in 1537, and so was a boy of six when
Holbein died, and based his art on Holbein’s own practice. This
treatise, which was first published in its entirety by Dr. Philip Norman
in the first annual volume of the Walpole Society, 1911-12, from the
original manuscript in the Edinburgh University Library, was probably
written by Hilliard between 1598-1602. The manuscript, which is not in
the miniaturist’s own hand, is dated 18th March 1624. In it Hilliard
extols “King Henry the eight a Prince of exquisit jugment and Royall
bounty, soe that of cuning stranger even the best resorted unto him, and
removed from other courts to his. Amongst whom came the most excelent
Painter and limner Master Haunce Holbean the greatest Master Truly in
both thosse arts after the liffe that ever was, so Cuning in both
together and the neatest; and therewithall a good inventor, soe compleat
for all three, as I never heard of any better then hee. Yet had the King
in wages for limning Divers others, but Holbean’s maner of limning I
have ever imitated and howld it for the best, by Reason that of truth
all the rare Siences especially the arts of Carving, Painting,
Goudsmiths, Imbroderers, together with the most of all the liberall
Siences came first unto us from the strangers, and generally they are
the best and most in number. I heard Kinsard [Ronsard?] the great French
poet on a time say, that the Ilands indeed seldome bring forth any
Cunning man, but when they Doe it is in high perfection; so then I hope
there maie come out of this ower land such a one, this being the
greatest and most famous Iland of Europe.”[483]
Footnote 483:
Quoted by Holmes, _Burlington Magazine_, vol. viii., January 1906, p.
229. See also _Walpole Society_, vol. i., 1912, pp. 18-19.
[Sidenote: “MINIATURA, OR ART OF LIMNING”]
Still further proof of Holbein’s fame as a limner or miniature painter
is to be found in a manuscript written by Edward Norgate, called
“Miniatura or the Art of Limning,” now among the Rawlinson MSS. in the
Bodleian Library, dedicated to Henry Frederick, Earl of Arundel. Other
versions of this treatise on the “Art of Limning” are in the British
Museum (Harl. MSS., No. 6000); in the possession of the Royal Society,
which came from the Arundel Collection; and elsewhere. Norgate based a
considerable part of his treatise on the earlier one by Hilliard. “The
incomparable H. Holbein,” he says, “who, in all his different and
various methods of painting, either in oyle, distempre, lymning or
crayon, was, it seems, so general an artist as never to imitate any man,
nor ever was worthily imitated by any.”[484]
Footnote 484:
Quoted by Dallaway in his notes to Walpole, _Anecdotes_, &c., ed.
Wornum, vol. i. pp. 111-2. For a full account of Hilliard’s treatise,
and the various versions of Norgate’s work, see Dr. Philip Norman in
the Walpole Society’s publication, mentioned above; also Mr. Martin
Hardie in vol. ii. of Dr. G. C. Williamson’s _History of Portrait
Miniatures_, 1904.
Van Mander is, no doubt, correct in saying that Holbein received
instruction in the art of miniature painting from Lucas Hornebolt, and
that he had not practised it until he came to England; though Hornebolt
had nothing to teach him but the practical use of a medium in which, as
applied to portraiture, he had until then had very little experience.
There is no evidence to show that he produced true miniatures while in
Basel, though there is one attributed to him in the collection of the
late Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan, a portrait of a Baseler, a certain Arnold
Franz, described below, which affords possible proof that he did so.
Such an isolated example as this, however, may have been painted during
one of his later visits to Basel, or it may represent one of the members
of the German colony in London. Several of his small circular oil
paintings, almost the size of the true miniature, have been described in
earlier chapters,[485] so that he was already skilled in working on a
small scale, and within it of producing a life-like portrait, of the
utmost delicacy and truth to nature, while his extraordinary skill and
precision in rendering with most minute yet masterly touches of the
brush all the details of the sitter’s costume, jewellery, and
accessories, must have left him little to learn when he began to work in
the new medium. It is evident that he soon set up a standard of
excellence in this field which both his contemporaries and the
miniaturists who came after him did their best to reach.
Footnote 485:
See Vol. i. pp. 180, 184-5; Vol. ii. pp. 14, 20, 70-1.
His miniatures are now of the greatest rarity, though there are many in
various English collections which still wrongfully bear his name, given
to them in less critical days, when every portrait, great and small,
dating from Tudor times, was ascribed to him. In certain of these, very
possibly Holbein’s original handiwork has been buried beneath repairs
and repaints by later and less skilful hands. No doubt a number of
others have been lost, for so delicate and small an object of art as a
miniature is soon damaged or mislaid; though against this must be set
the fact that many of them were kept in specially-made ivory boxes, and
so would not easily suffer destruction. The number of them which, from
the perfection of their execution, can be said with some approach to
certainty to be from his brush, can be counted almost on the fingers of
one’s hands. These include the portraits of Mrs. Pemberton; the two sons
of the Duke of Suffolk, Henry and Charles Brandon; Lady Audley; Queen
Catherine Howard; Sir Thomas More; the portrait of an unknown youth in
the Queen of Holland’s collection; several of the painter himself, done
in the last year of his life, and two or three others. After these come
several which, though less perfect in draughtsmanship, have serious
claims to be considered as his work, and after these, again, there are
those fairly numerous examples which, though of good execution and of
real interest and value, have no pretensions to rank as works of the
great master. Some of these have been attributed tentatively to such
painters as the Hornebolts, Livina Teerlinc, Stretes, or Bettes, though
modern criticism has not succeeded as yet in disentangling the works of
these little masters the one from the other, so that the various
attributions are at present more or less mere guesswork.
[Sidenote: MINIATURES OF SIR THOMAS MORE]
The beautiful miniature of Sir Thomas More, rediscovered by Dr.
Williamson when in the Godolphin-Quicke Collection, and first published
by him in his _History of Portrait Miniatures_, which is in the late Mr.
J. Pierpont Morgan’s collection, has been already described when
speaking of the portraits of Sir Thomas.[486] A second miniature of
More, in the collection of the Duke of Buccleuch at Montagu House, was
first reproduced by Mr. Dudley Heath in _The Connoisseur_.”[487] This,
though based, like the Pierpont Morgan miniature, on the Huth portrait,
shows some differences from both. It is smaller than the other
miniature, and the sitter appears to be some years older. The eyes are
more downcast and the head slightly bent, while the scanty beard is
whiter. In other respects the dress, consisting of black cap and furred
gown, and collar of SS with the Tudor rose, is the same. Another
interesting point about it is that it is painted, not in water-colours,
but in oil on a gesso ground, upon a metal plaque which appears to be
silver. It has, unfortunately, suffered to some extent in the course of
time, and has been retouched here and there, but it is a fine example,
very possibly by Holbein, showing, according to Mr. Heath, “that vivid
realism, yet reserve of expression, that sensitive modulation of the
tones and contours, that insistent yet flexible drawing of the features,
which constitute the sign-manual of the great portrait painter.” Nothing
seems to be known of the history of this miniature, which was exhibited
at South Kensington in 1862 (No. 2061), in the Royal Academy Winter
Exhibition in 1879 (Case L, 4), and at the Burlington Fine Arts Club in
1909 (Case C, 17). These miniatures of More would seem to suggest that
Holbein’s earlier biographers were wrong in stating that he did not
begin to practise in this branch of art until after he had entered Henry
VIII’s service. It has been generally supposed that when he returned to
England a second time he saw little or nothing of the Chancellor, and if
that is so, these miniatures must have been painted between 1526 and
1528, when he was at work on the big group of his first English patron’s
family. At that time, however, Holbein had no official connection with
the court, and was possibly not yet on terms of intimacy with the
Hornebolts, so that it seems more probable that any miniatures of More
from his hand were done between 1532, the date of Holbein’s return to
London, and 1534, when the ex-Chancellor was imprisoned in the Tower.
Another possible solution is that they were painted after More’s death
for friends or relations who desired a memorial of him, and were done
from the oil painting or from the preliminary drawings still in the
painter’s possession.
Footnote 486:
See Vol. i. pp. 306-7.
Footnote 487:
_The Connoisseur_, vol. xviii. No. 71, July 1907, frontispiece (in
colour.) Also reproduced in _Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition
Catalogue_, Pl. xxxiii.
Another miniature from the Montagu House Collection was also reproduced
for the first time by Mr. Dudley Heath in the same article,[488] and was
lent by the Duke of Buccleuch to the Burlington Fine Arts Club
Exhibition (Case C, 22). It represents George Nevill, third Lord
Abergavenny, and, as already noted,[489] is founded on the fine drawing
in the collection of the Earl of Pembroke, for so long considered to be
a portrait of Thomas Cromwell. The face, which is that of an old man, is
turned three-quarters to the spectator’s right, and is clean-shaven. His
white hair is almost covered by the black cap, on which is a gold jewel
with three pendant pearls. He wears a black fur-lined gown over a black
doublet open at the throat, showing his white shirt. On the left-hand
side of the bright-blue background is inscribed “G. Abergaveny.” It is
painted, like nearly all miniatures of the period, on a playing card,
and is 1¾ in. in diameter. It was purchased by its present owner, with
some other miniatures, at the Earl of Westmorland’s sale at Apethorpe
Hall, Northamptonshire, in 1892. It is in a perfect state of
preservation, full of vitality, and excellent in modelling, and has
considerable claims to be regarded as an original. The pale, high tones
of the flesh colour are in marked contrast to the lower tones of the oil
miniature of Sir Thomas More in the same collection.
Footnote 488:
_The Connoisseur_, vol. xviii., July 1907, frontispiece (in colour).
Also reproduced in _Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition Catalogue_,
Pl. xxxiii.
Footnote 489:
See p. 62.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 31
MINIATURES
1. HENRY BRANDON
2. CHARLES BRANDON
3. LADY AUDLEY
4. QUEEN CATHERINE HOWARD
WINDSOR CASTLE
5. PORTRAIT OF AN UNKNOWN YOUTH
QUEEN OF HOLLAND’S COLLECTION
6. THOMAS CROMWELL
THE LATE MR. J. PIERPONT MORGAN’S COLLECTION
]
[Sidenote: MINIATURE OF LADY AUDLEY]
The two almost similar miniatures of Catherine Howard, at Windsor Castle
(Pl. 31 (4)) and Montagu House, have been already described;[490] both
are beautiful examples, and each one is almost certainly from Holbein’s
own hand, though the former has suffered from restoration. In the royal
collection at Windsor there are three other miniatures which also can be
given to him without any hesitation, all three being masterpieces of the
art of the limner; these are the portraits of Lady Audley and the two
Brandon boys. The miniature of Lady Audley (Pl. 31 (3)),[491] is of
extraordinary delicacy in handling and colour, and bears the stamp of
Holbein in every minute and unerring touch. As Mr. Law says, “there was
no other artist at the court of Henry VIII, or indeed in Northern
Europe, who could have produced so exquisite a work of art.”[492] She is
shown to the waist, turned to the right, with hands folded in front of
her. Her richly-brocaded dress is of pale crimson, with under-sleeves of
dark grey and white ruffles, and she wears a French hood trimmed with
pearls, and a black fall over her fair hair. Her double necklace is of
almost the same pattern as the one worn by Catherine Howard. There is no
inscription on the plain, deep blue background. It is 2½ in. in
diameter, and is painted on the back of the two of hearts. The identity
of the sitter is placed beyond doubt by the fine drawing, inscribed “The
Lady Audley,” in the Windsor Collection (Pl. 37 (1)),[493] in which the
position and features of the sitter, the costume and ornaments, are
almost exactly the same, while the colour of the dress in the miniature
agrees with the note in Holbein’s handwriting on the drawing—“damast
rot.” This drawing is one of the finest and most delicate among the
heads of women in the Windsor Collection—a long, handsome face, with
pointed chin and sharp nose, and very expressive eyes. Holbein has
carefully indicated the details of the ornaments she is wearing. Her
necklace is of elaborate workmanship, apparently a band of alternate
links of enamel and pearls arranged as flowers, with a large pendant
with inset facetted jewels and three hanging pearls. At her breast is a
large circular ornament of a somewhat similar design. The oil painting
for which the preliminary study was made, and from which the miniature
was possibly taken, is now lost. Elizabeth, Lady Audley, was the eldest
daughter of one who must have been in constant touch with Holbein—Sir
Bryan Tuke, the Treasurer of the Chamber, whose portrait by him has been
already described, and from whose hands he received his salary. She
married John Touchet, ninth Lord Audley.
Footnote 490:
See pp. 192-193.
Footnote 491:
Woltmann, 270. Reproduced by Law, Pl. vii.; Williamson, _History of
Portrait Miniatures_, Pl. ii. fig. 3; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 149 (3).
Painted at about the same time as the “Catherine Howard.”
Footnote 492:
Law, _Holbein’s Portraits at Windsor Castle_, p. 25.
Footnote 493:
Woltmann, 342; Wornum, ii. 31; Holmes, ii. 27. Reproduced by Davies,
p. 220; and elsewhere.
The portraits of the two young sons of the Duke of Suffolk, Henry and
Charles Brandon, are acknowledged on all sides to be among the very
finest of Holbein’s miniatures. Dr. Woltmann, indeed, considered the one
of the elder brother to be the best which ever came from his brush. It
is, he says, “the most beautiful miniature painting by Holbein that is
known to us, and exhibits more strikingly than any other his artistic
style and his spirited and perfect mode of execution, true in spite of
all its delicacy.”[494] This is certainly by no means too high praise,
for both miniatures are delightful renderings of childhood, drawn with
all Holbein’s keen perception, and faultless in their precision of line
and delightfulness of colouring. The elder boy, Henry (Pl. 31 (1)),[495]
aged five, is shown to the waist, full-face, leaning with his left arm
on a table at his side, his head slightly bent in the same direction. He
is wearing a black velvet dress with green under-sleeves, and a black
hat with a white feather. His fair hair is cut straight across his
forehead, and there is a rather sad look in his eyes. On the ledge of
the table is inscribed, “ETATIS SVE 5 6 SEPDEM,” and below, on the
table-leg, “ANNO” and the date, which has been variously read by
different writers. The younger brother, Charles (Pl. 31 (2)),[496] aged
three, is also seen to the waist and full-face. His dress is a bluish
grey braided in red, and with black cuffs. His flat black cap has no
feather; his hair, like his brother’s, is very fair, and his blue eyes
look straight at the spectator. There is a strong likeness between the
two. He holds in front of him a paper with the inscription “ANN 1541
ETATIS SVÆ 3 10 MARCI.” Both miniatures are painted on a playing card, 2
in. in diameter, and in each the background is the usual bright blue.
Their pedigree in the royal collection can be traced back as far as
Charles I, in whose catalogue they appear as: “Done by Hans Holbein.
Given to the King by Sir H. Vane. No. 64. _Item._ Done upon the wrong
light. Upon a round card, one of the Duke of Brandon’s children, being
in a purple habit laced with red velvet lace, with both his hands before
him. 2 inches.” “No. 65. _Item._ Another fellow piece of the same Duke
of Brandon’s children, in a black cap and habit with green sleeves,
leaning with his left arm upon the table, bending his breast towards his
left shoulder, on the table written his age, and the year of our Lord,
done upon the wrong light.” They appear again in James H’s catalogue,
No. 646, as: “Two heads in one frame, in limning, being the sons of
Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk. By Holbein.”
Footnote 494:
Woltmann, English translation, p. 371.
Footnote 495:
Woltmann, 268. Reproduced by Law, Pl. vii.; Knackfuss, fig. 124;
Williamson, Pl. ii. fig. 5; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 149 (2).
Footnote 496:
Woltmann, 269. Reproduced by Law, Pl. vii.; Knackfuss, fig. 135;
Williamson, Pl. ii. fig. 7; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 149 (1).
[Sidenote: HENRY AND CHARLES BRANDON]
The boys were the sons of Charles Brandon, first Duke of Suffolk, who
became brother-in-law of the King by his secret marriage in Paris on May
13, 1515, with the young Queen Dowager of France, widow of Louis XII;
and their mother, Suffolk’s fourth wife, was Catherine, only daughter
and heiress of William, tenth Lord Willoughby de Eresby. The year date
on the elder boy’s portrait has been usually read as 1535. It is so
given by Wornum and Woltmann, and other writers have followed them, but
if the portrait represents Henry Brandon, the date is quite impossible.
Mary Tudor, the “French Queen,” the Duke of Suffolk’s third wife, died
on June 25, 1533, and in September of the same year Brandon married
Catherine Willoughby, the mother of these two boys. In Burke, on the
other hand, it is stated that the marriage took place in 1535; but this
appears to be incorrect. The _Dictionary of National Biography_ gives
the date of the elder boy’s birth as September 18, 1535, which date is
fixed by the _inquisitio post mortem_ held after his father’s death in
1545; so that it is quite impossible that the lad could have been five
years old in 1535. Mr. Ernest Law reads the date on the miniature as
possibly 1539; to the writer, however, who has not had the privilege of
examining the original, it appears, from careful examination of the
excellent reproduction in Mr. Law’s book, to be either 1543 or 1545, the
third figure being plainly a 4. Neither of these dates, however, can be
correct, and it is quite possible that at some time the inscription,
growing illegible, has been repainted, and that in so doing the restorer
has made a mistake. The lettering on both miniatures lacks the precision
of an original inscription by Holbein. It is generally assumed that the
two dates, “6 Sep” and “10 Marci,” refer to the boys’ birthdays, and
there is no difficulty with regard to the second boy, Charles, who was
born in March 1538, two and a half years after his brother. The two
miniatures have every appearance of having been painted at about the
same time, and it is to be expected that the elder of the two would be
painted first. The writer suggests, therefore, that the correct date of
the portrait of Henry is September 1540, and that of Charles, March
1541.
The two boys were very carefully brought up in the Protestant faith by
their mother. Martin Bucer, the German reformer, was appointed their
tutor, and they were afterwards in the charge of Thomas Wilson, who
became Secretary of State to Queen Elizabeth. At a later period Henry
was sent to Sir John Cheke, and was educated with Prince Edward, and
finally entered St. John’s College, Cambridge, where his brother
afterwards followed him. While there the two boys contracted that
scourge of the sixteenth century, the sweating sickness. On the occasion
of the outbreak they were hastily removed for safety to the Bishop of
Lincoln’s palace at Brickdon, in Huntingdonshire, but too late, for both
developed the disease, and died together in one bed, on the same day,
July 11, 1551, the younger within less than an hour of the elder. Their
death at so early an age made an extraordinary impression at the time,
and a pamphlet on the subject was published by their tutor, Dr. Walter
Haddon. Peter Martyr said of Henry that, with the exception of Edward
VI, he was the most promising youth of his day.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 32
STUDY FOR A FAMILY PORTRAIT GROUP
_Indian-ink wash drawing with brush outline_
BRITISH MUSEUM
]
[Sidenote: DRAWING OF A FAMILY GROUP]
There is a very beautiful drawing of the boys’ mother in the Windsor
Collection,[497] a head turned three-quarters to the left, wearing the
English angular head-dress with a band of pearls, and a second
ornamented band of which part of the pattern has been drawn in detail by
Holbein. The collar is elaborately braided with black velvet, and a
medallion is indicated at the breast. The brown eyes and the hair have
been put in with water-colour. The portrait for which it was the
original study has not been traced. There is a replica of this head in
the British Museum (No. 10),[498] which was formerly in the Robinson and
Malcolm collections. In this connection, too, a second drawing in the
British Museum may be cited, which represents a woman and children
sitting on a bench (No. 8) (Pl. 32).[499] It is in Indian-ink on paper,
5¼ in. × 4¼ in., and comes from the Cosway and Utterson collections. It
has been reproduced by the Vasari Society,[500] with a note by Mr.
Campbell Dodgson, and by Dr. Paul Ganz.[501] Mr. Dodgson suggests that
the scene represented is the interior of a church. An effect of warm
sunshine is skilfully suggested by the light which falls from a window,
not seen, on the right. The mother or nurse is seated in the centre of
the group, on a high-backed bench with panelling of the Tudor “linen”
pattern, a baby in long clothes held on her lap. On her right a boy with
a flat cap and feather, and puffed sleeves, is seated, his left elbow
resting on the arm of the bench. A little girl stands in front of her,
looking up, and on the left a younger boy, dressed like his brother, is
standing, the whole making a group of the greatest charm. It is
described in the British Museum Catalogue as an admirable example of
Holbein’s earlier Basel period, but it is evidently of later date, and
the costumes are undoubtedly English. It has been recently suggested by
Mr. Peartree that the woman is “Mother Jack,” nurse to Prince
Edward.[502] In features and costume she bears considerable likeness to
the unnamed drawing in the Windsor Collection,[503] which is supposed to
be a portrait of that nurse. If this supposition be correct, the baby
would be the Prince of Wales, and the date of the drawing about 1537;
but this fails to account for the three other children. Dr. Ganz
considers it to be a group of members of the Brandon family,[504] and as
far as the two boys are concerned, this suggestion has something in its
favour. The lad on the right is by no means unlike Henry Brandon. The
position of the head and the left arm are exactly the same as in the
miniature, and the dress has many points of resemblance. The second boy,
too, has some likeness to Charles, though he does not wear the
velvet-braided costume of the miniature. Again, however, there is a
stumbling-block to this theory in the presence of the two younger
children, for the Duke’s family by his fourth wife consisted of the two
boys only. By his second marriage with Anne, daughter of Sir Anthony
Browne, he had two daughters, Anne, afterwards Lady Powys, and Mary,
afterwards Lady Monteagle, and by his third wife, the King’s sister, he
had two other daughters, Frances, afterwards Countess of Dorset, and
Eleanor, afterwards Countess of Cumberland, but these ladies were all
too old for one of them to have been the little girl represented in the
drawing. Owing, no doubt, to the wrong date on the miniature of Henry
Brandon, Dr. Ganz ascribes this drawing to the year 1535, and sees signs
in the elder boy’s face of approaching illness, although no such illness
is recorded until the sudden one in 1551, when he was nearly sixteen.
Both explanations are ingenious, but neither is entirely satisfactory.
On the margin of the drawing, in a later hand, is written—“exaltate
Cedrus. H. Holbein,” which, apparently, is a reference to Ecclesiasticus
xxiv. 17, “Quasi cedrus exaltata sum in Libano.”
Footnote 497:
Woltmann, 334; Wornum, ii. 21; Holmes, i. 26. Reproduced by Knackfuss,
fig. 140; and Ganz, _Hdz. von H. H. dem Jüng._, Pl. 34.
Footnote 498:
Woltmann, 210.
Footnote 499:
Woltmann, 189.
Footnote 500:
1905-6, No. 18.
Footnote 501:
_Hdz. von H. H. dem Jüng._, Pl. 35.
Footnote 502:
Vasari Society, Pt. i. No. 18 (1905-6), note by Mr. Campbell Dodgson.
Footnote 503:
Woltmann, 353; Wornum, ii. 14; Holmes, i. 10. Reproduced in _Drawings
by Hans Holbein_ (Newnes), Pl. xxvi.
Footnote 504:
Ganz, _Hdz. von H. H. dem Jüng._, p. 56.
The utmost perfection in miniature painting is to be found in the
portrait of Mrs. Robert Pemberton (#Pl. 33 (1)pl-33#),[505] in the late
Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan’s collection (No. iv.), which bears in every
touch the unapproachable skill and rare individuality of the artist. It
was formerly in the collection of Mr. C. Heywood Hawkins, and at his
sale on May 15, 1904, realised £2750, afterwards passing into the
possession of Mr. Morgan, by whose courtesy it is reproduced in this
book. In the Hawkins Sale-Catalogue it was described as the portrait of
Frances Howard, Duchess of Norfolk, but without authority, for there was
no Duchess of Norfolk of that name in Holbein’s time. When exhibited by
Mr. Hawkins at South Kensington in 1865, it was described in the
catalogue as merely—“Portrait of a Lady, Anno Aetatis Suae 23. Her coat
of arms is affixed to the case.” This coat, described by Sir Richard
Holmes in the _Burlington Magazine_,[506] in a note accompanying a
reproduction of the portrait, is dated MDLVI, and in style and painting
is about a century later than the miniature. These arms, as Sir Richard
first pointed out, are those of the Pemberton family. Further
researches, undertaken by Dr. Williamson, and embodied in his catalogue
of Mr. Pierpont Morgan’s Miniatures, prove, almost without doubt, that
the lady represented was Mrs. Robert Pemberton. He says: “The arms of
the wyverns’ heads which are quartered with those of Pemberton belong to
the family of Jago di Lago, gentleman, of Newcastle-under-Lyme,
Staffordshire; and Robert Pemberton, of Rushden, Northants, M.P. for
Northampton in 1478, married Alice, daughter and co-heir of this Jago di
Lago.... Major-General R. C. B. Pemberton, to whom I am indebted for
these interesting references, is of opinion that the lady in the
miniature is Margaret, daughter of Richard Throgmorton, of Higham Park,
co. Northants, who was buried at Rushden, 27th October 1576. She married
Robert Pemberton, of Pemberton, co. Lancs., and of Rushden, eldest son
of William Pemberton, of the same places, and he died in September 1594.
The arms would be those of this Robert Pemberton, whose grandfather
certainly bore them.”[507]
Footnote 505:
Reproduced in Mr. Morgan’s Catalogue, Pl. iv., No. 2, and in colour in
_édition de luxe_, No. 4; _Burlington Magazine_, vol. v., July 1904,
frontispiece; _Portrait Miniatures_ (_Studio_ Spring No.), 1910, Pl.
i.; _Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition Catalogue_, 1909, Pl.
xxxii.; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 148 (3); _Connoisseur_, Dec. 1906.
Footnote 506:
_Burlington Magazine_, vol. v., July 1904, p. 337.
Footnote 507:
Williamson, Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan’s Catalogue, p. 9.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 33
MINIATURES
MRS. PEMBERTON
THE LATE MR. J. PIERPONT MORGAN’S COLLECTION
PORTRAIT OF HOLBEIN BY HIMSELF
WALLACE COLLECTION
]
[Sidenote: MINIATURE OF AN UNKNOWN YOUTH]
In this very beautiful little masterpiece the lady is shown
three-quarters face to the right, wearing a black velvet bodice and
small white linen cape, and a lawn collar and cuffs, embroidered with a
geometrical design in black. She has a red carnation fastened in her
dress, and round her neck a thin black cord with gold filigree ends, and
holds a single green leaf in her crossed hands. Her hair, which is
parted in the centre, is almost concealed beneath her white linen cap.
The background is, as usual, blue, and across it, in gold letters, runs
the inscription, “ANNO ETATIS SVÆ 23.” It is painted on the back of a
playing card, and is still in its original frame, decorated with white
and black enamel and three pearls.
The miniature in the Queen of Holland’s collection (Pl. 31 (5)) equals,
if it does not surpass, in the brilliance and delicacy of its execution
and in the subtlety of its characterisation, the portrait of Mrs.
Pemberton; in some ways, indeed, it is the most perfect example of
Holbein’s mastery of this branch of art which remains. Its discovery was
due to Sir Richard Holmes, who, in 1903, first attributed it to Holbein,
in a communication to the _Burlington Magazine_,[508] accompanied by a
reproduction of the miniature. It forms one of a collection of some four
hundred, of which about fifty are of English origin, in the royal
collections of Holland at the Hague. It represents a youth of about
fifteen or sixteen, who so far has not been identified. The head and
shoulders only are shown, turned three-quarters to the spectator’s
right, the eyes cast down. The hair is cut close, and the dress is a
brown doublet trimmed with black, with a small open, falling collar with
white strings attached. There is no inscription on the background. With
the exception of slight discoloration of the collar through the
oxidization of the pigment, this miniature is in faultless condition.
“Its extraordinary power and beauty,” says Sir Richard, “were manifest
at first sight, and a close examination has convinced me that it can be
attributed only to Holbein, of whose work in this branch of portraiture
I have long been a student, as well as of his crayon drawings. It has
all the restraint of power so characteristic of him, and the exquisite
delicacy of line combined with firmness and precision, which never
united in the same degree in any master with whose work I am
acquainted.”[509] The same writer suggested that it is possibly the
portrait of a member of the family of one of the German merchants of the
Steelyard. The facial characteristics, however, appear to be more
English than German, and it most probably represents the son of some
personage about Henry’s court. It was exhibited at the Exhibition of
Miniatures in Rotterdam in 1910, and again at Brussels in 1912 (No.
846). Another fine miniature in the Queen of Holland’s collection, the
portrait of an unknown man in black (Brussels Exhibition, No. 847), was
first pointed out by Dr. Williamson in his _History of Portrait
Miniatures_ as very probably the work of Holbein; and since its
exhibition at Brussels in 1912 the attribution has been accepted by some
of the leading Dutch critics.[510]
Footnote 508:
_Burlington Magazine_, vol. i., April 1903, p. 218, and frontispiece;
Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 147 (2).
Footnote 509:
_Burlington Magazine_, vol. i., April 1903, p. 218.
Footnote 510:
See _Hist. Portrait Miniatures_, vol. i. p. 11, and Pl. iii. 1.
[Sidenote: HOLBEIN’S MINIATURES OF HIMSELF]
A fine miniature portrait of the artist himself, painted in the last
year of his life, is in the possession of the Duke of Buccleuch,[511]
and was exhibited at the Royal Academy Winter Exhibition, 1879 (Case F,
25), and at the Burlington Fine Arts Club in 1909 (Case C, 23). It is a
bust portrait, turned three-quarters to the left, the head facing the
spectator. He is represented in the act of painting, the left hand
supporting the right, and is dressed in a plain black costume with white
pleated collar and cuffs, and a round black skull-cap. He has dark hair
and a closely-cut beard. Across the blue background is inscribed, “H.H.
AN. 1543. ÆTATIS SVÆ 45.” It was formerly in the collection of Horace
Walpole, and at the Strawberry Hill sale in 1842 was purchased by Mr. W.
Blamire, and when the latter’s collection was disposed of in 1863 it
passed into the possession of the Duke of Buccleuch. It is one of the
best of several similar miniatures, and is very fine in execution, and
has been usually ascribed to Holbein himself. The best of all is in the
Wallace Collection (Case B, 93) (Pl. 33 (2)),[512] and appears to be
from the painter’s own hand. A number of copies are to be found in
various collections; one of them, in the Mayer van den Bergh Collection,
Antwerp, is reproduced by Dr. Ganz.[513] Woltmann considered that the
Montagu House portrait was “scarcely the original, but an old and
contemporaneous copy,”[514] but it is too excellent in execution to be
the work of a mere copyist. There is a second and larger version in the
Buccleuch Collection, with the same date, 1543, also attributed to
Holbein. The first-named example may possibly be the small round
mentioned by Van Mander as being in Amsterdam in his day. Lucas
Vorsterman’s circular engraving was evidently based on this miniature or
the somewhat larger portrait now lost,[515] of which the exceedingly
poor likeness of the painter in the Uffizi Gallery gives but a feeble
echo. The print follows the miniature closely, but is reversed, so that
Holbein is represented as painting with his left hand. Hollar’s
engraving, dated 1647, in which the painter’s left hand is omitted, was
taken, according to the inscription, from an original in the collection
of the Earl of Arundel, though Wornum was of opinion that it was based
upon Vorsterman’s version. Both are described in an earlier
chapter.[516] The inscription across the background in Hollar’s
print—“HH. Æ 45. AN^O 1543”—agrees with the second miniature in the
Buccleuch Collection. Van Mander states that Holbein painted with his
left hand, and in this Sandrart and Patin follow him, but that this was
a legend is proved by the original miniature in which the artist has
represented himself holding his brush. Vorsterman’s engraving, which
appears to bear out Van Mander’s statement, through his failure to
reverse his drawing on the wood block, if not the original source of the
error, may have helped to spread it. Sir George Scharf, however,
suggested another cause as the source of this tradition. “Most of the
portraits of Henry VIII,” he says, “more especially those attributed to
Holbein, have the light coming in from the spectator’s right, a
circumstance which may have tended, in some degree, to establish the
tradition that Holbein was left-handed. These are specified by Van der
Dort as done upon the wrong light.”[517]
Footnote 511:
Woltmann, 371 (9). Reproduced in _Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition
Catalogue_, Pl. xxxiii.; Williamson, _Hist. Portrait Miniatures_, Pl.
ii. 4.
Footnote 512:
Reproduced by A. F. Pollard, _Henry VIII_, p. 125; Ganz, _Holbein_, p.
150 (2); Williamson, _Hist. Portrait Miniatures_, Pl. iii. 3.
According to the new edition of the Catalogue of the Wallace
Collection there is engraved on the back of the case, “Hans
Holbens—given to Me by Lord Bolingbroke, 1757.”
Footnote 513:
_Holbein_, p. 227 (4).
Footnote 514:
Woltmann, i. p. 477. English translation, p. 450.
Footnote 515:
See Vol. i. pp. 27-8, and Vol. ii. p. 213.
Footnote 516:
See Vol. i. pp. 27-8.
Footnote 517:
_Old London_, 1867, p. 320.
The discovery of another miniature by Holbein was made by Dr. G. C.
Williamson in 1911,[518] and is one of exceptional interest, as it is an
undoubted likeness of Thomas Cromwell, Earl of Essex, K.G. (Pl. 31 (6)).
It came from a private source, and is now in the late Mr. Pierpont
Morgan’s collection. It was fully described, and compared with other
portraits of Cromwell, by Mr. Lionel Cust in the _Burlington
Magazine_.[519] He is represented in a black cloak with fur collar,
black cloth cap, and wearing the chain of the Garter with the pendant
George. The background is blue. It is about two inches in diameter,
painted on vellum or chicken-skin, pasted on card. “It is encased,” says
Mr. Cust, “in an ivory box, carved on the back with a rose and other
ornaments, similar to, though in no way so fine or so rich as, the ivory
box which contains the miniature portrait of Anne of Cleves, lately
bequeathed to the nation by Mr. George Salting, and now in the Victoria
and Albert Museum. In the case, however, of Mr. Morgan’s portrait of
Cromwell, the lower half of the box has been separated from the lid, cut
down, and set in a gold frame, which is ornamented by a series of small
deformed pearls. This gold framework is the work of a highly-efficient
goldsmith, but hardly seems to date from the days of Henry VIII.” As
Cromwell is shown wearing the Garter chain and badge, of which order he
was made a knight in August 1537, the miniature was no doubt painted at
some date between August and December in that year, to commemorate his
election. In this connection it is of interest to note that in
Cromwell’s accounts, preserved in the Record Office, there is an entry
under 4th January 1538: “Hanns the painter, 40_s._”[520] This payment
would suggest that, in all probability, Holbein presented him with this
miniature as a New Year’s gift, and that in return he received the forty
shillings from his old patron as an acknowledgment.[521] The miniature
is thus some three or four years later in date than the portrait at
Tyttenhanger, painted not later than the spring of 1534, when he was
Master of the Jewel House.[522]
Footnote 518:
Communicated by him to _The Times_, 25th May 1911.
Footnote 519:
“A Newly-discovered Miniature of Thomas Cromwell,” vol. xx., October
1911, pp. 5, 6. The miniature reproduced p. 7 (1). Since the date of
this article Dr. Williamson has traced back the history of this
miniature to a member of the Cromwell family who settled and died near
Munich.
Footnote 520:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiv., pt. ii., 782 (f. 117).
Footnote 521:
See _Burlington Magazine_, vol. xx., December 1911, p. 175.
Footnote 522:
See pp. 58-60.
[Sidenote: MINIATURES OF HENRY VIII]
Unfortunately this miniature has suffered severely during its past
career, and has been so rubbed down that little of the details of the
dress or ornaments can now be distinguished beyond the mere outlines.
“The face,” says Mr. Cust, “is faded and also rubbed, but here the
skilful drawing of the features reveals a master-hand which could be no
other but Holbein’s. Very subtle, however, and recognizable are the
distinctive features of Thomas Cromwell, the vulgar nose, with its
sunken bridge, the cunning eyes with the puckered skin at their
corners.”[523]
Footnote 523:
_Burlington Magazine_, vol. xx., October 1911, p. 5.
The scope of this book does not permit any detailed description of the
very numerous miniatures of Henry VIII and the members of his family
which are to be found in various collections in England, the more
important of which have been publicly exhibited from time to time. In
the royal collection in Windsor Castle there are four of the King
himself, but none of them can be given to Holbein. Three of them appear
to have been painted immediately before Holbein’s first visit to
England, and the fourth shortly after his death. Two, in which Henry is
beardless, and of youthful appearance, were in Charles I’s collection,
and are entered in his catalogue as being among “the limned pictures
which my Lord of Suffolk gave to the King.” One of them is inscribed, in
two lines, “H.R. VIII. AN^O ETATIS XXXV^O,” which gives the date as
1525-6; the other, which it resembles closely, has no date, but merely
“REX HENRICUS. OCTAVVS.”[524] The third Windsor miniature is inscribed
“H.R. VIII. AN^O XXXV.” In the spandrils four golden angels, on a bright
red ground, are holding the letters H and K in golden cords, and linked
with true-lovers’ knots. Sir George Scharf considered these initials to
refer to the King’s last marriage, on July 12, 1543, with Catherine
Parr, and the “XXXV^O” as referring, not to Henry’s age, but to his
regnal year. “The face,” he says, “at first sight looks youthful, but it
is fat, and, on careful inspection, has a worn and very artificial
appearance, as if means had been employed to conceal age.”[525] Mr.
Wornum, on the other hand, considered the numerals to refer to the
King’s actual age, and not to his reign, and the initial K to Katherine
of Aragon.[526] It is only possible to say of the earlier of these
miniatures that they are not the work of Holbein. As to the real author
of them, the name of one or other member of the Hornebolt family can
only be tentatively given, without any real proof in support of it,
beyond the fact that the Hornebolts were settled in this country before
1526, the name appearing in the accounts of the expenses of the royal
household in that year, and that there appears to have been no other
foreign artist of like importance living in London at that date. Mr.
Lionel Cust, in the Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition Catalogue,
suggests the name of Jehan Perréal, or Jehan de Paris, as the possible
author of some of the early portraits in miniature of the King, painted
before Holbein’s arrival in England. Perréal was over here at the time
of the marriage of Louis XII, whose official painter he was, with
Princess Mary Tudor, for the purpose of designing the new Queen’s
dresses. His visit, however, could have been but a short one, and does
not account for miniatures of the year 1526.
Footnote 524:
Both reproduced by Law, _Holbein’s Pictures at Windsor Castle_, Pl.
vii.
Footnote 525:
“Remarks on Some Portraits from Windsor Castle, Hampton Court, and
Wilton House,” _Archæologia_, vol. xxxix., 1863, p. 252.
Footnote 526:
Wornum, p. 281.
The fourth miniature of the King at Windsor is in oils on oak, 2¾ in. in
diameter, in which he is wearing a thin beard and whiskers. It is
inscribed, “HENR. 8 REX. ANGL. ÆTA. S: 57.” Its date, therefore, must
refer to the last year of the King’s reign, 1546, though there is a
mistake in the age, as he never entered his fifty-seventh year.
According to Charles I’s catalogue, it was “supposed to be done by
Holben, and given to the King by my Lord Suffolk.” In type it
corresponds very closely to the portrait of Henry in St. Bartholomew’s
Hospital, London. There is yet another miniature of the King at Windsor,
by Nicholas Hilliard, which appears to have been copied from some lost
original by Holbein or by Hornebolt. It is one of the customary
full-face versions, with beard, and is one of the four fine miniatures
which were appended to an elaborate jewel which Hilliard executed in
enamels and gold, possibly for Edward VI, representing the Battle of
Bosworth Field, which was bought by Charles I from Laurence Hilliard,
the painter’s son. The three other miniatures represent Henry VII, Jane
Seymour, evidently copied from the well-known portrait by Holbein, and
Edward VI, which recalls more than one of the portraits of the young
King usually attributed to Guillim Stretes. The one of Henry VIII is
inscribed in gold: “1536. ÆTATIS SVÆ 46.”
[Sidenote: MINIATURES OF HENRY VIII]
No less than five miniatures of the King were lent to the Burlington
Fine Arts Club Exhibition by the Duke of Buccleuch, two of which are
attributed to Holbein. One is a reduced copy of Holbein’s portrait of
Henry belonging to Earl Spencer (Case C, 6). A second[527] is inscribed
“H.R. VIII. AN^O XXXV,” and appears to be the original from which the
Windsor miniature, described above, was copied (Case C, 7). It was
formerly in the Magniac Collection. The catalogue suggests that it is
possibly the work of an illuminator of the French school. A third (Case
C, 25), with a very similar inscription, is evidently a second copy of
the same miniature. The fourth (Case C, 8 (D)), forms one of a series of
eight in an ebony frame, which were formerly in the collection of
Charles I. It is a full-face, with grey beard, and, according to the
royal catalogue, was “done by Hans Holbein, given to the King by my Lord
Suffolk.”[528] The companion miniatures represent Henry VII, Elizabeth
of York (“copied by Hoskins after an ancient ould coloured piece”),
Katherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn (also copied by John Hoskins “after an
ould colured piece”), Queen Mary (“done by Ant. More”), Edward VI, and
Queen Elizabeth (“done by Old Hilliard”). The “Henry VIII” is fine, and
in the Burlington catalogue is attributed to Holbein, but it is more
probably another copy from “an ould coloured piece” by the master. It
has considerable resemblance to the fifth miniature from Montagu
House[529] (Case C, 2), also ascribed to Holbein, but not by him.
Footnote 527:
Reproduced in the _Burlington Fine Arts Club Catalogue_, Pl. xxxiii.
Footnote 528:
Reproduced by Williamson, _Hist. Portrait Miniatures_, Pl. ii. 6.
Footnote 529:
Reproduced in the _Burlington Fine Arts Club Catalogue_, Pl. xxxiii.
The very fine miniature portrait of the King in the Pierpont Morgan
Collection was included in the same exhibition (Case B, 1).[530] Old
tradition says that this portrait was presented by the King himself to
Anne of Cleves. Tradition in this case may be correct, though this Queen
is the least likely of all to have been the recipient of such a gift.
The correspondence with reference to the suggested marriages with the
Duchess of Longueville, the Duchess of Milan, and Anne herself, shows
that Henry always refused to send a portrait of himself while such
negotiations were in progress. His anxiety was to see a portrait of the
lady first, and, if possible, the lady herself, before making his final
decision, and to send one of himself before such final decision had been
made would have been too compromising. It is not likely, therefore, that
he sent one to Anne in Düren, and as he took the strongest aversion to
her directly he saw her, it is still less probable that she received a
gift of so personal a nature after she arrived in England. Dr.
Williamson, in his catalogue of Mr. Morgan’s miniatures, gives a very
interesting account of the history of this fine little portrait,[531]
and the companion one of Anne of Cleves, both at one time in the
possession of the Barrett family, of Lee Priory, Kent, and later in that
of the Meyricks, of Goodrich Court, to which reference has been made in
an earlier chapter.[532] Some years before the death of General Meyrick,
who had succeeded to the Goodrich Court Collection, the miniature of
Henry VIII disappeared, and was supposed to have been stolen. It is said
to have travelled as far as Vienna, but four years or so after General
Meyrick’s death it reappeared in England, and was repurchased for the
family, from whom, in 1906, it was acquired by Mr. Morgan.
Footnote 530:
Woltmann, 157. Reproduced in Mr. Morgan’s Catalogue, Pl. ii., and in
colour in the _édition de luxe_, No. 2; _Burlington Fine Arts Club
Catalogue_, Pl. xxxii.; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 227 (3).
Footnote 531:
See Mr. Pierpont Morgan’s Catalogue, pp. 4-7.
Footnote 532:
See pp. 181-182.
It represents the head and shoulders only, full-face, with grey beard
and moustache. Henry wears a black cap trimmed with jewels, loops of
pearls, and a white feather, a brown fur coat over a grey doublet
embroidered with black, a narrow white collar, and a gold chain round
his neck. There is no inscription on the blue background. It is 1¼ in.
in diameter, and is still preserved within its original turned ivory
box, ornamented at top and bottom with the Tudor rose, and covered with
a piece of rock crystal. There is some resemblance between it and the
crayon drawing of the King at Munich, and, in the details of the
costume, to the large cartoon at Chatsworth and the full-face portrait
in Windsor Castle, which has been considered by some critics to be a
copy of a lost picture by Holbein, and by others as an original portrait
by some such court painter as Lucas Hornebolt. The differences in the
costume are slight, and the dress is in its main features the same. Fine
as this miniature is, it is difficult to ascribe it to Holbein himself;
it is more probably only an excellent old copy of a lost original, or
the work of some capable miniaturist adapted from one of Holbein’s
paintings.
The miniature of Anne of Cleves, which is slightly larger than the one
of Henry VIII, and is enclosed within a similar turned ivory box
delicately carved to represent a Tudor rose, has been already
described.[533] It is of the finest workmanship, and may be given to
Holbein with little hesitation. It was included in the Burlington Club
Exhibition, 1909 (Case B, 4), and the catalogue states that in all
probability it was painted in July 1539, at Düren. Holbein’s visit to
that place was of longer duration than was usual when he was sent to
take likenesses of the ladies who were candidates for Henry’s hand.[534]
As a rule, he only remained just long enough to make a study in coloured
crayons, but he stayed at Düren for a week or two, and so may have had
time to paint both the large portrait and the miniature, though it must
be remembered that he also painted or drew the lady’s sister, the
Princess Amelia. It is much more probable that the miniature was taken
from the larger portrait, or that both were done from some lost crayon
study, than that the Louvre picture should have been painted from the
miniature.
Footnote 533:
See pp. 181-182.
Footnote 534:
See p. 176.
[Sidenote: MINIATURES OF JANE SEYMOUR]
There are several miniatures of Queen Jane Seymour in existence, in most
cases attributed to Holbein, all, with one exception, closely following
the portrait of that Queen in the Vienna Gallery, upon which they are
evidently based. Among the best are two which were in the Burlington
Fine Arts Club Exhibition, lent by Mr. Vernon Watney and by the Duke of
Buccleuch. The former (Case B, 2),[535] inscribed merely “A^ON XXV,” is
said to have belonged originally to the Seymour family, and to have been
given by Charles, Duke of Somerset, to his granddaughter, Elizabeth
Wyndham, wife of the Right Hon. George Grenville, from whom it passed
into the possession of the Duke of Buckingham. It was afterwards in the
Sackville Bale and Lumsden Propert collections. Sir George Scharf
considered this miniature to be a portrait of Anne Boleyn, and regarded
the “XXV” as the King’s regnal date, and not as that of the lady’s
age;[536] but the likeness to Jane Seymour is stronger, though not very
marked. Mr. C. F. Bell points out[537] that the likeness of the sitter
to Lady Hemingham or Heveningham (“Henegham”), as she is represented in
the fine drawing at Windsor,[538] is much more pronounced, and he
suggests that the miniature was painted from the portrait of that lady,
taken from the drawing, which has now disappeared. Mr. Watney’s
miniature, however, closely resembles the one belonging to the Duke of
Buccleuch (Case C, 5),[539] though the latter has no inscription and the
pendant jewel set with large pearls is absent. This last portrait
belonged to Horace Walpole, and by him was regarded as representing
Katherine of Aragon, and under that name it passed from the Strawberry
Hill sale into the hands of Mr. Blamire, and afterwards into its present
ownership. It appears to be, however, an undoubted portrait of Henry’s
third queen. Another miniature of Jane Seymour was lent to the same
exhibition by Mr. H. Dent-Brocklehurst (Case B, 6),[540] attributed like
the others to Holbein, which was also formerly in the possession of
Horace Walpole. The portrait of this queen is also among the four
miniatures attached to the enamelled jewel, of Nicholas Hilliard’s
workmanship, in the royal collection at Windsor, mentioned above. It is
inscribed “ANŌ DNĪ 1536 ÆTATIS SVÆ 27,” which no doubt appeared on the
original miniature by Holbein, now lost, from which all these others are
also derived.
Footnote 535:
Reproduced in the _Burlington Fine Arts Club Catalogue_, Pl. xxxii.;
Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 148 (1).
Footnote 536:
_Archæologia_, vol. xl., 1866, p. 81.
Footnote 537:
In a communication to Dr. Ganz. See _Holbein_, p. 245.
Footnote 538:
Woltmann, 333; Wornum, ii. 25; Holmes, ii. 12.
Footnote 539:
Reproduced in the _Burlington Fine Arts Club Catalogue_, Pl. xxxii.
Footnote 540:
Reproduced in the _Burlington Fine Arts Club Catalogue_, Pl. xxxii.
The miniatures of Catherine Howard have been already described.[541] It
is doubtful whether Holbein painted Queen Catherine Parr, for the King
did not marry her until July 12, 1543, only a month or two before the
artist died. A miniature in the possession of Mr. H. Dent-Brocklehurst,
lent by him to the Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition (Case B, 7), is
said to represent this Queen and to be by Holbein, but both attributions
are probably incorrect. It is inscribed “ANO XXXII,” and if this is to
be read as the regnal year, it must have been painted between April 1540
and April 1541, and, if it represents this Queen, more than two years
before her marriage. She wears a scarlet, black, and white circular
French hood with black fall, and cloth of gold dress. Sir George Scharf
considered it to be a portrait of Catherine Howard.[542]
Footnote 541:
See pp. 192-193.
Footnote 542:
_Archæologia_, vol. xl., 1866, p. 84.
Several miniatures of Edward VI exist—there are three in the Buccleuch
Collection—though not one has been so far discovered from the hand of
Holbein himself. Most of them represent the boy at a period after
Holbein’s death, and the name of Guillim Stretes has been suggested as
their author.[543] The beautiful little circular drawing of the Prince,
at a very early age, in the Basel Gallery,[544] is apparently Holbein’s
first study for a miniature which has now disappeared, and may have been
the “portrait of the Prince’s Grace” which the artist presented to Henry
VIII on New Year’s Day, 1539.[545]
Footnote 543:
See pp. 168-189.
Footnote 544:
Woltmann, 110 (82).
Footnote 545:
See p. 164.
[Sidenote: LIVINA TEERLINC]
Certain of these miniatures, and others not described here, some of them
apparently copies after Holbein, while others are original works, were
no doubt produced by Susanna Hornebolt, Livina[546] Teerlinc, and
Stretes, all three of whom were in turn much employed about the court,
and enjoyed royal pay. It has been impossible, so far, to separate the
works of these artists, or to find any starting-point in the shape of a
signed miniature from which any judgment of their particular methods and
style can be formed. What little is known of Susanna Hornebolt has been
given in an early chapter. Livina Teerlinc, eldest daughter of the
miniaturist, Simon Binnink of Bruges, married George Teerlinc of
Blankenberghe, near Bruges, and after the death of her husband’s father,
in 1545, they came to England.[547] She is mentioned by Vasari in a
short passage as “Levina, daughter of the above-named Master Simon of
Bruges, who was nobly married in England by Henry VIII, was held in
great esteem by Queen Mary, and is now in much favour with Queen
Elizabeth,” an account which Guicciardini copies and slightly
elaborates.[548] Her name does not occur in the royal accounts, however,
until Midsummer, 1547, under Edward VI, when, as “maistris Levyn Terling
paintrix,” she received a quarter’s wages of £10. She held the same
appointment under Mary and Elizabeth and at the same salary, £40 a year.
On New Year’s Day, 1556, she presented Queen Mary with a small picture
of the Trinity, and two years later her New Year’s gift to Queen
Elizabeth was a portrait of her Majesty “finely painted upon a card,”
for which she received in return a silver-gilt casting-bottle weighing
2¾ oz. In 1561, on a like occasion, there was given to the same Queen,
“By Mrs. Levina Terling, the Queenes personne and other personnages in a
box fynely painted,” which so pleased Elizabeth that she retained it in
her own keeping, and gave “Maistris Levyn Terling” in return a
silver-gilt covered salt-cellar weighing 5½ oz.[549] George Teerlinc
returned to Bruges, and died there before 25th August 1580; and Mr.
Weale conjectures that his wife died before him, probably in England,
but there is no documentary evidence of this. In any case, Vasari, and
Guicciardini after him, were wrong in stating that while at the English
court she was “nobly married.”
Footnote 546:
Also spelt Levina.
Footnote 547:
See Weale, _Burlington Magazine_, vol. viii., February 1906, p. 356.
Footnote 548:
The latter says: “Levina, figliuola di maestro Simone di Bruggia già
mentionato, la quale nel miniare come il padre è tanto felice et
eccellente, che il prefato Henrice Re d’Inghilterra la volle con ogni
premio haver’ a ogni modo alla sua corte, ove fu poi maritata
nobilmente, fu molto amata dalla Regina Maria, et hora è amatissima
dalla Regina Elisabetta.”
Footnote 549:
See J. Gough Nichols, _Archæologia_, xxxix. pp. 39-40.
In the case of Livina, as with Susanna Hornebolt, it is impossible to
point with certainty to any work as being indubitably from her hand. The
two beautiful miniatures in the Salting Collection representing two
little girls, sisters, aged five and four respectively, which were
formerly in the collection of Mr. C. H. T. Hawkins, were attributed by
both these owners to Livina Teerlinc, and were so described in the
catalogue of the Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition (Case B, 5).[550]
The richness of the costume indicates that they were the children of
some important personage about the court. Each one is dated “ANO DNI
1590,” and they are enclosed in a contemporary turned ivory case. Dr.
Williamson states that at one time they had attached to them “a strip of
parchment on which was recorded, in handwriting undoubtedly
contemporary, that the two little portraits were ‘fynely’ painted by
Lavina Teerlinc in 1590 at Greenwich.”[551] It is impossible however,
that miniatures painted in 1590 can be her work if Mr. Weale’s
conjecture[552] that she died before 1580 is correct; but Dr.
Williamson, who has been good enough to re-examine his notes, made when
the miniatures were in the Hawkins collection, is now of opinion that
the date on the parchment is not 1590, but 1570. The third figure is
indistinct, but appears to be 7. If this is so, the attribution of these
charming little works to Livina is very probably a true one, and the
artist may still have predeceased her husband, as Mr. Weale surmises.
There is an interesting miniature in Earl Spencer’s collection, signed
with an “L,” and dated 1526, a double portrait, said to represent Sir
John Boling and his mother, though the couple appear to be man and wife,
which has been ascribed by some writers to Lucas d’Heere, though the
date, of course, makes such authorship impossible. Mr. J. J. Foster[553]
states that when he examined it he thought he could discern a “T”
following the “L,” and suggests that it was the work of Livina Teerlinc;
but this is equally impossible, for, according to Mr. Weale’s
researches, she and her husband did not reach England until about 1545,
while in 1526 she must have been a mere child.
Footnote 550:
Reproduced in _Burlington Fine Arts Club Catalogue_, Pl. xxxii.
Footnote 551:
Williamson, _History of Portrait Miniatures_, vol. i., Addendum, p.
xx.
Footnote 552:
_Burlington Magazine_, vol. viii., February 1906, p. 356, and vol.
ix., July 1906, p. 278.
Footnote 553:
_British Miniature Painters_, 1898, p. 14 and Pl. v.
[Sidenote: MINIATURE OF KRATZER]
There are several very interesting miniatures in the Pierpont Morgan
Collection which, although they cannot be given to Holbein himself, are
certainly of his school and period. One of the finest represents a
Baseler named Arnold Franz, a man with a brown beard and moustache,
dressed in black.[554] It is in a richly-enamelled gold frame with
pendant pearls, and the sitter’s age, “AET. 32,” enamelled on the front,
and on the reverse, “Arnold Franz, Holbein Pinx.” It was procured at the
sale of a collection in Basel, and was stated to have been in the
possession of the descendants of the sitter ever since it was painted.
There was also an unbroken family tradition that Holbein himself had
painted it, and that Franz, said to have been a printer and a friend of
Froben’s, was intimately acquainted with the artist. The Franz family,
now extinct, are also said to have possessed for many years a letter
from Holbein to his friend, in which the miniature is mentioned, but the
document has been lost.[555] A second miniature in Mr. Morgan’s
collection is a portrait of Niklaus Kratzer, and is evidently by the
same hand as the one of Arnold Franz. It is not a reduced version of the
Louvre picture, which was painted in 1528, but appears, in Dr.
Williamson’s opinion, to have been painted some years earlier than that
date, though, if that be the case, it is not very likely that Holbein
was its author. The face is nearly in profile, to the left, and the
astronomer is wearing the customary fur-lined black coat and black cap,
and a gold chain round his neck. In his hand he holds a brass armillary
sphere. A third miniature, in the same possession, which has
considerable affinity in style to the two just mentioned, represents
Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk. It was formerly in the possession of
the royal house of Holland, and afterwards in the Propert and Tomkinson
collections. Dr. Williamson suggests that some of the Holbeinesque
miniatures, such as these, which exist in considerable numbers, may have
been the work of Hans Mielich (1515-1572), of Munich, who painted
portraits and miniatures of some merit, and was for a time court painter
to the Duke Albrecht V of Bavaria. There is no record, however, of any
visit paid by him to England. Others may be possibly the work of such
painters as Thomas and John Bettes and Guillim Stretes, who are dealt
with in a succeeding chapter.[556]
Footnote 554:
Pierpont Morgan Catalogue, No. 3, and Pl. iii., No. 1, and colour
plate, _édition de luxe_, No. 3.
Footnote 555:
Williamson, _History of Portrait Miniatures_, vol. i., Addendum, p.
xx.
Footnote 556:
_Burlington Magazine_, vol. viii., February 1906, p. 356, and vol.
ix., July 1906, p. 278.
There remains one other miniature to be noted, which until recently was
regarded as the work of Hans Mielich, but is now, with apparent justice,
given to Holbein. It is in the Bavarian National Museum, Munich, and
represents a young man, turned slightly to the right, with a fair
pointed beard and moustache, and wearing a black dress and cap. It is
inscribed upon the blue background, on either side of the sitter’s head,
“H.M. ÆTATIS SVÆ 27.”[557] It was once thought to be a portrait of
Melanchthon, and afterwards, on account of the initials it bears, it was
regarded as a portrait of Mielich by himself. Its attribution to Holbein
was due to Dr. Hans Buchheit, the director of the National Museum, who
published it in 1911 as a work of the painter’s later time. The initials
upon it are undoubtedly those of the sitter, and not of the artist, and
it has been suggested that it represents the painter, Harry Maynert, one
of the witnesses to Holbein’s will.[558] Whether this is so or not, the
miniature itself is a fine one, and, judging from a photograph alone,
its attribution to Holbein by Dr. Buchheit must be accepted as the
correct one.
Footnote 557:
_British Miniature Painters_, 1898, p. 14 and Pl. v.
Footnote 558:
Pierpont Morgan Catalogue, No. 3, and Pl. iii., No. 1, and colour
plate, _édition de luxe_, No. 3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER XXVI
THE WINDSOR DRAWINGS AND OTHER STUDIES
The history of the book of drawings by Holbein in the royal
collection at Windsor Castle—Early references to it—Sir John
Cheke—The book’s various changes of ownership—Charles I exchanges
it with the Earl of Pembroke for a Raphael—Afterwards in the
Arundel Collection—Discovery of the drawings in Kensington Palace
by Queen Charlotte—John Chamberlaine’s publication of them from
engravings by Bartolozzi—Methods of their execution—Their present
condition—Description of the more important of them—And of similar
portrait-drawings at Berlin and Basel—Holbein and the Clouets—The
“Queen of Sheba” miniature painting at Windsor—The “Death of
Virginia” at Dresden—Drawing of a ship at Frankfurt—Drawings of
animals.
IF, through some great misfortune, nothing remained of Holbein’s work
but the wonderful series of drawings of the heads of the men and women
of Henry VIII’s court, in the royal library at Windsor, this collection
alone would still afford irresistible proof of his right to the title of
one of the very greatest masters of portraiture. The history of these
drawings can be traced with some exactness, though there are certain
breaks in the continuity of the story. In whatever way they may have
been preserved by Holbein during his lifetime, they were, shortly after
his death, bound together in book form, and so remained until their
rediscovery in the eighteenth century. Although they are not included in
the elaborate inventory of the royal collection of works of art, dated
24th April 1542, or in the second inventory taken five years later, in
the first year of Edward VI’s reign, it may be conjectured that they
came into the possession of the Crown on Holbein’s death in 1543, or
very shortly afterwards. His death was so sudden, that they may have
been left behind in his painting-room at Whitehall, unknown to his
executors, and so remained in royal keeping, though this is not a very
likely surmise. It is certain, in any case, that the book containing
them was at one time in the possession of Edward VI. This is proved by
an entry in the Lumley inventory of 1590, to which reference has been
already made more than once. The entry is as follows: “A greate booke of
Pictures doone by Haunce Holbyn of certeyne Lordes, Ladyes, gentlemen
and gentlewomen in King Henry the 8: his tyme, their names subscribed by
S^r John Cheke Secretary to King Edward the 6 w^{ch} book was King
Edward the 6.”
There is no reason to doubt the statement that the names on many of the
drawings were supplied by Sir John Cheke, who, at one time professor of
Greek at Cambridge, became one of the tutors of the young Prince before
he ascended the throne, and died in 1557. He must thus have been
intimately acquainted with a certain number of Holbein’s sitters, though
not with all of them. This would account for the fact that although many
of the names he has written on the drawings are the right ones, certain
others are incorrect, while some fourteen of them are not named at all.
He made mistakes, for instance, over some of the earlier drawings, such
as several of the sitters in the More Family Group, with whom he was not
likely to have been acquainted, and in some doubtful cases he probably
indulged in guesswork. The late Sir Richard Holmes considered that he
merely made a list of the drawings, which has not survived, and that
from this list the names were inscribed on the sheets by some later
hand.[559] There is an entry in the accounts of Sir Thomas Carwarden,
Master of the Revels, preserved among the Loseley MSS., which very
probably refers to this very book of drawings. The document is undated,
but is considered to be of the reign of Edward VI. It is as follows:
“Item for a peynted booke of Mr. Hanse Holby making, 6 _li._” It is, of
course, quite possible that this “peynted booke” may have had nothing to
do with the Windsor drawings, but there is no other known work of
Holbein’s to which the description would so well apply. The supposition
that it was the very book, and that it was purchased by Sir Thomas for
Edward VI, fits in well with the fact, established by the Lumley
inventory, that the youthful monarch at one time possessed it. If this
be so, the suggestion that Henry VIII obtained it immediately after
Holbein’s death is, of course, incorrect.
Footnote 559:
Holmes in Introduction to Hanfstaengl’s _Portraits of Illustrious
Personages of the Court of Henry VIII._
[Sidenote: HISTORY OF THE BOOK OF DRAWINGS]
It would appear that the book came into the possession of Henry
Fitz-Alan, Earl of Arundel, after the death of Edward VI, either by gift
or purchase, and was preserved at Nonsuch, together with the various
portraits by Holbein, already mentioned, some of which were certainly at
one time in the royal possession; and on his death in 1580, passed to
his son-in-law, Lord Lumley. The palace and estate of Nonsuch reverted
to the Crown in 1591, by exchange for other property, but at what time
the numerous pictures by Holbein left the possession of the Lumley
family is not known. At Lord Lumley’s death in 1609 the greater number
of his books passed into the hands of Henry, Prince of Wales, elder
brother of Charles I, and it is very probable that the “greate booke of
Pictures doone by Haunce Holbyn” accompanied them, and once again formed
part of the royal collections.[560] It is usually stated, however, that
Charles I obtained them through the good offices of M. de Liancourt, the
French ambassador, this statement being based on a note in Abraham Van
der Doort’s catalogue of that monarch’s pictures, which, if correct,
indicates that at some time between the drawing up of the Lumley
inventory (1590) and the list of King Charles’ pictures (1639), the book
of drawings had been taken into France, and so cannot have belonged to
Henry, Prince of Wales. It seems certain, nevertheless, that this
supposed journey to France and back again never took place. Mr. Lionel
Cust’s suggestion is evidently correct, and the mistake has arisen
through a confusion between Holbein’s book of drawings and a very
similar book of drawings by a French hand, representing illustrious
personages of the French court, both of which were in the King’s
collection, and are separately described in Van der Doort’s catalogue.
It was the latter book, no doubt, which was procured through M. de
Liancourt, some such volume as that now at Knowsley, or the collection
formerly at Castle Howard, now at Chantilly,[561] or the numerous albums
of a similar kind scattered about France. Holbein’s book of drawings, on
the other hand, came to Charles I from his brother.
Footnote 560:
See Cust, _Burlington Magazine_, vol. xviii., February 1911, p. 269.
Footnote 561:
These were purchased by the fifth Earl of Carlisle in Flanders,
probably towards the close of the eighteenth century.
The King, however, did not retain the volume for long, but exchanged it
with the Earl of Pembroke for the beautiful little picture of “St.
George slaying the Dragon,” by Raphael, which is now in the Hermitage
Gallery, St. Petersburg. This latter is entered in Van der Doort’s
catalogue as “A little St. George, which the King had in exchange of My
Lord Chamberlain, Earl of Pembroke, for the book of Holbein’s drawings.”
This picture was sold by the Commonwealth for £150, and after passing
through the La Noue, De Sourdis, and Crozat collections, found a final
resting-place in the Hermitage. In 1627, while still in the Earl of
Pembroke’s possession, it was engraved by Lucas Vorsterman, so that the
exchange with the King may have taken place in 1628 or thereabouts. Lord
Pembroke, in his turn, did not keep the drawings, but almost at once
passed them on to the great collector, Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel,
who, according to Sir Edward Walker, who wrote his life, had “more of
that exquisite master, Hans Holbein, than are in the world besides.”
Whether Lord Pembroke gave the drawings to him, or in his turn carried
out a second exchange, is not known.
Their presence in the Arundel Collection is proved by a contemporary
reference in the manuscript among the Harleian MSS.[562] in the British
Museum entitled, “An exact & Compendious Discours concerning the Art of
Miniatura or Limning,” on the fly-leaf of which is written, in an
eighteenth-century hand, “of Limning by Hilliard,” to which attention
has been already called.[563] As the Holbein drawings were still in the
possession of Charles I in 1627, the paragraph in the “discours” which
speaks of them as in the Arundel Collection cannot have been penned by
Nicholas Hilliard himself, who died in 1619. The compiler was almost
certainly Edward Norgate, who held Holbein in the highest estimation.
Speaking of the painting of shadows, he says:—
Footnote 562:
No. 6000.
Footnote 563:
See p. 219.
“The black must be deepened with ivory black, and if in working
in the heightenings and light-reflections, you will mingle with
your ordinary black a little lake and indigo, or rather a little
litmus instead of indigo, you will find your black to render a
rare and admirable reflection like to that of the well-dyed
satin, especially if your lights be strong and hard; the manner
whereof if you please to see inimitably expressed, you will find
abundantly for your content in the gallery of my most noble Lord
the Earl of Arundell, Earl Marshal of England, and done by the
incomparable pencil of that rare master, Hans Holbein, who in
all his different and various manners of painting, either in
oil, distemper, limning, or crayon, it seems was so general and
absolute an artist, as never to imitate any man, or ever was
worthily imitated by any.”[564]
Footnote 564:
Quoted by Wornum, pp. 397-8. Also by Dallaway with slight differences
(see p. 219 above).
[Sidenote: NORGATE’S REFERENCES]
The reference to the Windsor drawings occurs in the chapter dealing with
crayon-painting. “I shall not need,” the writer says, “to insist upon
the particulars of this manner of working; it shall suffice, if you
please, to view of a book of pictures by the life, by the incomparable
Hans Holbein, servant to King Henry the Eighth. They are the pictures of
most of the English lords and ladies then living, and were the patterns
whereby that excellent painter made his pictures in oil by; they are all
done in this latter manner of crayons I speak of, and though many of
them be miserably spoiled by the injury of time, and the ignorance of
some who formerly have had the keeping of the book, yet you will find in
those ruinous remains an admirable hand, and a rare manner of working in
few lines and no labour in expressing of the life and likeness, many
times equal to his own, and ever excelling other men’s oil pictures. The
book hath been long a wanderer; but is now happily fallen into the hands
of my noble lord the Earl Marshal.”[565]
Footnote 565:
Quoted by Wornum, p. 398. Dallaway, in his notes to Walpole, vol. i.
p. 84, quotes this passage with slight differences, and adds after
“Earl Marshal”—“a most eminent patron to all painters who understood
the arte; and who therefore preserved this book with his life, till
both were lost together”—which is not consistent with the words
preceding it.
A second contemporary reference to the drawings occurs in the Bodleian
Library manuscript, _Miniatura or the Art of Limning, etc._, also by
Edward Norgate, to which reference has been already made.[566] Norgate,
when dealing with crayon drawings, says: “A better way was used by
Holbein, by priming a large paper with a carnation or complexion of
flesh-colour, whereby he made pictures by the life, of many great lords
and ladies of his time, with black and red chalke, with other flesh
colours, made up hard and dry, like small pencil sticks. Of this kind
was an excellent booke, while it remained in the hands of the most noble
Earl of Arundel and Surrey. But I heare it has been a great traveller,
and wherever now, he hath got his errata, or (which is as good) hath met
with an index expurgatorius, and is made worse with mending.”[567] That
the book was described as a “great traveller” is, no doubt, due to the
fact that from 1642 until his death, four years later, the Earl was
living on the Continent, and that he took all his works of art with him.
“After her husband’s death,” says Mr. Cust,[568] “the Countess of
Arundel continued to reside at various places on the Continent,
accompanied by her collections, until her own death at Amsterdam in
1654. Litigation then ensued between her sons as to the disposal of her
property. A good part of the valuable Arundel Collection was disposed of
in Holland by the Countess’s younger son, Lord Stafford, but a
considerable part eventually returned to the family of the Duke of
Norfolk in England.” There is every reason to suppose that among the
latter the Holbein book was included.
Footnote 566:
See p. 219. This manuscript is Norgate’s final version of the
“discours,” written some twenty years or so later than the British
Museum manuscript, which was his first compilation.
Footnote 567:
Quoted by Dallaway, in his notes to Walpole’s _Anecdotes_, vol. i. p.
84; and by Wornum, p. 398.
Footnote 568:
See Cust, _Burlington Magazine_, vol. xviii., February 1911, p. 269.
[Sidenote: LATER HISTORY OF THE DRAWINGS]
It should be noted that, according to Charles I’s catalogue, the number
of drawings was only fifty-four. Van der Doort may have made a mistake
in the entry, putting a 5 instead of an 8, otherwise it must be supposed
that Lord Arundel already possessed some thirty of these “heads,” which
he added to the book after Lord Pembroke had given it to him. The
collection as it now exists does not contain the whole of the
portrait-drawings of Holbein’s English period. The fine head of Lord
Abergavenny at Wilton appears to have been kept back, or to have been
accidentally retained, by Lord Pembroke when he parted with the
remainder of the collection, and there are several others in continental
museums and elsewhere, some of which are known to have once formed part
of the Arundel Collection. At Basel there are Sir Nicholas Carew, an
unknown English lady, and a second English lady and her husband; at
Dresden the Count Moretta; at Munich the head of Henry VIII; at Berlin a
fine head of an unknown Englishman; in the Salting Collection the
magnificent study of a lady already described;[569] and the two heads in
the Duke of Devonshire’s Collection at Chatsworth.[570] If, therefore,
Van der Doort is correct in stating that there were only fifty-four
drawings in the book when it was in his keeping, the one person in
England most likely to have added so considerably to their number was
the Earl of Arundel, who was unceasing in his search for original works
from Holbein’s hand. There is no record to show at what time the book
returned to the royal collections, though the tradition noted by
Dallaway, in his edition of Walpole’s _Anecdotes_, that they were
purchased for James II at the sale of the possessions of Henry, Duke of
Norfolk, in 1686, is no doubt the correct one.[571] A list of the
drawings was included in James II’s catalogue, which was published by
Bathoe in 1758. After this the drawings themselves were laid aside and
forgotten, and it was not until early in the reign of George II that
they were rediscovered by Queen Caroline hidden away in a folio in an
old bureau in Kensington Palace, together with a volume of equal
importance containing the drawings of Leonardo da Vinci, which now form
so valuable a part of the royal collection at Windsor. Queen Caroline
had them framed and glazed, and for many years they decorated her own
apartments, first at Richmond, and afterwards in Kensington Palace.
Early in the succeeding reign they were removed to the Queen’s House,
now Buckingham Palace, where they were taken from the frames and bound
up in two volumes, forming a part of the large collection of drawings,
similarly bound, got together by George III. The suggestion that they
should be engraved originated with Dalton, the keeper of the King’s
drawings, but the work was so badly done that it was abandoned in 1774
after ten plates only had been issued. The engraver was George Vertue,
who, according to Walpole, was the originator of the project. “It is a
great pity,” he says, “that they have not been engraved; not only that
such frail performances of so great a genius might be preserved, but
that the resemblances of so many illustrious persons, nowhere else
existing, might be saved from destruction. Vertue had undertaken this
noble work; and after spending part of three years on it, broke off, I
do not know why, after having traced off, on oil paper, but about five
and thirty. These I bought at his sale; and they are so exactly taken as
to be little inferior to the originals.”[572] This tracing was done by
Vertue and Müntz when the drawings were hanging in Queen Caroline’s room
at Kensington. There were thirty-four of them, and they were framed and
hung in what Walpole called his Holbein Chamber at Strawberry Hill.
Somewhat later the projected publication was taken up again more
successfully, on the suggestion, according to Dallaway, of Horace
Walpole, under the direction of John Chamberlaine, who succeeded Dalton
as keeper of the drawings. The engravings were published between 1792
and 1800 in fourteen numbers, containing eighty-two portraits, forming
two large folio volumes, under the title of _Imitations of Original
Drawings by Hans Holbein, in the Collection of His Majesty, for the
Portraits of Illustrious Persons of the Court of Henry VIII, with
Biographical Tracts_. The historical notices were written by Edmund
Lodge, Lancaster Herald, and the plates, with the exception of eight,
were engraved by F. Bartolozzi, R.A. F. C. Lewis was also engaged to
take part in the work, but his plate of “Cecilia Heron” was in all ways
so much finer than Bartolozzi’s efforts that Chamberlaine had the plate
destroyed, fearing that if it were published side by side with the
others, the latter would suffer so severely from the contrast that the
success of the publication would be endangered. As transcripts of
Holbein’s drawings, Bartolozzi’s engravings have very little artistic
merit. Many of them, indeed, have small likeness to the originals, and
all of them lack the strength and character and the searching truth of
line which make the drawings themselves such masterpieces of art. In
more recent years the drawings have been frequently photographed and
published, the most important series being that issued by Mr. F.
Hanfstaengl in two volumes, with an introduction and descriptive notes
by the late Sir Richard Holmes, F.S.A. It should be added that under
Queen Victoria the two volumes were broken up, and the drawings properly
mounted and arranged. They are now kept in four portfolios.
Footnote 569:
See Vol. i. p. 309.
Footnote 570:
See Vol. i. pp. 336-7.
Footnote 571:
Walpole, _Anecdotes_, ed. Wornum, vol. i. p. 84 _note_.
Footnote 572:
_Ibid._, pp. 85-86.
In Walpole’s day the collection consisted of eighty-nine sketches, but
in more recent times two have been withdrawn, as the work of Jacob
Binck. One of the two heads of Sir Thomas Wyat is only a good, careful
copy of the other, in which the hair of the beard is drawn with great
elaboration, from the hand of some follower or imitator of Holbein, and
in one or two other cases the drawings are, perhaps, only copies of lost
originals, or even original drawings by some other hand, such as the
so-called “Melanchthon,” with its faltering line, which lacks much of
Holbein’s customary strength and certitude.
[Sidenote: THE METHOD OF THEIR EXECUTION]
The drawings were executed in almost all cases in black and coloured
chalks. During his first visit to England Holbein used, as a rule, white
paper, the outlines being drawn in black and the features modelled in
red chalk. The series of heads of members of Sir Thomas More’s family,
and contemporary drawings such as the Warham and Guldeford, are done in
this manner. Later on it was his custom to use a paper covered entirely
with a ground of flesh or salmon colour, upon which the features were
modelled in black chalk, and slight touches of red, after which the
outlines were strengthened and the details of the hair, dress, and
ornaments put in with pen or brush and Indian-ink. In some cases the
whole face was completely modelled with the greatest delicacy, and as a
rule the eyes, hair, and beard were drawn in with water-colour or
coloured crayons in their natural hues. Upon a number of the drawings
the colour and material of the costume worn by the sitter are indicated
by notes in Holbein’s own handwriting, and in some of them details of
the ornaments or embroideries have been drawn on the margin of the sheet
with the brush with the sure and rapid hand of a master. In one
instance—the portrait of John Godsalve—the drawing is entirely finished
in water-colours, and the figure is shown against a blue background; and
in one of the two heads of Sir Thomas More the holes with which it was
pricked for tracing on the panel can still be seen. The earlier drawings
are usually the largest, the one last-named being about 16 in. high by
12 in. wide. The Warham is 17 in. by 12 in., the Guldeford 15 in. by 11
in., and the Godsalve the same size. One of the largest of all is the
Jane Seymour, which is 20½ in. by 11 in.
[Sidenote: THE METHOD OF THEIR EXECUTION]
“Some have been rubbed,” says Walpole, “and others traced over with a
pen on the outlines by some unskilful hand.”[573] In a few instances, it
is true, these strengthening touches appear to be by some other hand
than Holbein’s, but in most of the drawings they are just as certainly
his. The studies have suffered considerable damage during the passage of
time. They are stained, and many of them badly rubbed, so that the more
delicate modelling and colouring carried out in crayons has almost
vanished. In consequence the brush-work, which has better withstood
rough usage, at first sight appears to be a little hard, and in some
instances even coarse, thus slightly marring that perfect harmony of
effect which characterised the drawings when fresh from the artist’s
hand. The finer details have been worn away, leaving certain lines more
prominent than Holbein intended. A closer study, however, as Sir Richard
Holmes points out, shows that it is to the wonderful strength and
delicacy combined of these touches that the portraits owe the vivid and
life-like quality which they so pre-eminently possess. “On some of the
heads these touches occur only on the eyes, nostrils, and lips, where
the marvellous accuracy of modelling, particularly in the corners of the
mouth, is not to be excelled in the work of any other master.”[574] It
must be remembered, too, that these studies were, in almost all cases,
working drawings, done for transference or for copying on the panel, and
are in that sense not finished works, some parts and details being
emphasised more strongly than others. In certain of the drawings the
beard and the hair have been put in with the brush with that careful and
elaborate detail with which such features were usually carried out by
Holbein in his finished portraits; for instance, in the long beard of
Sir Thomas Wyat or the close-cut hair of Simon George. In other drawings
the unshaven stubble on a man’s chin or upper lip is put in with a few
masterly strokes. Here and there high lights have been indicated with a
touch of white, as in the heads of Lord and Lady Vaux. It may be taken,
then, that in the greater number of cases, the only hand which can be
traced in these drawings is that of Holbein himself, dimmed here and
there by the passing of the years, or rough or careless usage at some
time or other during their earlier wanderings. Certain critics, however,
consider that in many of them, some later hand has attempted to revivify
the fading lines, with results quite contrary to those intended. Mr.
Campbell Dodgson, speaking of the lovely head of an Englishwoman in the
Salting Collection, describes it as being “entirely free from the
retouching which disfigures many of the Windsor heads.”[575] Mr. Gerald
Davies is also among those who consider that the drawings have been
retouched by some other hand than Holbein’s. “I am quite persuaded,” he
says, “that the strengthening of the outlines, either by chalk lines or
in many cases by Indian-ink, is not due to the hand of Holbein himself.
Among the drawings are a few which have never been so touched. The lines
of these are of great delicacy and of the most expressive quality—an
artistic dream which has almost faded from the paper. These are the
select few which, having suffered most from rubbing, and having the
faintest indications to guide the hand of the reinforcer, have been left
in their ghostly beauty. Others have been revived by the application of
a bolder chalk line of the proper colour in parts where the outline
seemed most to need it. It has been done on the whole well, if such a
thing can ever be said to have been well done at all. But these same
lines will be found to be hard and wiry, and somewhat unfeeling as
compared to the subtly sympathetic outline of the master himself. There
remains yet the further manner of reinforcement by a strong outlining,
often accompanied by a slight thickening in parts by means of a wash, in
what appears to be Indian-ink. The ink has toned now, and has lost much
of the offence of its once strong contrast with the rest of the delicate
modelling. But remembering what that contrast would have been when the
ink was fresh, I find it impossible to believe that it was added by the
hand of Holbein.”[576] Mr. Davies suggests that this Indian-ink
strengthening took place when the drawings came into the hands of
Charles I, and that possibly Wenceslaus Hollar was employed for the
purpose. It is difficult to follow him in this suggestion of Hollar’s
retouching, nor can the writer agree with him in his opinion that a more
or less wholesale retouching of the drawings has ever been undertaken by
any hand than that of Holbein himself. A more credible suggestion is
that of Mr. Lionel Cust, who says: “It is very probable that the
drawings were refreshed by outlines very soon after Holbein’s death, if
not by the painter himself. Since that date the most likely time for
them to have suffered any alteration would have been after their
rediscovery at Kensington, when they were for a time in the hands of
George Vertue, an expert crayon-artist himself as well as
engraver.”[577]
Footnote 573:
Walpole, _Anecdotes_, ed. Wornum, i. p. 85 _note_.
Footnote 574:
Holmes in Introduction to Hanfstaengl’s _Portraits of Illustrious
Personages_, &c.
Footnote 575:
Vasari Society, Pt. ii. (1905-6), No. 31.
Footnote 576:
Davies, _Holbein_, p. 122.
Footnote 577:
_Burlington Magazine_, vol. xviii., February 1911, p. 270.
Some part of the damage done to them may have been due to wear and tear
in the artist’s own studio, for it is possible that he employed an
assistant or two; though if that had been the case, it is strange that
there is no record among the State papers of a licence granting him
leave to employ journeymen, such as was necessary under the Act dealing
with foreign residents. It is possible, too, though far from probable,
that he may have had one or two pupils—though here again there is no
record of them—who would copy his drawings, and might be entrusted
occasionally with the tracing of the drawings upon the panel, or even in
painting parts of the replicas of portraits which must sometimes have
been ordered. It is evident that these drawings were made solely for the
artist’s own purposes, both in order to avoid a too frequent attendance
of his sitters at his studio, and also because it was the method of
working which best suited him. They remained, therefore, in his own
possession, and were never handed over to his patrons. The fashion of
collecting portraits of celebrities which was in vogue in France
throughout the sixteenth century was only imitated in a very minor
degree in England. In France, as M. Dimier points out, “the result of
this rage for portraits was that people were not content with the
necessarily limited number of originals. The works of the masters of the
time were copied and recopied a hundred times, often by unskilful and
sometimes by absolutely clumsy hands. This was the case not only with
the portraits of kings and queens, which have been multiplied thus in
all ages, but with those of any one at court—a feature which is peculiar
to the period under consideration. Not even the number of painted
portraits and painted copies was enough; there was a demand for quicker
and cheaper satisfaction. The original chalk-drawings were copied, in
the same medium, an infinite number of times, far oftener, indeed, than
the paintings; and these drawings were commonly bound into albums and
preserved as family treasures. A vast number of these albums must have
perished, but a vast number still exist.”[578] Nothing of this kind
occurred on this side of the Channel. Holbein’s original drawings, after
his death, were preserved in a volume in this fashion, but they formed
an unique example. Though copies or duplicates of one or two of them
exist, such as the John Fisher and the Duchess of Suffolk in the British
Museum, the Guldeford, Fisher and Poyntz formerly in the Heseltine
Collection, and the head called Sir Charles Wingfield in the collection
of Sir John Leslie, Bart., recently published by Mr. Lionel Cust,[579]
the collection as a whole was never copied in this way, as it would have
been in France. It is doubtful if most of these duplicates, fine as they
are, are actually from Holbein’s own hand.
Footnote 578:
Dimier, _French Painting in the Sixteenth Century_, p. 29.
Footnote 579:
_Burlington Magazine_, vol. xviii., February 1911, p. 271.
[Sidenote: STUDIES FOR LOST PORTRAITS]
It may be taken for granted that portraits were painted from nearly all
these Windsor studies, more than eighty in number, though possibly a
few, drawn during the last months of his life, were not carried out in
this way. It is, therefore, a little extraordinary that less than thirty
of such finished oil portraits have so far been traced, the remainder
having disappeared; and of these latter only about one half are original
paintings by Holbein, the remainder being copies of lost originals.
Among the first-named we have Jane Seymour, Catherine Howard, the Prince
of Wales, Sir Thomas More, Warham, Guldeford, Southwell, John Godsalve,
Reskimer, Simon George, Lady Vaux, Lady Rich, Lady Butts, Lady Audley
(miniature only), and one or two others; in the second class the More
Family Group is the most important, there being no less than seven
studies for this great work at Windsor, including the one of Sir Thomas
himself.
There still remain more than fifty drawings in England alone of which no
paintings are known. It seems impossible that the whole of these
pictures should have perished. Some of them, it is to be hoped, may yet
be discovered, hidden away in some remote country house, perhaps
obscured by dirt and disfigured by repaintings, so that hitherto they
have remained unrecognised. It is not very likely that drawings of this
size were made as preliminary studies for miniatures, or otherwise this
might account for some of the missing portraits, as such small works
would be much more easily lost than panel paintings. It is true that in
a few instances, such as the portraits of Lady Audley and the Earl of
Abergavenny, we have miniatures closely following the drawings, but no
large portraits; but it does not follow that the latter were not
painted.
On the other hand, there are a considerable number of Holbein’s
portraits—between thirty and forty—for which no preliminary studies
remain, and these range over every period of his career. This, however,
is not so extraordinary, for drawings disappear more easily than
pictures. In some instances, too, their absence may be explained by the
artist’s method of work. It was his occasional habit, more particularly
in the earlier half of his career, to fasten down the preliminary study
upon the panel, and use it as the ground-work of his painting, so that
the drawing naturally was lost. The portrait of his wife and children at
Basel has been carried out in this way, and the Anne of Cleves in the
Louvre is painted on vellum or parchment, afterwards mounted on canvas.
This, however, was not his more regular practice, which was to transfer
the study to the panel by tracing or pricking. Not a single study exists
for any one of the portraits of the German merchants of the Steelyard,
or for such portraits as the Duchess of Milan, Jean de Dinteville and
the Bishop of Lavaur, Kratzer, Thomas Godsalve, Sir Henry Wyat,
Cromwell, Tuke, the Duke of Norfolk, Cheseman, Dr. Chamber, and the
painted portraits of various unknown men at Berlin, Vienna, Basel, and
elsewhere. For the portraits of Erasmus there is only a study for the
hands, while there is no drawing for the Amerbach or Froben. On the
other hand, among a number of fine drawings in continental museums there
are, in addition to the two earlier and three later ones of the members
of the Meyer family, only two—the Morette in Dresden and the Sir
Nicholas Carew in Basel—of which the finished paintings still exist.
There is no doubt that Holbein’s practice as a portrait painter during
his second and longer residence in England was almost entirely confined
to the court and to those who were in the King’s employment. The Windsor
drawings, a number of which have been described in previous chapters of
this book, make this sufficiently clear. Included among the heads which
have not been described are John Russell, Earl of Bedford; Sir William
Parr, afterwards Marquis of Northampton; Thomas Boleyn, Earl of
Wiltshire and Ormonde; Edward Stanley, Earl of Derby; George Brooke,
Lord Cobham; Thomas, Lord Vaux; Sir Thomas Parry; Sir William
Sherrington; Sir Thomas Wentworth; Edward, Lord Clinton; Sir Thomas le
Strange; Sir George Carew; Lord Chancellor Rich, and others; and among
the ladies, Lady Parker, Lady Ratcliffe, Mary Zouch, Lady Rich, Lady
Henegham, the Marchioness of Dorset, Lady Mewtas, Lady Monteagle, and
Lady Borough.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 34A
UNKNOWN ENGLISHMAN
_Drawing in black and coloured chalks_
WINDSOR CASTLE
]
* * * * *
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 34B
WILLIAM PARR
Marquis of Northampton
_Drawing in black and coloured chalks_
WINDSOR CASTLE
]
[Sidenote: DESCRIPTIONS OF SOME OF THE HEADS]
The study of William Parr, Marquis of Northampton (Pl. 34 (2)),[580] is
one of the few in which the hands are shown. The head, with
close-cropped hair and short, round beard, has suffered from rubbing,
but remains a fine and strongly individualised study of character. The
dress and jewellery are indicated with some elaboration, to which are
added notes in Holbein’s handwriting, and detailed sketches of his hat
ornaments and other jewellery are drawn in the margin. The medallion he
wears appears to be of open-work with a figure of St. George, and one of
the links of his chain is inscribed with the word “MORS.” In the Thomas
Boleyn,[581] also, the right hand is shown, and the dress is drawn with
much more detail than in most of the companion drawings, while the face
is one of the most carefully elaborated in the whole series, the
individual hairs of the beard and moustache being indicated with minute
precision. Equally careful drawing of the hair is to be seen in the head
of Lord Stanley,[582] with its expressive face and fine eyes. Another
very powerful drawing is the full-face portrait of Lord Cobham,[583]
with open doublet showing his bare chest, a head of most striking
individuality. One of the most beautiful among the more finished studies
is that of Lord Vaux (Pl. 35),[584] in which the hair, cut straight
across the forehead, and the beard and moustache are put in with almost
microscopic detail, as well as the design upon the white collar with its
strings of black and white cord. There is a second study of Lord
Vaux[585] in the collection. It is, of course, impossible to give even a
short description of the whole of the drawings, but among the numerous
studies of “unknown men” two in particular cannot be overlooked. The one
is the head of a handsome young man with a long, sharp nose,[586] thin
whiskers, and a small beard, the head turned slightly to the right, and
both eyes shown (Pl. 34 (1)). He wears large ostrich feathers in his
black hat, which has a medallion, the design not indicated, and gold
tags. The dress, very roughly sketched in, is badly rubbed. The drawing
is one of great beauty, very delicate and refined in its treatment and
feeling. The second, to which reference has been already made, is the
very striking likeness of a man with a flat, broad nose, bushy, curly
beard, and hair falling over the ears, his eyes cast slightly downwards,
one of the most powerful drawings in the Windsor Collection, which Miss
Hervey suggests is possibly a study for a second portrait of Jean de
Dinteville (Pl. 36# (1)).[587] Dr. Paul Ganz considers the sitter to be
a man of pronounced southern French type, and probably a member of the
French embassy which was in London in 1533.[588] It is just as probable,
however, that this unknown nobleman was English, for the type, though
unusual, is to be met with occasionally.
Footnote 580:
Woltmann, 316; Wornum, ii. 5; Holmes, i. 15.
Footnote 581:
Woltmann, 288; Wornum, i. 21; Holmes, i. 16.
Footnote 582:
Woltmann, 310; Wornum, i. 16; Holmes, i. 18.
Footnote 583:
Woltmann, 315; Wornum, i. 44; Holmes, i. 19.
Footnote 584:
Woltmann, 320; Wornum, i. 26; Holmes, i. 23.
Footnote 585:
Woltmann, 322; Wornum, i. 41; Holmes, i. 31.
Footnote 586:
Woltmann, 346; Wornum, i. 25; Holmes, i. 51.
Footnote 587:
Woltmann, 345; Wornum, i. 12; Holmes, i. 52. See p. 44.
Footnote 588:
_Hdz. von H. H. dem Jüng._, p. 54.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 35
THOMAS, LORD VAUX
_Drawing in black and coloured chalks_
WINDSOR CASTLE
]
* * * * *
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 36A
UNKNOWN MAN
(said to be Jean de Dinteville)
_Drawing in black and coloured chalks_
WINDSOR CASTLE
]
* * * * *
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 36B
MARY ZOUCH
_Drawning in black and coloured chalks_
WINDSOR CASTLE
]
* * * * *
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 37A
LADY AUDLEY
_Drawing in black and coloured chalks_
WINDSOR CASTLE
]
* * * * *
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 37B
LADY MEWTAS
_Drawing in black and coloured chalks_
WINDSOR CASTLE
]
* * * * *
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 38
“THE LADY HENEGHAM”
(Possibly Margaret Roper)
_Drawing in black and coloured chalks_
WINDSOR CASTLE
]
Among the portraits of ladies it is unfortunate that several of the
finest have suffered from bad rubbing. Such an one is the head of Mary,
daughter of the Duke of Norfolk, and wife of the King’s natural son,
Henry, Duke of Richmond, which has been already described.[589] The fine
head of Lady Mewtas (Pl. 37# (2)),[590] the face a strong one, is very
delicately modelled, and unspoilt by the presence of too forcible
outlines. Her jewelled ornaments include a circular pendant with five
dark table stones and three hanging pearls, suspended from a thin chain,
with beads round the neck, a circular medallion at the breast with a
figure subject now almost obliterated, and across the top of the bodice
a band of pearls set in groups of five like flowers. The
incorrectly-named “Lady Mary, after Queen,”[591] whom it certainly does
not represent, is another fine drawing which has suffered considerable
damage. It has been gone over with the tracing point for transference to
panel, but no painting after it is now known to exist. The same is the
case with the head of the Marchioness of Dorset,[592] the daughter of
Charles Brandon and the King’s sister, Mary, which also shows
indications of tracing. This is a good example of a drawing in which the
fine modelling of the face has now almost disappeared, so that the
darker lines stand out too insistently. There is most brilliant and
subtle drawing of the eyes, nose, and mouth in the very expressive and
beautiful head of the so-called Lady Henegham (Pl. 38),[593] wife of Sir
Anthony Hemingham or Heveningham, of Ketteringham in Norfolk, which
remains in very excellent condition. She wears a small pendant ornament
with one hanging pearl at her neck, and on the breast an upright oval
medallion with a figure within a Renaissance framework. It has been
suggested that this fine head really represents Margaret Roper, and the
features are not unlike those of several members of the More family; but
against this attribution must be placed the fact that the drawing,
unlike all the other studies for the family picture, is not on white
paper. Among the best of the other heads of women are Lady Parker,[594]
Lady Lister,[595] Lady Rich,[596] Lady Elyot,[597] Lady Audley, already
described (Pl. 37 (1)), an unknown lady, wearing a white cap or bonnet
covering the hair and ears and reaching to the chin[598]—a large drawing
on white paper, something of the type of the More family, but rather
more freely drawn—and Mary Zouch (Pl. 36 (2)).[599] The last-named is
one of the most attractive of the whole series. The face, seen in full,
is modelled with extreme delicacy and expression. She wears a French
circular hood with bands of ornament over her smooth, yellow hair,
parted in the middle and covering the ears. Her dress is of black
velvet, as noted in Holbein’s handwriting, and the medallion at her
breast, surrounded with a Renaissance framework, has an almost
obliterated subject, apparently a female figure with flying draperies
seated on a rock, possibly Perseus and Andromeda. This drawing is
inscribed “M. Souch,” and Sir Richard Holmes, following Wornum, suggests
that the drawing represents Joan, wife of Richard Zouch, son of Lord
Zouch of Haringworth. It is, however, more probably Mary Zouch, a member
of the same family, who was a maid of honour to Jane Seymour, and, after
the Queen’s death, received an annuity of £10 on April 6th, 1542, in
recognition of her services, which was to be continued until she “was
married or otherwise provided for.”[600]
Footnote 589:
Woltmann, 324; Wornum, ii. 17; Holmes, ii. 23. See pp. 110-111.
Footnote 590:
Woltmann, 339; Wornum, ii. 20; Holmes, ii. 16.
Footnote 591:
Woltmann, 331; Wornum, ii. 39; Holmes, ii. 15. Etched by Hollar
(Parthey, 1465); the etching reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 199
(3).
Footnote 592:
Woltmann, 332; Wornum, ii. 16; Holmes, ii. 14.
Footnote 593:
Woltmann, 333; Wornum, ii. 25; Holmes, ii. 12.
Footnote 594:
Woltmann, 338; Wornum, ii. 28; Holmes, i. 27.
Footnote 595:
Woltmann, 336; Wornum, ii. 26; Holmes, i. 28.
Footnote 596:
Woltmann, 319; Wornum, ii. 37; Holmes, ii. 10.
Footnote 597:
Woltmann, 285; Wornum, ii. 19; Holmes, i. 39.
Footnote 598:
Woltmann, 350; Wornum, ii. 13; Holmes, ii. 11.
Footnote 599:
Woltmann, 344; Wornum, ii. 27; Holmes, i. 30.
Footnote 600:
_C.L.P._, vol. xvii. 283 (28). (April 6, 1542.)
[Sidenote: STUDIES IN BERLIN AND BASEL]
The Berlin Print Room possesses a remarkably fine portrait-drawing of an
unknown Englishman,[601] with deep blue eyes, straight brown hair, a
scanty beard, and a thoughtful, expressive face, slightly turned to the
left. He wears a small flat cap, unornamented, and the usual gown with
heavy fur collar. Only slight touches of colour have been used on the
eyes, hair, and lips, and the paper has been covered with a pale red
wash.
Footnote 601:
Woltmann, 120. Reproduced by Ganz, _Hdz. von H. H. dem Jüng._, Pl. 36;
Davies, p. 224.
Among the portrait-drawings in the Basel Gallery, some fourteen in all,
most of which have been already described, the finest is perhaps that of
an unknown young man in a large, broad-brimmed black hat,[602] which is
certainly one of the most beautiful of his drawings now existing (Pl.
39). The sitter, a handsome and dignified man, with a large, straight
nose, and refined features—evidently a man of culture of the type of
Bonifacius Amerbach—is turned to the left, the face seen almost in
profile, though both eyes are shown. The lips of the mobile mouth are
slightly parted, and the expressive eyes gaze into the distance, as
though he were lost in thought. The brown, bushy hair, which covers the
ears and falls over the forehead, is drawn with rapid, masterly touches,
and the profile of the face stands out with great effect against the
dark background formed by the underside of his large hat. The flesh
tints are suggested with simple but subtle touches of the chalk. The
dress is merely sketched in with a few lines, though the brown fur
collar of his coat is sufficiently indicated just where it comes under
the beardless chin. This superb drawing, in which the artist has seized
upon and set down with unerring insight the finest traits of the
sitter’s character, is in black and coloured chalks. The type of face,
in the opinion of Woltmann and Dr. Ganz, is distinctly German. From its
technique, which, on the one hand, has much in common with the later
studies of the Meyer family made for the Darmstadt “Madonna,” and on the
other with the drawings for the More Family Group, it may be surmised
that this study was made in Basel shortly before Holbein left for his
first visit to England. It has much in common, too, with the coloured
drawing in Basel of Holbein himself, and it may be noted, as a small
point, that the hat the unknown youth is wearing is similar to the one
the artist wears, though rather larger, and is of a different fashion
from the black head-gear worn by Holbein’s English sitters.
Footnote 602:
Woltmann, 38. Reproduced by Ganz, _Hdz. Schwz. Mstr._, i. 54, and
_Holbein_, p. xxxi.; Knackfuss, fig. 106.
Among the other portraits of unknown personages at Basel are two heads
of an Englishman and his wife,[603] and a third, still finer, of a lady
wearing the angular English head-dress and black fall, who was evidently
a member of the court circle.[604] This drawing, which is also in black
and coloured chalks, must be placed among the best of Holbein’s studies
of women. It has been conjectured that it represents Lady Carew, and
also Lady Guldeford. The equally beautiful drawing of Sir Nicholas
Carew[605] has been described already. All the drawings just mentioned
form part of the Amerbach Collection, and it may be suggested, though
the suggestion is not a very plausible one, that at least those of them
which represent English people were taken to Basel by Holbein himself,
on one or other of his visits home, and were left behind when he
returned to England, together with the sketch-book, also in the Amerbach
Collection, which is undoubtedly of the English period; or, on the other
hand, they may have been sent over from London to his widow with his
personal belongings by his executors after his death.
Footnote 603:
Woltmann, 36, 37. The lady reproduced by Ganz, _Hdz. Schwz. Mstr._, i.
11. Already described. See Vol. i. p. 321, and Plate 82, Vol. i.
Footnote 604:
Woltmann, 32. Reproduced by Davies, p. 224; Knackfuss, fig. 105.
Already described. See Vol. i. p. 321, and Plate 81 (2), Vol. i.
Footnote 605:
Woltmann, 31. Reproduced by Ganz, _Hdz. Schwz. Mstr._, iii. 40; and in
_Holbein_, p. xxxiii.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 39
PORTRAIT OF AN UNKNOWN YOUNG MAN
_Drawing in black and coloured chalks_
BASEL GALLERY
]
[Sidenote: HOLBEIN AND THE CLOUETS]
Altogether apart from their artistic merits, these drawings of Holbein’s
are of the utmost historical value, both on account of their number,
including as they do so many of the leading characters who played a part
in the making of England in Tudor days, and also because of the
perfection of their draughtsmanship and the corresponding life-likeness
of their portraiture, so that they form true documents in every sense of
the word. Holbein’s genius shows us Henry’s ministers and the lords and
ladies who surrounded him, just as they were in life, without any
attempt at flattery, but with every feature set down with unfaltering
truth, and, above all, with a grasp of character which the portrait
drawings of no other great master of his period show in the same degree.
He has left behind, as a mine of wealth for the use of the student of
history, in drawings alone, without taking into account his numerous
painted portraits for which no drawings now exist, a series of more than
one hundred representations of Tudor men and women. In only one other
instance can we turn to a similar series of contemporary portraits—the
chalk drawings of French men and women of the same century by the two
Clouets, Jean and François, father and son. These, though of the utmost
value as historical portraiture, and also of great beauty and even
fascination as works of art, fall short of the greatness which stamps
Holbein’s work of a like nature. The elder Clouet had not his mastery of
drawing; his knowledge was more limited and his means more restricted.
His drawings have “a stiffness and dryness which are very far from the
flowing and supple handling of the Basle master.”[606] His son had
considerably more science. “His drawing in reality is extremely
profound, and as exactly calculated as any known. In tracing the human
face and all the parts presented by the model, he has the ability of a
specialist, whose long practice of an art that is deep rather than wide
has enabled him to accumulate a mass of information and experience. He
reaches perfection in the proportion of the features, in the exact
placing of all the fine fugitive, mobile parts of the face, in the
careful study of the extremely subtle relations from which the mass of
form draws its solidity, and in skill in constructing the unity of
impression of a face and of a type.”[607] He has little or nothing,
however, of Holbein’s beauty of style. Holbein’s drawings are matchless
in the delicacy of their modelling, every little depression or
prominence in the contours of the face being indicated with an
exactitude and a simplicity of means unrivalled in work of such nature;
and also for the way in which this delicacy of touch in handling the
crayon, and subtlety and precision of the strengthening lines with brush
or pencil, are combined with the wonderful vigour and sense of life with
which each individual drawing is filled. Added to their truthfulness in
portraiture there is that remarkable insight into the true nature and
feelings of the sitter which is one of the greatest qualities of
Holbein’s art. It is owing to the knowledge and mastery which are the
basis of these Portrait-Studies—studies usually made with rapidity, but
in which nothing essential has been missed by the penetrating eye and
unerring hand of the artist—that so perfect a result is obtained with
means apparently so slight. Delicacy and strength meet in them in
exquisite combination; the flexibility and refinement of his line are
always kept well under control, and there is no over-elaboration of
detail to the detriment of character. Each drawing bears upon it the
stamp of a style, and of a great style, which was Holbein’s own
individual possession, in which freedom and truth are tempered and
perfected by self-restraint.
Footnote 606:
Dimier, _French Painting in the Sixteenth Century_, p. 44.
Footnote 607:
Dimier, p. 205.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 40
THE QUEEN OF SHEBA’S VISIT TO KING SOLOMON
_Silver-point drawing washed with colour_
WINDSOR CASTLE
]
[Sidenote: “THE QUEEN OF SHEBA”]
To attempt even a list of Holbein’s more important drawings other than
his portrait-studies would be quite beyond the scope of this book, in
the course of which, however, many of them have been touched upon; but
there still remain several which cannot be passed over in silence. Chief
among them is the small drawing on parchment, highly finished like a
miniature, in the Library, Windsor Castle, which represents the “Queen
of Sheba’s visit to King Solomon” (Pl. 40).[608] It is a composition
containing no less than thirty-four small figures, and so, after the
wall-paintings in the Basel Town Hall and the “Triumphs” of the London
Steelyard, is one of the most considerable arrangements of grouping ever
attempted by him. King Solomon is seated on a throne on a high daïs
approached by a number of steps within a large chamber, the roof of
which is supported by slender columns of Renaissance architecture.
Behind the throne is suspended a large curtain, and on the steps on
either side are placed groups of the elders and long-bearded wise men of
Solomon’s kingdom. In the centre the Queen mounts the steps, her hands
outstretched as though in wonder and admiration of the great king. In
the foreground a procession of her ten ladies, walking two and two,
passes towards the left, and on the right are a group of her attendants
bearing rich presents, some of them kneeling with uplifted baskets. The
drawing is in silver-point, slightly washed with grey and brown, and
touched here and there with water-colour; the fruits in one of the
baskets are red and green, and some of the draperies and details are
touched with dead gold. The background between the pillars is blue
powdered with gold stars. The Renaissance architecture of the setting is
purer and less florid in style than is the case with many of Holbein’s
earlier studies for glass paintings. The figures of the women are
gracefully conceived and grouped, and the heads of the men have
character and expression. In its general arrangement the upper half of
this miniature drawing recalls the “Rehoboam” wall-painting in the Basel
Town Hall, though the setting is more richly treated; while in the
general gracefulness of its design it is Italian in feeling, and has
close affinity to the “Triumph of Riches” drawing for the decoration of
the Steelyard. It was probably done at about the same date as the
latter, perhaps as a present for the King, the subject having been
chosen as conveying a subtle and flattering suggestion that Henry and
Solomon were alike in their possession of great wisdom. It is finished
with such minute care that it does not seem likely that it is merely the
preparatory sketch for some larger picture or wall-painting. There is no
record of any wall-decoration of this subject, either in the Steelyard
or at Whitehall, though Holbein may have had some idea when at work upon
it that it might serve for such a purpose afterwards if it met with the
King’s approval; or, on the other hand, it may be a miniature copy from
one of his frescoes in grisaille, which has disappeared, made by Holbein
himself as a gift for his royal master. It was at one time in the
Arundel Collection, and while there was engraved by Hollar. In the
inventory of that collection it is entered as “Regina de Saba in
miniatura chiaroscuro.” There is a picture in the Dresden Gallery
representing the “Death of Virginia,” which appears to be an early copy
of another of Holbein’s lost frescoes in grisaille, which has many
points in common with the “Queen of Sheba” miniature painting, and is
carried out in a similar scheme of colouring. Both were, no doubt, the
work of his second English residence.[609]
Footnote 608:
Woltmann, 272. Reproduced in Ganz, _Hdz. von H. H. dem Jüng._, Pl. 32,
and in _Holbein_, p. 182; Knackfuss, fig. 145.
Footnote 609:
See Woltmann, ii. p. 124. Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 174.
Another important drawing, of an earlier date, in the Städel Institut at
Frankfurt, represents a transport ship about to put out to sea.[610] It
is a three-masted vessel, with high poop, crowded with small figures,
among them a troop of landsknechte, one of whom stands in the stern, a
fine figure, holding aloft a banner which flaps in the wind. Others play
drum and trumpets, some hold pikes, and one of them embraces a girl. The
anchor has been hauled up, and most of the sailors are at work in the
rigging unfurling the sails; but several of them are taking parting
drinks from large jars, even at the masthead, and one of the number is
already overcome with sea-sickness. Below, on the left, a boat with two
rowers is pulling vigorously towards the ship, either to put on board a
late comer or to fetch off those for the shore. The exact date of this
drawing is uncertain. It is possible that Holbein saw some such vessel
during his visit to Amerbach in the south of France, or that he made it
a year or two later at Antwerp on his way to England for the first time.
Footnote 610:
Woltmann, 152. Reproduced by Knackfuss, fig. 70. Water-colour has been
used for the faces, dresses, and other parts of the drawing.
His skill in the representation of animals is shown in a number of
drawings. There are some fine horses in the “Triumph of Riches” study,
and also in the “Samuel and Saul” and the “Sapor and Valerian” drawings
for the Basel Town Hall paintings, as well as in the woodcut of “The
Ploughman” in the “Dance of Death” series and in others of his woodcut
illustrations; the latter also showing good studies of sheep, dogs, and
other animals. The early drawings of a lamb and a bat have been
described on a previous page.[611]
Footnote 611:
See Vol. i. p. 161.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER XXVII
DESIGNS FOR JEWELLERY AND THE DECORATIVE ARTS
Holbein as a practical designer for craftsmen in the different branches
of art workmanship—Architectural designs—The “Holbein Gate” at
Whitehall—The Porch at Wilton—Drawing of a royal chimney-piece in the
British Museum—Ceilings in St. James’s Palace and the Matted Gallery,
Whitehall—Sculptured capitals in the More Chapel, Chelsea Church—Glass
window in Shelton Church, Norfolk—Number of his designs for jewellers,
goldsmiths, and armourers—The Jane Seymour Cup—Other designs for cups
in the Basel Museum—Sir Anthony Denny’s clock—Sword and dagger hilts
and sheaths—Henry VIII’s love of jewellery—Pendants—Book
covers—Monograms—Panels of ornament—Designs for circular medallions or
_enseignes_ in the British Museum and at Chatsworth and Basel—The
leading English and foreign jewellers in London—Holbein’s probable
connection with some of them.
Holbein was a master in all crafts, and Erasmus’ description of him in
his letter to Peter Ægidius,[612] not as painter, or sculptor, but
simply as a fine workman (_insignis artifex_), was a true one. His great
technical powers in every department of decorative design, his practical
knowledge of the various processes employed in the different branches of
art workmanship for which he supplied the craftsmen with patterns and
working drawings, show him to have been a real master of arts in every
sense of the word.
Footnote 612:
See Vol. i. p. 255.
“The artistic quality he possessed in the highest degree,” says Mr. M.
Digby Wyatt, “was, I consider, the intensity with which he realised
‘form.’ Able master as he was of delineation, what gives the stamp of
enduring truth to his work is the feeling of assurance his delineation
conveys to the mind of the spectator, that what he has drawn from life
was the _vera effigies_ of what he saw—that what he designed could never
be executed with equal propriety in any other way than as his drawing
defined it. There is never any uncertainty as to his intention or
meaning—what he says was, was—what he says should be, should be. In this
precise conception of pure form and power of conveying his own sense of
it to others, he stood upon the same platform as the great men to whose
universal genius I have already alluded—Albert Dürer and Leonardo da
Vinci. The artist who possesses in a high degree any such power as that
I have attempted to define, must of necessity have the requisite
aptitude for success in either painting, architecture, or sculpture, or
all three; since the power in question lies at the root of and is
indispensable to the satisfactory practice of either or all. Architects
will do well to look earnestly at such reliques as time has spared of
the genius of Dürer, Da Vinci, and especially of Hans Holbein, since, so
far as I know, they were the best makers of working drawings who ever
lived. Of whatever they drew they gave every characteristic, and their
slightest sketches never fail to mark essentials and to omit secondaries
of form and expression.”[613]
Footnote 613:
M. Digby Wyatt, “Foreign Artists employed in England,” &c.,
_Transactions of the Royal Institute of British Architects_, 1868, p.
229.
Horace Walpole, speaking of the rise of Renaissance architecture in
England—“Grecian art plaistered on Gothic,” he calls it—says that “the
beginning of reformation in building seems owing to Holbein. His porch
at Wilton, though purer than the works of his successors, is of this
bastard sort; but the ornaments and proportions are graceful and well
chosen. I have seen drawings of his, too, in the same kind. Where he
acquired this taste is difficult to say; probably it was adopted from
his acquaintance with his fellow-labourers at court.”[614] Though
there is no doubt that Holbein would have been a fine architect had
his inclination led him to practise that branch of art—the backgrounds
of his designs for painted glass afford ample proof of his aptitude
for design in the new architectural manner of the Italian
Renaissance—Walpole’s assertion cannot be accepted as the truth. Henry
VIII had at least two good Italian architects in his employment—first,
Girolamo da Treviso, and afterwards John of Padua, as well as
sculptors and modellers of architectural detail such as Benedetto da
Rovezzano and Giovanni da Maiano, and it is the influence of such
Italians as these that is to be most clearly discerned in the
buildings which were erected in England at this period. Holbein
produced a few designs of an architectural nature, but no building
exists of which it can be said that he was the architect.
Footnote 614:
Walpole, _Anecdotes_, ed. Wornum, i. 128.
[Sidenote: “HOLBEIN’S GATE” AT WHITEHALL]
The gateway which, according to tradition, he designed, and hence known
as “Holbein’s Gate,” was one of Henry VIII’s additions to Whitehall, and
connected the tennis court, the cock-pit, and the bowling-green with the
palace, besides providing the King with a gallery into the park, from
which he could witness the sports which took place there on special
occasions. It was built, according to Walcott, of stone mixed with small
squares of flint, and tesselated, and was “very neatly set.” J. T.
Smith, in his _Antiquities of Westminster_, describes it as being in the
Tudor style of architecture, with battlements and four lofty towers, the
whole enriched with _bustos_ on the north and south sides. Pennant, who
had himself seen the gate, says: “To Holbein was owing the most
beautiful gate at Whitehall, built with bricks of two colours, glazed
and disposed in a tesselated fashion. The top, as well as an elegant
tower on each side, were embattled. On each front were four busts, in
baked clay, which resisted to the last every attack of the weather.” An
excellent idea of its appearance is to be obtained from the engraving by
G. Vertue (1725) in the “Vetusta Monumenta.”
The gateway was pulled down in 1759 in order to widen Parliament Street.
The materials were obtained by the Duke of Cumberland, Ranger of Windsor
Park, with the intention of re-erecting the gate at the end of the Long
Walk. In the end, however, they were worked up in several buildings the
Duke built in the park. Two of the medallions were put in front of the
park lodges, but most of them appear to have been stolen when the
gateway was pulled down. Three of them eventually came into the
possession of a coachbuilder named Wright, who, in 1769, employed John
Flaxman, the sculptor, then a boy, to repair them. They were in
terra-cotta, coloured and gilt, and the ornaments included the rose and
crown and the King’s initials. Wright had them removed to Hatfield
Priory, Essex, where they were still to be seen in 1803, in which year
J. T. Smith went down there to copy them. They were larger than life,
and were said to be representations of Henry VII, Henry VIII when
sixteen, and Bishop Fisher. The two which decorated the front of the
park lodges were afterwards removed to Hampton Court, where, says Allan
Cunningham, “they are made to do duty as two of the Roman emperors
described by Hentzner in his _Travels_.” It seems probable that they
were the work of Giovanni da Maiano. In its design there is nothing to
suggest that Holbein was the architect of this famous gateway, and it is
much more probable that one of the Italians employed by the King was
responsible for it; and the legend which connects Holbein with it may
have arisen from the fact that he had rooms in Whitehall, possibly in
the very gateway to which his name has been so long attached. It
contained, says Dallaway, “several apartments, but the most remarkable
was the ‘little study, called the New Library,’ in which Holbein was
accustomed to employ himself in his art, and the courtiers to sit for
their portraits.”[615]
Footnote 615:
Dallaway, notes to Walpole’s _Anecdotes_, ed. Wornum, p. 133.
[Sidenote: THE PORCH AT WILTON]
Tradition has also long associated the name of Holbein with the Porch at
Wilton, the seat of the Earl of Pembroke. This porch or loggia is of no
great beauty, but it is free from any admixture of Gothic detail, and is
a good example of the early adaptation in England of Renaissance
architecture and ornamentation. It originally formed part of the house,
but in the nineteenth century, when some alterations to the buildings
were made, it was removed to the end of a walk in the gardens. The
dissolution of the monastery of St. Edith, on the site of which the
house stands, took place in 1539, and the abbey and its rich possessions
were granted by the King to Sir William Herbert shortly afterwards. In
the erection of his mansion the first Earl no doubt employed one of the
architects then attached to Henry’s court, for there is little in the
design of this small porch to support the tradition that the man he
selected was Holbein, rather than one of the Italians whose business it
was to invent and embellish such buildings. It is, indeed, simpler in
design and less lavish in ornamental detail than those architectural
backgrounds to his windows which Holbein produced when in Basel, based
upon recollections of his visit to Italy. The size of the porch may be
gauged by the entrance-way, which measures 8 feet in height. Round the
three outer doorways runs an interlaced design cut in low relief, which
still retains much of its original colour, the ground a rich red and the
ornament yellow, from which the original gilding has worn away. In the
corners a wreath of fruit and flowers encircles a small wyvern on a blue
background. Above the capitals of the fluted pillars, and just below the
projecting mouldings that divide the upper and lower portions of the
porch, is a broad band filled with a pattern of intersecting circles,
painted on a flat surface in light blue and yellow, lined and touched
with darker blue and red. Probably the whole surface was originally
painted and gilded. In the upper part the double pillars are repeated,
but with rich acanthus capitals. On the three faces over the openings
are panels with the Pembroke coat of arms, with a circular medallion on
each side, containing heads of men and women in relief, those on the
front being apparently busts of the Earl and his wife. The vigorous
heraldic design supported by the Talbot dogs and wyverns forms a novel
finish to the crown. The interior has a ribbed and vaulted ceiling, and
brackets and other details in bold relief, including a number of figures
on pedestals. It is, of course, possible that Holbein provided drawings
for the building of this porch, but there is no real evidence of this,
and the style of the design does not suggest his invention. It is much
more likely to have been due to one of Henry’s Italians, such as Antonio
Toto. “The character of the whole,” says Woltmann, “as is shown
especially in the crowning, is far too feeble for us to think of Holbein
as its architect; and, besides this, the costume of the half-length
figures, introduced in several of the medallions, shows that the work
was executed near the close of the sixteenth century.”[616] Wornum also
calls attention to the lateness of the costumes, and says of the porch
itself that it displays “neither taste nor knowledge of the style.” He
adds: “As for the Whitehall Gate, it was a mongrel of Gothic and
Renaissance quite unworthy of Holbein, and, I should imagine, an
impossible design for him; it was similar in general character to the
gate of St. James’s Palace, at the bottom of St. James’s Street.”[617]
Waagen says that the medallions contain busts of Edward VI and the
Pembroke family.[618]
Footnote 616:
Woltmann, Eng. trans., p. 419.
Footnote 617:
Wornum, pp. 359-60.
Footnote 618:
For drawings of this porch and its various details, and a description
of it as it now is, see an article in the _Art Journal_, 1897, pp.
45-8, written and illustrated by Mr. G. Fidler.
Among the architectural works by Holbein, which, if they were ever
carried out, cannot now be traced, must be placed his very admirable
design in the British Museum for a magnificent chimney-piece[619] for
one of Henry VIII’s palaces, in all probability Bridewell. It is
conceived in the finest Renaissance taste, and is covered with elaborate
and beautiful ornamentation. It is in two stages, each flanked by a pair
of fluted pillars carrying richly-decorated entablatures. The upper part
is divided into six divisions, the three higher ones containing the
royal arms and motto, and the king’s initials and badges, the portcullis
and fleur-de-lis. The central panel of the lower range represents a
battle of horsemen, and the two on either side contain circular
medallions with figures of Charity and Justice, charming compositions,
in which beauty of form is rendered with all that freedom and life-like
accuracy which characterise everything Holbein produced, even his most
hasty sketches. The lower part of the fireplace, over the open hearth,
on which the logs are shown burning across two fire-dogs, is filled with
a semicircular lunette, with a second scene of horsemen engaged in
furious combat, in the centre of which is a wreathed medallion with
figures of Esther and Ahasuerus. In the spandrels are smaller rounds
with the heads of a lady and a helmeted warrior. On the bases of the
pillars on either side are blank tablets for inscriptions, surrounded by
scroll-work. This splendid fireplace was evidently intended to occupy an
important position in one of the King’s buildings, as the frequent
occurrence of his initials and the presence of the royal coat of arms
and badges indicate. Peacham, in his _Compleat Gentleman_, when speaking
of Holbein, says that he has seen “of his owne draught with a penne, a
most curious chimney-peece K. _Henry_ had bespoke for his new built
pallace at _Bridewell_,” and there is no doubt that this is the drawing
to which he referred. It is in pen and ink, with Indian-ink wash and
slight colour, 21¼ in. × 16¾ in., and was formerly in the Arundel,[620]
Richardson, and Walpole collections. It is possible that Holbein made
similar designs for Nonsuch Palace. In this drawing Mr. Digby Wyatt
thought he saw the same designer as the one who produced the beautiful
woodwork of King’s College Chapel, Cambridge. This important work, he
says, “I cannot hesitate to believe must have been executed from his
designs.... In its way it is a model of Renaissance wood-carving,
revealing in every arabesque, and especially in the ornaments of the
lunettes, the peculiarities of classical form as they were first, if I
may use the expression, _translated_ from the Italian into German by
Albert Dürer, Altdorfer, Peter Vischer, and others, including
Holbein.”[621] The ceiling of the chapel of St. James’s Palace has also
been attributed to Holbein, though without any evidence but that of
style. This ceiling, says Wornum, “is a curious work, a panelled
Renaissance design, and tastefully coloured. It was repaired in 1836 by
Sir R. Smirke; the general ground is blue; the panellings are defined by
ribs of wood gilt; there are also ornaments in foliage, painted green;
and there are many coats of arms emblazoned in their proper colours. A
small running open ornament, cast in lead, enriches the under sides of
the ribs. The date 1540 occurs in several places, and various short
inscriptions are scattered about, as—Henricus Rex 8—H and A, for Henry
and Anne of Cleves, with a lover’s knot between them.”[622] His work in
connection with the internal decoration of Whitehall, including the
great fresco in the Privy Chamber and the ceiling in the Matted Gallery,
mentioned by Pepys, has been already described.[623]
Footnote 619:
British Museum Catalogue, 16 (vol. i. p. 330). Woltmann, 197.
Reproduced by His, Pls. 48-50; Davies, p. 224. The work was probably
carried out by Nicolas Bellin, “maker of his Majesty’s chimneys.”
Footnote 620:
Countess of Arundel’s inventory—“Disegno per Ornamento d’un Camino.”
Footnote 621:
M. Digby Wyatt, _Transactions Royal Institute of British Architects_,
1868, p. 233.
Footnote 622:
Wornum, p. 309, note. A view of the ceiling is given in Richardson’s
_Architectural Remains of the Reigns of Elizabeth and James I_, 1838,
Pl. 12.
Footnote 623:
See pp. 93-98 and 185-188.
[Sidenote: MORE CHAPEL IN CHELSEA CHURCH]
One more work of an architectural nature, attributed to Holbein by Mr.
F. M. Nichols in his paper, to which reference has been already made,
read before the Society of Antiquaries in March 1898, must be noted. In
the design of the two capitals[624] supporting the arch which divides
the chancel of old Chelsea Church from the More Chapel he “recognised at
once the characteristic invention of Holbein.” Each capital is “founded
upon the suggestion of a classical capital of the composite order. But
the antique model is treated with a freedom which would scarcely have
commended itself to the taste of an Italian artist.” They are capitals
of half columns, there being only a single arch between the chapel and
the chancel, and each capital, like the pillars, has five sides, as the
columns, if completed, would be octagonal. In the eastern capital the
volutes terminate in a projecting human head, and in each hollow of the
abacus above is inserted the winged head of a cherub. The acanthus-leaf
design which covers the lower part has various objects introduced among
the foliage, such as a shield with More’s arms and his crest of a Moor’s
head, a sword crossed with a sceptre, a mace, and two ornamented
tablets, one of which bears the date 1528 in Arabic numerals. The
western capital is of a somewhat similar design. Human heads take the
place of those of the cherubs, and the five sides below display various
religious emblems and ornaments, such as crossed candlesticks, a bundle
of tapers, a pail of holy water with sprinkling-brush, a clasped
prayer-book or missal, and a blank shield. These objects clearly have
reference to the religious ceremonies in which More was accustomed to
take part in the chapel, while the ornaments on the other capital may
have reference to his secular employments. The Holbeinesque character of
the designs, combined with the locality of Chelsea, the association with
Sir Thomas, and the date 1528, during the earlier part of which year
Holbein was still in England, are sufficient, in Mr. Nichols’ opinion,
to prove that Holbein was the designer. Mr. Beaver, in his _Memorials of
Chelsea_, in discussing the authorship of these capitals, rejects their
attribution to Holbein on the ground that they have an Italian
character, and may be more probably ascribed to one of the Italian
artists then employed in this country; and most architects who have made
a close study of this period are in agreement with him. “But,” says Mr.
Nichols, “there are abundant examples in Holbein’s work of his fondness
for architectural details of a Renaissance type.... An Italian architect
would scarcely have dealt so freely with the just proportions of the
classic capital upon which his design was founded. And I am inclined to
think that there was only one artist in England at that time who
combined the fertility of invention and the graceful mastery of detail
shown in these capitals with the boldness and freedom with which the
classic model is treated.”[625] Mr. Reginald Blomfield is of opinion
that these carvings are of French origin. He says: “The names of French
artists or workmen scarcely ever occur in the State Papers, and there
are few instances of Renaissance work in England which can be attributed
to them. The capitals to the arch between the More chantry and the
chancel of old Chelsea Church are an unusual instance. They closely
resemble French work of the early sixteenth century such as is found
along the banks of the Seine between Paris and Rouen. The monument in
the Oxenbrigge Chapel in Brede Church, Sussex, dated 1537, is another
rare example. It is of Caen stone, admirably carved, and was probably
made in France and shipped to the port of Rye, some nine miles distant
from Brede.”[626]
Footnote 624:
Reproduced from photographs in Mr. Nichols’ paper, _Proceedings Soc.
of Antiq._, second series, vol. xvii. No. 1 (March 1898), pp. 132-45.
Footnote 625:
See Nichols, _Proceedings Soc. of Antiq._, second series, vol. xvii.
No. 1, p. 143.
Footnote 626:
Blomfield, _History of Renaissance Art in England_, 1897, i. 18. In a
letter to the present writer, in 1901, Mr. Blomfield, after his
attention had been called to Mr. Nichols’ paper, states that he
adheres to his opinion that the Chelsea capitals are of French origin.
In the same paper Mr. Nichols also draws attention to a two-light
stained-glass window in the south chapel of the village church of
Shelton in Norfolk, which contains figures of Sir John Shelton and his
wife, Ann, daughter of Sir William Boleyn and aunt to Henry VIII’s
second queen, a lady well known about the court, who at one time had
charge of the Princesses Mary and Elizabeth. The work, in Mr. Nichols’
opinion, is evidently of foreign origin, being totally different from
the English glass of the same period within a few feet of it, and the
faces and figures being executed more in the manner of a picture than of
stained glass. The foreign origin of the work is shown, among other
indications, by the peculiar treatment of the heraldry, which has a
decidedly German character. Both figures are represented kneeling, Sir
John in a crimson robe lined with fur, and his dame in a contemporary
dress of crimson, with the English angular head-dress. The heads appear
to have been carefully drawn from good portrait-studies supplied to the
glazier. Calculating from the known age and date of Sir John Shelton’s
death and his appearance in the window, Mr. Nichols holds that these
portrait-studies must have been made about 1527, and he is of opinion
that Holbein’s was the hand which supplied some foreign glazier with the
designs for them. Neither of the heads, however, is to be found among
the Windsor series.
[Sidenote: HOLBEIN’S DESIGNS FOR JEWELLERS]
It is when we turn to Holbein’s work for jewellers and silversmiths that
the extraordinary fertility and happiness of his invention and the
beauty of his design are seen to the greatest advantage. Some hundreds
of his working drawings in this branch of art still exist, the greater
number of which are in the British Museum and at Basel, those in the
latter collection being for the most part contained in a sketch-book of
his later English period; indeed, most of the drawings which have
survived were produced in England, though he must have carried out a
considerable body of work of the same nature while in Basel. When he
came to London he was already a master of decorative design as applied
to most of the handicrafts, and his influence soon made itself felt
among a number of the craftsmen employed by Henry and his court. His
wonderful skill in the production of fine Renaissance ornamentation of
the purest taste, combined with a happy use of the human figure, set a
fashion in jewellery and personal ornament, and inspired those who
carried out his designs to a greater beauty and delicacy of workmanship.
The impetus he gave was in the direction of fresh models of beautiful
form in place of the mannerisms of Gothic art into which the decorative
crafts had sunk in this country at the period of his first arrival in
England. Even at so early an age he already possessed, in addition to
his skill in painting and drawing and book illustration, a thorough
knowledge of the rules of composition and design according to the best
Italian traditions, and was well versed in the use of the forms and
proportions of classical architecture and ornament, in addition to
possessing practical skill in the true application of design to the
various art crafts and industries.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 41
QUEEN JANE SEYMOUR’S CUP
_Pen-and-ink drawing_
BRITISH MUSEUM
]
[Sidenote: DESIGNS FOR CUPS AND GOBLETS]
Holbein’s most elaborate design for goldsmiths’ work which has survived
is the one known as the Jane Seymour Cup, which was evidently made to
the order of the King at about the time of his marriage with that lady
in 1536. Two drawings for this exist in pen and ink, the more
highly-finished one, which is washed with colour and gold, being in the
Bodleian Library, Oxford,[627] and the other in the British Museum,[628]
the latter (Pl. 41), which is 17¾ in. × 9½ in., showing slight
modifications. The cup is a covered one, of a very beautiful shape, the
lines of which are not disguised or confused by the lavish ornamentation
with which it is covered. The body is set with four circular medallions
containing busts of “antique heads” in high relief, the one facing the
spectator being a woman with bared breast. Above them is a deep band of
exceptionally beautiful interlacing ornament of floriated design; and
below a smaller band with the initials of Henry and his Queen, entwined
with true-lovers’ knots, alternating with square-cut precious stones set
as flowers, and similar bands of precious stones at the base, and round
the rim of the cover. The stem is decorated with hanging pearls and
dolphins, cupids’ heads, and wreaths, and a narrow band containing the
motto of the Queen, “Bound to Obey and Serve,” which is repeated on the
cover. The latter is of very light and graceful design, with two
grotesque figures terminating in fish-tails blowing foliated trumpets,
and above them two cupids supporting a shield surmounted by the royal
crown. When carried out in gold the general effect must have been one of
extraordinary richness and beauty. That it was so completed is proved by
the fact that the cup itself was still in the royal collection at the
accession of Charles I in 1625. In an inventory of that date it is thus
described: “Item a faire standing Cupp of Goulde, garnished about the
cover with eleaven Dyamonds, and two poynted Dyamonds about the Cupp,
seaventeene Table Dyamonds and one Pearle Pendent uppon the Cupp, with
theis words BOVND TO OBEY AND SERVE, and H and I knitt together; in the
Topp of the Cover the Queenes Armes, an Queene Janes Armes houlden by
twoe Boyes under a Crowne Imperiall, weighing Threescore and five ounces
and a halfe.” No further traces of this masterpiece of the goldsmith’s
art exist. In spite of its beauty, it was most probably melted down,
like much of the royal plate, to meet the demands of an impoverished
exchequer. It is, indeed, a matter of the keenest regret that, in spite
of the hundreds of designs with which Holbein furnished the London
goldsmiths or the Basel armourers, not a single example of work so
carried out remains, and his achievements in this branch of art can only
be judged from his working drawings.
Footnote 627:
Woltmann, 222. Reproduced by His, Pl. xlv.
Footnote 628:
Brit. Mus. Catg., 18. Reproduced by Davies, p. 204; Ganz, _Hdz. von H.
H. dem Jüng._, Pl. 47.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 42
HANS OF ANTWERP’S CUP
_Pen and wash drawing_
BASEL GALLERY
]
His designs for cups with covers, goblets, tankards, and other table
vessels, which from the richness of their ornament were evidently
intended for ceremonious occasions, are numerous. Some of them are only
known through Hollar’s etchings, while the drawings for the remainder
are for the most part in the Basel Gallery. The most interesting of them
is the standing cup and cover in the Basel sketch-book, which Holbein
designed for his friend Hans von Antwerp (Pl. 42),[629] which may have
been intended by the latter as an addition to the collection of plate in
the guild-hall of the Steelyard merchants. The left-hand half has been
drawn with the pen, from which the other half has been transferred by
damping and pressure. The broad, flat body has a deep band of ornament
containing nude figures blowing trumpets amid foliage, and a somewhat
similar band round the base, and on the crest of the cover is the nude
figure of Truth holding a book and a lighted torch. By the side is an
alternative design for this figure. Round the rim of the cover is
inscribed HANS VON ANT[WERPEN]. Another cup and cover, or table
ornament, with a wide stand, of which only the left side is shown,
though much more hasty in execution, is a more highly elaborated piece
of decoration, in which small nude standing figures are combined with
leafage and festoons.[630] On the side of the sheet are a number of
alternative sketches for various details. There is no need to describe
at length the other designs for covered cups in the Basel Gallery, one
of which is surmounted by the nude figure of a woman with right arm
extended and the left hand resting on a shield;[631] while a second
design has a figure of Justice, and on the base a medallion with the
bust of a lady in sixteenth-century costume.[632] Several studies for
tankards are to be found among Hollar’s etchings. These etchings
indicate the existence at one time of a third sketch-book or set of
designs, which, at the time when Hollar worked from it, was in the
possession of the Earl of Arundel, but has since disappeared.
Footnote 629:
Woltmann, 110 (104). Reproduced by His, Pl. xxvii. 1. See Vol. ii. p.
11.
Footnote 630:
Woltmann, 110 (99). Reproduced by His, Pl. xxxi. 2.
Footnote 631:
Woltmann, 109. Reproduced by His, Pl. xxvi. 2.
Footnote 632:
Woltmann, 110 (100). Reproduced by His, Pl. xxvi. 3; Ganz, _Hdz.
Schwz. Mstr._, i. 12.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 43
SIR ANTHONY DENNY’S CLOCK
_Indian ink wash and pen drawing_
BRITISH MUSEUM
]
One of the most important of Holbein’s designs in the British Museum is
the large drawing in pen and ink and Indian-ink wash, of an astronomical
clock, which was formerly in the Mariette and Horace Walpole collections
(Pl. 43).[633] This clock, the design for which must have been one of
Holbein’s last undertakings, was presented to Henry VIII by Sir Anthony
Denny on New Year’s Day, 1544, shortly after the painter’s death. It
consists of an hour-glass enclosed within a case, the doors of which
stand open in the drawing, with a terminal figure of a satyr in the
centre, which recalls the very similar figure in the full-length woodcut
portrait of Erasmus. The hour-glass rests on a pedestal with legs,
supported at the corners with other terminal figures of satyrs, and
having a circular space in the centre left blank in the drawing. On the
decorated crown of the case stand two nude boys—for which there is an
alternative design in the British Museum on one of the leaves of the
Sloane sketch-book[634]—each pointing to a sundial of metal curved
outwards in an arc, for which their fingers serve as gnomon. On their
heads rests a mechanical clock with a sun-face in the centre of the dial
with fiery locks, one of which forms the pointer, the whole surmounted
by a crown. On the left side of the sheet is a compass, probably
intended to fit inside the clock-case. The drawing is inscribed, in Sir
Anthony Denny’s own handwriting: “Strena facta pro anthony deny
camerario regio quod in initio novi anni 1544 regi dedit.” He was then
King’s Chamberlain, and was knighted in the September of the year in
which he made his royal master this handsome gift. Other notes occur on
the drawing, here and there illegible, made evidently for the guidance
of the craftsman who carried out Holbein’s design, which is simpler,
though no less characteristic in style, than his drawing for Queen Jane
Seymour’s gold cup.
Footnote 633:
Brit. Mus. Catg., 17. Woltmann, 193. Reproduced by His, Pl. xlvii.;
Ganz, _Hdz. von H. H. dem Jüng._, Pl. 48.
Footnote 634:
Brit. Mus. Catg., 22 (_a_); Woltmann, 194. Reproduced by His, Pl.
xlvi.
[Sidenote: DESIGNS FOR SHEATHS AND HILTS]
His designs for sword and dagger hilts, sheaths, and various ornaments
for sword-belts and weapons are numerous, and again display his
extraordinary fertility of invention and his power of combining the
human figure with conventional floral and grotesque Renaissance ornament
into a decorative whole of the utmost elegance and beauty. One of the
finest, and most elaborate, is the large pen-and-wash drawing, 17⅞ in. ×
4⅝ in., in the British Museum, which was purchased in 1874 from the Earl
of Wicklow’s collection (Pl. 44).[635] The handle has spiral bands set
with stones, and numerous pearls are also set in the sheath, the hilt,
and the guard. These gems are held or supported by a number of nude
figures of women, old men, satyrs, and children amid foliage, each one
full of individual character, and drawn as only Holbein could draw them.
It was evidently intended for execution in chiselled gold or silver, and
produces an effect of great splendour. Only the right half of the sheath
is drawn, as the design was to be repeated on the other side. There is
an alternative design for parts of the hilt in the Basel Gallery.[636]
In the latter collection there is also a study for the sheath of a short
sword or cutlass in which a somewhat similar arrangement has been
carried out.[637] It is an offset taken by Holbein from a pen-and-ink
drawing. Another of the Basel designs is for a powder-flask, possibly to
be executed in bone or ivory, in which naked cupids are intermingled
with the foliage.[638]
Footnote 635:
Brit. Mus. Catg., 19. Reproduced by His, Pl. xxix.; Davies, p. 206.
Footnote 636:
Woltmann, 110 (97). Reproduced by His, Pl. xxx. 3.
Footnote 637:
Woltmann, 110 (28). Reproduced by His, Pl. xxxi. 1.
Footnote 638:
Reproduced by His, xxxi. 3.
There is a splendid design for a dagger sheath in the Bernburg Ducal
Library, which is divided into four compartments, the three upper ones
containing figures in settings of Renaissance architecture.[639] In the
uppermost is a group representing the Judgment of Paris. The youth, in
sixteenth-century costume, reclines with his back against a pillar with
Mercury bending over him and offering him the apple, the three goddesses
standing in front of him, and Cupid aiming at him with a bow and arrow.
The next division shows the deaths of Pyramus, a cleverly foreshortened
figure beneath a fountain, and Thisbe, who is stabbing herself by his
body. Below is Venus within a scalloped niche, with the long ass’s ears
of a jester, and a blindfolded cupid at her feet. The lowest compartment
contains scroll-work, the whole terminating in a cherub’s head within
volutes, with the initial H. at the bottom. There is a slighter
preliminary pen study for this sheath in the Basel Gallery, which shows
a number of differences (Pl. 45 (3)).[640] Another dagger sheath at
Basel is of particular interest because it is dated 1529,[641] and so
must have been drawn in Basel after Holbein’s return from his first
visit to England (Pl. 45 (1)). The design consists entirely of
conventional foliage, seen against a black background, as though to be
executed in chiselled open-work over some black material such as velvet,
or to be filled in with niello. There are other sheaths in which the
subject stands out against a plain black background, one, in Berlin,
with a Dance of Death,[642] of which there is a repetition at Basel (Pl.
46 (1)),[643] which appears to be an impression taken from the Berlin
drawing, strengthened and finished with Indian-ink, by some other hand
than Holbein’s; and another in the British Museum, with a Triumph of
Bellona,[644] of which only the sheath is by him. The hilt is obviously
the work of some other designer, in all probability, according to the
British Museum catalogue, Peter Flötner of Nuremberg. It was formerly in
the Beckford Collection, and consists of two pieces of paper joined
together, the hilt on one and the sheath on the other. Another sheath in
the Basel Gallery is decorated with a Roman Triumph (Pl. 46 (2)),[645]
slightly drawn, in the manner of Mantegna, recalling the frieze in the
1517 portrait of Benedikt von Hertenstein; and a second of a like
quality, representing Joshua’s Passage of the Jordan (Pl. 46 (3)).[646]
Other designs for the knobs and cross-pieces of dagger hilts will be
found in the British Museum (Pl. 47).
Footnote 639:
Woltmann, 124. Reproduced by Woltmann, i. p. 434.
Footnote 640:
Woltmann, 60. Reproduced by His, Pl. xxiii. 3; Ganz, _Hdz. von H. H.
dem Jüng._, Pl. 40.
Footnote 641:
Woltmann, 56. Reproduced by His, Pl. xxiii. 2; Knackfuss, fig. 108.
Footnote 642:
Woltmann, 123 (Bauakademie-Beuth-Schinkel Museum).
Footnote 643:
Woltmann, 57. Reproduced by His, Pl. xxi. 3; Knackfuss, fig. 109.
Footnote 644:
Brit. Mus. Catg., 39. Woltmann, 196. Reproduced by Davies, p. 206.
Footnote 645:
Woltmann, 58. Reproduced by His, Pl. xxi. 1; Ganz, _Hdz. Schwz.
Mstr._, i. 41 (_a_).
Footnote 646:
Woltmann, 59. Reproduced by Ganz, _Hdz. Schwz. Mstr._, i. 41 (_b_).
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 44
DESIGN FOR DAGGER HILT AND SHEATH
_Pen-and-ink and Indian-ink wash drawing_
BRITISH MUSEUM
]
* * * * *
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 45
DAGGER SHEATH WITH FOLIATED ORNAMENT
Dated 1529
UPRIGHT BAND OF ORNAMENT
Piper and Bears
DAGGER SHEATH WITH THE JUDGMENT OF PARIS
BASEL GALLERY
]
* * * * *
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 46
1. DAGGER SHEATH WITH A DANCE OF DEATH
2. DAGGER SHEATH WITH A ROMAN TRIUMPH
3. DAGGER SHEATH WITH JOSHUA’S PASSAGE OF THE JORDAN
BASEL GALLERY
]
* * * * *
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 47
DESIGNS FOR DAGGER HILTS
1. B.M. 20 (_b_) 3. B.M. 20 (_a_)
2. B.M. 20 (_c_)
4. B.M. 20 (_e_) 5. B.M. 20 (_d_)
BRITISH MUSEUM
]
[Sidenote: DESIGNS FOR PENDANTS AND JEWELS]
The sketch-book bequeathed to the British Museum by Sir Hans Sloane in
1753 contains nearly two hundred drawings, almost all of them designs
for jewellery and other small objects for personal use or adornment,
such as belt tassels and buckles, book covers with rings for attachment
to girdles, seals, portable sundials, pendants and brooches. Henry VIII
was lavish in his use of jewellery, and the fashion he set was slavishly
followed by his courtiers. Dresses were loaded with gems and elaborate
specimens of the goldsmith’s art, and this delight in finery was carried
to such an extent that it was a topic for jest and sarcasm among
foreigners. More than one contemporary account gives details of the
King’s costume and the many jewels which adorned it, and the long
inventories of his clothes and personal ornaments which still exist
prove that continental visitors to his court did not exaggerate in the
descriptions of his person which they sent home. French and Italian
jewellers paid frequent visits to London, and sold him many gems and
beautiful specimens of gold and silver work and other art objects, while
he regularly employed a large number of English and resident foreign
jewellers. Their services were most in demand about New Year’s Day, when
gifts were showered upon his Majesty, and he in return made many
presents, often of great value. There is no doubt that some of these
gifts were designed by Holbein, and that he served as designer to
several of the leading London goldsmiths. The British Museum Collection
contains many designs for pendants and for jewels which were suspended
round the neck by a ribbon or chain, this attachment being shown in a
number of the studies (Pl. 48). In most of them table diamonds and other
flat stones, together with pearls, are arranged in geometric patterns,
the interstices being filled with strap, scroll, or ribbon-work, or some
conventional floral design. Occasionally at the top of the jewel there
is a small grotesque or nude figure (Pl. 49). Many of the designs have a
black ground indicating niello or champlevé enamel. In some instances,
however, the blackening may have been done merely to indicate the design
more clearly to the craftsman who was to carry it out. Some of them are
coloured and are often touched with gold, so that it is possible to tell
the jewels and materials it was intended to use. Several pendants are in
the shape of a cross, and others heart-shaped; one of the latter is of
gold, with three pendant pearls, and two doves billing on a green bough
in enamel, with the motto, TVRTVRVM CONCORDIA (Pl. 48 (3)).[647] Another
shows the bust of a woman in Tudor dress holding between her hands a
large table-cut stone, across which is written, apparently in another
hand, “Well Laydi Well” (Pl. 49 (9)).[648] Several pendants are in the
form of monograms, a very fine one consisting of the letters R. and E.
in gold, with two rubies, an emerald, and a garnet at the four corners,
hung by a ribbon above and with three pearls below (Pl. 48 (7));[649]
many of the designs, in fact, show one or more pearls suspended in this
fashion. A jewel very similar to the last-named, formed of the sacred
monogram, is worn by Jane Seymour in her portrait at Vienna. Another
pendant monogram, with the initials H and I and an emerald in the centre
(Pl. 48 (6)), was evidently designed for the King and his third
Queen.[650] Several of them have mottoes, such as QVAM ACCIPERE DARE
MVLTO BEATIVS (Pl. 49 (7)),[651] or PRVDENTEMENT ET PAR COMPAS
INCONTINENT VIENDRAS,[652] the latter on a round device of two horns of
plenty, two dolphins and a pair of compasses with serpents writhing
round them (Pl. 50 (8)). Among the brooches there is one consisting of
three diamonds enwreathed by a scroll, on which is inscribed, MI LADI
PRINSIS, and the same motto occurs on a second.[653]
Footnote 647:
Brit. Mus. Catg., 27 (_b_). Woltmann, 199 (30). Reproduced by His, Pl.
xliii.
Footnote 648:
Brit. Mus. Catg., 28 (_a_). Reproduced by His, Pl. xli.
Footnote 649:
Brit. Mus. Catg., 27 (_e_). Reproduced by His, Pl. xliii.
Footnote 650:
Brit. Mus. Catg., 27 (_f_). Reproduced by His, Pl. xliii.
Footnote 651:
Brit. Mus. Catg., 28 (_f_). Reproduced by His, Pl. xli.
Footnote 652:
Brit. Mus. Catg., 29 (_i_). Reproduced by His, Pl. xl.
Footnote 653:
Brit. Mus. Catg., 30 (_a_ and _b_). Reproduced by His, Pl. xxxiv.
[Sidenote: DESIGNS FOR MEDALLIONS]
There are two designs for book bindings with rings for suspension, no
doubt covers for a prayer book. They are decorated with metal and enamel
in arabesque patterns, and one of them has the initials T.W. in the
centre, which are repeated in the corners, T.W. above and W.T.
below.[654] On the second the same initials are combined with an I,[655]
and in both cases it is probable that they were intended for Sir Thomas
Wyat. Two very similar designs appear to be for a jewelcase, or perhaps
a portable reliquary.[656] There is also an interesting drawing of a
seal with the coat of arms of Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, within
the garter and its motto, and around the whole a circular band inscribed
CAROLVS DVX SVFFYCIE PRO HONORE SVO RICHEMOND (Pl. 50 (4)).[657] Among
the remaining studies are various devices, coats of arms, including
Holbein’s own (Pl. 50 (6)), book clasps, bracelets, chains (Pl. 51 (3,
4, and 5)), collars, rings, a number of monograms (Pl. 48 (1)), some of
them containing as many as eleven letters, probably concealing a
complete name or the initials of the words of some device, grotesque
figures, winged warriors, nude women, and satyrs—the latter in some
cases certainly intended for the foot of a vase, box, or salt-cellar, or
some such table ware—together with a variety of ornaments for which the
exact purpose is not indicated. These last are largely fragments of
circular borders or segments of discs, decorated with arabesques on
enamel (Pl. 52). In some of these designs for enamel the pattern is in
white on a ground of blue and red or blue and black.
Footnote 654:
Brit. Mus. Catg., 31 (_b_). Woltmann, 191. Reproduced by His, Pl.
xliv.; Davies, p. 226.
Footnote 655:
Brit. Mus. Catg., 31 (_a_). Woltmann, 191. Reproduced by His, Pl.
xliv.; Davies, p. 226.
Footnote 656:
Brit. Mus. Catg., 31 (_c_ and _d_). Reproduced by His, Pl. xliv.;
Davies, p. 226.
Footnote 657:
Brit. Mus. Catg., 29 (_a_); Woltmann, 199 (44). Reproduced by His, Pl.
xl.
Among the designs at Basel is a very charming and humorous upright band
or panel, for goldsmith’s work (#Pl. 45 (2):pl-45),[658] in which eight
bears are shown climbing among the leaves of a vine accompanied by a
little man with a high peaked cap blowing a trumpet and beating a drum,
a design no doubt suggested to Holbein by the sight of some travelling
showman with a troupe of performing animals. Two other bands of ornament
in the Basel Gallery, in which the design is arranged horizontally,
represent in one case a humorous frieze with nude children,[659] and in
the other similar children with dogs hunting a hare, chasing one
another, and blowing horns (Pl. 51 (1 and 2))[660] The latter is a
carefully-finished drawing, in which the small figures are arranged with
great decorative effect among curved Renaissance ornamentation of
conventional floriated design. In the same collection there are several
elaborately decorated mirror-frames.
Footnote 658:
Woltmann, 54. Reproduced by His, Pl. xxii. 2; Knackfuss, fig. 111.
Footnote 659:
Woltmann, 61.
Footnote 660:
Woltmann, 55. Reproduced by His, Pl. xxv. 4; Knackfuss, fig. 110.
[Illustration:
VOL II., PLATE 48
DESIGNS FOR PENDANTS AND ORNAMENTS
1. B.M. 33 (_f_) 2. B.M. 33 (_g_)
3. B.M. 27 (_b_) 4. B.M. 27 (_d_) 5. B.M. 27 (_c_)
6. B.M. 27 (_f_) 7. B.M. 27 (_e_) 8. B.M. 27 (_a_)
BRITISH MUSEUM
]
* * * * *
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 49
DESIGNS FOR PENDANTS
1. B.M. 28 (_m_) 2. B.M. 28 (_g_) 3. B.M. 28 (_e_)
4. B.M. 28 (_k_) 5. B.M. 28 (_l_) 6. B.M. 28 (_i_)
7. B.M. 28 (_f_) 8. B.M. 28 (_d_) 9. B.M. 28 (_a_)
BRITISH MUSEUM
]
* * * * *
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 50
DESIGNS FOR MEDALLIONS OR ENSEIGNES
1. B.M. 35 (_d_) 2. B.M. 35 (_e_) 3. B.M. 35 (_c_)
4. B.M. 29 (_a_) 5. B.M. 29 (_l_) 6. B.M. 29 (_e_)
7. B.M. 29 (_b_) 8. B.M. 29 (_i_) 9. B.M. 29 (_g_)
BRITISH MUSEUM
]
There remains one particular form of personal ornament for which
Holbein’s services as designer were in constant demand. This was the
circular medallion or _enseigne_ worn on the hat, and also, in the case
of ladies, as a pendant at the end of a chain or ribbon, or in the shape
of a brooch fastened to the front of the dress. They usually bore some
figure-subject, the earlier examples being, as a rule, religious, with
figures or emblems of saints or scenes from the Scriptures. In course of
time subjects taken from classical story or mediæval legend were used,
and designs of a fanciful and allegorical nature. They became highly
popular forms of personal adornment, and French and Italian jewellers
brought numbers of them over to London. “Every one, from the highest
rank downwards,” says Mr. H. Clifford Smith, “had his personal _devise_
or _impresa_, or more often a series of them. It was worn as an
emblem—an ingenious expression of some conceit of the wearer, the
outcome of his peculiar frame of mind. It usually contained some obscure
meaning, the sense of which, half hidden and half revealed, was intended
to afford some play for the ingenuity of the observer. The love of the
time for expressing things by riddles led to the publication of sets of
emblems, like those of Alciatus, which had imitations in all directions.
Every one, in fact, tried his hand at these ‘toys of the
imagination.’”[661]
Footnote 661:
H. Clifford Smith, _Jewellery_, The Connoisseur’s Library, 1908, p.
223.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 51
1. BAND OF ORNAMENT Children at Play
2. BAND OF ORNAMENT Children and Dogs hunting a Hare
BASEL GALLERY
3. DESIGN FOR A COLLAR WITH NYMPHS AND SATYRS (35^{_h_})
4. DESIGN FOR A CHAIN (35^{_f_})
5. DESIGN FOR A BRACELET OR COLLAR WITH DIAMONDS AND PEARLS (35^{_a_})
BRITISH MUSEUM
]
* * * * *
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 52 DESIGNS FOR ARABESQUE ENAMEL ORNAMENTS
BRITISH MUSEUM
]
That these hat-badges and brooches were worn by almost every one at
Henry’s court is shown by their representation in many of Holbein’s
pictures and in a large number of the Windsor drawings. In the latter,
unfortunately, the subjects are so slightly indicated that it is
impossible in most cases to make them out. They are to be found almost
invariably in the portraits of courtiers, the learned doctors and the
more soberly-attired German merchants not using them. Those worn by the
more wealthy were generally of gold, with the design in repoussé work,
frequently enamelled in colours, and often with precious stones set in
them. They were, as a rule, surrounded by a border or framework of
similar workmanship, sometimes set with jewels. Some of them were
fastened with a pin, like a brooch, others had loops or small holes
round the edges so that they could be sewn to the hat. Henry VIII
possessed a large collection of these ornaments. In a list dated 1526
there is mentioned, among many others, a crimson velvet bonnet, double
turfed, with a brooch of St. Michael set with diamonds, and a white rose
on one side and a red rose on the other; and another of a buttoned cap
of black velvet with a diamond and a brooch of Paris work of St. James.
Other hats had brooches representing “three men and a pearl in the back
of one of them”; a lady leading a brace of greyhounds; Venus and Cupids;
a lady holding a heart in her hand; another lady holding a crown;
another with a cameo head and a hanging pearl; “a man standing on a
faggot of fire”; “a handful of feathers”; “a gentleman in a lady’s lap”;
and St. George, Hercules, and so on.[662] In another list, two years
later in date, there is mentioned “a brooch with a gentlewoman luting,
with a scripture over it.”[663] Occasionally these _enseignes_ are
described as “valentines of goldsmith’s work.” Most of the King’s hats
were also lavishly decorated with gold aglets.
Footnote 662:
_C.L.P._, vol. iv. pt. i. 1907.
Footnote 663:
_C.L.P._, vol. iv. pt. ii. 5114. See vol. i. p. 357.
[Sidenote: DESIGNS FOR MEDALLIONS]
None of the jewels included in these earlier lists can have been
designed by Holbein; but after he became attached to the court he
appears to have been constantly employed in this way, and it became, no
doubt, the fashion to wear an _enseigne_ or medallion of his devising.
Among his drawings, in the British Museum, at Basel, and at Chatsworth,
there are a number of small circular designs with figure-subjects which
were evidently intended for such purposes. Unfortunately, only in one
single case has a design been found among his sketches which corresponds
with the gold-and-enamel badge worn by the sitter in one of his finished
pictures—the beautiful little drawing of “Lot and his Daughters” in the
British Museum (Pl. 50 (2)), which, as recently pointed out by Mr.
Lionel Cust, was the design for the medallion shown in the portrait of
Catherine Howard.[664] Very possibly some of the other _enseignes_ or
pendant roundels represented in his portraits were of his own devising,
but they are painted on so small a scale that the subjects upon them are
difficult to decipher.
Footnote 664:
See pp. 195-196.
The medallion of “Lot and his Daughters” forms one of a numerous series
of roundels, usually about 2½ in. in diameter, with subjects taken from
the Old Testament, the greater number of which are in the Basel
sketch-book. Among the latter are three different studies on one sheet
for the subject of Hagar and Ishmael in the Wilderness,[665] and a
fourth with Sarah giving Hagar to her husband;[666] the Sacrifice of
Cain and Abel;[667] Jacob embracing Rachel;[668] Jacob causing the stone
to be removed from the well for Rachel,[669] a very beautiful little
drawing with an interesting group of buildings in the background; David
and the Woman of Tekoah kneeling before him;[670] the Sacrifice of
Elijah, in which a jewel is inset to depict the fire on the altar;[671]
and Moses and the destruction of Korah and his company.[672] This last
is set within an open-work border with mermaids and cupids amid
scroll-work. Several other subjects from the Old Testament, such as
Judah and Tamar, and David playing before Saul, are to be found among
the engravings made by Wenceslaus Hollar from drawings by Holbein, now
lost, when in the Arundel Collection. Among the subjects from the New
Testament at Basel are the Baptism of Christ,[673] the Last
Judgment,[674] and the Repentant Magdalen.[675] Two designs of the
Archangel Michael slaying the Dragon are for the badge accompanying a
chain of the order of St. Michael, and may have been drawn from the
badge belonging to Dinteville.[676] Another represents the kneeling
figures of a young couple in English dress holding a cup with a heart
over it, evidently for “a valentine of goldsmith’s work.”[677] Among the
unknown subjects is one in which a nude man is standing upon a prostrate
knight, who with one hand shatters Cupid’s bow and with the other breaks
the fallen man’s sword;[678] one which repeats one of the subjects of
the Basel Town Hall wall-paintings—the blinding of Zaleucus;[679] and
others representing Juno and Callisto, Pomona, Leucothea on a dolphin,
and two Centaurs.[680]
Footnote 665:
Woltmann, 110 (37-43). Reproduced by Ganz, _Hdz. Schwz. Mstr._, ii. 5.
Footnote 666:
Woltmann, 110 (67). Reproduced by Ganz, _Hdz. von H. H. dem Jüng._,
Pl. 45.
Footnote 667:
Woltmann, 110 (71).
Footnote 668:
Woltmann, 110 (68).
Footnote 669:
Woltmann, 110 (76). Reproduced by Ganz, _Hdz. von H. H. dem Jüng._,
Pl. 45.
Footnote 670:
Woltmann, 110 (70).
Footnote 671:
Woltmann, 110 (63, 65).
Footnote 672:
Woltmann, 110 (77). Reproduced by Ganz, _Hdz. von H. H. dem Jüng._,
Pl. 42.
Footnote 673:
Woltmann, 110 (73).
Footnote 674:
Woltmann, 110 (75).
Footnote 675:
Woltmann, 110 (55, 56).
Footnote 676:
Woltmann, 110 (64).
Footnote 677:
Woltmann, 110 (88).
Footnote 678:
Woltmann, 110 (62).
Footnote 679:
Woltmann, 110 (61).
Footnote 680:
Woltmann, 110 (53, 74, 81, 83).
The subjects of similar medallions in the British Museum include one of
the Annunciation,[681] with the legend “ORIGO MVNDI MELIORIS” round it,
with a border of daisies in yellow and green enamel; one of the
Trinity,[682] with the legend “TRINITATIS GLORIA SATIABIMVR” (Pl. 50
(5)), and a border of roses in enamel, both of which are in pen and ink
washed with water-colours; and a third with a standing figure of St.
John the Baptist (Pl. 50 (3)).[683] Yet another depicts Time extracting
Truth from the Rock (Pl. 50 (1),[684] also with a Latin quotation round
the edge, and a second, with the motto, “PRVDENTEMENT ET PAR COMPAS
INCONTINENT VIENDRAS,” already described.[685] Further designs for
_enseignes_ contain such subjects as a sleeping boy lying under a
fountain, which jets its water upon him (Pl. 50 (9));[686] and a woman
in flames, with her father and mother lamenting over her, which is said
by Woltmann to represent Dido on the funeral pyre.[687] Among other
roundels, two contain Holbein’s own coat of arms (Pl. 50 (6)),[688] and
two others a device with a hand issuing from a cloud and resting on a
book which lies on a rock, and the Italian motto, “SERVAR’ VOGLIO QVEL
CHE HO GVIRATO” (Pl. 50 (7)).[689]
Footnote 681:
Brit. Mus. Catg., 29 (_k_). Woltmann, 199 (19). Reproduced by His, Pl.
xl.
Footnote 682:
Brit. Mus. Catg., 29 (_l_). Woltmann, 199 (13). Reproduced by His, Pl.
xl.
Footnote 683:
Brit. Mus. Catg., 35 (_c_).
Footnote 684:
Brit. Mus. Catg., 35 (_d_).
Footnote 685:
Brit. Mus. Catg., 29 (_i_). Reproduced by His, Pl. xl.
Footnote 686:
Brit. Mus. Catg., 29 (_g_). Reproduced by His, Pl. xl.
Footnote 687:
Brit. Mus. Catg., 29 (_h_). Woltmann, 199 (15). Reproduced by His, Pl.
xl.
Footnote 688:
Brit. Mus. Catg., 29 (_e_, _f_). Woltmann, 199 (42). Reproduced by
His, Pl. xl.
Footnote 689:
Brit. Mus. Catg., 29 (_b_, _c_). Woltmann, 199 (22). Reproduced by
His, Pl. xl.
At Chatsworth there is a sheet of drawings containing six _enseignes_
and one larger design which appears to be for some kind of a
sheath.[690] They are among the very finest examples of Holbein’s work
in this field, drawn with the greatest delicacy, and admirable in
composition. They represent (1) Hagar and Ishmael (Pl. 53 (2)), a
variant of the Basel design, in which the angel is flying towards Hagar,
who is seated under a tree, with the naked infant asleep under a bush,
and on a scroll the names “Hagar” and “Ismael”; (2) The Last Judgment
(Pl. 53 (3)), with Christ seated on clouds, and men and women kneeling
below, with figures struggling out of graves, and on one side the
yawning mouth of a dragon representing hell; (3) Icarus falling into the
sea (Pl. 53 (1)), his wings melted by the sun, and Phœbus driving his
chariot drawn by four winged horses through the sky; (4) Diana and
Actæon (Pl. 53 (5)), with four nude women standing in water on the left,
and Actæon on the bank already turning into a stag, with his dogs
attacking him, and others rushing through the wood in the background;
(5) three beehives on a wooden stand under a roof of rushes (Pl. 53
(6)), with Cupid, blindfolded, his bow on the ground, holding up his
hands as though stung by the bees which are flying round him, and below
a shield for a coat of arms, coloured blue, and the motto, “NOCET EMPTA
DOLORE VOLUPTA,” on a ribbon scroll, the whole surrounded by a band of
conventional scroll pattern; (6) a man in sixteenth-century costume,
with folded arms, asleep on the grass, under an oak tree on a rocky
piece of ground (Pl. 53 (7)). On the right is a large clock with hanging
weights, the hands pointing to twelve o’clock, and the figure of a small
child pulling the rope of the hammer which strikes the bell. Round the
trunk of the tree is a scroll with the legend “ASPETTO LA HORA” (I await
the hour). This is possibly the design for a watch-back. These
medallions are in pen and bistre, with touches of red in some of the
figures, and green here and there in trees or grass. The remaining
design seems to be for a short, broad sheath, but not, apparently, for a
weapon (Pl. 53 (4)). It represents the Rape of Helen, who stands on the
seashore, seized by the arms by two men, one wearing a helmet. A boat
containing figures—some of them waving their hands—is coming towards
them over the water. There are some buildings on the left, and at the
bottom, in the foreground, two nude figures with long spades digging in
the sand. The leg of one of these two figures projects beyond the
boundary-line of the sheath, showing that the design was not intended
for a flat ornament, but was to be continued on both sides of the
object.[691]
Footnote 690:
Woltmann, 131-7. All reproduced by S. Arthur Strong, in his _Drawings
by Old Masters at Chatsworth_, and in _Critical Studies and
Fragments_, Pl. xviii. p. 132; and in _Burlington Magazine_, vol. i.
No. iii., May 1903, frontispiece.
Footnote 691:
In the _Burlington Magazine_ (vol. i. No. iii., May 1903, p. 354) some
doubt is thrown upon the correctness of the attribution of the
Chatsworth roundels to Holbein, but in every touch his handiwork is
unmistakable.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 53
DESIGNS FOR MEDALLIONS, ETC.
1. ICARUS 2. HAGAR AND ISHMAEL
3. THE LAST JUDGMENT 4. THE RAPE OF HELEN
5. DIANA AND ACTÆON 6. CUPID AND BEES
7. “I AWAIT THE HOUR”
Duke of Devonshire’s Collection
CHATSWORTH
]
The wide range of subject shown in these badges affords remarkable proof
of the fertility of Holbein’s invention. The great number of them, too,
indicates that he must have found regular and lucrative employment in
work for the London jewellers and goldsmiths. Possibly those which
remain formed only a small part of his total output. It has been
suggested, indeed, that none of the studies which have survived were
actually carried out as ornaments, but were rather designs either
rejected by the goldsmith or the patron for whom Holbein was working, or
were merely drawn by the artist as part of his stock-in-trade, from
which clients could make their selection.[692] This supposition is based
on the fact that the drawings have always been carefully preserved in
the original sketch-books, and bear no traces of having undergone the
rough usage of a goldsmith’s workshop. It does not seem at all probable,
however, that this was the case; it is, indeed, absurd to suppose that
these designs, several hundreds in number, and many of them of the
greatest beauty, could have been rejected as not good enough by those
for whom they were prepared. It has been seen that the design for the
medallion with the subject of Lot and his Daughters was actually carried
out for the adornment of Catherine Howard, to say nothing of those
larger drawings for the Jane Seymour Cup and the Denny astronomical
clock, which, in any case, cannot have been rejected designs. A much
simpler explanation is that Holbein kept his original designs by him for
future reference, and made other versions or copies, possibly sometimes
more elaborate in detail, for the use of the craftsmen who carried them
out.
Footnote 692:
See R. E. D. Sketchley, “Holbein as Goldsmith’s Designer,” in _Art
Journal_, June 1910, p. 175.
With the exception of the cup designed for Hans of Antwerp, which shows
that the two men worked together, it is impossible to connect Holbein’s
name directly with that of any one of the many goldsmiths who served the
court; but it is probable that he was employed by at least several of
them, and almost certainly by Cornelis Hayes. There were an
extraordinary number of such craftsmen, both native and foreign, in
London at that period, and many others, more particularly Frenchmen and
Italians, who paid periodical visits to England in order to sell works
of art and jewels to the King and the nobility.
[Sidenote: THE KING’S JEWELLERS]
The leading London jeweller of the earlier part of Henry’s reign was
Robert Amadas, of Lombard Street, an alderman, who in 1526 was appointed
Master of the Jewel House, a post which he held until his death in 1532,
when he was succeeded by Thomas Cromwell. Other leading goldsmiths were
Alderman Sir John Mundy, appointed justice to the merchants of the
Steelyard in 1525,[693] Alderman Robert Fenrother, Gerard Hughes, Robert
Lord, Nicholas and Henry Wooley, Thomas Trappes, William Holland, John
Twiselton, John van Utricke, and Henry Holtesweller. Large sums were
spent in New Year’s gifts, the King both giving and receiving many very
valuable presents. Thus in 1520 £1208, 17_s._ 6_d._ was paid to Amadas,
Twiselton, and Holland for supplying such gifts, and in 1521 no less
than £1679, 15_s._ 10_d._, while smaller sums were received by other
goldsmiths.[694] There was also constant demand for gold and silver
plate for presentation to foreign ambassadors and envoys, and for
christening presents for the children of the King’s favourites. Amadas
supplied many of these, as well as seals, jewels, spangles and other
ornaments for the jackets of the King’s Guards, silver bells, bosses,
and nails for his Majesty’s use, and many other articles which need not
be specified. Amadas was dead before Holbein became attached to the
court, and it is not at all likely that the latter designed for him. He
must, however, have been well acquainted with the Dutchman, Cornelis
Hayes, or Heyes, who became a naturalised Englishman in January
1523,[695] and was afterwards one of the most regularly employed of the
goldsmiths specially appointed to the King’s service. He received
licence to keep six alien apprentices and twelve journeymen,
notwithstanding the statute of 14 & 15 Hen. VIII.[696] He supplied many
jewels for Anne Boleyn, including “a diamond in a brooch of our Lady of
Boulogne,” and was employed, after Wolsey’s downfall, to remove the coat
of arms from the Cardinal’s plate and place thereon the royal arms
instead. He was also frequently occupied in repairing and altering the
royal jewels and badges. His possible co-operation with Holbein, in
1534, in connection with the making of a silver cradle and figures of
Adam and Eve has been already mentioned,[697] and also that the piece of
plate given to Holbein by the King in return for the portrait of Prince
Edward was made by Hayes.[698] Holbein and Hayes had a common friend in
Bourbon, the French poet, who stayed with the goldsmith when in London.
Footnote 693:
_C.L.P._, vol. iv. pt. i. 1298.
Footnote 694:
_C.L.P._, vol. iii. pt. ii. pp. 1539, 1544 (King’s Book of Payments).
Footnote 695:
_C.L.P._, vol. iii. pt. ii. 2807 (28).
Footnote 696:
In May 1531. _C.L.P._, vol. v. 278 (8).
Footnote 697:
See pp. 92-93.
Footnote 698:
See p. 164.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 54
HENRY VIII GRANTING A CHARTER TO THE BARBER-SURGEONS’ COMPANY
BARBER-SURGEONS’ HALL, LONDON
]
Another goldsmith of importance was the Welshman Morgan Wolf, Fenwolf,
or Phillip, one of the sewers of the chamber, and keeper of the castle
and lordship of Abergavenny. Both he and the Englishman John Freeman
supplied many New Year’s gifts and other goldsmith’s work to Henry. The
latter was a protégé of Cromwell’s, who found him much employment in
connection with the dissolution of the monasteries, and granted him a
number of fat appointments. Morgan Wolf engraved the Great Seal of
England in 1543.[699] Among the foreign jewellers who came frequently to
England, and some of whom eventually settled here, were Alart Plumier,
or Plymmer, as he is called in the royal accounts, of Paris, who had
frequent dealings with the King; Jehan Lange, of the same city, who came
over as the representative of several Parisian houses; Hubert
Morett,[700] Christopher Herrault, Peter Romaynes, Guillim Ottener, John
Crispin, Latronet, and Martin Garrard, the latter obtaining a patent of
denization in 1535. To prolong the list of names would be only tedious,
for it is impossible to connect Holbein’s name definitely with any one
of them, though there is every probability that Cornelis Hayes and John
of Antwerp both worked in conjunction with him.
Footnote 699:
_C.L.P._, vol. xviii. pt. i. 463 (f. 87).
Footnote 700:
See p. 68.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER XXVIII
THE BARBER-SURGEONS PICTURE AND THE PAINTER’S DEATH
Holbein’s last important work, the Barber-Surgeons picture, left
unfinished by him—Description of it—Copy of it made for James I—Pepys’
attempt to purchase the original—Holbein’s death from the plague in
the autumn of 1543—Discovery of his will—His executor, John of
Antwerp, and his witnesses, Anthony Snecher, Olryck Obinger, and Harry
Maynert—Old mistake in the date of his death—History of Holbein’s
family—Englishmen named Holbein—His imitators—Painters who were
working in England at the time of his death and shortly
afterwards—Johannes Corvus and Gerlach Fliccius—Guillim Stretes—Hans
Eworthe—Thomas and John Bettes—Nicholas Lyzarde—Amberger—Copies of
Holbein’s pictures in English collections.
The last important work upon which Holbein was engaged, a work left
unfinished owing to his sudden death, was the large picture still
hanging in the old hall of the Barber-Surgeons’ Company in Monkwell
Street, London (Pl. 54).[701] It was painted to commemorate the
unification of the Company of Barbers and the Guild of Surgeons by Act
of Parliament in the thirty-second year of Henry’s reign (1540-41), and
must have been begun shortly after the passing of the Act. At an earlier
period the barbers and the surgeons of London had formed a single
company, but in course of time had become separated; and upon their
second coming together Holbein was called in to furnish a permanent
record of the event. During the progress of the work he painted separate
portraits of at least two of the sitters in the big picture—Dr. John
Chamber and Sir William Butts—just as he had painted individual
likenesses of Sir Thomas and Lady More when engaged upon the big group
of the Chancellor’s family.
Footnote 701:
Woltmann, 202. Reproduced by A. F. Pollard, _Henry VIII_, p. 270;
Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 130.
The truth of Van Mander’s statement that Holbein left this large picture
unfinished is apparent after even a cursory examination of it. That
writer, who regarded it as an “unusually splendid work,” says:
“According to the feeling of some, Holbein is said not to have completed
the piece himself, but that the deficient parts were painted by some one
else. Nevertheless, if this be the truth, it must lead to the conclusion
that the completer of the work must have understood how to follow
Holbein’s manner so judiciously that no painter or artist can from good
reasons decide that various hands have been engaged in it.”[702]
Footnote 702:
Quoted by Woltmann, i. p. 474. Eng. trans., p. 444.
The latter part of Van Mander’s statement, however, is far from correct,
for the hand of a very inferior craftsman is plainly enough to be
discerned over a greater part of the picture. The general arrangement of
the kneeling figures in the front rank, and the position assigned to the
King, were evidently Holbein’s, who had probably finished the heads, and
even the robes, of several of the leading members of the Guild, while
the heads of others had possibly been traced on the panel from his own
preliminary studies before death cut short his labours. For the rest,
the picture appears to have suffered from more than one later attempt to
finish it.
[Sidenote: DESCRIPTION OF THE PICTURE]
The composition consists of nineteen figures. Henry VIII is shown
full-length on his throne, which is not placed in the centre of the
picture, but somewhat to the spectator’s left. He is crowned and dressed
in his full robes of state, holding the sword in his right and the
charter in his left hand. He is represented as far larger in size than
the other figures kneeling in front of him, something in the manner of
earlier days, when the importance of the principal person in a painting
was brought home to the spectator by the simple plan of depicting him
much bigger than those who surrounded him. This is a trick to which such
a master as Holbein would never have descended; indeed, the figure of
the King, who stares straight out of the picture with a dull, wooden
countenance, without evincing the slightest interest in the ceremony in
which he is the chief performer, cannot even have been sketched in by
Holbein, and is a stiff and clumsy performance at the best. The head has
evidently been copied from one of the numerous likenesses of Henry of
the type of the Warwick portrait, without any attempt to alter the
position of the face or to connect it with the presentation which is
taking place. The position of the head may have been indicated by
Holbein on the panel, and Woltmann is probably right in his conjecture
that it was his intention to represent him standing on the steps of the
throne, and not seated, which would account for the height of the face
as it now is above the surrounding figures.[703] On the King’s right
hand only three members of the Guild are kneeling—Chamber in the front,
with Butts next, and T. Alsop behind him. The three may have been thus
placed in the position of honour as the King’s personal physicians. All
three wear a furred gown and a doctor’s cap. The head of Chamber is
excellent, and appears to be wholly Holbein’s work, with little or no
retouching; that of Butts has suffered more severely from incompetent
hands, while the Alsop is much weaker. It is in this part of the
picture, and in one or two of the heads on the opposite side, that
Holbein carried his work almost entirely to completion. Eight men kneel
in the front row on the King’s left, headed by T. Vicary, who receives
the charter from the royal hand, five of them with beards, and some of
them with skull-caps, and wearing more elaborate costumes and gowns than
those opposite to them. The second figure, T. Aylif, the Warden, is one
of the most effective, the head, though here again retouching is very
evident, being perhaps the best of all. The heads of Harman and Monforde
are noteworthy among the remainder of the figures, the greater number of
which have been so badly repainted that no touch of Holbein’s hand is
now visible; though it is possible that in some cases he was responsible
for the outline. According to Dr. Woltmann, traces of the pinholes by
means of which the transference of Holbein’s original sketches of the
heads to the panel was made, can still be seen in several instances.
Behind the eight kneeling members of the Company on the spectator’s
right there appears an upper row of seven figures, which must have been
added at a considerably later date than that of the finishing process
given to the picture at some time shortly after Holbein’s death. These
later figures are so badly placed that they entirely spoil the
composition, and are quite devoid of artistic merit, being the work of a
still weaker hand than that of the unknown “finisher.” They evidently
formed no part of the original arrangement, but represent later members
of the company who wished their portraits to be included. The panel is
further marred by the fact that over each sitter, with the exception of
five in the last-named row, his name is inscribed in large letters.
Another late addition, which also helps to spoil the general effect, is
a large white tablet on the wall on the right, which contains a long
Latin inscription in prose and verse in praise of the King. Originally
this space was occupied by a window, through which could be seen the old
tower of the church of St. Bride’s, showing that the ceremony was
represented as taking place in the palace of Bridewell. Behind the King
hangs a large gold-embroidered curtain, and on either side of it the
space is roughly filled in with flowers and fruit representing tapestry.
According to Dr. Ganz,[704] it is the same chamber, with the same
hangings, probably the throne-room in Whitehall, as in the large picture
of the family of Henry VIII at Hampton Court (No. 340 (510)),[705] which
has been attributed by some writers to Guillim Stretes; and again, in a
portrait of Queen Elizabeth in the possession of the Earl of
Buckinghamshire. It is possible that the King may have sat for the
picture at Whitehall, and that Holbein made use of the surroundings at
his hand, but the view from the window in the copy of the
Barber-Surgeons painting, mentioned below, seems to indicate that the
room represented was in Bridewell. There is no resemblance between the
patterns of the carpets in the two pictures. It is painted on a panel
made up of a number of thick, vertical oak boards, and is 10 ft. 3 in.
wide by 6 ft. high. In Woltmann’s opinion, “the picture is nothing but a
ruin, in which we have to search with difficulty for the traces of
Holbein.”[706]
Footnote 703:
Woltmann, i. p. 475.
Footnote 704:
See _Holbein_, p. 243.
Footnote 705:
The central part of this picture, showing Henry VIII enthroned, with
Edward VI and Queen Catherine Parr on either side of him, is
reproduced by Mr. Ernest Law in _The Royal Gallery of Hampton Court_,
p. 130.
Footnote 706:
Woltmann, Eng. trans., p. 446.
This opinion, and an almost similar one given by Wornum, were regarded
by the late Sir Charles Robinson as far too scathing.[707] He considered
that Holbein’s hand had worked more or less over every part of the great
panel—very elaborately and minutely in some parts and very slightly in
others; but that nowhere had the finishing touches and work required to
give final truth and perfection of representation been bestowed. He
thought that an interval of some twenty or thirty years must have
elapsed before the Barber-Surgeons, in an inauspicious moment,
determined on the completion of their picture, the superadded work
seeming to be that of a somewhat advanced Elizabethan period. It must
always be a matter of deep regret that they did not leave it in the
state in which it came to them from Holbein’s studio, for it would have
been of infinitely greater value than it is now. Finished by him it
could not have been less than a masterpiece; but even in its incomplete
state it would have been of equal interest as forming an invaluable
example of his technique and methods of working.
Footnote 707:
In a letter to _The Times_, 28th August 1895.
[Sidenote: COPY MADE FOR JAMES I]
On the 13th of January 1618 James I wrote from Newmarket to the Company
asking that the picture should be lent to him, as he was anxious to have
a copy made of it, and promising that this should be done expeditiously,
and the original redelivered safely. “We are informed,” he said, “there
is a table of Painting in your Hall whereon is the Picture of our
Predecessor of famous memorie K. Henry the 8th., together w^h diverse of
y^r Companie, w^h being both like him and well done Wee are desirous to
have copyd.”[708] Holbein’s name is not mentioned in this letter. The
copy then made is in all probability the one now in the possession of
the Royal College of Surgeons,[709] which is smaller than the original,
and an indifferent version of it, on paper attached to canvas. The
figure of Alsop, on the extreme right of the King, is omitted, and in
place of the tablet with the inscription, the window with a view of the
church tower is shown, proving that even if it is not the copy ordered
by James I, it is at least a very early version of the original. It was
at one time in the collection of Desenfans, and at his sale in 1786 was
purchased by the Surgeons’ Company for fifty guineas. It has been
incorrectly described as the original cartoon for the picture, and it
has also been said, but this again is wrong, that it belonged at one
time to the Barber-Surgeons’ Company, and that when the two branches of
the Guild were finally separated in 1745, the College retained the copy
or cartoon and the Company kept the picture.[710]
Footnote 708:
The original letter is in the possession of the Company.
Footnote 709:
The College also possesses a second copy of the picture.
Footnote 710:
In 1789 this copy was cleaned and put in order by a man named Lloyd,
who asked £400 for his labours, but eventually took fifty guineas.
The next reference to the picture occurs in Pepys’ _Diary_, under the
date August 29, 1668. The entry runs: “At noon, comes by appointment
Harris to dine with me; and after dinner, he and I to Chirurgeons’ Hall,
where they are building it new, very fine; and there to see their
theatre, which stood all the fire, and, which was our business, their
great picture of Holbein’s, thinking to have bought it, by the help of
Mr. Pierce, for a little money. I did think to give 200_l._ for it, it
being said to be worth 1000_l._; but it is so spoiled that I have no
mind to it, and is not a pleasant though a good picture.” The fire of
which Pepys speaks was the great fire of 1666, and the damage to which
he refers may have been caused to some extent by the smoke, though it is
more probable that the injury he noted was merely that caused by time
and restoration. Wornum suggests that it underwent restoration shortly
after the Great Fire, and that the tablet with the inscription was then
introduced in place of the original window.[711] The entry in the
_Diary_ further shows how high a value the Company placed on the picture
even in those days, and also that they were prepared to sell it at their
own price.[712]
Footnote 711:
Wornum, p. 352, who quotes the whole of the Latin inscription.
Footnote 712:
See Appendix (M).
In 1734 the Company commissioned Bernard Baron to engrave the picture
for the sum of 150 guineas. The plate, which is a large one, and a
fairly accurate transcript of the original, except that it is reversed,
was published in 1736. It was dedicated to the Earl of Burlington, with
a Latin inscription. In 1856 it was engraved on wood for the
_Illustrated London News_ by Henry Linton.[713] In 1895 the Company were
again anxious to sell it, and an effort was made to purchase it for the
nation, but unfortunately the scheme fell through, possibly because the
extravagant price of £15,000 was asked for it.
Footnote 713:
Reproduced in Mantz, p. 172.
While still engaged upon this important work, Holbein’s life was cut
short by the plague, which raged so severely in London in the summer and
autumn of 1543 that hundreds of people died each week from it. According
to Hall, “Thys yeare was in London a great death of the Pestilence, and
therefore Mighelmas Tearme was adjourned to Saynt Albons”; and Stow
repeats this statement almost word for word.[714] Holbein succumbed to
it on some date between the 7th of October and 29th of November. This
was proved by the discovery of his will in February 1861, by Mr. W. H.
Black, F.S.A., who found it in one of the Registers of the Commissary of
London, at that time preserved in the Record Room at St. Paul’s
Cathedral. It is included in the book called “Beverly,” on folios 116
and 121, that volume covering the period from 1539 to 1548. It runs as
follows:
Footnote 714:
Hall, _The Union of the Two Noble and Illustrate Families of Lancastre
and Yorke_, 1548, p. 257. Stow, _The Annales_, &c., 1615, p. 585.
[Sidenote: HOLBEIN’S WILL]
“_Holbeine._—In the name of God the father, sonne, and holy
gohooste, I, Johñ Holbeine, servaunte to the Kynges Magestye,
make this my Testamente and last will, to wyt, that all my
goodes shalbe sold and also my horse, and I will that my debtes
be payd, to wete, fyrst to Mr. Anthony, the Kynges servaunte, of
Grenwiche, y^e of [_sic_] summe of ten poundes thurtene
shyllynges and sewyne pence sterlinge. And more over I will that
he shalbe contented for all other thynges betwene hym and me.
Item, I do owe unto Mr. John of Anwarpe, goldsmythe, sexe
poundes sterling, wiche I will also shalbe payd unto hym with
the fyrste. Item, I bequeythe for the kynpyng [keeping] of my
two Chylder wich be at nurse, for every monethe sewyn shyllynges
and sex pence sterlynge. In wytnes, I have sealed and sealed
[_sic_] this my testament the vijth day of Octaber, in the yere
of o^r Lorde God M^lvCxliij. Wytnes, Anthoney Snecher, armerer,
Mr. Johñ of Anwarpe, goldsmythe before said, Olrycke Obynger,
merchaunte, and Harry Maynert, paynter.”
To this the following official act was appended on the 29th November:
“XXIX^o die mensis Novembris anno Domini predict. Johannes
Anwarpe executor nominat, in testamento sive ultima voluntate
Johannis alias Hans Holbein nuper parochie sancti Andree
Vndershafte defuncti comparuit coram Magistro Johanne Croke,
&c., Commissario generali, ac renunciavit omni executioni hujus
modi testamenti, quam renunciationem dominus admisit, deinde
commisit administracionem bonorum dicti defuncti prenominato
Johanni Anwarpe in forma juris jurato et per ipsum admissa
pariter et acceptata. Salvo jure cujuscumque. Dat. etc.”
[On the 29th November in the aforesaid year of our Lord, John
Anwarpe, appointed executor in the testament or last will of
John _alias_ Hans Holbein, recently deceased in the parish of
St. Andrew Undershaft, appeared before Master John Croke,
Commissary-General, and renounced the execution of the said
will, which renunciation was allowed, and the administration of
the property left was consigned to the before-mentioned John
Anwarpe as sworn in, which was admitted and accepted by him. The
right of each intact.
This is followed on folio 121 of the book by the entry:
“_Holbene._—XXIX^{no} die mensis predicti commissa fuit
administracio bonorum Johannis alias Hans Holbeñ parochie sancti
Andrei Undershaft nuper abintestato defuncti Johanni Anwarpe in
forma juris jurato, ac per ipsum admissa pariter et acceptata.
Salvo jure cujuscumque. Dicto die, mens, &c.”
[_Holbene._—The 29th of the aforesaid month the administration
of the property of John _alias_ Hans Holben, recently deceased
_ab_ _intestato_ in the parish of St. Andrew Undershaft, was
consigned to John Anwarpe as sworn in, and was admitted and
accepted by him. The right of each intact. Said day of month,
&c.][715]
Footnote 715:
See Sir A. W. Franks, _Archæologia_, vol. xxxix., p. 2, and W. H.
Black, same vol., p. 275.
According to these entries, John of Antwerp was Holbein’s executor,
although he is not so mentioned in the will, and on the 29th November he
renounced all execution of it, and took out letters of administration
only. The will itself appears to have been drawn up carelessly and in
haste; probably Holbein was already sickening when he made it, so that
it had to be done in a hurry, or he may have been merely alarmed, owing
to the number of people daily dying around him, including, as Mr. Lionel
Cust points out,[716] some members of John of Antwerp’s own household,
in whose dwelling, he suggests, Holbein may himself have contracted the
disease. The meaning of the two official acts is not easy to follow, but
the explanation given by Sir Augustus W. Franks, F.S.A., procured from a
legal source, is no doubt the correct one. “Though the two official acts
which follow the copy of the Will may at first appear inconsistent both
with the Will and also with each other; yet, if we suppose that John
Anwarpe was considered to have been appointed executor by implication
(which the law allowed), much of the seeming inconsistency will
disappear. The object of the renunciation may have been either to
obviate some doubt which existed as to whether John Anwarpe was so made
executor (for the language is hardly strong enough), or to avoid certain
liabilities that would have affected him as executor, but not as
administrator. Formerly a person was said to have died intestate, not
only when he left no Will, but also when he left a Will and appointed no
executor, or appointed executors and they all renounced. In this
administration act the testator is accordingly said to have died
intestate. The great difficulty in these official acts is how John
Anwarpe could have been executor and Mr. Anthony not. The second of the
two is almost a repetition of the first, and both are dated on the same
day.”[717]
Footnote 716:
_Burlington Magazine_, vol. viii., February 1906, p. 360. See also p.
13.
Footnote 717:
_Archæologia_, vol. xxxix. p. 15.
[Sidenote: HOLBEIN’S WILL]
The will is of great interest, not only as proving the date of Holbein’s
death within a week or two, but also as affording some information as to
his worldly position and his personal friends. Although his practice in
London was a large one, he died somewhat heavily in debt, and the
inference is that he had not saved money. What his personal possessions
consisted of, the document, so hastily drawn, does not say, but, unlike
a number of his fellow-artists, he does not seem to have owned any
property in London. It does not necessarily follow, however, that he was
extravagant in his habits, though he kept a horse and owed money. It has
been assumed that the frequent payment of his salary in advance was due
to improvidence; but there is nothing beyond the terms of his will to
support this, or to show that he spent all his income on himself, and
that he failed to send money regularly to Basel in support of his wife
and family. The reference to his two children at nurse indicates some
irregular connection in England, which may have been one of the reasons
which made him disinclined to return permanently to Basel in accordance
with the wish of his fellow-townsmen. Considering the laxity of morals
at that period, the fact that he had a second family in London is not
very surprising. It has been suggested that the mother of these children
died of the plague shortly before the artist, and that his will was made
through anxiety to provide for them should he in turn be taken with the
rapid and usually fatal disease, to which most victims succumbed within
three days. The amount bequeathed for these children’s maintenance,
about three half-pence a day each, does not seem much, but when the
relative value of money at that time is taken into consideration, it was
no doubt enough for their simple needs. What eventually became of them
is not known.
With regard to the four witnesses to the will, all of whom were, no
doubt, personal friends of the painter, nothing is known with any
certainty except as regards John of Antwerp. The Mr. Anthony of
Greenwich, one of the King’s servants, to whom Holbein owed the
considerable amount of £10, 13_s._ 7_d._, is evidently the same
individual who witnessed the will as Anthony Snecher, armourer, although
the words “before said” do not occur against his name as witness as they
do in the case of John of Antwerp. Both Mr. Black and Sir A. Franks,
however, appear to have regarded them as two distinct persons.[718] The
former suggested that “Mr. Anthony” was Anthony Anthony, one of the
officers of the Ordnance Department, who had some skill as an
illuminator, if the embellishments of certain rolls dealing with the
navy and signed by him were from his hand, as is probable. The latter
thought that Anthony Snecher was possibly one of the body of German
armourers in the regular employment of the King at Greenwich, of whom
Erasmus Kirkheimer was the chief, and that Holbein may have supplied him
with designs for the ornamentation of weapons. Mr. J. Gough Nichols
suggested that Mr. Anthony may have been Anthony Toto, the painter, with
whom Holbein must have been acquainted, and with whom he may have worked
in conjunction with other foreign artists upon the decoration of Nonsuch
Palace.
Footnote 718:
See _Archæologia_, vol. xxxix. pp. 13-14, and 274.
Of Olryck Obinger, the merchant, nothing is known, but from his name he
must have been a Swiss or German, possibly a merchant of the Steelyard,
though there is no reference to him in the State Papers, which contain
the names of a large number of the members of that body. From his name,
too, Harry Maynert, the painter, also appears to have been a German or a
Fleming. He remains an indefinite figure at present.[719] Mr. Black
suggested that he might be a relation of the John Maynard who was one of
the painters employed on the tomb of Henry VII. A relationship is also
possible with the Katherine Maynors, of Antwerp, a painter, who obtained
letters of denization in England in 1540, at which time she was a widow.
Footnote 719:
The fine miniature by Holbein at Munich, bearing the initials H. M.,
which Dr. Ganz suggests may be a portrait of Harry Maynert, is
described on pp. 241-2.
[Sidenote: THE PLACE OF HIS BURIAL]
The discovery of the will put an end to the tradition which had existed
from the beginning of the seventeenth century that Holbein died in 1554.
This mistake is to be traced back to the publication of Carel van
Mander’s _Het Schilder Boeck_, published in 1604, two years before the
writer’s death. In his account of Holbein he concludes by saying: “Soo
is Holbeen in groote benoutheydt te Londen ghestorven van de Pest A^o
1554, oudt 56 Jaren.” [Thus did Holbein die in London, of the plague, in
great distress, in the year 1554, fifty-six years old. Succeeding
writers copied from Van Mander. Joachim von Sandrart repeated the
statement in his _Teutsche Akademie_—“Wurde er 1554 im 56 Jahre seines
Alters von der damals in Londen wütenden Pest hingerafft”—and later
biographers continued the error, which led to great confusion, as it
added eleven years to the painter’s life, and caused almost all Tudor
portraits bearing dates between 1544 and 1554 to be attributed to him.
Wornum suggests that the letter from the Burgomaster of Basel to Jacob
David, the Parisian goldsmith, with reference to Philip Holbein, which
is dated 1545 and speaks of Holbein, the father, as then deceased, may
have been shown to Van Mander or copied for him, and that in
transcribing it, or even in the printing of his book, the last two
figures of the date were accidentally transferred, so that 45 was turned
into 54.[720] Such mistakes are not of uncommon occurrence, and this
solution may be the true one. There was no plague raging in London in
1554, while in 1543 there was an unusually severe visitation. Otherwise
Van Mander’s account of the painter’s death is substantially correct.
The place of his burial remains uncertain, but according to tradition,
as voiced by Strype, he was interred in the church of St. Catherine
Cree. Strype, in his additions to Stow’s _Survey of the Cities of London
and Westminster_,[721] says: I have been told that _Hans Holben_, the
great and inimitable painter in King Henry VIII’s Time, was buried in
this Church; and that the Earl of _Arundel_, the great Patron of
Learning and Arts, would have set up a Monument to his Memory here, had
he but known whereabouts the Corps lay.”
Footnote 720:
Wornum, p. 23.
Footnote 721:
1720, Book II. p. 64.
The same story was told by Sandrart, without mentioning the church. He
supposed that the Earl’s difficulty arose from the fact that so many
people were dying daily, and had to be buried in such haste, that
Holbein probably shared a common grave with others, and that no record
would be kept. There can be little doubt that he would be buried in or
near the parish in which he was residing. The church of St. Catherine
Cree, though in the next parish, is not many hundred yards distant from
the Church of St. Andrew Undershaft, and it is probable that Holbein was
interred in one or the other of them, possibly the latter, confusion as
to the exact locality having arisen at a later date owing to the close
proximity of the two churches. Unfortunately no registers of the time
are available. St. Andrew Undershaft escaped the Great Fire, but its
register from 1538 to 1579 has disappeared, while that of St. Catherine
Cree begins only in 1663.
Holbein’s wife and family are not mentioned in his will, and what little
is known of their further history is largely due to the researches of
Dr. His-Heusler in the Basel archives. His wife survived him for six
years, dying early in 1549, after a somewhat lengthy illness, as on the
9th of July in the preceding year she appointed, for this reason, a
deputy to manage her affairs. It is to be gathered that she was left by
Holbein in a fairly comfortable position, what with the annual pension
allowed her by the civic authorities, the two houses which her husband
had purchased fifteen years earlier, and the legacy from his uncle
Sigmund, which the painter does not appear to have touched. Nor does it
follow, because she was not mentioned in the will, that he had failed to
send to her at least a part of his English earnings. An inventory taken
on the 8th of March 1549, shortly after her death, shows that she was
fairly well provided with worldly goods. In addition to furniture, an
ample supply of linen, and the more ordinary household utensils, she
possessed two silver-gilt covered cups, six silver goblets, a dozen
silver-plated spoons, and a valise with a portion of her deceased
husband’s wardrobe, including a black cap, a Spanish cape trimmed with
velvet, a doublet of smoke-coloured Florentine taffeta, and others of
black satin, crimson silk, and black damask. These garments must have
been left behind by Holbein when he visited Basel in 1538, rather than
forwarded after his death by his executor, who, according to the terms
of the will, was obliged to sell everything. His stepson, Franz Schmid,
who carried on his father’s tanning business, died before his mother,
leaving two children.
[Sidenote: HOLBEIN’S DESCENDANTS]
Some years after 1545, Holbein’s eldest son, Philip, having completed
his apprenticeship to Jacob David in Paris, from whose service he only
obtained release after the Basel Town Council had come to his
assistance, worked for a time as a goldsmith in Lisbon, and finally
settled in Augsburg, where he founded a diamond-cutting business. He in
turn had a son named Philip, who, in 1611, petitioned the Emperor
Matthias for a confirmation and augmentation of “his old and noble coat
of arms.” In this document, in which he describes himself as Imperial
court jeweller and a citizen of Augsburg, he speaks of his grandfather
Johann, as “the painter at that time celebrated throughout Europe,” and
asserts that the Holbeins were descended from a noble family of the
“city of Uri.” This last statement, however, was largely imaginary, and
had its sole foundation in the fact that the Holbein arms[722] were the
same as those of the canton of Uri, with the exception that the latter
lacked the star between the bull’s horns. This Philip Holbein, who,
according to Von Mechel, had been living in Vienna since 1600, had his
petition granted on the 1st October in the following year, 1612. In 1756
one of his descendants, Johann Georg Holbein, who was connected with the
Court of Chancery, obtained a confirmation of the noble rank granted to
his family in 1612, with the surname of Holbeinsberg, and in 1787 was
raised to the rank of a Knight of the Empire, with the title of a noble
of Holbeinsberg.
Footnote 722:
See Vol. i. p. 83.
Holbein’s elder daughter, Katherine, married in 1545 a butcher named
Jacob Gyssler, a widower with a grown-up daughter. Among the papers of
Ludwig Iselin there is a list of all the deaths which occurred in Basel
between 1588 and 1612, from which we learn that she died on February 8,
1590. She is described as Katharina Holbeinin, daughter of the deceased
Hans Holbein, the distinguished painter, wife of a butcher. The second
daughter, Küngolt, or Kunigunde, after the death of her mother, married
a miller named Andreas Syff. They had a numerous family, and one of
their granddaughters married Friedrich Merian, brother of the well-known
engraver, Matthaüs Merian. Küngolt, according to Iselin’s list, died
seven months after her sister, on September 15, 1590. She is described
in the same terms, as the daughter of the celebrated artist. In this
list there also occurs the name of a third lady of the Holbein family,
who died on the 17th September 1594, but she is merely described as
“Felicitas Holbein, wife of Conrad Volmar, died of the plague,” and it
is not certain that she was one of the painter’s daughters. Nothing is
known of the younger son, Jacob Holbein, except that he also became a
goldsmith, and that he came to England and died in London in the summer
of 1552. In 1549, at the time of his mother’s death, he was still a
minor, and the document in the Basel archives dealing with the division
of his property after his death is dated June 27, 1552. No other record
of his presence in London has been so far traced.
The name occurs in England both before and after Hans Holbein’s
residence here, but in every case the bearers of it were almost
certainly Englishmen. Walpole mentions a Holbein, on the authority of an
entry in a register at Wells,[723] as living in the reign of Henry VII,
and conjectures him to have been a foreigner, and even a relation of
Hans, and the possible author of some early paintings, including a
portrait of Henry VII. In this, however, he was wrong. His Holbein was
evidently an English country gentleman, and probably some relative of a
certain Johannes Holbyn of North Stoke, close to Bath, who died in 1548,
and left a sum of money to the Cathedral of Wells. The wills of two
other well-to-do persons of this name occur in the registry of the
Archidiaconal Court of Canterbury—that of John Holbein of Folkestone,
dated August 21, 1534, who bequeathed forty-six shillings and eightpence
for a new covered font for the parish church, and of his widow, who died
shortly after him, which is dated November 25, 1534, and was proved in
the following January. These people were all English, and had no
connection with the painter.[724]
Footnote 723:
Walpole, _Anecdotes_, ed. Wornum, i. p. 49.
Footnote 724:
See Sir A. W. Franks, _Archæologia_, vol. xxxix. p. 16; W. H. Hart,
_Proceedings Soc. of Antiq._, 16th April 1863; and Wornum, p. 372.
Holbein founded no school of painting either in England or Switzerland,
and there is no evidence to show that he had any pupils. It is probable
that he employed assistants when engaged upon such wall-paintings as
those he carried out in Whitehall, but whoever they may have been, their
engagement was only a temporary one. As already noted, there is no
record, as there is in the case of several other foreign artists then
resident in this country, of a royal warrant according him the privilege
of employing in regular service a number of alien assistants or servants
in spite of the Act which made such a proceeding illegal. No pupil of
his is mentioned by any of his early biographers, and it seems almost
certain that no one directly studied under him. If there had been such a
painter, some record of him is almost certain to have survived. There
are a number of portraits, as a rule of no very great artistic merit, in
various private collections in England, which were evidently painted
indirectly under his influence. Such examples are to be expected, for it
was impossible for so great a master to be at work in London for so many
years without a certain number of imitators springing up, who attempted
to work in his methods and to copy his style. It is hardly possible now
that even the names of these third-rate imitators and ineffectual rivals
will be unearthed.
[Sidenote: GUILLIM STRETES]
As already stated, prior to the discovery of his will almost all
paintings bearing dates between 1543 and 1554 were ascribed to him; even
to-day, in some instances, the owners, in spite of the impossibility,
still adhere to the great name, as the catalogues of most of the
exhibitions held within recent years dealing with the Tudor period
afford proof. The authorship of these pictures must be sought for
elsewhere, though in many cases the task is one of extreme difficulty.
Several painters of considerable talent were at work at the English
court during the years immediately following Holbein’s death, and in
some instances signed and authenticated works by them exist which enable
comparisons to be made and certain unsigned works from their hands to be
identified with some confidence. Such men as these were Johannes Corvus
and Gerlach Fliccius; but in other cases, such as that of Guillim
Stretes, only the names and a few scanty records remain, and it is
impossible to point to any picture which can be said with absolute
certainty to have been produced by them. Lucas Hornebolt died in 1544,
about six months later than Holbein, and in the same year Girolamo da
Treviso was killed by a cannon-ball at the siege of Boulogne. Several of
the leading Italian artists, however, continued to serve the court
during the remainder of Henry VIII’s life and throughout the succeeding
reign, such as Antonio Toto, the sergeant-painter, his colleague,
Bartolommeo Penni, and Nicolas Bellin of Modena, though no signed or
authenticated picture by any one of them has survived.
One of the most important of Holbein’s immediate successors was the
Dutch painter, Guillim or Gillam Stretes, though so far no mention of
him has been found prior to the accession of Edward VI. Strype’s extract
from the records of the Privy Council, having reference to a payment of
fifty marks made to him for two pictures of the young King and one of
the Earl of Surrey, has been already quoted,[725] as well as the fact
that in 1553 he was receiving, as King’s painter, an annuity of £62,
10_s._, more than double Holbein’s salary, showing that he was a person
of importance among the painters of Edward’s reign. Reference has also
been made to the attribution to Stretes of the full-length portrait of
Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, in the collection of the Duke of Norfolk
at Arundel Castle,[726] and of the duplicate version, without the
painted framework, at Knole.[727] The attribution of these two works to
Stretes is based entirely on the Privy Council order. Dr. Waagen[728]
stated that the Arundel Castle portrait was inscribed “William Strote,”
but no one else has succeeded in discovering this signature, and very
possibly the name he quotes was seen by him on some old label then
attached to the frame and since removed. These two portraits, as already
noted, have been grouped with several other full-lengths, including the
young man in red at Hampton Court Palace (No. 345 (315)), wrongly
described as a portrait of the Earl of Surrey,[729] that of Sir Thomas
Gresham, dated 1544, in Mercers’ Hall, the beautiful portrait of William
West, Lord Delawarr,[730] belonging to Lieut.-Col. G. L. Holford,
C.I.E., C.V.O., and the one of the Earl of Southampton, 1542, in the
Fitzwilliam Museum.[731] These portraits display somewhat close
affinities, though it is not possible to allow that all are by the same
hand. The portrait of William West is a work of great power and
character, and has been attributed to Holbein himself, but the style of
the painting does not accord with his. All these works are of
considerably earlier date than that of the Privy Council order, which is
the earliest reference so far discovered touching this painter, and it
is extremely doubtful whether he had anything to do with them. One is on
safer ground in attributing to him some of the portraits of King Edward,
which exist in considerable numbers, two of which he certainly painted,
and very possibly others. These portraits of the young King, and
Stretes’ probable connection with them, have been dealt with in an
earlier chapter.[732] One other picture Stretes is known to have
painted, for it is recorded that on New Year’s Day, 1556, he presented
Queen Mary with “a table of her Majesty’s Marriage.”[733] This picture,
which must have been one of particular interest, has completely
disappeared. Dr. Williamson records a signed miniature by him of Edward
VI, almost full-face, wearing a jewelled cap, in Earl Beauchamp’s
collection at Madresfield Court,[734] and he also attributes to the same
painter a second miniature of the young King, as a little boy, in the
Rijks Museum, Amsterdam.[735]
Footnote 725:
See pp. 168-170.
Footnote 726:
Exhib. Burl. Fine Arts Club, 1909, No. 54. Reproduced Arundel Club,
1907, No. 3; Pollard, _Henry VIII_, p. 284.
Footnote 727:
See p. 201.
Footnote 728:
Waagen, _Treasures of Art in Great Britain_, vol. iii. p. 30.
Footnote 729:
Reproduced by Law, _Royal Gallery of Hampton Court_, p. 136.
Footnote 730:
Exhibited Royal Academy Winter Exhibitions, 1870, No. 23; 1880, No.
167; 1908, No. 2; Burl. Fine Arts Club, 1909, No. 51. Reproduced
Arundel Club, 1908, No. 10; and Burl. Fine Arts Club Catalogue, Pl.
xvii.
Footnote 731:
See pp. 204-205.
Footnote 732:
See pp. 168-170.
Footnote 733:
_Queen Elizabeth’s Progresses_, vol. i. p. xxxv., and Nichols’
_Illustrations of Ancient Times_, p. 14.
Footnote 734:
Williamson, _History of Portrait Miniatures_, 1904, vol. i. p. 12.
Reproduced, Pl. v. fig. 3.
Footnote 735:
_Ibid._, Pl. xlvii. fig. 6.
[Sidenote: GERLACH FLICCIUS]
Of Johannes Corvus, the Fleming, and his portraits of Richard Foxe,
Bishop of Winchester, and of Mary Tudor, sister of Henry VIII, the one
undated, and the other of the year 1532, some account has been already
given.[736] Little is known of this painter, or of Gerlach Fliccius or
Flicke, who, like Holbein, was German, and appears to have settled in
London towards the end of Henry VIII’s reign, where he died in 1558.
Recent researches by Miss Mary Hervey[737] have, however, added
considerably to our knowledge of this painter and his work. His will,
recently discovered, which is dated 24th January 1558, and was proved by
his widow on the 11th February following, shows that he was living in
the parish of St. Giles without Cripplegate, and that he possessed lands
and goods in Osnabrüch, of which place he was no doubt a native. In this
document he calls himself “Drawer,” and gives his name as Garlick
Flicke, and it was under the name of Garlick that he was generally known
in this country. The Lumley inventory includes three portraits by him—a
full-length, described as “The Statuary of Thomas first Lo: Darcy of
Chiche, created by King Edw. 6. L^d Chamberlayne to the said K. Edw.:
drawn by Garlicke,” and two small ones of “Queen Marye, drawne by
Garlicke,” and “Thomas, the third Duke of Northfolke, drawne by
Garlicke.” Unfortunately these three portraits have disappeared—the
full-length of Lord Darcy in quite modern times. Until 1854 it was
hanging in Irnham Hall, Lincolnshire, but in that year the house and its
contents were sold, and the present whereabouts of the picture has so
far not been traced. Miss Hervey gives a list of eight portraits which
can be attributed with more or less certainty to Fliccius. In addition
to the three from the Lumley Collection, there are three others in the
collection of the Marquis of Lothian at Newbattle Abbey, Dalkeith, the
portrait of Archbishop Cranmer in the National Portrait Gallery, and the
small double portrait of the painter himself and his friend, Richard
Strangeways. The three at Newbattle Abbey[738] are of great interest,
though it is impossible to describe them in detail here. The finest,
which is dated 1547, and is signed “Gerlacius Fliccūs Germanūs
faciebat,” represents an unknown man of the age of forty, whom Miss
Hervey tentatively suggests to be William, Lord Grey of Wilton, clad in
a slit buff jerkin and a black velvet surcoat trimmed with fur. It is a
portrait of considerable power, and though it has suffered from
repainting still appears to have been the work of a man of more than
ordinary artistic talents. The second portrait at Newbattle—of Sir Peter
Carew—has many points in common with it, and was probably painted at
about the same time. The portrait of Archbishop Cranmer in the National
Portrait Gallery is stiffer in style than these, and suggests a more
obvious attempt to follow the manner of Holbein, but though very
carefully painted and with every appearance of truth of portraiture,
lacks the vitality which stamps everything from the hand of the master.
It is signed “Gerbicus Flicciis Germanus faciebat,” and though undated
was, according to the sitter’s age, painted in 1545. The curious double
portrait, on a small oak panel, of Flicke and his friend Strangeways or
Strangwish, the gentleman privateer, known as the “Red Rover,” was
painted in prison in 1554. The artist seems to have been mixed up in
Wyat’s rebellion, and as a result he and his friend were imprisoned, but
afterwards released. Over each head is painted a verse, that above
Flicke’s in Latin, which, translated, runs: “Such in appearance was
Gerlach Fliccius, what time he was a painter in the City of London. This
portrait he painted from a mirror for his dear friends, that they might
be able to remember him after his death.” The lines over Strangeways are
in English:
“Strangwish thus strangely depicted is,
One prisoner for thother hath done this;
Gerlin hath garnisht for his delight,
This woorck whiche you se before youre sight.”
Footnote 736:
See Vol. i. p. 269.
Footnote 737:
See _Burlington Magazine_, vol. xvii., May 1910, pp. 71-9, and June
1910, pp. 147-8, from which most of the following facts have been
taken; and J. G. Nichols, _Archæologia_, xxxix. pp. 40-41.
Footnote 738:
All reproduced by Miss Hervey in _Burlington Magazine_, as quoted.
The background is blue. The present ownership of this picture is
unknown. The remaining picture, at Newbattle Abbey, is a small portrait
of Jacques de Savoie, duc de Nemours, showing the head and shoulders
only of a young man with fair hair and a very slight beard and
moustache, in French dress, and wearing the Order of St. Michael. It
betrays the influence of the French school, and is in style of marked
difference to his other known works. It was identified in 1909 by M.
Dimier, who discovered three crayon drawings taken from it, all of them
bearing the title given above. The original picture is signed “G.
Fliccus ft.,” and on the back is an old label with “Origl. Fliccus ft.”
Miss Hervey suggests that it was painted on the Continent about
1555.[739]
Footnote 739:
Reproduced by Miss Hervey, _Burlington Magazine_, vol. xvii., June
1910, p. 148, together with one of the French drawings.
[Sidenote: HANS EWORTHE OR EEUWOUTS]
Recent researches on the part of Mr. Lionel Cust have established the
identity of another foreign painter of considerable skill, who was at
work in England some years after Holbein’s death, but who hitherto has
been known only under the initials H. E.[740] This monogram occurs on a
number of pictures of important personages bearing dates from 1550 to
1568, the earliest of them being on a portrait at Longford Castle,
formerly known as Sir Anthony Denny, but now recognised as Sir Thomas
Wyndham. These portraits have usually been given to Lucas d’Heere,[741]
of Ghent, although all that is known of that painter’s life, including
the fact that he did not come to England before 1568, made the
attribution of any one of them to him one of great difficulty. Mr. Cust,
by means of certain entries in the Lumley inventory, has proved that the
real author of them was a certain Jan Eeuwouts, of Antwerp, whose name
became anglicised into Haunce or Hans Eworthe. Three of the Lumley
portraits are described as the work of Eworthe—“Mr. Edw. Shelley slayne
at Mustleborough fielde, drawen by Haunce Eworthe”; “Haward a Dutch
Juello^r, drawne for a Maisters prize by his brother, Haunce Eworthe”;
and “Mary Duches of Northfolke, daughter to the last Earle of Arundell
Fitzallan, doone by Haunce Eworthe,” the last one being in all
probability the portrait now at Arundel Castle, which is signed H. E. in
monogram. Several other portraits in the Lumley inventory, though no
painter’s name is given, still exist, and bear this monogram, such as
the small double portrait of Lord Darnley and his brother, Charles
Stewart, at Windsor Castle; Lord Maltravers at Arundel Castle; Sir John
Lutterel, dated 1550, at Dunster Castle; and Sir Thomas Wyndham, also
dated 1550, at Longford Castle.[742] These portraits prove that Eworthe
was much employed by Lord Lumley or his father-in-law, the last Earl of
Arundel, at Nonsuch Palace. Mr. Cust has traced him as a resident alien
in London in 1552 in the parish of St. Saviour’s, Southwark. He is
described in the return as “John Ewottes, paynter,” and assessed at the
high rate of eight guineas, and he employed a servant named John
Mychell, who was assessed at eightpence. As “Jan Eeuwouts, schilder,” he
was admitted a free master of the Guild of St. Luke in Antwerp in 1540.
It is thus possible that he was a native of that city.[743]
Footnote 740:
See _Burlington Magazine_, vol. xiv., pp. 366-8.
Footnote 741:
For an account of d’Heere’s work in England, see Lionel Cust in _Dict.
of National Biography_, 1888, vol. xiv., in the _Magazine of Art_,
1891, and in the _Proceedings of the Huguenot Society of London_, vol.
vii. No. 1, 1903.
Footnote 742:
Reproduced in the Catalogue of the Earl of Radnor’s Pictures, 1909,
No. 165.
Footnote 743:
For further details concerning Hans Eworthe, see Mr. Cust’s paper,
already quoted, in the _Burlington Magazine_, and Mr. W. Barclay
Squire’s notes to the portrait of Sir Thomas Wyndham in the Earl of
Radnor’s Catalogue. The latter describes all the portraits which so
far can be attributed to Eworthe with any degree of certainty.
The present writer ventures to suggest that Eworthe was also the author
of a picture included in the inventory of the Duke of Buckingham’s
pictures at York House in 1635. The entry is as follows: “Hans Evolls—A
little head of Queen Mary.”[744] The spelling of most of the names in
this inventory is largely phonetic, and evidently the work of some
person with little knowledge of such matters, so that he may easily have
turned Eworthe into Evolls.[745] The following statement of Walpole’s
also suggests a possible connection with Eworthe: “Another picture of
Edward VI was in the collection of Charles I, painted by Hans Hueet, of
whom nothing else is known. It was sold for 20_l._ in the civil
war.”[746]
Footnote 744:
See _Burlington Magazine_, vol. x., March 1907, p. 382.
Footnote 745:
Or the double _l_ may be merely a mistake of the compiler of the
catalogue for a double _t_.
Footnote 746:
Walpole, _Anecdotes_, ed. Wornum, i. p. 136.
[Sidenote: THOMAS AND JOHN BETTES]
It is impossible to mention more than the names of certain better-known
foreigners who practised in England under Mary and Elizabeth, such as
Mor, who came over in 1553, Joos van Cleve, who did so in 1554, and
Lucas d’Heere. Of the few known native painters working in London in the
years immediately following Holbein’s death the records are so scanty
that little remains but their names, but, taking them as a body, they
must have been men of very modest talent, and in portraiture, when they
essayed it, merely feeble imitators either of Holbein or one of the
other leading foreigners at Henry’s court. Among them were John Shute,
painter and architect, and John Bettes, both of whom are described as
miniature painters by Richard Haydock in his translation of _Lomazzo on
Painting_ (1598), and, apparently, as contemporaries of Nicholas
Hilliard. “Limnings,” he says, “much used in former times in
church-books, as also in drawing by the life in small models, of late
years by some of our countrymen, as _Shoote_, _Betts_, &c., but brought
to the rare perfection we now see by the most ingenious, painful, and
skilful master, Nicholas Hilliard.”[747] Meres, in _Palladis Tamia, Wits
Treasury_, the second part of his _Wits Commonwealth_, also published in
1598, in giving a list of the leading painters in England at that time,
mentions “Thomas and John Bettes.” From these two entries it seems clear
that Bettes was an Elizabethan miniature painter, and Vertue, who was of
opinion that he learned from Hilliard, mentions a miniature by him of
Holbein’s sitter, Sir John Godsalve, in which he was represented with
his spear and shield, with the inscription “Captum in castris ad
Boloniam 1540.”[748] There is, however, in the National Gallery a small
portrait of Edmund Butts (No. 1496), a son of Sir William Butts, another
of Holbein’s sitters, to which reference has been already made,[749]
which is attributed to John Bettes, and bears the date 1545. If this
attribution, based on a French inscription on the back of the panel, be
correct, the date indicates that the painter was at work at a
considerably earlier period than is to be inferred from the only two
almost contemporary references to him, quoted above, which have been so
far discovered, and that he may even have been personally acquainted
with Holbein. The portrait in the National Gallery is a work of
considerable merit, and possesses certain Holbeinesque characteristics.
In any case, the date upon it makes it impossible, if painted by Bettes,
that he could have been Hilliard’s pupil, as Vertue asserted. Little or
nothing is known of his work, though, according to Dr. Williamson, there
is a fine miniature of an unknown man by him in the Montagu House
Collection, signed “J. B. 1580”;[750] and a second, of a somewhat
earlier date, a portrait of Gaspard de Coligny, Admiral of France,
apparently unsigned, in Lord Beauchamp’s possession at Madresfield
Court.[751] Dr. Williamson also notes a quaint miniature of Edward VI as
a baby in the Rijks Museum, Amsterdam, which in an old inventory of the
Dutch royal possessions is attributed to Bettes.[752] Fox, in his
_Ecclesiastical History_, states that John Bettes drew the vignettes for
Hall’s _Chronicle_. Still less is known of Thomas Bettes, but there was
a miniature in the Propert Collection of John Digby, Earl of Bristol,
which was given to him.
Footnote 747:
Quoted by Walpole, _Anecdotes_, ed. Wornum, i. p. 172.
Footnote 748:
Walpole, _Anecdotes_, ed. Wornum, i. p. 138.
Footnote 749:
See p. 210.
Footnote 750:
Williamson, _History of Portrait Miniatures_, 1904, vol. i. p. 13;
reproduced Pl. iv. fig. 2.
Footnote 751:
_Ibid._, Pl. iv. fig. 1.
Footnote 752:
_Ibid._, Pl. xlvii. fig. 4.
Another painter, of whom little is known but his name, was Nicholas
Lyzarde, who is generally considered to have been an Englishman, though
Mr. Digby Wyatt speaks of him as Nicolo Lizardi.[753] He was employed
about the Court during the last years of Henry VIII’s reign. Thus, in
1543-4 he was at the head of a band of painters engaged on work in
connection with some revels at Hampton Court, for which he received
higher wages than the others—“Wages to painters: Nich^s Lezard 18_^d_
per diem”; and in 1544-5 he supplied various materials and properties
for some other masque—“Paste work and painting, Nicholas Lizarde,
painter, for gyldinge under garments for women, of white and blue
sarcenet, with party gold and silver, 4 _li._; 8 pastes for women,
20_d._; 8 long heads for women, made of past gilded, with party gold and
silver, 43_s._ 4_d._” &c. He was afterwards in the regular employment of
the Court throughout the reigns of Edward VI, Mary, and Elizabeth, being
serjeant-painter to the last-named Queen, with a pension or salary of
£10 a year. Nothing of his work remains that can be identified, but that
he painted “subject” pictures is to be gathered from a New Year’s gift
he presented to Queen Mary in 1556 of a “table painted with the Maundy,”
while in 1558 his gift to Queen Elizabeth was “a table painted of the
history of Assuerus,” for which he received a gilt cruse of some 8 oz.
in weight. He died in April 1571, and at the time was living in the
parish of St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields, and left a family of five sons and
four daughters.[754]
Footnote 753:
“Foreign Artists in England,” &c., _Transactions Royal Inst. Brit.
Architects_, 1868, pp. 218 and 235. It may be suggested that this
painter was the “Master Nycolas” or “Nicholas Florentine” who worked
with Holbein on the decorations of the Greenwich Banqueting Hall in
1527; while a possible, though not very probable, connection between
Nicholas Lyzarde and Nicholas Lasora, who was engaged upon similar
work at Westminster Palace in 1532, has been already pointed out.
Lasora, however, in spite of his Italian-sounding name, appears to
have been a Teuton, for he may be identified with some probability as
the “Nic. Leysure, a German,” mentioned more than once in the royal
accounts. See vol. i. p. 314 and note.
Footnote 754:
J. G. Nichols, _Archæologia_, vol. xxxix. p. 45. That he was not
English seems probable from the fact that he was assessed and taxed at
the customary rate for foreigners. See pp. 188-9.
[Sidenote: HIS IMITATORS AND COPYISTS]
In the wider field of European art, also, it is impossible to point to
any painter who was a pupil, or even a direct follower, of the master.
Sandrart says that Christopher Amberger “followed the famous artist
Holbein in his manner of painting, and especially in portraiture,” but
modern criticism does not endorse this statement. In any case, his
opportunities of studying Holbein’s works must have been few, though
Woltmann considered that he certainly did so, and regarded him, if not
as an actual pupil, yet as a real follower of the master.[755] It is not
to be expected, indeed, that Holbein should have formed any definite
school, though he must have influenced painting in Basel during his
first and longest residence in that city; but, except for that period,
his life was more or less a wandering one, and he never, during his
short career, settled for a long enough time in any one place to have
allowed him to gather any considerable body of pupils around him.[756]
Footnote 755:
Woltmann, i. p. 488.
Footnote 756:
On this point, however, see Elsa Frölicher, _Die Porträtkunst Hans
Holbeins des Jüngeren und ihr Einfluss auf die schweizerische
Bildnismalerei im XVI Jahrhundert_, 1909, in which she traces the
influence of Holbein’s art on a number of contemporary Swiss painters
and others practising in the latter half of the sixteenth century,
such as Hans Asper, Tobias Stimmer, Kluber, Clauser, and Hans Bock the
Elder.
The work of his imitators and copyists, such as they were, is to be
found in the portraits scattered about the older country houses and
mansions of England, where they are usually attributed to Holbein
himself, often when the date upon them makes it impossible that he could
have painted them. Among them are numerous old copies of still-existing
portraits by him, which indicate the estimation in which his work was
held for years after his death. For instance, in the fire which burnt
down Knepp Castle, Sussex, in January 1904, a number of pictures were
destroyed, including no less than eight attributed to Holbein. The
titles of nearly all of them were familiar enough—Sir Henry and Lady
Guldeford, Anne of Cleves, Thomas Cromwell, Sir Richard Rich, and
Ægidius—indicating that they were most probably merely replicas or
copies. It is true that Holbein occasionally painted a replica, but this
was very rarely, and in most cases the portraits in question were the
work of far less skilful men, and owed their existence to the desire of
the descendants of Holbein’s original sitters to possess copies of the
older family portraits.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER XXIX
CONCLUSION
Holbein’s many-sided art—The destruction of all his larger decorative
works—The fertility of his invention and his power of dramatic
composition—The influence of the Italian Renaissance upon his art,
both in his mural and historical paintings and in his designs for
jewellery and the decorative arts—His sacred paintings—His genius in
portraiture and his perfection as a draughtsman—A comparison between
the art of Dürer and Holbein.
HOLBEIN’S art was many-sided, but, through the cruel caprice of Fate, he
is known to-day to most people merely as a great portrait-painter, and,
in a lesser degree, as a designer of woodcut illustrations of remarkable
power and imagination. It is true, of course, that during the latter
part of his life, after he had settled more or less permanently in
England, his time was almost entirely occupied with portraiture, and
that, beyond portraits, little or nothing of his work remains in this
country upon which to form a judgment of the versatility of his genius;
and it is true also that his stupendous gifts in this field of art were
bound to find free expression. That portrait-painting, however, became
in the end his chief occupation was due much more to his environment
than to his own personal choice. There was little demand in this country
for any other form of art, and the painter, as was only natural,
supplied what his patrons asked of him. It is not to be supposed that
the master who was capable of producing such great works as the “Meyer
Madonna,” or the various altar-pieces and glass designs illustrating the
“Passion,” would have abandoned painting such compositions had he
received any encouragement to continue; but such encouragement came to a
more or less abrupt conclusion during the stormy days of the Reformation
in Basel, and for the remainder of his life Holbein produced little or
nothing in the field of sacred art. The few examples of this nature from
his brush which remain place him in the front rank of sixteenth-century
painters, and had his birthplace been south instead of north of the
Alps, and his life spent amid surroundings more sympathetic to this side
of his genius, there can be little doubt that he would have given to the
world a series of sacred works as fine as those of any of the great
Italians of the Renaissance.
[Sidenote: DISAPPEARANCE OF DECORATIVE WORKS]
It is with respect to those larger decorative works, however, upon which
he was engaged from time to time throughout his life, both in
Switzerland and England—works for which in his own day he was so justly
celebrated—that Fate has treated him most unkindly. The total
disappearance of his great wall-paintings and monumental decorations is
not only an immense loss to art, but has rendered it difficult for all
but close students of his work to appreciate to the fullest extent the
wide range of his artistic powers. Not a single example of his skill as
a mural decorator remains. The passage of time, the carelessness of
those whose duty it was to preserve them, and the ravages of fire and of
the weather, gradually obliterated these paintings, while such of their
faded glories as endured until more modern days were finally swept away
by the clumsy hand of the restorer or the building schemes of private
owners and civic authorities. Just as it seems practically certain that
some at least of his sacred pictures were destroyed by the fury of the
rioters in the religious disturbances which finally drove Holbein to
Henry’s court, so the mural paintings and pictured stories with which he
covered the outer and inner walls of a number of houses in Basel and
Lucerne have vanished through causes which, though different, have been
equally effective in their powers of destruction. Damp, dirt, and
neglect brought about the gradual fading away of his great series of
wall-paintings in the Council Chamber of the Basel Town Hall; while
similar works of his English period, the wonderful “Triumphs” painted
for the banquet-hall of the German Steelyard, and the great fresco of
Henry VIII with his parents and Jane Seymour in Whitehall, have
disappeared, the former on the final breaking up of the German trade
monopoly in this country, and the dispersal of the contents of the
Steelyard buildings, and the latter in the fire of 1698. Gone, too, is
the large canvas of “The Battle of Spurs,” painted for the festivities
at Greenwich in 1527, one of the first of Holbein’s important
undertakings in England. No trace of this painting now remains, and a
similar fate has befallen the great picture of Sir Thomas More and his
family, though in this case it is not absolutely certain that Holbein
himself ever completed it. Finally, death cut him down as he was engaged
upon the most elaborate portrait group he ever undertook, which was not
half finished when he fell a victim to the plague. This list of lost or
ruined masterpieces is a long one. Unfortunately, the tale is by no
means uncommon in the history of art, but Holbein has suffered in this
way more severely than most. Of their beauty and their imaginative power
it is now only possible to judge from a few fragments of some of the
original frescoes, some inferior copies of certain of them, and a number
of masterly sketches and preliminary studies from Holbein’s own hand
preserved in the Basel Gallery, the British Museum, the Louvre, and
elsewhere. These latter, scanty as they are, remain priceless treasures,
for only by means of them is it possible to gain some idea, though it is
a pale reflection at the best, of the greatness of Holbein’s achievement
in the higher branches of art, the loftiness of his ideals in his
monumental paintings, and the wide range of his genius.
In all these large decorative works Holbein displayed the greatest
fertility of invention, and a power of dramatic composition of a very
high order. The extraordinary energy of conception, the sense of life
and movement in all his figures, the truth and expressiveness of their
gestures, are all alike admirable. This dramatic power is at its finest
in his wall-paintings for the Basel Town Hall—the “Rehoboam” and the
“Samuel and Saul”; while in dignity and grandeur of composition, and the
noble rhythm of its stately movement, the “Triumph of Riches” panel for
the Steelyard is unsurpassed. The extraordinary fertility and exuberance
of his imagination is to be seen in the architectural details and
decorative settings in which these mural paintings and designs were
placed. These settings show how quickly and completely he made the new
ideas and decorative motives of the Renaissance his own, while the
pictures themselves, for which they formed the background and the frame,
breathe the lofty spirit of Raphael and Mantegna. Though there is no
slavish copying of the art and architecture of Northern Italy, their
influence is to be seen so plainly in the work of his younger days that,
as pointed out in earlier chapters, at least a short visit to Lombardy
on his part seems to have been absolutely certain.
[Sidenote: HIS FERTILE IMAGINATION]
The same qualities and the same influences are to be discerned in his
designs for painted windows and the decoration of books; though smaller
in scale, they are conceived with an equal grandeur and dramatic
intensity. Indeed, in his “Dance of Death” woodcuts and illustrations to
the Old Testament his imaginative and dramatic powers reached their
highest manifestation. Minute as they are in execution, they produce the
same effects of largeness and dignity of composition as his great
wall-paintings must have done. In the “Dance of Death” in particular the
wideness of Holbein’s range of vision, the greatness of his style in
design, and the intense vitality of his art are seen to the best
advantage. These little pictures, a few inches square, express within
their borders almost the whole range of the emotions, from the tender
sympathy of the lovely “Death and the Ploughman,” and the poignant grief
of “Death and the Little Child,” down to the terror, horror, and
violence which is encountered in others of the series in which Death
suits his coming to the character of his victims. Such works as these
show the greatness of Holbein as an imaginative artist. Another side of
his nature and his art appears in such a design as his “Peasants’ Dance”
on the façade of the Haus zum Tanz in Basel, in which the Teutonic
element in his character finds full play. The boisterous, even brutal,
merriment of these fellow-countrymen of his, as they fling themselves
into the pleasures of the dance with the utmost abandon, made an
undoubted appeal to him, and in depicting them he expressed the joy of
living which animates every movement with the utmost frankness and
realism.
In this wide field of mural decoration and historical painting Holbein
was the first and the greatest of those painters north of the Alps who
came under the influence of the Italian revival of art. In him the
Renaissance found very complete expression. This is also to be seen in
his innumerable designs for jewellery and the smaller decorative arts,
of which, happily, there still remain many examples. Both in book
ornamentations and illustrations, in work for the goldsmith and
silversmith, the jeweller, and the maker of stained and coloured glass,
he showed himself to be in closest sympathy with the new movement. In
his earlier works the effect of this influence appears in the exuberant
use he made of the models which he had recently studied, some of the
glass designs being overloaded with fantastic reminiscences of the
details of Lombardic architecture. Later on, when he had completely
grasped the full beauty of the Renaissance forms, his taste became
purer, and he adapted them to his uses with the happiest results. In his
drawings for personal ornaments and jewellery, most of the best of which
were done in London, the earlier exuberance is restrained, and the
design is of the purest Renaissance taste, in the practice of which he
became an absolute master. These working drawings show infinite
invention kept within the true limitations of the materials to be used,
frequently combined with very skilful adaptation of the human figure to
decorative purposes. It would be difficult to find a more beautiful
design in the Renaissance style than the one of the so-called Jane
Seymour Cup, in which Holbein more than holds his own with the best
Italian workers in this field.
[Sidenote: BRILLIANCE OF HIS DRAUGHTSMANSHIP]
His sacred paintings, in so far as can be judged from those which
remain, most, if not all, of which were done before he had reached the
age of thirty, possess similar qualities to those of his mural and
historical works, and had he but received some little encouragement from
the English court, he was capable of producing even finer masterpieces
than the “Meyer Madonna” during the seventeen or eighteen remaining
years of his life. In his “Passion” and kindred pictures the composition
is usually admirable, and the subject treated with that strong dramatic
sense which has been noted already as one of the chief characteristics
of his frescoes, while in depth and earnestness of feeling they fall but
little short of the work of the greatest of the Italians. In the Meyer
and the Solothurn Madonnas there is an air of divine tranquillity, and a
loftiness and purity in the expression of spiritual beauty, which are
combined in the happiest and most exquisite way with remarkable truth to
nature, and vividness of accurate and sympathetic portraiture in the
figures both of the Virgin and the Divine Child, and those, in the one
case, of the kneeling donor and his family, and, in the other, of the
attendant saints. Added to these qualities, the rich, subdued, and
harmonious colour gives a still greater truth and beauty to the whole.
In the panel at Darmstadt, indeed, the painter has reached the full
perfection of his art, and that he painted nothing more of this nature
must always be a source of deep regret to all who admire him.
In portraiture Holbein’s genius reached its highest manifestations. This
gift was largely inherited from his father, but was carried to a much
greater pitch of excellence by the son. His technical methods, too, were
those of his father, and here again were developed by him to a far
greater refinement of touch and skill in modelling; and to these methods
he remained constant throughout his life. There is a striking contrast
between the rapidity and brilliance of the draughtsmanship of the
preliminary studies for his portraits and the patient, concentrated,
minute, and delicate brush-work of the finished portraits themselves. In
all his completed work he spared himself no pains in the painting of the
accessories and details, though in none of it, brilliant and absolutely
truthful as it is, is there any sense of mere display, any boastful
attempt to show the world how clever he was. He painted all such details
with a loving care and an evident delight in their beauty, and wrought
them with a perfection and fidelity which has rarely if ever been
surpassed. This finish is carried in some of his pictures to a point
beyond which no Dutchman or Fleming of his own or succeeding generations
ever reached. Yet the elaboration of subordinate things is never
overdone; his portraits are never overcrowded with details of this
nature in a way to draw the spectator’s attention from the main purpose
of the work. This manipulative skill delights and attracts, but is
forgotten when the portrait itself is examined. Without any apparent
effort on the part of the painter, the sitter looks out from the panel
just as he did in life, set down without flattery, with no harsh
features softened, and with his character, seized with such penetrative
and imaginative power by Holbein, fixed for ever with unerring truth and
errorless draughtsmanship for succeeding generations to see and to
admire. This effect of absolute truth of portraiture and revelation of
character, the one due to the wonderful delicacy, subtlety, and
expressiveness of his line, and the other to his sympathetic insight, is
obtained by what appear to be the simplest and most straightforward
methods. There is a dignity and reticence about the portraits which is
admirable. Without thought of self, he occupies himself entirely with
the truth as he sees it, and with his desire to realise it as completely
as possible; no brilliance of technical skill mars the self-restraint
with which he approaches his sitter. He puts little of himself into his
portraits, and leaves out little that is worth knowing about the
subjects of them. No great subtleties of light and shade are attempted,
and his colour, beautiful and true as it is, helps but does not
overpower his chief purpose—the complete realisation of the man both in
body and soul. Holbein was a painter whose keenness of observation was
extraordinary; he missed little or nothing, and saw much that lesser
painters would have ignored. With his smooth, fusing methods of painting
he reached to most marvellously delicate and accurate modelling of form,
which in its expressiveness is beyond all words.[757]
Footnote 757:
The writer finds it impossible to agree with a recent critic, M. de
Wyzewa, who, in a review of Dr. Ganz’s _Holbein_, in the _Revue des
Deux Mondes_, January 15, 1912, speaks of the “half-confidences” of
Holbein’s portraiture, and holds that although the painter himself
sees clearly the inmost depths of his sitters’ characters, he yet
refrains from revealing them to us. When the moment comes for laying
bare their deepest feelings “the prudent Swabian workman, through his
instinctive reserve, holds back.” In this respect, therefore, he
compares him unfavourably with such masters as Dürer, Rembrandt, and
Velazquez, “who abandon themselves to their genius for psychological
divination,” whereas Holbein refuses us access to the souls of his
sitters, though at the same time indicating that he himself has
penetrated to the mysterious depths. He speaks of this as his
“professional hypocrisy,” and says that he cannot be excused for thus
concealing the exact truth of the characters of the great personages
who sat to him. He sees similar traits in Holbein’s sacred paintings,
and this insensibility he regards as not real, but feigned, springing
from the intelligence rather than from the heart. Lovers of Holbein’s
art, however, will find it difficult to follow him in his contention.
As a draughtsman pure and simple he stands among the very highest; in
some of the qualities of his line he has never been surpassed or even
equalled. In the Windsor and kindred drawings, preliminary studies for
his portraits, his genius finds its most perfect expression, and these
are, in many ways, the greatest of his works. Slight as most of them
are, they contain all the elements of great art. Every fine quality,
except colour, that is to be found in his finished portraiture is to be
found here also, and more plainly to be seen, and produced without
apparent effort or hesitation. The swiftness yet sureness of his touch,
the wonderful delicacy yet strength of his supple, forceful line, its
subtlety and flexibility, the penetrative insight, the freedom from all
traces of mannerism, and the perfect unity of brain, eye, and hand shown
in these drawings, combine to produce the most vivid effect of truthful,
living portraiture. His complete mastership is revealed in every touch.
[Sidenote: HOLBEIN AND DÜRER]
In the German school of painting Dürer was the last and the greatest of
the mediævalists; Holbein was the first and the greatest of those who
came completely under the sway of the new influences in art and life
which reached Germany from beyond the Alps. The art of these two great
masters is, in consequence, in many ways so divergent that it is
difficult to make any comparison between them. Holbein was the first of
the painters of northern Europe who was modern in the sense of the term
as we understand it to-day. Dürer was steeped in the spirit of the older
schools, both of thought and of art, a dreamer of dreams, a weaver of
fantasies, and much of his work had a spiritual passion which Holbein’s
lacked, while his art was imbued through and through with the feeling of
the Middle Ages. On the other hand, one of the characteristic features
of Holbein’s work was its serenity and saneness. As already pointed out,
he had great imaginative power, which he could use at times with
dramatic intensity. Realism in his painting reached a very high and at
the same time a very noble development. His delight in nature is evident
in all that he did; he observed her minutely, and took the utmost
pleasure in reproducing her manifold beauties down to the smallest
details, while his work was filled with a frank delight in life and
close sympathy with all things, animate and inanimate, in the world
around him. Philosophical thought or theological subtleties left him
untroubled. That he was on the side of the Reformation is made clear by
more than one of his woodcut designs, but his share in the controversy
was after all a minor one, and marked by little or none of that passion
which swayed the more eager partisans on either side.
True child of the Renaissance as Holbein was, he was yet one of the most
original of artists. His strong individuality stamped everything that he
touched; for though the influences under which he was trained can be
traced throughout his career, they in no way dominated his genius, which
found its own true expression. Circumstances combined to give this
originality the fullest play. Both in Basel and in London there was no
school of painting worthy of the name, and the artists who worked there
had little or nothing to teach him. In both these cities it was he who
was the master who towered head and shoulders above his fellow-painters.
In this way his art developed upon personal and original lines until it
attained that greatness of style which is so marked a feature of
everything that he touched.
The art and character of these two great masters of the German school is
very happily contrasted by the late Lord Leighton in one of his
published addresses to the students of the Royal Academy. “Albert
Dürer,” he says, “may be regarded as _par excellence_ the typical German
artist—far more so than his great contemporary, Holbein. He was a man of
a strong and upright nature, bent on pure and high ideals, a man ever
seeking, if I may use his own characteristic expression, to make known
through his work the mysterious treasure that was laid up in his heart;
he was a thinker, a theorist, and, as you know, a writer; like many of
the great artists of the Renaissance, he was steeped also in the love of
Science. His work was in his own image; it was, like nearly all German
Art, primarily ethic in its complexion; like all German Art it bore
traces of foreign influence—drawn, in his case, first from Flanders and
later from Italy. In his work, as in all German Art, the national
character asserted itself above every trammel of external influence.
Superbly inexhaustible as a designer, as a draughtsman he was powerful,
thorough, and minute to a marvel, but never without a certain almost
caligraphic mannerism of hand, wanting in spontaneous simplicity—never
broadly serene. In his colour he was rich and vivid, not always unerring
as to his harmonies, not alluring in his execution—withal a giant.... In
Holbein we have a complete contrast to the great Franconian of whom I
have just spoken; a man not prone to theorise, not steeped in
speculation, a dreamer of no dreams; without passion, but full of joyous
fancies, he looked out with serene eyes upon the world around him;
accepting Nature without preoccupation or afterthought, but with a keen
sense of all her subtle beauties, loving her simply and for herself. As
a draughtsman he displayed a flow, a fullness of form, and an almost
classic restraint which are wanting in the work of Dürer, and are,
indeed, not found elsewhere in German Art. As a colourist, he had a keen
sense of the values of tone relations, a sense in which Dürer again was
lacking; not so Teutonic in every way as the Nuremberg master, he formed
a link between the Italian and the German races. A less powerful
personality than Dürer, he was a far superior painter. Proud may that
country be indeed that counts two names so great in art.”[758]
Footnote 758:
Leighton, _Addresses delivered to the Students of the Royal Academy_,
2nd edition, 1897, pp. 305-6. (Dec. 9, 1893.)
[Sidenote: RUSKIN ON HOLBEIN]
It is quite true that he was a better painter than Dürer, for his
mastery of the technical side of his art was complete, while his
artistic temperament found expression in many different branches of the
decorative arts and crafts. He was thus much more than a great painter:
he was a great artist and a great craftsman as well, for though he did
not actually cut the wood blocks he designed, or fashion the actual cups
of gold and silver for which he made the working drawings, he had so
perfect a knowledge of the practical side of the crafts, and of the
artistic capabilities and the limitations of the mediums in which his
designs were to be carried out, that he was indeed the “notable workman”
which Erasmus called him. In all that he did, the greatness and the
individuality of his style, his power of dramatic composition, the
versatility of his imagination and his restraint in the use of it, his
serene outlook upon life, and the perfect and unerring unison of his eye
and hand, combine with his insight into character and technical skill of
the rarest quality to make him one of the few great masters of the
world.
Ruskin’s judgment of him, when comparing him with Sir Joshua Reynolds,
is so true and so just, that, although so well-known, a sentence from it
may be quoted here in conclusion. “The work of Holbein,” he says, “is
true and thorough, accomplished in the highest, as the most literal
sense, with a calm entireness of unaffected resolution which sacrifices
nothing, forgets nothing, and fears nothing. Holbein is complete; what
he sees, he sees with his whole soul; what he paints, he paints with his
whole might.”[759]
Footnote 759:
Ruskin, “Sir Joshua and Holbein,” in _Cornhill Magazine_, March 1860.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX
(A) EARLY DRAWING BY HOLBEIN IN THE MAXIMILIANS MUSEUM, AUGSBURG. (Vol.
i. p. 43)
THE drawing of “Calvary” in the Maximilians Museum, Augsburg (Woltmann,
3), is probably the earliest one by Holbein of which we have any
knowledge. It is a silver-point drawing, touched with the brush in
brown, white being used for the high lights and red for the
representation of Christ’s wounds. It is a carefully wrought, youthful
piece of work, at the same time showing considerable feeling in its
rendering of the sacred subject. The Cross rises on the left, turned
away from the spectator, so that the body of Christ is seen almost in
profile against the sky. Mary and John stand below on the right, the
former with hands clasped in prayer and head bent in grief. Lower down
the rock, in the centre, kneels Mary Magdalen with uplifted arms, and on
the left of the Cross a man is standing with his back to the spectator,
wearing a tall hat of “beaver” pattern. In the background beyond him is
a second cross with one of the thieves, the ladder still placed against
it. Down below the heights there is a glimpse of a mountain and
buildings. This interesting early example has been recently reproduced
in the important publication of facsimiles of the complete series of
Holbein’s drawings, now in the course of appearing under the editorship
of Dr. Ganz—_Die Handzeichnungen Hans Holbeins des Jüngeren_, viii. 1.
(B) DESIGNS FOR PAINTED GLASS OF THE LUCERNE PERIOD. (Vol. i. p. 79)
[Sidenote: EARLY GLASS DESIGNS]
The design for painted glass with the arms of Hans Fleckenstein, of
Lucerne, in the Ducal Gallery, Brunswick (not in Woltmann), is the
earliest in date of the series of designs for this purpose in which
Holbein made such fine decorative use of the landsknechte with their
picturesque costumes as supporters of the shield bearing the coat of
arms of the patron for whom the glass was ordered. In the Fleckenstein
design the warrior on the left is bearded, and wears a hat with very
large feathers, and a great sword, while a long lance is held aloft in
his right hand, his left resting on the top of the shield, towards which
he leans, and behind which his left leg is hidden. The man on the right
is younger and beardless. His head is turned over his shoulder towards
the right, and his flat black cap is worn jauntily over one ear and
covers one side of his face, while a large hat with a huge mass of
feathers is slung upon his back. His right hand rests on his sword-hilt,
and his left on the top of the shield. The background is one of plain
architecture, in striking contrast to the highly elaborated ones to be
seen in most of Holbein’s glass designs produced after his visit to
Italy. A barrel-roof is supported by flat columns with a round arch,
across which two iron bars run, as in the Solothurn Madonna picture. On
either side of this arch, on the top of the columns, stand figures of
St. Barbara and St. Sebastian. The shield contains in two of the
quarterings the Fleckenstein “house-sign” surmounted by a bar, the other
two being filled with lozenge-shaped divisions. On the band at the
bottom, left empty for an inscription, is written “hans Fleckenstein,
1517,” and “J. Holbain,” the signature not being in the artist’s own
handwriting. It is reproduced by Dr. Ganz in _Die Handzeichnungen Hans
Holbeins des Jüngeren_, v. 4.
The fact that the landscape backgrounds in several of Holbein’s glass
designs afford evidence of a journey across the Alps has been touched
upon in the text (see vol. i. p. 77), and further proof of this is to be
found in another design of this period, made, in all probability, during
a leisurely journey from Lucerne to Lombardy in 1518. This is the
striking design representing the Banner-bearer of the Urseren Valley, in
the Uri district—the valley watered by the Reuss, in which Andermatt is
the chief village. This drawing, which is in the Royal Print Room,
Berlin, is mentioned by Woltmann, ii. p. 120, as, in his opinion, not by
Holbein, but by some “good Swiss master.” The landsknecht, a bearded
man, stands full-face, with legs stretched wide apart, and the banner
held aloft in his right hand. His left rests on his hip, and he carries
a great sword. This animated, vigorously drawn figure is evidently a
portrait. The banner, an important part of the design, bears on the left
the figure of a bishop with crozier in the act of benediction, and on
the right a church, with the bull of Uri in the sky above it, one hoof
resting on the steeple. In the background is represented the old
pack-horse road over the St. Gotthard, up which men are climbing with
horses and mules loaded with barrels and bales. On the summit rises the
small church which is depicted on the banner. The landscape is evidently
one actually seen by the artist. The setting is a very effective one,
consisting of plain pillars and an arch, the former with vine branches
and bunches of grapes trained round them in spirals, the leaves forming
the capitals and bases, while other branches stretch across the archway.
Above the latter is a representation of the Judgment of Paris, with the
three nude goddesses on the right, and Paris reclining on the ground on
the left. Mercury, holding the apple, and Venus, the outer figures of
this group, are placed upon the tops of the pillars on either side. The
outlines have been put in with a pen in brown, while the banner-bearer’s
face has been finished in water-colours, and the background slightly
washed with green. Reproduced in _Handzeichnungen Hans Holbeins des
Jüngeren_, iv. 4.
The glass design containing the coat of arms of the Lachner family, of
Basel, in the Print Room of the National Museum, Stockholm (not in
Woltmann), is a year or two later in date, the elaborately imagined
architectural background indicating that it must have been made shortly
after Holbein’s return from Italy, when the recollections of the
Lombardic buildings he had studied with such keen interest were still
fresh in his memory. On one side stands a young, beardless warrior as
shield-bearer, his face in profile to the right, his lance over his
shoulder, and his right hand on his hip. Opposite to him is the
completely nude figure of a woman, her face turned towards the
spectator, and both hands resting on the shield. Her hair hangs down her
back in two great plaits, which are fastened together at the ends with a
long loop. This is a realistic study from the life, and one of the very
few drawings of the nude by Holbein which remain. The coat of arms on
the curved Italian shield consists of a pair of outstretched wings, and
these are repeated on the helmet which forms the crest, from which
masses of finely designed scroll-work fall on either side. The two
figures stand on a platform, below which are two crouching fauns holding
a tablet for an inscription. The background, as already stated, is very
elaborate, consisting of an open loggia with a roof like the later “St.
Elizabeth” glass design (see vol. i. p. 149 and Pl. 44), and friezes and
a semicircular arch supported by pairs of columns with grotesque
capitals, the arch being decorated with a band of ox-heads and foliage.
Other friezes are covered with carved leaf and scroll-work, and above
them are grotesque sculptured figures and roundels with heads. Through
the openings at the back only the sky is indicated. This is a fine
design, more particularly in the figure of the man, and in the helmet
with its scroll-work. It is a washed drawing, with the knight’s face and
hands and the body of the woman put in with water-colour. Reproduced in
_Handzeichnungen Hans Holbeins des Jüngeren_, iv. 6.
(C) EARLY DRAWINGS FOR WALL-PAINTINGS. (Vol. i. p. 101)
In addition to the studies for wall-paintings made by Holbein shortly
after his return from Lucerne to Basel, described in vol. i. pp. 98-101,
there is another in the Ducal Gallery, Brunswick (Woltmann, 127),
representing the Virgin Mary, as Queen of Heaven, with the Infant Christ
in her arms, which is signed and dated “1520, H. H.” Her long hair falls
in curls over her shoulders, and a plain circular halo is placed behind
her crown. She is looking down upon the Child, whom she holds with both
hands, and he is smiling back at her. She is placed in a perfectly plain
architectural niche, with two empty circles for medallions on either
side. According to an inscription on the back, this drawing, which is in
black chalk washed with grey, was, towards the end of the sixteenth
century, in the possession of Daniel Lindtmeyer, the glass painter of
Schaffhausen. Reproduced in _Handzeichnungen Hans Holbeins des
Jüngeren,_ iv. 3.
(D) GLASS DESIGNS WITH THE COATS OF ARMS OF THE VON ANDLAU AND VON HEWEN
FAMILIES. (Vol. i. p. 145)
A third design for painted glass, representing the martyrdom of the Holy
Richardis, wife of the Emperor Carl the Big, is of about the same date,
and very probably belongs to the same series, as the two designs bearing
the coats of arms of the Von Andlau and Von Hewen families, the second
of which is dated 1520. St. Richardis, wrongfully accused of
unfaithfulness, proved her innocence by submitting herself to the ordeal
by fire. She was the patron saint of the convent of Andlau in Alsace,
which, according to the legend quoted by Dr. Paul Ganz, was erected upon
ground which had been scraped up by a bear. It is most probable,
therefore, that Holbein’s design was commissioned for the decoration of
this particular religious house. The drawing, which is in the Basel
Gallery (Woltmann, 50), shows the saint kneeling on the funeral pyre,
her hands clasped in prayer, her head bent, and her long curls falling
below her waist. She wears a large cross at her breast, and has a
circular halo inscribed “S. RIGARDIS VIRGO.” On the right is a small
kneeling figure of an abbess or nun, with open prayer-book, and on the
left the bear of the legend. Two flying angels, with draperies very
effectively arranged, hold the martyr’s crown above her head. The ordeal
takes place beneath a cupola, with an opening in the centre, supported
by pillars of fantastic design, the bases of the nearer ones being
decorated with medallions hanging from chains. Below is the customary
blank tablet for an inscription, held by two grotesque sea-monsters with
human heads. At the back, seen through the open arcading of the
building, there is a view of a small walled town in a hilly country,
with church and cloisters and watch-towers, and, lower down, the red
roofs of a cluster of houses. This is one of the most charming of the
numerous landscape backgrounds which Holbein introduced into his glass
designs and book illustrations. The drawing is washed with grey, and the
background lightly touched in with water-colours. It is reproduced in
_Handzeichnungen Hans Holbeins des Jüngeren_, xi. 8.
THE GLASS DESIGNS OF “THE PASSION OF CHRIST”
(Vol. i. p. 156)
Miss Mary F. S. Hervey, in her _Holbein’s Ambassadors_ (p. 22, _note_),
draws attention to some cartoons for tapestry representing scenes from
the Passion designed by Holbein. The reference occurs in a letter from
Carlos de la Traverse, written from St. Ildefonse in Spain in 1779 to M.
d’Angeviller, in which he proposes that the latter should buy the
cartoons. The offer, however, was declined on the ground that Holbein
was “un peintre sec et demi-gothique” (See _Nouvelles Archives de l’Art
Français_, 2nd series, vol. i. pp. 258-62). It is possible that these
designs were not for tapestry but for glass, and they may even have been
the set in Sir Thomas Lawrence’s collection, now in the British Museum.
(E) THE FAESCH MUSEUM. (Vol. i. pp. 88, 166-8, 180, and 239-41)
[Sidenote: THE FAESCH MUSEUM]
Among the miscellaneous contents of the Faesch Museum, formed by Dr.
Remigius Faesch, or Fäsch, the most important are the few works by and
after Holbein. Most of these came to him by inheritance from his
grandfather, the earlier Remigius Faesch, burgomaster of Basel, who
married Rosa Irmi, the granddaughter of Jakob Meyer zum Hasen, and so
became possessed, not only of the double portrait of Meyer and his wife,
Dorothea Kannengiesser, painted in 1516, and the two fine silver-point
studies for the same, but also the famous Meyer Madonna now at
Darmstadt. This last picture, unfortunately for the Basel Public Picture
Collection, he sold to Lucas Iselin in 1606. Dr. Faesch’s father, Johann
Rudolf Faesch (1574-1660), also burgomaster of Basel, became in turn the
owner of the Meyer portraits and drawings, and he added a number of
other pictures to the collection. He was acquainted with the painter
Bartholomäus Sarburgh, who from 1620 to 1628 was busily occupied in
painting portraits in Basel, and to whom, in 1621, he gave a commission
for a likeness of his son Remigius, an excellent work now in the Basel
Gallery. (Reproduced by Dr. Emil Major in the sixtieth annual report of
the Basel Picture Collection, 1908.) From Sarburgh, when that painter
was in Holland, Johann Rudolf Faesch obtained the copies of Holbein’s
series of Prophets, nine pairs (see vol. i. p. 88). The originals were
in water-colour, but were copied by Sarburgh in oil. He is said to have
taken the originals with him to the Netherlands, since which time all
traces of them have disappeared. These copies are in the depot of the
Basel Gallery; two of the pairs are reproduced by Dr. Ganz in _Holbein_,
p. 191.
[Sidenote: THE FAESCH MUSEUM]
Remigius Faesch the second (1595-1667) became a doctor of law and a
professor in the Basel University. He was an ardent collector throughout
his life, not only of pictures, but of books, medals, examples of
goldsmiths’ art, and antiquities. On the death of his father he became
the possessor of the Meyer portraits and the Sarburgh “Prophets.” To
these he added a small square portrait of Erasmus of the Holbein school,
and in 1630, Johannes Lüdin, a pupil of Sarburgh, then in Belgium,
copied for him the heads of Jakob Meyer’s son and daughter from the
Meyer Madonna picture; apparently not from the original, but from the
copy now in the Dresden Gallery, which, according to Dr. Major, was most
probably the work of Sarburgh (see vol. i. pp. 239-41). In 1648 Johann
Sixt Ringlin copied for him one of the versions of the double portrait
of Erasmus and Froben (see vol. i. pp. 166-8). Again, in 1667, the year
of Faesch’s death, Lüdin presented him with a small portrait of Holbein
which he had painted from Hollar’s etching dated 1641. Faesch also
possessed a second small portrait of Erasmus, copied from the roundel in
the Basel Gallery, several drawings of the Holbein school, and, among
other things, the original wood-block of the “Erasmus im Gehäuse.” On
his death Faesch left his collections and the mansion containing them in
trust as a Museum, with usufruct to his descendants for so long as there
should be a doctor of law among the members of his family, failing which
everything was to become the property of the Basel University. The last
of these doctors of law was Johann Rudolf Faesch, who died in 1823, when
the Museum and its contents were handed over to the University, the
pictures, drawings, and engravings eventually finding a permanent home
in the Basel Public Picture Collection.
Dr. Remigius Faesch spent many years in the compilation of a manuscript,
in Latin, now in the University Library of Basel, which he called
“Humanæ Industriæ Monumenta.” One section of this deals briefly with the
life of Holbein and with his chief works then in Basel in the Amerbach
Cabinet and Faesch’s own possession, to which reference has been made
more than once in these pages. The original text is given by Woltmann,
ii. pp. 48-51, and extracts from it in _Das Fäschische Museum und die
Fäschischen Inventare_, by Dr. Emil Major, which forms part of the
Annual Report (1908) of the Basel Gallery, already mentioned. It is from
this exhaustive and highly interesting account of the Faesch collections
and the various inventories and lists, printed in full, that the facts
in this note have been taken.
The reference to the double portrait of Erasmus and Froben in the
“_Humanæ Industriæ Monumenta_” is as follows:
“Erant 2 tabulæ junctæ, ligamentis ferreis ut aperiri et claudi
potuerint, in tabula dextra Effigies Johan. Frobenii Typographi,
in altera Erasmi sine dubio ab ipso Erasmo in gratiam et honorem
Frobenii, quem impense amabat, curatæ, et eidem ab Erasmo
oblatæ, unde et eidem dextram cessit: Ex his tabulis nobis
exempla paravit pictor non imperitus Joh. Sixtus Ringlinus
Basil, An. 1648, quæ extant inter effigies nostras.”
Faesch’s account of the sale of the Meyer Madonna runs thus:—
[Sidenote: THE FAESCH MUSEUM]
“An. 163 . . . suprad. pictor Le Blond hic à vidua et hæredibus
Lucæ Iselii ad S. Martinum emit tabulam ligneam trium circiter
ulnarum Basiliensium tum in altitud. tum longitud. in qua
adumbratus prædictus Jac. Meierus Consul ex latere dextra una
cum filiis, ex opposito uxor cum filiabus omnes ad vivum depicti
ad altare procumbentes, unde habeo exempla filii et filiæ in
Belgio à Joh. Ludi pictore ex ipsa tabula depicta. Solvit is Le
Blond pro hac tabula 1000 Imperiales, et postea triplo majoris
vendidit Mariæ Mediceæ Reginæ Galliæ viduæ Regis Lud. 13 matri,
dum in Belgio ageret, ubi et mortua: Quorsum postea pervenerit
incertum. Tabula hæc fuit Avi nostri Remigii Feschii Consulis,
unde Lucas Iselius eam impetravit pro Legato Regis Galliarum,
uti ferebat, et persolvit pro ea Centum Coronatos aureos
solares. An. circ. 1606.”
In this paragraph Faesch speaks of Johannes Lüdin as Ludi, but in an
earlier one, describing the portrait of Holbein after Hollar which Lüdin
sent him, apparently as a new year’s gift, he calls the painter Joh.
Lydio.
In an inventory drawn up early in the nineteenth century by the last
keeper of the Museum, Johann Rudolf Faesch, the Sarburgh “Prophets” are
described as follows:
“13 a 21. Ferners befinden sich in dem Faeschischen Museo noch
hienach-folgende Neun Gemählde auf Tuch, welche von Bartholomäus
von Saarbrücken nach Holbeinischen Original Gemählden copirt
worden sind, solche werden von Patin in dem Eingangs gemeldten
Indice also beschrieben:
“‘Prophetæ omnes majores & minores, in novem tabulis
bicubitalibus, ita ut binos quævis illarum exhibeat, coloribus
aqueis nullo admixto oleo depicti. Has tabulas Bartholomæus
Sarbruck, Pictor eximius, in Belgium Basilea detulit, atque hic
illarum apographa manu sua depicta reliquit, quæ servantur in
Musæo Feschiano.’
“Nach dieser Beschreibung wären also die Originalien mit
Wasserfarb, die Copien von Barth. v. Saarbrücken aber, so sich
im Faeschischen Museo befinden, sind in Oehl gemahlt. Die sämtl.
Propheten sind ganze Figuren u. die Tableaux sind 3 Schuh 1¼ Z.
hoch u. 2 S. 3½ Z. breit.”
(F) HANS HOLBEIN AND DR. JOHANN FABRI. (Vol. i. p. 175)
[Sidenote: HOLBEIN AND DR. J. FABRI]
It is very probable that Holbein’s absences from Basel in search of work
during his second sojourn in that city (1519-1526) were more frequent
than has been generally supposed. It is not to be expected that many
records of such journeys should remain, and for this reason the recent
discovery, by Dr. Hans Koegler, of such an absence during 1523 is of
exceptional interest. His article, describing this discovery, entitled
“Hans Holbein d. J. und Dr. Johann Fabri,” was published by him in
_Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft_, vol. xxxv. pts. 4 and 5, (1912),
pp. 379-84. Fabri was Vicar-General of Constance, and afterwards Bishop
of Vienna, and a friend and correspondent of Erasmus. During the autumn
of 1523, at some place not yet identified, but evidently in the
neighbourhood of Constance, Holbein and Dr. Fabri became acquainted, or
renewed an earlier intercourse, for the Vicar-General made use of him as
the bearer of some letter, message of greeting, or gift to Erasmus, and
from the latter’s reply in acknowledgment it is to be gathered that the
relationships between the painter and the author of _The Praise of
Folly_ were very friendly ones. The letter from Erasmus to Fabri,
written in November or December 1523, begins:
“Reverendo Domino, Joanni Fabro, Canonico et Vicario
Constantien. domino plurimum observando.—Salutem, vir
amantissime, ex tua salutatione quam mihi per Olpeium misisti,
melius habui. Erat enim accurata, et veniebat ab amico, et per
hominem amicum. Spongiarum rursus tria milia sunt excusa, sic
visum est Frobenio...,” &c.
In this letter Fabri’s messenger is spoken of as “Olpeius,” and the
point for decision is whether this refers to Hans Holbein, or to a
second Olpeius occasionally mentioned in the correspondence of
Erasmus—one Severinus Olpeius, who acted as letter-carrier for Erasmus
more than once, and appears to have been in the employ of the bookseller
Koberger of Nuremberg. In one or two of the letters of Erasmus the name
“Olpeius” is undoubtedly intended for Holbein, as in the one conveying
his thanks to Sir Thomas More for the drawing of the Family Group which
More had sent to him by the hands of the painter. In this letter, which
is dated from Freiburg, September 1529 (see vol. i. p. 341), Erasmus
says:
“Utinam liceat adhuc semel in vita videre amicos mihi
charissimos, quos in pictura quam Olpeius exhibuit, utcunque
conspexi summa cum animi mei voluptate. Bene vale cum tibi
charissimis omnibus.”
[Sidenote: HOLBEIN AND DR. J. FABRI]
Again, in a second letter from Erasmus to Bonifacius Amerbach written
from Freiburg on April 10, 1533 (wrongly dated 1535 in the manuscript),
first published by Dr. C. Chr. Bernoulli in 1902 (see below, Appendix
(J)), the “Olpeius” of whom the sage speaks so severely was almost
certainly Holbein. Dr. Koegler brings forward convincing arguments to
prove that the artist was also the “Olpeius” of the letter to Dr. Fabri,
and that the place of encounter was somewhere in the Lake of Constance
district. He also suggests that as Dr. Fabri was connected in his
official capacity with the Maria-Wallfahrts Church in Rickenbach, for
which Holbein’s earliest known picture, the Virgin and Child of 1514,
was painted, and as he was also the personal friend of the orderer of
that little work, Canon Johann von Botzheim of Constance, he must have
been already acquainted with Holbein. In any case, it seems certain
that, thanks to Dr. Kœgler, we have here definite, though scanty,
information of one more of the painter’s wanderings in search of work.
(G) THE TRADE-MARK OF REINHOLD WOLFE. (Vol. i. p. 202)
The charming device of boys throwing sticks at an apple tree, which
Holbein made for the publisher Reinhold Wolfe, seems to have been
familiar to most English schoolboys in the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries, as it was to be found in a Latin Grammar much in use. There
is an amusing reference to it in Henry Peacham’s _Compleat Gentleman_
(reprint of the 1634 edition, Clarendon Press, 1906, pp. 126-7). He
says:
“Painting is a quality I love (I confesse) and admire in others,
because ever naturally from a child, I have beene addicted to
the practice hereof: yet when I was young I have beene cruelly
beaten by ill and ignorant Schoolemasters, when I have been
taking, in white and blacke, the countenance of some one or
other (which I could doe at thirteene and foureteene yeeres of
age: beside the Mappe of any Towne according to Geometricall
proportion, as I did of _Cambridge_ when I was of _Trinity
Colledge_, and a Junior Sophister), yet could they never beate
it out of me. I remember one Master I had (and yet living not
farre from _S. Albanes_) tooke me one time drawing out with my
penne that peare-tree and boyes throwing at it, at the end of
the Latine Grammar: which hee perceiving, in a rage strooke me
with the great end of the rodde, and rent my paper, swearing it
was the onely way to teach me to robbe Orchards; beside, that I
was placed with him to be made a Scholler and not a Painter,
which I was very likely to doe; when I well remember he
construed me the beginning of the first _Ode_ in _Horace_,
_Edite_, set ye forth, _Maecenas_, the sports, _atavis Regibus_,
of our ancient Kings: but leaving my ingenious Master, to our
purpose.”
(H) NICOLAS BELLIN OF MODENA. (Vol. i. pp. 282-4)
(i.) _Extract from a Letter from Sir John Wallop, ambassador to France,
to Henry VIII, respecting the extradition of “Blanche Rose” from
France, and of Nicolas Bellin from England, dated Mantes, 27 September
1540._ (_State Papers_, vol. viii. pt. v. cont., No. dcxxviii., p.
439.)
[Sidenote: NICOLAS BELLIN OF MODENA]
“... Which the Cardynall of Tornon confessed to be true, saying,
‘his (_i.e._ Blanche Rose) mother was Englissh, and duelled in
Orleance, and in the Cardynalles tyme of Yorke being brought
uppe in England’; and with stayed, saing that the said fellowe
shoued hym many other thinges, that he cauled not to
remembraunce: and so left that pourposse, and axed me why Your
Majestie delivered not Modena, when he was send for, showing me
what was the cause why they desired hym so much, being uppon
acompte of a houndreth thousand crownes, that the President
Jentill had begiled the King, not yet ended. ‘Whye,’ quod I,
‘then, if ye dyd extyme hym so moch, wherfore dyd ye not kipe
hym (_i.e._ Blanche Rose), that I demaunded, in prison, till ye
had knowledge, what aunswar should be made for the said Modena;
whom if ye had extymed, ye would have so doon? but I perceyve,’
quod I, ‘that ye thinke to have a greate personnaige of the said
noughty fellowe, who I ensure you to be of as ill qualities as
canbe, and his father a poore man; and fourthre ye considre not
howe gentelly the King my maister deliverd you of late Adryan
Cappes.’”
(ii.) _Extract from a Letter from Sir John Wallop to Henry VIII,
referring to the work done at Fontainebleau by Nicolas Bellin, dated
Mélun, 17th November 1540._ (_State Papers_, vol. viii. pt. v. cont.,
No. dcxlii., p. 484.)
“... and from thense browght me into his (_i.e._ Francis I)
gallerey, keping the key therof Hym self, like as Your Majestie
useth, and so I shewed Hym, wherewith He toke plesur. And after
that I had wel behold the said gallerey, me thought it the most
magnifique, that ever I sawe, the lenght and bredthe _no man
canne better shewe Your Majestie then Modon, who wrought there
in the begynnyng of the same_, being at that tyme nothing in the
perfection, as it is nowe. The rowff therof ys seeled with
walnott tree, and made after an other forme then Your Majestie
useth, and wrought with woode of dyvers cullers, as before I
have rehersed to Your Majestie, and is partly gilt; the pavement
of the same is of woode, being wrought muche after that sort;
the said gallerey is seeled rownde abowte, and fynely wrowght
three partes of it; _upon the fourthe parte is all antique of
such stuff as the said Modon makith Your Majesties Chemenyes_;
and betwixt every windowe standes grete anticall personages
entier, and in dyvers places of the said gallerey many fayre
tables of stories, sett in, very fynely wrowgth, as Lucretia,
and other, _as the said Modon can muche better declare the
perfytnes of the hole to Your Majestie, then I_. And in the
gallerey at St. James the like wold be wel made, for it is bothe
highe and large. Yf your pleasure be to have the paterne of this
here, I knowe right wel the Frenche King woll gladly geve it
me.”
(I) THE MORE FAMILY GROUP. (Vol. i. pp. 291-302)
[Sidenote: THE MORE FAMILY GROUP]
There is a very interesting manuscript book, dated 1859, in the
possession of Lord St. Oswald, which contains a descriptive catalogue of
the pictures at Nostell Priory, together with “Some brief Notices of the
sundry pictures of the Family of Sir Thomas More, Knt., Lord High
Chancellor of England, Temp. Henry VIII,” from which, through the
courtesy of the owner, the writer is enabled to give some extracts. It
was written by Lord St. Oswald’s grandfather, Mr. Charles Winn, whose
chief purpose seems to have been to controvert Horace Walpole’s adverse
criticism, based on George Vertue’s manuscript notes, of the Nostell
picture. Mr. Winn gives a short history and description of the various
versions of the Family Group. Speaking of the Nostel Priory version,
called throughout his notes the “Roper” picture, he says:
“This picture formerly belonged to William Roper, Esqre., son of
William Roper, Esqre., Prothonotary of the Court of King’s
Bench, temp. Henry VIII, who married Margaret, the oldest, and
favourite daughter of the celebrated Sir Thos. More, Knt., Lord
High Chancellor of England; and was painted for him by that
renowned artist Hans Holbein in the year 1530, as appears from
the monogram and date on the picture. It remained in this family
till the death of Edwd. Roper, the last in the direct male line
of the Ropers of Well Hall, nr. Eltham, Co. of Kent, and of St.
Dunstans, nr. Canterbury; he had only one child, a daughter, who
married Charles Henshaw, Esqre., who on her father’s death
inherited all his property. The issue of this marriage was three
daughters, the eldest of whom married Sir Edward Dering, Bart.,
of Surrenden Dering in the County of Kent; the second married
Col. Strickland of Beverly, in the East Riding of the Co. of
York; and the third, Susannah, married my great-grandfather, Sir
Roland Winn, Bart., of Nostel, in the West Riding of the Co. of
York. Mrs. Strickland died without leaving issue, and on the
death of Mr. Henshaw, his two surviving daughters succeeded to
his real, as well as personal property. The Holbein picture was
valued at £3000, and Sir Edward Dering preferring to have his
share in money, my ancestor paid him a moiety of the valuation,
and thus became possessed of the picture, which was conveyed to
Nostel, where it still remains.”
[Sidenote: THE MORE FAMILY GROUP]
Mr. Winn was of opinion that the version, with life-size figures,
painted in distemper, which belonged to Andries de Loo, was not the
picture at Nostell, the latter being painted in oil. He considered that
the De Loo version was the one formerly at Heron in Essex (afterwards at
Thorndon—see vol. i. p. 300), and that it was purchased at De Loo’s
death by Giles Heron, who married Sir Thomas More’s second daughter,
Cecilia. Heron Hall was the seat of his family, and the property passed
into the possession of the Tyrrell family by the marriage of Sir John
Tyrrell with Margaret, daughter and heiress of Sir William Heron, of
Heron, Kt. Quoting Walpole’s statement that the Heron picture “having
been repainted, it is impossible to judge of its antiquity,” he goes on
to say that this “appears to me to go very far in proof of the
correctness of the opinion I have hazarded, as to who was the purchaser
of the De Loo picture, for it is hardly to be credited that had this
(Heron) picture been painted in oil colour it would have become so
injured as to require its being repainted to an extent to render it
_impossible to judge of its antiquity_.” Mr. Winn thought that Holbein
himself must have sold the distemper version to De Loo—though why he
should do so it is not easy to imagine, as it is natural to suppose that
Sir Thomas More or some member of his family would have retained it—and
that the East Hendred picture, in Mr. Winn’s time at Barnborough Hall
(see vol. i. p. 300), was the actual work painted by Holbein for the
Chancellor, either from the Basel sketch or the De Loo example. It is
not likely, he says, that Sir Thomas
“would have allowed the picture in _Distemper_ to be disposed of
to De Loo, ‘till he had secured a copy of it. I can hardly
therefore entertain a doubt that Sir Thomas _did_ possess one of
these large Family pieces, and that the picture at Barnborough
Hall is the identical one. John More had this picture conveyed
to Barnborough, when he took up his abode there on the death of
Mr. Cresacre, his wife’s father.”
The inference is that John More, as head of the family, inherited the
version of the Group expressly painted for his father. Mr. Winn says of
this picture that it is
“in the _number_ and _arrangement of the persons represented_ a
_facsimile_ of the _original sketch_, or drawing, and I deem it
far from improbable that it may be the picture which was
painted, by Holbein, for Sir Thomas; for although it is now in a
very deplorable state, caused by most unpardonable neglect, yet
there are parts which shew that the picture, in its original
state, was painted by no ‘prentice hand.’ It is now in a low
room panelled with oak, and has unfortunately been curtailed,
both in width, and depth, to fit it into the panel where it is
placed, and this may probably account for the absence of the
monogram of the painter, and the date. The present size of the
picture is length, ten feet; height, eight feet. The figures
represented are the size of life.”
Of the Burford picture (see vol. i. pp. 301-2 and Pl. 76) he says:
“This picture was formerly in the possession of a branch of the
More family, who resided at Gobions, or Gubbins, not far from
Barnet, in Hertfordshire, for whom I have no doubt it was
painted, and probably by Zuccaro, as it bears the date 1593—some
of the figures are copied from one of the pictures already
alluded to (most likely from that at Barnborough); these are Sir
John More, Knt., Sir Thomas More, Knt., John More, Margaret
Roper, Cecilia Heron, Elizabeth Dancey, and Anne Cresacre. The
other figures (four in number, whose names I have given at page
12) are represented in the costume of the period in which the
picture was painted, viz. temp. Eliz. How this picture came into
the possession of the Lenthall family is not certain, but the
last possessor of it, of that name, told a relative of mine that
it had been purchased by their ancestor the Speaker Lenthall, on
the sale of Gobions and its contents.”
After pointing out the differences between the Roper picture, the other
versions, and the Basel sketch, Mr. Winn concludes by saying:
“There are other differences observable between the Sketch and
the Roper picture which though unimportant in themselves, yet
when considered in connection with those I have named, do I
think afford most satisfactory proof that the Roper picture is
_no copy_, but that it is, as Vertue asserts, an _original_
production by _Hans Holbein_.”
It is not possible, however, to follow Mr. Winn in every one of his
conclusions, which would necessitate the belief that Holbein himself
painted no less than three versions of the Family Group—the one in
distemper, which was sold by the artist to De Loo, and afterwards
purchased by Giles Heron, now so injured that “it is impossible to judge
of its authenticity”; the one in oil painted for Sir Thomas, which
remained at Barnborough in the possession of John More and his
descendants, and has been cut down and subjected to “unpardonable
neglect”; and the Roper picture now at Nostell Priory. It seems almost
certain that Holbein had no hand in the painting of the two first, and
that they are merely early copies or adaptations from the Nostell
picture, though at the same time it should be pointed out that they
follow the Basel sketch more closely than the latter, and do not show,
as it does, various alterations in the design, such as the introduction
of the figure of the secretary Harris. This affords some support to the
contention that they are of earlier date, or copied from some earlier
version, than the Roper canvas. The Basel sketch would not be available
for the purpose, as it was taken with him by Holbein when he left
England in 1528. Still, in spite of this, the fact remains that the
Nostell Priory version is the only one that has any pretensions to be
regarded, even in a small part, as an original work by Holbein, and
until further proof is forthcoming it is safest to conclude that
[Sidenote: THE MORE FAMILY GROUP]
Holbein, after making his preliminary studies, began a large canvas
which for some unknown reason was left by him in a very incomplete
state, and that Sir Thomas More had it finished by some other hand in
1530, and that this picture was the one which came into De Loo’s
possession, and is now at Nostell Priory.
One other point remains to be touched upon. Mr. Winn asserts that in
Vertue’s opinion the Roper picture is an original work by Holbein, and
he quotes in support of this statement from a manuscript by Vertue in
his possession which he bought at the Walpole sale. He gives several
extracts from it, among them the following, upon which, apparently, he
bases his contention:
“But the original painting by Holbein of this family (More) has
long been preserved by the family of Roper at Eltham in Kent,
and was till of late years there to be seen, but of late at
Greenwich in the King’s House in the Park inhabited by Sir John
Jennings, the family of Roper having desired leave to place it
there till their house at Eltham was rebuilt.”
There is, however, a second account of this picture by Vertue in his
diaries preserved in the British Museum (Add. MSS. 25071, f. 4), first
published by Mr. Lionel Cust in the _Burlington Magazine_, October 1912,
pp. 43-4; and in this memorandum, in which the picture is described in
greater detail, there is no suggestion made that it is an original work.
Mr. Winn’s manuscript appears to be rather earlier in date. In it Vertue
speaks of his examination as having been made at Greenwich (“I compared
the first sketch and the large picture together at Greenwich”—the “first
sketch” he speaks of being Caroline Patin’s engraving of the Basel
drawing), but in the British Museum memorandum he states that he
examined it, at the request of the Earl of Oxford, after it had been
removed from Greenwich to Sir Roland Winn’s house in Soho Square, when
he “in a more particular manner observd that the picture differs from
the others, this seeming to be the most compleated.” He goes on to say:
“First that design at Basil, presented to Erasmus by Sr. Th.
More, I conceive to be the first sketch on lines on a sheet of
paper, or Holbein’s first draught, and in this large painting of
the Family containd the picture of Sir John Mores wife, a young
Lady to whom he was then lately married (and there is left out
Margaret Giggs) as in the design of the first, she only being a
companion to his daughters and a favorite of Mrs. More Sr.
Thomas Lady. Then there is also another person comeing in the
room with srole in his hand—whose name is ... Harisius ...
famulus, and behind a person setting reading on a desk—at bottom
are _two dogs_ favorites, probably put in afterwards by another
hand.... There really does not appear to be that certainty of
drawing, strength of colouring, as in many other pictures of
Holben. Therefore in the oppinion of several judges & professors
of painting it is doubtfull.”
He goes on to say:
“Upon another review of the Family peice of Sr. Thomas More—I
observe that the light & shade of the persons represented are
various, which is not consistent to nature nor practice in the
art of painting, for as it is a view of this Family represented
at once, the light ought to proceed from one point throughout
the whole picture, which it doth not but some of the figures
there represented, the light proceeds from the right side and
others from the left side. And the light on the face of Sr.
Thomas proceeds from the left and his father Sr. John is from
the right. And also the Lady of Sr. Tho. the light on her face
proceeds from the left so in several there is a disagrement of
light and shade.”
Vertue’s explanation of the painting of the picture is that Holbein,
after taking various portraits of members of the More family, drew, at
Sir Thomas’s request, a design for a big Family Group, but that before a
start could be made on the picture by the artist Henry VIII paid a visit
to Chelsea, and was at once so captivated by the examples of Holbein’s
art which he saw there that he carried the painter off to Court at once,
and gave him so much to do that More’s commission had to be abandoned.
Sir Thomas, therefore, “after 1530” employed someone else to paint the
picture from the original design and the finished family portraits,
“perhaps, and not unlikely, some scholar of Holbein’s with his knowledge
and consent,” this pupil “so forwarding it with as much skill as he was
able ready for Holbein to go over again and review and finish it.” This
would be a matter of time, and during the progress of the work several
alterations and additions were made, such as the introduction of the
figure of Harris, which figure, in Vertue’s opinion, showed “most
visible difference in painting and drawing,” so that it could not be
copied from any painting by Holbein, but was the original work of the
assistant, who in this “ventured to show all his skill with full
liberty.” In conclusion he remarks that “Raphael made many designs in
small which were executed in large by his scholars, some before his
death and some after,” and suggests that Holbein made the design for
this Family Group with the same intention—“Especially as it may be
observd none of these faces, hands coppyd from Holben’s painted pictures
are not labouriously finishd, but left broad and light, fitly disposed
to receive any improvments by Holbens hand—when, on the contrary, all
the still life in the picture, the jewells, ornaments, gold are highly
finished.”
[Sidenote: THE MORE FAMILY GROUP]
Since the Nostell Priory picture was photographed, thanks to the
kindness of Lord St. Oswald, for the purposes of this book, it has
undergone a thorough and very careful cleaning, with the result that
many details, previously almost obscured, can now be seen quite clearly,
while the general effect of the work as a whole has been greatly
enhanced. As noted in the text (see vol. i. pp. 295-6), the chief points
in which this picture differs from the Basel sketch is in the change of
position in the figures of Elizabeth Dancey and Margaret Gigs, and the
introduction of John Harris. Elizabeth Dancey, who now stands next to
Sir John More, is in exactly the same position and dress as in the
sketch, whereas Margaret Gigs, who now forms the outer figure of the
group on the left, is wearing a plain white head-dress, as in the
preliminary study at Windsor, in place of the angular hood with black
fall of the sketch; and she now stands upright, instead of stooping,
with her right hand resting on the book, indicating a passage with her
forefinger. The secretary, John Harris, on the opposite side of the
picture, has been brought from within the inner room, in which he was
indicated with another person in the sketch, and now leans against one
of the posts of the “porch” within the larger chamber, having a roll
with seals in his right hand; while his companion is shown standing at
the distant window, his back to the spectator, reading a book he holds
in both hands. The cleaning of the picture has made clear the details of
the furniture and various objects placed about the room. The chief
changes in these have been already noted. The most important occurs in
connection with the large fitting or buffet on the left, which in the
sketch appears as a sideboard reaching to the ceiling, with panels of
linen-work surmounted by a carved canopy. In the picture this has been
changed to a more simple fitting or table, such as is shown in “The Two
Ambassadors,” covered with a Turkish cloth or carpet, the lower part of
which forms a cupboard, with a bottle and glass visible through one of
the open doors. Upon this, some of the plate, including the dish and the
jug with the cloth over it, have been retained, but pushed into the
background, with the two musical instruments placed in front of them,
while to the single vase with flowers another has been added. One of
these holds lilies and carnations, and the other iris and columbines,
while the window-ledge on the extreme right, behind Lady More, has now a
large vase with flowers, instead of the jug, book, and flickering
candle. The clock is seen to be an astronomical one.
In the foreground, where rushes are roughly indicated, the small
footstool and the scattered books have been removed, their place being
taken by the two feebly-painted dogs. Happily, during the recent
cleaning, the larger and more painful of these has been carefully
removed, to the very great advantage of the picture. Finally, Lady More
no longer kneels at a _prie-dieu_, but is seated, and the chained
monkey, instead of scrambling against her skirts, is placed on its perch
at her feet, looking at the spectator. The name and age of each sitter
is written over the head or across the dress, the one over Margaret Gigs
being in a different style of lettering from the others. This last-named
is merely “Uxor Johannes Clements,” whereas in the East Hendred version,
which seems to have been based more directly on the original design than
that at Nostell Priory, it is “Margareta Giga Mori Filiabus condiscipula
et cognata, A^o 22.” This has been taken to indicate that the East
Hendred picture was painted first, before the lady married John
Clements.
THE PORTRAIT OF SIR THOMAS MORE. (Vol. i. pp. 303-4)
This celebrated portrait, which has been in the possession of the Huth
family for so many years, is no longer in England. It was purchased last
year (1912) by Messrs. Knoedler, of Old Bond Street, London, and is now
in the collection of Mr. H. C. Frick, of New York. It is deeply to be
regretted that this fine example of Holbein’s art, and one of such great
historical importance, has not found a final resting-place in the
National Gallery. According to report, the purchase price was £50,000.
(J) HOLBEIN’S RETURN TO ENGLAND IN 1532. (Vol. i. p. 352)
[Sidenote: LORD ARUNDEL AND REMBRANDT]
A letter from Erasmus to Bonifacius Amerbach, preserved among the Basel
manuscripts, appears to have reference to Holbein’s second journey to
England, and at the same time to show that the relationships between the
philosopher and the painter were not, at that period at least, entirely
amicable ones. This letter, already referred to in Appendix (F), was
first published by Dr. C. Chr. Bernoulli in the Basel _Nachrichten_, No.
296, 1902, and is dated Freiburg, 10th April 1535, but the year-date, it
is stated, is wrong, and should be 1533. The exact meaning of the letter
is not quite clear, but in it Erasmus complains somewhat bitterly of
foolish behaviour and needless delay of more than a month in Antwerp on
the part of “Olpeius,” and of reprehensible conduct on his part towards
certain people in England to whom Erasmus had given him letters of
introduction. It seems almost certain that in the “Olpeius” of this
letter Holbein is intended. The long stay in Antwerp of which Erasmus
complains must have been in 1532, and apparently it was not until the
following spring that he heard of it, after receiving letters of
complaint about the painter from one or more of his English
correspondents. There is nothing in the letter to indicate in what way
Holbein deceived these unnamed friends of Erasmus. The original text of
the letter is as follows:
“Subornant te patronum, cui uni sciunt me nihil posse negare.
Sic Olpeius per te extorsit litteras in Angliam. At is resedit
Antuerpiæ supra mensem, diutius mansurus, si invenisset fatuos.
In Anglia decepit eos, quibus fuerat commendatus.”
(K) LORD ARUNDEL AND REMBRANDT AS COLLECTORS OF HOLBEIN’S PICTURES.
(Vol. ii. p. 66)
Several important pictures by Holbein appear to have been in the
Netherlands during the seventeenth century, and the Earl of Arundel,
through his friends and agents, made serious efforts to add them to his
collection, though in some instances the price asked was too high for
him. In this search for examples of Holbein’s art he received
considerable assistance from Sir Dudley Carleton, English minister at
the Hague, to whom the Earl wrote, on 17th September 1619: “I hear
likewise, by many ways how careful your lordship is to satisfy my
foolish curiosity in inquiring for the pieces of Holbein.” Two years
later, as already noted (see vol. i. p. 241), Carleton was endeavouring
to obtain for him a picture by Holbein which may have been the Meyer
Madonna; and in 1628 another fruitless attempt was made to purchase the
portrait of Morette (see Vol. ii. p. 65-66). Again, on 25th April 1629,
the Earl wrote to Sir Henry Vane respecting “a book of Holbein.” In the
course of this letter he says:
“I must likewise give you very many thanks for your care
concerning Bloome’s (Bloemaert’s) painting and book of Holbein,
and the King protests against any meddling with it, at 600_l._,
which he says cost him but 200_l._ For the drawings I hoped to
have had them for 30_l._, but rather than fail, as I told you, I
would go to 50_l._, but never think of 100_l._, nor 50_l._
offered without sure to have it; if he would let it come, upon
security to send it back, I should be glad, if not, let it
rest.”
[Sidenote: SIR NICHOLAS POYNTZ]
What this book was it is now impossible to say, but it cannot have been
the one containing the Windsor drawings, which came to the Arundel
Collection from the Earl of Pembroke at about this time (see Sainsbury’s
_Original Unpublished Papers_, &c., 1859, Nos. 44, 53, 55, and 57 in
Appendix). It may have been the little book of twenty-two designs of the
Passion of Christ which Lord Arundel showed to Sandrart (see Vol. ii. p.
77).
Another seventeenth-century collector of pictures, the great painter
Rembrandt, was an admirer of Holbein’s work, and at the end of his life,
when his fine collection had been sold and scattered for the benefit of
his creditors, and his monetary troubles were thick upon him, we find
him, nevertheless, offering the large sum of one thousand gulden for
some picture by the master. The document referring to this offer, dated
15th October 1666, three years before Rembrandt died, is quoted by Dr.
Bode in his _Complete Works of Rembrandt_, 1906, vol. viii. pp. 296-7.
It is a letter written by Anna de Witt, of Dordrecht, in the course of
which she says: “Whereas the picture is by one of the greatest painters
of his time, Holbein, who also painted the picture of their ancestor;
for this Rembrandt offered 1000 gulden.” This ancestor was Willem
Schijverts van Merode, and the picture appears to have been a votive
one, in which he was represented as the kneeling donor. Dr. Bode,
however, suggests that in all probability the picture which Rembrandt
was said to be so anxious to possess was not by Holbein at all.
THE PORTRAITS OF SIR NICHOLAS POYNTZ. (Vol. ii. p. 71-72)
Holbein’s original painting of Sir Nicholas Poyntz, from which various
copies were made, appears to be the picture in the collection of the
Earl of Harrowby, at Sandon Hall, Stafford. This picture is in close
agreement with the one described by Woltmann, which was exhibited in
Paris, at the Exposition du Palais Bourbon, in 1874, by the Marquis de
la Rosière, and photographed on that occasion by Braun, but has since
disappeared. Lord Harrowby’s picture, which bears the same inscription
and three-line motto in French as the examples mentioned in the text, is
a good and undoubtedly genuine work.
(L) HOLBEIN’S VISIT TO JOINVILLE AND NANCY IN 1538.
(Vol. ii. p. 148-149)
[Sidenote: VISIT TO JOINVILLE]
_Letter from Anthoinette de Bourbon, Duchess of Guise, to her daughter
Marie, Queen of Scotland, respecting the visit of Hoby and Holbein to
Joinville, dated 1st September (1538)._ _Balcarres MSS._, _Advocates’
Library_, _Edinburgh_, vol. ii., No. 20.
(_Kindly transcribed by Mr. James Melville_)
“A la royne descosse.
“Madame Rouvray a este ycy quelque tans pour meyder a pourvoir
aus affaire de vous et de vostre filz ou fesons le myeux que
povons Depuis que vous ay escrit par vostre argentier franceis
ny a ryens change fors la mort du bailly de Dunoys Son filz a eu
sa place du grant conseil et pourchast fort pour avoir le dit
baillyage Mons. vostre pere men a escrit affin je lavertyse
comme il en pouret faire Mon avys a este en escrire au presydent
a Chateaudum affin quil luy manda son avys et sy le dit filz
estet capable pour lestre ou syl en connest aultre pleus propre
Je luy ay mende ansy que je ne connests le dit filz mais que
javes fort oŭy louer lavocat de Chateaudum savent et de bon
conseil et quyl conet pourpos Je _retires_ (?) ailleurs qui
seret gros daumage pour la meson et que se pouret arestet par
sete offyce de bailly penses seret le proufit du lieu et des
juges veu quy ly est resydent et le filz du trespase nen et que
laustre partission que lon recommendet pour mestre au servyce de
la meson que lon dit ausy homme de bien et de savoir et
demeurant a Chateaudum fut avocat set ung pour quy le presydent
vous parllet mais jen ay houblie le non Je ne ses encore quyl en
ara este feit ledit Rouvray sen retourne paser par Paris quy
sara se quy ara este feit et vous escrira de tout bien au long
Sy croie il ne vous sara dire chose quy vous soit plus agreable
que la sente de nostre petit filz quy est ausy bonne que ly
foystes onques touiours bien rongneus mais il nen leyse a bien
dormyr combien que quelquefois il vouldret estre grate mais
cella se pase legerement et sy menge fort bien lon le mayne
souvent a lesbat quy me senble ly fait grant bien Je le vous
souhete souvent il me senble le trouvariez creu et devenu gros
quant au reste de nostre menage vostre seur y est touiours
mallade de sa fievre et a este sete semayne pasee bien mal dung
fleux de ventre quy la fort afeyblie il y a bien huit jours puis
elle bouge pleus du lyst depuis hier le dit flux se comense a
paser de la fievre je ny seu pas grant amendement combien les
mesdesins soyet davys elle sabregera pour se fleux vostre frere
Claude a este ausy mallade jusques a la mort dung fleux de sanc
avesques la fievre continue dont il lest renchent par deus fois
et estant en chemyn pour revenyr ycy ou Mons. son pere le
renvoyet a cuyde demeurer pres daultun ou il est encore Je luy
ay envoye ma litiere pour lamener lon ma mande il est en tout
hors de denger et prest a senvenyr Vostre seur Anthoinette est
ausy mallade dune fievre et dung rume sy croie elle se portera
bien les aultres se portet bien Je vous avyse que madame vostre
tante est mandee pour aller a la court a la venue de la royne de
Hongrie quy doit bientost estre a Compiegne ou le roy et toute
la court doit estre en pen de jours de moy jen seus _escupee_
pour lamour de mes mallades _il ny a que deus jours que le
gentilhomme du roy dengletere quy fut au Havre et le paintre ont
este ycy le gentilhomme vynt vers moy fesent senblant venyr de
devers lenpereur et que ayent seu Louisse mallade navet voullu
paser sens lavoir affin en savoir dire des nouvelles au roy son
mestre me priant il la puisse voir se quy fit et estet le jour
de sa fievre il luy tint pareil pourpos qua moy puys ma dit
questant sy pres de Lorrayne avet envye daller jusques a Nency
voir le paiys Je me doute incontynent il y allet voir la
demoyselle pour la tirer comme les aultres et pour se envoye a
leur logis voir quy y estet et trouve le dit paintre y estet et
de fait ont este a Nency et y ont seiourne ung jour et ont este
fort festus et venet tous les repas le mestre dostel menger
avesques luy avesque force presans et bien trestes Volla se que
jen ay encore seu au pis alle sy navyes pour voysine vostre seur
se pouret estre vostre cousine_ il se tient quelque pourpos
lenpereur offre reconpence pour la duche de Gueldres et que se
fesant se pouret faire quelque mariage de la fille de Hongrie et
de Mons. le marquys Mons. vostre pere entent bien se fesant
avoir sa part en la dite recompence Je vouldreis il en fusset
bien recompenses voila tout se que jay seu de nouveau depuis
vous escryvys Je vous mes tant de lettres a laventure que croy
quelcune vous en pouront venyr Je baille seus ycy a Rouvray pour
les bailler au bausquyer de Paris affin les vous faire tenyr Je
me doute que ne feres sy bonne diligence den mestre par pays que
moy car je ses bien que tenes de Mons. vostre pere et questes
pareseuse a escrire sy lair descosse ne vous a change Je nay
encore eu que vos premyeres lettres il me tarde bien savoir
comme depuis vous seres portee Il me sera grant joye pover oŭyr
se set touiours bien Nostre Seigneur le veuille, et vous doint
Madame longue et bonne vie (set) se premyer de Sebtenbre de
vostre humble et bonne mere
ANTHOINETTE DE BOURBON
(M) HOLBEIN’S STUDIO IN WHITEHALL. (Vol. ii. p. 185)
[Sidenote: HOLBEIN IN WHITEHALL]
It was probably in Holbein’s painting-room in Whitehall that the
incident occurred which set going the story told by Van Mander—a story
for which, no doubt, there was some foundation in truth—of Holbein’s
violence towards a nobleman who insisted upon forcing his way into the
studio when the artist was engaged upon the portrait of a lady, and who
was, in consequence, thrown downstairs by the infuriated painter. This
story Walpole tells as follows:
The writers of his life relate a story, which Vermander, his
first biographer, affirms came from Dr. Isely of Basil and from
Amerbach.... The story is, that one day as Holbein was privately
drawing some lady’s picture for the king, a great lord forced
himself into the chamber. Holbein threw him downstairs; the peer
cried out; Holbein bolted himself in, escaped over the top of
the house, and running directly to the king, fell on his knees,
and besought his Majesty to pardon him, without declaring the
offence. The king promised to forgive him if he would tell the
truth; but soon began to repent, saying he should not easily
overlook such insults, and bade him wait in the apartment till
he had learned more of the matter. Immediately arrived the lord
with his complaint, but sinking the provocation. At first the
monarch heard the story with temper, but broke out, reproaching
the nobleman with his want of truth, and adding, ‘You have not
to do with Holbein, but with me; I tell you, of seven peasants I
can make as many lords, but not one Holbein—begone, and
remember, that if ever you pretend to revenge yourself, I shall
look on any injury offered to the painter as done to myself.’
Henry’s behaviour is certainly the most probable part of the
story.” (See Walpole, _Anecdotes_, &c., ed. Wornum, vol. i. pp.
71-2.)
Wornum gives a more elaborate account of the adventure (_Holbein_, pp.
319-20), and it is also introduced by Richard Lovelace into his poem
called “Peinture: a Panegyrick to the Best Picture of Friendship, Mr.
Pet. Lilly” (Sir Peter Lely), included in _Lucasta_, first published in
1649. The lines are as follows:
“When to our huffling Henry there complain’d
A grieved earl, that thought his honor stain’d:
Away (frown’d he), for your own safeties hast!
In one cheap hour ten coronets I’l cast:
But Holbeen’s noble and prodigious worth
Onely the pangs of an whole age brings forth.
Henry! a word so princely saving said,
It might new raise the ruins thou hast made.”
(See _Lucasta_, ed. W. Carew Hazlitt, 1864, pp. 225-6.)
Another seventeenth-century poet who makes reference to Holbein—in this
instance it is the Dance of Death which is in question—is Matthew Prior,
who, in his _Ode to the Memory of George Villiers_, says:
“Our term of life depends not on our deed,
Before our birth our funeral was decreed;
Nor aw’d by foresight, nor misled by chance,
Imperious Death directs the ebon lance,
Peoples great Henry’s tombs, and leads up Holbein’s Dance.”
[Sidenote: BARBER-SURGEONS’ PICTURE]
It has been suggested that Holbein’s painting-room at Whitehall was over
the so-called Holbein Gate. Numerous engravings of this gate were made
in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and reproductions of
several of these will be found in _Whitehall: Historical and
Architectural Notes_ (Portfolio Monograph), by W. J. Loftie, F.S.A.,
1895, and in _The Old Royal Palace of Whitehall_, by Dr. Edgar Sheppard,
1901. Mr. Loftie reproduces an engraving of Whitehall showing the Gate
after a drawing by Hollar in the Pepysian Library, Cambridge; the
“Banqueting Hall, Holbein’s Gate, and Treasury,” from the engraving by
J. Silvestre, 1640; “Whitehall in 1724,” from the engraving by J. Kip;
“Holbein’s Gate,” from an engraving by G. Vertue, 1725; and “Whitehall,
from King Street,” from an engraving by R. Godfrey, 1775, after a
drawing by T. Sandby, R.A. Dr. Sheppard reproduces the engraving after
Hollar, and the Kip and Vertue engravings, and also “Whitehall,” from a
picture by Canaletto in the possession of the Duke of Buccleuch; and “A
View of Whitehall with the Holbein Gateway,” from a drawing by Paul
Sandby in the possession of Mr. E. Gardner.
THE BARBER-SURGEONS’ PICTURE. (Vol. ii. p. 294)
A further proof of the high value placed upon this picture by the
Company in earlier days is to be found in John Strype’s additions to
John Stow’s _Survey of the Cities of London and Westminster_, in the
folio edition published in 1720. He says (Book iii. p. 128), in speaking
of “Barber-Chirurgeons’ Hall”:—“In this Hall also is a large and very
curious Piece of K. Henry VIII reaching the Chirurgeons their Charter;
with many other Persons of the said Company delineated. It is said to be
done by _Hans Holben_; and some say, as many Broad Pieces have been
offered for the purchase of it as would cover it.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY LIST OF HOLBEIN’S CHIEF PICTURES AND PORTRAITS
(_Alphabetically arranged under the various countries_)
The following list of Holbein’s pictures and portraits in public and
private collections in England and abroad consists merely of the title
of each work, the date whenever known, and the number in Woltmann’s
list, together with a reference to the page or pages and the plates in
the present book in which the particular picture is described or
reproduced. Holbein’s very numerous drawings, studies, and designs are
not included. For these the reader must be referred to the second volume
of Dr. Woltmann’s book, and, more particularly, to the important
publication, now in course of issue, under the editorship of Dr. Paul
Ganz, which is to include a facsimile reproduction of every one of the
master’s drawings. Nor does this list include Holbein’s woodcuts and
book illustrations, for which the student is referred to Woltmann,
Passavant, Butsch, and others.
AMERICA
BOSTON: COLLECTION OF MRS. GARDNER
Portrait of Sir William Butts, 1542-3.
Portrait of Lady Butts, 1542-3.
Until recently in the possession of the Pole-Carew family. W. 204,
205. See Vol. ii. p. 209-210.
NEW YORK: METROPOLITAN MUSEUM
Portrait of Benedikt von Hertenstein, 1517.
See vol. i. pp. 72-4, Pl. 24. Not in Woltmann.
Portrait of Erasmus.
Recently purchased by the late Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan from the
Howard of Greystoke family. See vol. i. pp. 177-8. Not in Woltmann.
NEW YORK: COLLECTION OF MR. BENJAMIN ALTMAN
Portrait of a Lady, probably Margaret Wyat, Lady Lee.
Until recently in the collection of Major Charles Palmer, Windsor.
See Vol. ii. p. 82-83; Pl. 15, vol. ii. Not in Woltmann.
NEW YORK: COLLECTION OF MR. H. C. FRICK
Portrait of Sir Thomas More, 1527.
Until recently in the possession of Mr. Edward Huth. See vol. i. pp.
303-4, and Vol. ii. p. 340. W. 207.
NEW YORK: COLLECTION OF THE LATE MR. J. PIERPONT MORGAN
Portrait of Mrs. Pemberton.
Miniature. See Vol. ii. p. 228-289; Pl. 33, vol. ii. Not in
Woltmann.
Portrait of Henry VIII.
Miniature. See Vol. ii. p. 235-236. W. 157.
Portrait of Sir Thomas More.
Miniature. See vol. i. pp. 306-7. Not in Woltmann.
Portrait of Thomas Cromwell.
Miniature. See Vol. ii. p. 231-232; Pl. 31, vol. ii. Not in
Woltmann.
NEW YORK: COLLECTION OF MR. W. C. VANDERBILT
Portrait of Lady Guldeford.
Formerly in the collection of Mr. T. Frewen. See vol. i. pp. 320-1.
W. 206.
Portrait of Lady Rich.
Now in an American collection. Until recently in the collection of
Captain H. R. Moseley, Buildwas Park, Shropshire. See Vol. ii. p.
212. W. 128.
CANADA: COLLECTION OF MR. JAMES H. DUNN
Portrait of Queen Catherine Howard, 1540-41.
See Vol. ii. p. 194-196. Not in Woltmann.
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY
PRAGUE: RUDOLPHINUM
Portrait of Lady Elizabeth Vaux.
Badly damaged, but possibly an original. See Vol. ii. p. 86-87. W.
243.
VIENNA: IMPERIAL GALLERY
Portrait of Derich Tybis, of Duisburg, and the London Steelyard, 1533.
See Vol. ii. p. 20-21; Pl. 4, vol. ii. W. 251.
Portraits of an Official of the Court of Henry VIII, and his Wife, 1534.
Two small roundels. See Vol. ii. p. 70-71. W. 256, 257.
Portrait of Queen Jane Seymour, 1536.
Good copies at The Hague, Woburn Abbey, and elsewhere. See vol. ii.
pp. 111-2; Pl. 20, vol. ii. W. 252.
Portrait of a Young Man, aged 28, 1541.
See Vol. ii. p. 202-203; Pl. 27, vol. ii. W. 254.
Portrait of Dr. John Chamber, 1541-3.
See Vol. ii. p. 208-209; Pl. 30, vol. ii. W. 255.
Portrait of an Unknown English Lady.
See Vol. ii. p. 207; Pl. 29, vol. ii. W. 253.
VIENNA: COLLECTION OF COUNT LANCKORONSKI
Portrait of an Unknown English Lady.
See Vol. ii. p. 211-212. W. 260.
VIENNA: COLLECTION OF COUNT SCHÖNBORN
Portrait of a Member of the Wedigh Family of Cologne, and of the London
Steelyard, 1532.
See Vol. ii. p. 15-16. W. 262.
BELGIUM
BRUSSELS: COLLECTION OF FRAU L. GOLDSCHMIDT-PRZIBRAM
Portrait of a Young Man holding a Carnation, 1533.
See Vol. ii. p. 57. W. 261.
BRITISH ISLES
LONDON: NATIONAL GALLERY
The Two Ambassadors: Jean de Dinteville and George de Selve, 1533.
See vol. ii. chap. xvii.; Pl. 9, vol. ii. W. 215.
Portrait of the Duchess of Milan, 1538.
See vol. ii. chap. xx.; Pl. 21, vol. ii. W. 2.
HAMPTON COURT PALACE
Portrait of John Reskimer of Cornwall.
See vol. i. pp. 333-4. W. 162.
Christ appearing to Mary Magdalen (“Noli Me Tangere”).
See vol. i. pp. 95-8, Pl. 32. Not in Woltmann.
Portrait of Johann Froben, printer of Basel.
Probably only a good old copy. See Vol. ii. p. 183-184. Not in
Woltmann.
Portrait of Lady Elizabeth Vaux.
Probably only a good old copy. See Vol. ii. p. 86-87. W. 163.
WINDSOR CASTLE
Portrait of Sir Henry Guldeford, 1527.
See vol. i. pp. 317-20; Pl. 80. W. 264.
Portrait of Hans of Antwerp, 1532.
See Vol. ii. p. 8-14; Pl. 2, vol. ii. W. 265.
Portrait of Derich Born of Cologne, and of the London Steelyard, 1533.
See Vol. ii. p. 18-20; Pl. 4, vol. ii. W. 266.
Portrait of Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk, about 1538-9.
See Vol. ii. p. 197-199; Pl. 25, vol. ii. W. 267.
Portrait of Henry Brandon.
Miniature. Date doubtful. See Vol. ii. p. 223-226; Pl. 31, vol. ii.
W. 268.
Portrait of Charles Brandon, 1541.
Miniature. See Vol. ii. p. 223-226; Pl. 31, vol. ii. W. 269.
Portrait of Lady Audley.
Miniature. See Vol. ii. p. 222-223; Pl. 31, vol. ii. W. 270.
Portrait of Queen Catherine Howard.
Miniature. See Vol. ii. p. 192-193; Pl. 31, vol. ii. W. 271.
King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba.
Miniature painting in grisaille, touched with colour and gold. See
vol. ii. pp. 262-3; Pl. 40, vol. ii. W. 272.
VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM, SOUTH KENSINGTON: SALTING COLLECTION
Portrait of Hans of Antwerp.
Small roundel. See Vol. ii. p. 14. Not in Woltmann.
Portrait of Anne of Cleves.
Miniature. See Vol. ii. p. 181-182, and 236. W. 158.
NATIONAL GALLERY OF IRELAND, DUBLIN
Portrait of Sir Henry Wyat.
Replica of the portrait in the Louvre, Paris. See vol. i. p. 335.
Not in Woltmann.
LAMBETH PALACE
Portrait of William Warham, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1527.
See vol. i. pp. 322-3. W. 208.
WALLACE COLLECTION, HERTFORD HOUSE
Self-Portrait of Hans Holbein, 1543.
Miniature. See Vol. ii. p. 230; Pl. 33, vol. ii. See Woltmann, vol.
ii. pp. 167-8.
BARBER-SURGEONS’ HALL, LONDON
Henry VIII granting a Charter of Incorporation to the Barber-Surgeons,
1543.
See Vol. ii. p. 289-244; Pl. 94, vol. ii. W. 202.
DUKE OF BEDFORD, K.G., WOBURN ABBEY
Portrait of Sir John Russell, afterwards Earl of Bedford.
Attributed to Holbein. W. 358.
Portrait of Queen Jane Seymour.
Old copy. See Vol. ii. p. 112. BERLIN, KAISER FRIEDRICH MUSEUM DUKE
OF BUCCLEUCH, K.G., K.T., DALKEITH HOUSE
Portrait of Sir Nicholas Carew.
See Vol. ii. p. 88-89. W. 142.
Portrait of Queen Catherine Howard.
Miniature. See Vol. ii. p. 193-194. Not in Woltmann.
Other fine miniatures of Sir Thomas More, George Nevill, Lord
Abergavenny, Self-portrait of Holbein, 1543, Jane Seymour, Henry
VIII, &c., attributed to Holbein.
See vol. ii. chap. xxv. BERLIN, KAISER FRIEDRICH MUSEUM MR. AYERST
H. BUTTERY, LONDON
Portrait of an Unknown English Lady.
Formerly in the possession of the Bodenham family. See vol. i.
Postscript to Chapter xiv. and Pl. 95.
EARL OF CALEDON, TYTTENHANGER PARK
Portrait of Thomas Cromwell, 1532-34.
See Vol. ii. p. 58-61. W. 249.
DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE, G.C.V.O., CHATSWORTH
Henry VII and Henry VIII.
Cartoon for the left-hand half of the Whitehall Wall-painting. Until
recently at Hardwick Hall. See Vol. ii. p. 97-99; Pl. 18, vol. ii.
W. 167.
MISS GUEST, OF INWOOD
Portrait of Sir Bryan Tuke.
Formerly in the Collection of the Duke of Westminster. See vol. i.
pp. 331-3. W. 213.
According to report, this picture is no longer in Miss Guest’s
possession, having been sold during the present year (1913).
LORD LECONFIELD, PETWORTH
Portrait of Derich Berck of Cologne, and of the London Steelyard, 1536.
See Vol. ii. p. 22-23; Pl. 5, vol. ii. W. 241.
MR. HAMON LE STRANGE
Portrait of Sir Thomas le Strange, 1536.
See Vol. ii. p. 85-86. Not in Woltmann.
DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND, K.G., SYON HOUSE
Portrait of Edward, Prince of Wales.
Attributed to Holbein. See Vol. ii. p. 166. W. 246.
MESSRS. PARKENTHORPE, LONDON
The More Family Group.
The Burford version, recently in the possession of Sir Hugh P. Lane.
Copy, with later additions, of the original painting. See vol. i.
pp. 301-2; Pl. 76.
EARL OF RADNOR, LONGFORD CASTLE
Portrait of Erasmus, 1523.
See vol. i. pp. 169-71; Pl. 54. W. 214.
SIR JOHN RAMSDEN, BT., BULSTRODE PARK
Portrait of a Musician.
Formerly regarded as a portrait of Sir Nicholas Vaux. Considered by
Dr. Ganz to represent Jean de Dinteville. See Vol. ii. p. 52-53; Pl.
10, vol. ii. Not in Woltmann.
LORD SACKVILLE, KNOLE PARK
Portrait of Margaret Roper.
Inscribed “Queen Cathrine.” Old copy of a lost original by Holbein,
or of the figure in the More Family Group. See vol. i. pp. 308-9.
Portrait of Queen Jane Seymour.
Good old copy of the portrait in Vienna. See vol. i. p. 112.
LORD ST. OSWALD, NOSTELL PRIORY
The More Family Group, 1527-30.
This picture, among the various existing versions of the More Family
Group, has the greatest claims to be regarded, at least in parts, as
the original work by Holbein. See vol. i. pp. 295-8; and vol. ii,
pp. 334-40; Pl. 75.
EARL SPENCER, G.P.V.O., ALTHORP PARK
Portrait of Henry VIII, about 1537.
See Vol. ii. p. 107-109; frontispiece, vol. ii. W. 1.
Portrait of Hans of Antwerp (?)
Small roundel. Attributed to Holbein. See Vol. ii. p. 14-15. Not in
Woltmann.
MR. VERNON WATNEY
Portrait of an English Lady.
Miniature. Said to represent Queen Jane Seymour. See Vol. ii. p.
237. Not in Woltmann.
EARL OF YARBOROUGH
Portrait of Edward, Prince of Wales.
Fine old copy of the portrait at Hanover. See Vol. ii. p. 165; Pl.
22, vol. ii.
FRANCE
PARIS, THE LOUVRE
Portrait of Erasmus, 1523.
See vol. i. pp. 172-3; Pl. 56. W. 224.
Portrait of William Warham, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1527.
See vol. i. p. 322; Pl. 83. W. 225.
Portrait of Niklaus Kratzer, the Astronomer, 1528.
See vol. i. pp. 327-30; Pl. 86. W. 226.
Portrait of Sir Henry Wyat, 1527-28.
See vol. i. pp. 335-6; Pl. 88. W. 227.
Portrait of Anne of Cleves, 1539.
See Vol. ii. p. 181-182; Pl. 24, vol. ii. W. 228.
Portrait of Sir Richard Southwell, 1536.
Attributed to Holbein, but probably only a fine old copy. See vol.
ii. p. 85. Not in Woltmann.
F. ENGEL-GROS COLLECTION, CHÂTEAU DE RIPAILLE, THONON, SAVOY
Portrait of a Man wearing the livery of Henry VIII.
Small roundel. See Vol. ii. p. 71. Not in Woltmann.
GERMANY
BERLIN, KAISER FRIEDRICH MUSEUM
Portrait of Georg Gisze, member of the London Steelyard, 1532.
See Vol. ii. p. 4-8; Pl. i. vol. ii. W. 115.
Portrait of Hermann Hillebrandt Wedigh of Cologne, member of the London
Steelyard, 1533.
See Vol. ii. p. 16-17; Pl. 3, vol. ii. W. 116.
Portrait of an Unknown Man, aged 37, 1541.
Possibly a Member of the Dutch family of Vos van Steenwyck. See vol.
ii. p. 202. W. 117.
Portrait of an Unknown Man, aged 54.
Formerly in the Collection of Sir J. E. Millais, Bt. See Vol. ii. p.
205-206; Pl. 29, vol. ii. W. 211.
BRUNSWICK, ROYAL MUSEUM
Portrait of Cyriacus Fallen, member of the London Steelyard, 1533.
See Vol. ii. p. 22. W. 126.
DARMSTADT, GRAND-DUCAL PALACE
The Madonna and Child with the Family of Jakob Meyer, Burgomaster of
Basel, about 1526.
Commonly known as the Meyer Madonna. See vol. i. pp. 232-45; Pl. 71.
W. 143.
DRESDEN, ROYAL PICTURE GALLERY
Double Portrait of Thomas and John Godsalve, of Norwich, 1528.
See vol. i. pp. 325-7; Pl. 84. W. 144.
Portrait of Charles de Solier, Sieur de Morette, ambassador to the
English Court, about 1534.
See Vol. ii. p. 63-70; Pl. 12, vol. ii. W. 145.
The Madonna and Child with the Family of Jakob Meyer.
Long regarded as an original work by Holbein. Fine old copy of the
picture at Darmstadt. See vol. i. pp. 232-45. Not in Woltmann.
FRANKFURT, STÄDELSCHES KUNSTINSTITUT
Portrait of Simon George, of Quocote.
See Vol. ii. p. 207. W. 151.
FREIBURG IM BREISGAU, UNIVERSITY CHAPEL, MINSTER
The Adoration of the Shepherds.
The Adoration of the Kings.
Inner sides of the wings of the Oberried altar-piece. See vol. i.
pp. 88-91; Pl. 29. W. 155, 156.
HANOVER, PROVINZIAL MUSEUM
Portrait of Philip Melanchthon.
Small roundel. See vol. i. pp. 184-5; Pl. 58. W. 164.
Portrait of Edward, Prince of Wales, 1538-9.
See Vol. ii. p. 165. W. 165.
KARLSRUHE, GRAND-DUCAL PICTURE GALLERY
Christ Bearing the Cross, 1515.
On the back the remains of a “Crowning with Thorns.” See vol. i. pp.
38-9. W. 168.
St. George, 1522.
St. Ursula, 1522.
Wings of an altar-piece. See vol. i. pp. 111-2. W. 169, 170.
MUNICH, ALTE PINAKOTHEK
Portrait of Derich Born, member of the London Steelyard, 1533.
Small oval, almost miniature in size. See Vol. ii. p. 20. W. 220.
Portrait of Sir Bryan Tuke, with Death holding a Scythe and Hour-glass.
Probably a good old copy of the picture until recently in the
possession of Miss Guest of Inwood. See vol. i. pp. 331-3. W. 219.
Portrait of Derich Berck, member of the London Steelyard.
Copy of the picture belonging to Lord Leconfield, Petworth. See vol.
ii. p. 23. Not in Woltmann.
MUNICH, BAVARIAN NATIONAL MUSEUM
Portrait of a Man, aged 27.
Miniature, with the initials H. M. on either side of the head. See
vol. ii. pp. 241-2. Not in Woltmann.
HOLLAND
THE HAGUE, ROYAL PICTURE GALLERY
Portrait of a Young Lady, said to be Holbein’s Wife.
See vol. i. pp. 106-8; Pl. 37. W. 161.
Portrait of Robert Cheseman, 1533.
See Vol. ii. p. 54-57; Pl. 11, vol. ii. W. 159.
Portrait of an Unknown Man with a Falcon, aged 28, 1542.
See Vol. ii. p. 203; Pl. 28, vol. ii. W. 160.
Portrait of Queen Jane Seymour.
Good old copy of the picture at Vienna. See Vol. ii. p. 113. Not in
Woltmann.
THE HAGUE, ROYAL PALACE
Portrait of a Boy.
Miniature. See Vol. ii. p. 229-230; Pl. 31, vol. ii. Not in
Woltmann.
ITALY
FLORENCE, UFFIZI GALLERY
Portrait of Sir Richard Southwell, 1536.
See Vol. ii. p. 84-85; Pl. 16, vol. ii. W. 149.
Self-portrait of Hans Holbein, 1543.
See Vol. ii. p. 213. W. 150.
PARMA, PICTURE GALLERY
Portrait of Erasmus, 1530.
Probably only a good old copy. See vol. i. p. 179. W. 240.
ROME, NATIONAL GALLERY
Portrait of Henry VIII, about 1539.
See Vol. ii. p. 102-103; Pl. 19, vol. ii. Not in Woltmann.
SPAIN
MADRID, PRADO
Portrait of an Old Man.
Attributed to Holbein by some writers. Not by him according to Dr.
Ganz. See vol. i. pp. 334-5. W. 217.
SWITZERLAND
BASEL, PUBLIC PICTURE COLLECTION
Madonna and Child, 1514.
See vol. i. pp. 33-5; Pl. 7. Not in Woltmann.
Head of the Virgin.
Head of St. John.
See vol. i. pp. 37-8; Pl. 8. W. 7, 8.
The Lord’s Supper.
Christ on the Mount of Olives.
Christ taken Prisoner.
The Scourging.
Pilate Washing his Hands.
The above five paintings, on canvas, formed part of a larger
“Passion” series, probably for some Basel church, and are among the
earliest works upon which Holbein was engaged after he settled in
that city. See vol. i. pp. 39-42; Pls. 9 and 10. W. 24-8.
Schoolmaster’s Sign, 1516.
Painted on both sides. See vol. i. pp. 51-2; Pl. 14. W. 5, 6.
Double Portrait of the Burgomaster, Jakob Meyer, and his Wife Dorothea
Kannengiesser, 1516.
See vol. i. pp. 52-5; Pl. 15. W. 11.
Adam and Eve, 1517.
See vol. i. pp. 55-6; Pl. 17. W. 9.
Portrait of Bonifacius Amerbach, 1519.
See vol. i. pp. 85-7; Pl. 28. W. 10.
The Dead Christ in the Tomb, 1521.
See vol. i. pp. 101-3; Pl. 35. W. 14.
Seven Fragments of three of the Wall-paintings in the Council Chamber of
the Basel Town Hall:—
Heads of the Samnite Ambassadors, 1521-2.
Head of Zaleucus of Locri, 1521-2.
Head of a Spectator in the same painting, 1521-2.
Head of King Rehoboam, 1530.
Hand of King Rehoboam, 1530.
Two groups of Heads in the same painting, 1530.
See vol. i. pp. 129-31 and 348; Pls. 40 and 92. W. 21.
Portrait of Erasmus, in profile, writing, 1523.
See vol. i. pp. 173-4. W. 12.
The Last Supper.
See vol. i. pp. 75-6; Pl. 25. W. 16.
The Passion of Christ.
In eight scenes. The outer sides of the wings of an altar-piece. See
vol. i. pp. 91-5; Pl. 30. W. 20.
Christ as the Man of Sorrows.
Mary as Mater Dolorosa.
Diptych, monochrome, with blue backgrounds.
See vol. i. pp. 98-9; Pl. 33. W. 19.
Organ Doors formerly in Basel Minster.
See vol. i. p. 113. W. 4.
Magdalena Offenburg as Laïs Corinthiaca, 1526.
See vol. i. pp. 246-52; Pl. 73. W. 17.
Magdalena Offenburg as Venus, 1526.
See vol. i. pp. 246-52; Pl. 73. W. 18.
Holbein’s Wife and Children, 1528-29.
See vol. i. pp. 343-6; Pl. 90. W. 15.
Portrait of an Unknown Man.
See Vol. ii. p. 211. W. 22.
Portrait of Erasmus.
Small roundel. See vol. i. p. 180; Pl. 58. W. 13.
Portrait of a Young Woman, about 1528.
Unfinished. See vol. i. pp. 346-7; Pl. 91. W. 46.
Printer’s Mark of Johann Froben.
Portrait of Johann Froben.
Old copy. See vol. i. pp. 183-4.
BASEL, UNIVERSITY LIBRARY
Coat of Arms of Petrus Fabrinus, Rector of Basel University, 1523.
Coloured drawing in the University Matriculation Book. See vol. i.
pp. 145-6. W. 112.
BASEL, COLLECTION OF DR. RUDOLPH GEIGY-SCHLUMBERGER
Portrait of a Man, said to be Holbein himself.
Water-colour drawing. See Vol. ii. p. 213. Not in Woltmann.
LUCERNE, KUNSTVEREIN
Fragments of the original wall-painting on the façade of the Hertenstein
House in Lucerne: part of the subject of the Death of Lucretia, 1517.
See vol. i. p. 68. W. 216.
SOLOTHURN, STADT MUSEUM
Madonna and Child, with St. Nicholas (or St. Martin) and St. Ursus,
1522.
See vol. i. pp. 103-11; Pl. 36. W. 247.
ZÜRICH, SCHWEIZERISCHES LANDESMUSEUM
Table painted with the legend of St. Nobody, hunting and jousting
scenes, &c., for Hans Baer, of Basel, 1515.
See vol. i. pp. 35-7. W. 359.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PICTURES BY AND ATTRIBUTED TO HOLBEIN AND OF HIS SCHOOL AND PERIOD
EXHIBITED AT VARIOUS EXHIBITIONS BETWEEN 1846 AND 1912
_In almost all cases the attributions are those of the owners of the
pictures_
_The spelling of the names is that of the original Catalogues_
I. THE BRITISH INSTITUTION, 1846
120 │Charles Brandon, Duke of │ Hans │Lord Willoughby d’Eresby
│Suffolk d. 1545 │ Holbein │
122 │Henry VIII │ " │Mrs. Nicholl
131 │The Infant Son of Charles │ " │Lord Willoughby d’Eresby
│Brandon, Duke of Suffolk │ │
133 │Edward VI when Prince of │ " │Earl of Hardwick
│Wales │ │
135 │George Brooke, Lord of │ " │F. L. Popham, Esq.
│Cobham d. 1558 │ │
138 │Queen Mary │ " │Hon. C. C. Cavendish M.P.
155 │Thomas Howard, Duke of │ " │Duke of Norfolk
│Norfolk, │ │
161 │Ambrose Dudley, Earl of │ " │Marquess of Salisbury,
│Warwick, d. 1589 │ │K.G.
162 │William Warham, Archbishop│ " │Archbishop of Canterbury
│of Canterbury, d. 1532 │ │
163 │The Family of Henry VII │ " │Lord Willoughby d’Eresby
│and Henry VIII, &c. │ │
176 │Catherine de Bore, wife of│ " │Duke of Sutherland, K.G.
│Martin Luther │ │
178 │Erasmus, d. 1536 │ " │Duke of Sutherland, K.G.
200 │Lady Elizabeth Gray, wife │ " │Lord Baybrooke
│of Thomas, Lord Audley of │ │
│Warden, Lord Chancellor │ │
205 │Henry VIII granting the │ " │Barber-Surgeons’ Company
│Charter to the │ │
│Barber-Surgeons │ │
II. ART TREASURES OF THE UNITED KINGDOM COLLECTED AT MANCHESTER IN 1857
_Old Masters_
454 │Portrait of Francis I │ Hans │Her Majesty (Hampton
│(considered by some to be│ Holbein │Court)
│a Janet) │ │
455 │King Henry VIII │ " │Earl of Warwick
456 │Dr. Stokes (Bishop of │ " │Her Majesty (Windsor
│London) │ │Castle)
457 │King Edward VI │ " │A. Barker, Esq.
459 │Portrait of a Young Man │ " │Lord Ward
│holding a Book │ │
460 │Portrait of Francis I, │ " │H.R.H. Prince Albert
│dated 1509, No. 40 of │ │
│Kensington Palace │ │
│Catalogue │ │
466 │Portrait of Erasmus. A │ Georg │Her Majesty (Windsor
│copy of a picture by │ Pentz │Castle)
│Holbein │ │
533 │The Root of Jesse │ Gerard │Sir Culling Eardly, Bt.
│ │ Lucas │
│ │ Horebout │
_British Portrait Gallery_
10 │Anne Boleyn │ Unknown │Earl of Denbigh
11 │Anne Boleyn │ “ │Earl of Warwick
12 │Mary Boleyn │ “ │“
13 │Lord Darnley and his │ Lucas │Her Majesty (Hampton
│Brother, Charles Stuart │ d’Heere │Court)
14 │Mary Tudor and Charles │ Unknown │Duke of Bedford
│Brandon, Duke of Suffolk │ │
16 │Queen Katherine Parr │ Holbein │Earl of Denbigh
17 │Earl of Surrey (Henry │ “ │Her Majesty (Hampton
│Howard), the poet, in a │ │Court)
│red habit │ │
26 │Sir Nicholas Carew, K.G., │ “ │Duke of Buccleuch
│in armour │ │
27 │Sir Walter Raleigh │ “ │J. Gibson Craig, Esq.,
│ │ │M.P.
28 │Lady Raleigh │ “ │“
29 │The Darnley Cenotaph │ “ │Duke of Richmond
30 │Littleton │ “ │Lord Lyttelton
31 │Earl of Southampton (Henry│ “ │Duke of Portland
│Wriothesley), │ │
│Shakespeare’s patron, with│ │
│his Cat │ │
32 │Countess of Southampton │ “ │“
│(Elizabeth Vernon), wife │ │
│of above │ │
33 │Bess of Hardwick (Building│ “ │“
│Bess) │ │
34 │William Camden in his │ “ │Painter-Stainers’ Company
│dress as Clarencieux │ │
48 │King Henry VIII │ “ │Duke of Manchester
49 │Cardinal Wolsey │ “ │Christ Church, Oxford
50 │Queen Jane Seymour │ “ │Duke of Bedford
51 │The Father of Sir Thomas │ “ │Earl of Pembroke
│More holding a legal │ │
│document │ │
52 │Sir Henry Guildford │ “ │Her Majesty (Windsor
│ │ │Castle)
SOUTH KENSINGTON, 1862
53 │Lady Grey (Margaret │ Holbein │Duke of Portland
│Wooton) │ │
53A │Lady Jane Grey │ “ │Earl of Stamford and
│ │ │Warrington
54 │King Edward VI. A │ “ │Her Majesty (Windsor
│knee-piece │ │Castle)
55 │King Edward VI at age of │ “ │Earl of Yarborough
│six │ │
55A │King Edward VI │ “ │Duke of Northumberland
56 │King Edward VI. Miniature │ “ │Duke of Portland
│full-length │ │
57 │The Three Children of King│ Mabuse │Earl of Pembroke
│Henry VII │ │
58 │Queen Mary I and Philip │ “ │Duke of Bedford
│II. Small full-lengths, │ │
│dated 1558 │ │
59 │Queen Mary I, 1544 │ Lucas │Society of Antiquaries
│ │ d’Heere │
62 │Queen Elizabeth. Miniature│ “ │Duke of Portland
│full-length │ │
66 │William Warham, Archbishop│ Holbein │Archbishop of Canterbury
│of Canterbury │ │
67 │The Princess Elizabeth, │ “ │Her Majesty (Hampton
│holding a book │ │Court)
67A │Sir Thomas Gresham │ “ │Earl of Stamford and
│ │ │Warrington
173 │Lucius Cary, Viscount │ “ │Earl of Clarendon
│Falkland │ │
Frame │Miniatures of the time of │ — │Duke of Buccleuch
7 │Henry VII and Henry VIII, │ │
│&c. │ │
Frame │Henry VIII │ Holbein │Col. Meyrick
17 │ │ │
Frame │Anne of Cleves │ “ │“
17 │ │ │
III. SPECIAL EXHIBITION OF WORKS OF ART, SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM, JUNE
1862. SECTION XI. PORTRAIT MINIATURES
1901 │Mary Tudor, Queen of │ Sir A. │S. Addington, Esq.
│England (oil) │ More │
1905 │Thomas Cromwell, Earl of │ Holbein │“
│Essex │ │
1932 │Edward VI (sculptured in │ Unknown │T. L. Barwick Baker, Esq.
│wood) │ │
1933 │Henry VIII “ │ “ │“
1934 │Henry, Duke of Richmond │ “ │C. Sackville Bale, Esq.
1935 │Jane Seymour │ Hans │“
│ │ Holbein │
1936 │Mary Tudor │ “ │“
2018 │Henry VII │ “ │Duke of Buccleuch, K.G.
2021 │Henry VIII │ “ │“
2022 │“ │ “ │“
2023 │“ │ “ │“
2024 │Catherine of Aragon │ “ │“
2025 │“ │ “ │“
2026 │“ │ “ │“
2027 │Mary Tudor │ Sir A. │“
│ │ More │
2029 │Catherine Howard │ Hans │“
│ │ Holbein │
2030 │“ │ “ │“
2039 │Prince Edward │ “ │“
2040 │King Edward VI │ Hans │Duke of Buccleuch, K.G.
│ │ Holbein │
2041 │“ │ “ │“
2042 │“ │ “ │“
2061 │Sir Thomas More │ “ │“
2216 │The Three Children of │ Ascribed │J. C. Dent, Esq.
│Henry VII │to Mabuse │
2217 │Jane Seymour │ Hans │“
│ │ Holbein │
2218 │Queen Catherine Parr │ “ │“
2219 │Henry VIII, full-length │ — │“
│(carved in honestone) │ │
2220 │Henry VIII (carved in │ Hans │“
│boxwood) │ Holbein │
2265 │An Unfinished Portrait │ “ │Sir Wentworth Dilke, Bt.
2341 │Henry VIII │ Unknown │Earl of Gosford
2405 │Queen Catherine Howard │ Hans │Duke of Hamilton
│ │ Holbein │
2458 │Sir Thomas More │Attributed│Sir W. T. Holburne. Bt.
│ │to Holbein│
2459 │Erasmus │ “ │“
2477 │Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of│ Hans │R. S. Holford, Esq.
│Norfolk │ Holbein │
2478 │Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of│ Sir A. │“
│Norfolk │ More │
2544 │Henry VIII, 1526 │ Hans │Hollingworth Magniac, Esq.
│ │ Holbein │
2545 │Catherine of Aragon │ “ │“
2581 │Henry VIII and Jane │ “ │H. Danby Seymour, Esq.,
│Seymour │ │M.P.
2598 │Mary Tudor, Queen of │ Luis de │Rev. Walter Sneyd
│England │ Vargas │
2599 │Philip II of Spain │ “ │“
2641 │Leonhardus Bur, aged 20, │ Hans │Charles Sotheby, Esq.
│1549 │ Holbein │
2651 │Henry VIII (oil on panel) │ “ │Earl Spencer
2652 │Sir John Boling Hatton and│ Lucas │“
│his Mother, 1525 │ d’Heere │
2726 │Catherine, Duchess of │ Hans │Lady Willoughby de Eresby
│Suffolk, d. 1580 │ Holbein │
2727 │Thomas Cromwell, Earl of │ Unknown │“
│Essex │ │
IV. SPECIAL EXHIBITION OF PORTRAIT MINIATURES ON LOAN AT THE SOUTH
KENSINGTON MUSEUM, JUNE 1865
273 │Henry VIII (oil) │ Unknown │Duke of Richmond
307 │Mary Tudor, Queen of │ Sir A. │S. Addington, Esq.
│England (oil) │ More │
601 │Sir Thomas More (enamel) │ H. Bone, │R. G. Clarke, Esq.
│ │ R.A. │
629 │Mary, Queen of England │ Luis de │Rev. W. Sneyd
│(oil). Dated 1555 │ Vargas │
630 │Philip II of Spain (oil) │ “ │“
648 │Katherine of Aragon (on │ Hans │Hollingworth Magniac, Esq.
│vellum) │ Holbein │
652 │Henry VIII. Painted in │ “ │“
│1526 │ │
763 │Sir Nicholas Poyntz │ “ │R. S. Holford, Esq., M.P.
│(vellum) │ │
950 │Sir John Boling Hatton and│ Lucas │Earl Spencer, K.G.
│his Mother. Dated 1525 │ d’Heere │
1029 │Earl of Kildare (oil on │ Hans │Lord Boston
│panel) │ Holbein │
146 │Alicia, wife of Sir Thomas│ “ │J. Heywood Hawkins, Esq.
│More (on card) │ │
1282 │Mary Tudor, Queen of │ Unknown │“
│England │ │
1381 │Henry VIII (on ivory) │Copy after│Earl of Gosford
│ │ Holbein │
1388 │John Calvin (oil on panel)│ Hans │Earl Spencer, K.G.
│ │ Holbein │
1392 │Henry VIII (oil on panel) │ “ │John Jones, Esq.
1554 │Thomas Howard, Duke of │ “ │Philip Henry Howard, Esq.
│Norfolk (on panel) │ │
1590 │Katherine of Aragon (on │ “ │Duke of Buccleuch, K.G.
│vellum) │ │
1603 │Thomas, Lord Seymour of │ “ │“
│Sudeley (on vellum) │ │
1643 │Henry, Duke of Richmond │ Unknown │C. Sackville Bale, Esq.
│(on card) │ │
1645 │Lady Jane Seymour │ Hans │“
│ │ Holbein │
1651 │Queen Mary I of England │ “ │“
1708 │Margaret Tudor, Queen of │ Unknown │Duke of Marlborough
│Scotland │ │
1810 │Ann of Cleves. Signed “H. │ Hans │David Laing, Esq.
│H.” (oil on panel). │ Holbein │
2082 │Henry VIII (oil) │ “ │Earl Spencer, K.G.
2093 │Portrait of a Gentleman in│ “ │Earl of Shaftesbury, K.G.
│a furred gown │ │
2347 │Henry VIII and Edward VI │ Ascribed │Miss Wilson
│ │ to N. │
│ │ Hilliard │
2627 │Portrait of a Lady, aged │ Hans │J. Heywood Hawkins, Esq.
│23 (on card) (Mrs. │ Holbein │
│Pemberton) │ │
2655 │Hans Holbein, the Painter │ “ │Earl Spencer, K.G.
│(oil) │ │
2664 │Edward VI. Dated 1547 │ “ │Henry F. Holt, Esq.
2946 │Charles V, Emperor of │ Ascribed │William Mosely, Esq.
│Germany │to Holbein│
2947 │Anne Boleyn │ “ │“
2948 │Henry VIII │ “ │“
V. FIRST SPECIAL EXHIBITION OF NATIONAL PORTRAITS ENDING WITH THE REIGN
OF KING JAMES THE SECOND, ON LOAN TO THE SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM, 1866
46 │Richard Fox, Bishop of │ Johannes │Corpus Oxford Christi
│Winchester. 30” × 19” │ Corvus │College,
49 │Arthur, Prince of Wales. │ Hans │Her Majesty (Windsor
│15” × 11” │ Holbein │Castle)
50 │Richard Fox. 15” × 12” │ Unknown │Richard Cholmondeley, Esq.
52 │Henry VII. 23” × 18” │ Jan de │Hon. Mrs. Greville Howard
│ │ Mabuse │
53 │Margaret Tudor, Queen of │ Unknown │Her Majesty (Hampton
│Scotland. 94” × 55” │ │Court)
54 │Henry VII and Ferdinand of│ Hans │Henry Musgrave, Esq.
│Aragon. 32” × 31” │ Holbein │
55 │Henry VII. 22” × 17” │ Unknown │Her Majesty (Windsor
│ │ │Castle)
56 │Henry VII. 20” × 16” │ “ │Christ Church, Oxford
57 │Queen Elizabeth of York. │ Ascribed │Mrs. B. J. P. Bastard.
│21” × 16” │to Mabuse │
58 │The Three Children of │ Jan de │Her Majesty (Hampton
│Henry VII. 13” × 17” │ Mabuse │Court)
59 │Henry VII. 22” × 25” │ Unknown │Charles Winn, Esq.
60 │John Colet, Dean of St. │ “ │University Library,
│Paul’s. 34” × 24” │ │Cambridge
62 │Henry VII. 15” × 11” │ “ │Christ Church, Oxford
63 │James IV of Scotland. 14” │ Hans │Marquis of Lothian
│× 11” │ Holbein │
68 │Sir Thomas Wyat the Elder.│ Unknown │Bodleian Library, Oxford
│17” × 13” │ │
71 │Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke │ Hans │Marquis of Hastings
│of Buckingham. 23” × 18” │ Holbein │
72 │Nicolas Kratzer. 34” × 27”│ " │Viscount Galway, M.P.
73 │Hans Holbein, signed “H. │ " │Her Majesty (Hampton
│B., A.D. 1539.” 16” × 11½”│ │Court)
74 │Queen Catherine of Aragon │ " │Walter Moseley, Esq.
│(Portrait of Lady Rich). │ │
│17” × 13” │ │
75 │Henry VIII. 35” × 25” │ " │Duke of Manchester
76 │Charles Brandon, Duke of │ " │Mrs. Branfill
│Suffolk, and his wife, │ │
│Princess Mary Tudor. 30” ×│ │
│22” │ │
77 │Henry VIII. 35” × 27” │ Unknown │Her Majesty (Windsor
│ │ │Castle)
78 │Queen Katherine of Aragon.│ Hans │Countess Delawarr
│26” × 20” │ Holbein │
79 │Queen Katherine of Aragon.│ Unknown │National Portrait Gallery
│23” × 17” │ │
80 │Charles Brandon, Duke of │ Jan de │Earl of Yarborough
│Suffolk, and the Princess │ Mabuse │
│Mary Tudor. 28” × 18” │ │
84 │Henry VIII. 25” × 22” │ Hans │Lady Sophia Des Vœux
│ │ Holbein │
86 │William Warham, Archbishop│ " │Archbishop of Canterbury
│of Canterbury. 32” × 26” │ │
88 │John Fisher, Bishop of │ " │Major J. H. Brooks
│Rochester. 13” × 10” │ │
89 │Sir John More, Kt. 16” × │ " │W. B. Smythe, Esq.
│12” │ │
90 │Margaret Tudor, Queen of │ " │Marquis of Lothian
│Scotland. 14” × 11” │ │
91 │Sir Thomas Wyat the Elder.│ Unknown │Marquis of Hastings
│Circular, diameter 19” │ │
92 │John Fisher, Bishop of │ Hans │St. John’s College,
│Rochester, aged 74. 28” × │ Holbein │Cambridge
│24” │ │
93 │Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop│ " │Jesus College, Cambridge
│of Canterbury. │ │
95 │Henry Howard, Earl of │ " │Bodleian Library, Oxford
│Surrey. 8½” × 6½” │ │
96 │Thomas Linacre, M.D., │Holbein or│Her Majesty (Windsor
│dated 1527. 18” × 13” │ Metsys │Castle)
97 │Queen Anne Boleyn. 25” × │ Unknown │Hon. Mrs. Greville Howard
│10” │ │
98 │Sir Thomas Wyat the Elder.│ “ │John Bruce, Esq.
│15½” × 12” │ │
99 │Henry VIII. 36” × 35” │ " │Earl of Warwick
101 │Sir Thomas Boleyn, Earl of│ Hans │W. B. Stopford, Esq.
│Ormonde and Wiltshire, │ Holbein │
│K.G., aged 60. 20” × 17” │ │
102 │Henry Howard, Earl of │ " │Her Majesty (Hampton
│Surrey, K.G. 76” × 52” │ │Court)
103 │Queen Anne Boleyn. 14” × │ Unknown │Earl of Warwick
│12” │ │
104 │Christina of Denmark, │ Hans │Her Majesty (Windsor
│Duchess of Milan. 17” × │ Holbein │Castle)
│13” │ │
105 │Mary Boleyn. 14” × 12” │ Unknown │Earl of Warwick
106 │James V of Scotland and │ “ │Duke of Devonshire, K.G.
│his second Queen, Mary of │ │
│Guise. 57” × 43” │ │
107 │Queen Anne Boleyn, dated │ Hans │Sir Montague J. Cholmeley,
│1530, “H. B.” 33” × 23” │ Holbein │Bt., M.P.
108 │Sir Richard Southwell, Kt.│ " │H. E. Chetwynd-Stapylton,
│18” × 14” Esq. │ │
109 │Henry VIII. 39” × 29” │ " │Her Majesty (Windsor
│ │ │Castle)
110 │Sir William Butts, Kt. 18”│ " │W. H. Pole-Carew, Esq.
│× 14” │ │
111 │Sir Nicholas (called │ Unknown │Marquis of Ormonde
│“William”) Poyntz, dated │ │
│1535. Canvas. 27” × 18” │ │
112 │Sir Richard Southwell, │ Michell, │Ralph N. Wornum, Esq.
│painted in 1835. 22” × 18”│ after │
│Holbein │ │
113 │Thomas Cromwell, Earl of │ Hans │Duke of Manchester
│Essex. 14” × 11” │ Holbein │
114 │Queen Anne Boleyn. 10½” × │ " │Earl of Denbigh
│8” │ │
115 │Lady Butts. 18” × 14” │ " │W. H. Pole-Carew, Esq.
118 │Henry VIII. 35” × 27” │ " │Viscount Galway, M.P.
119 │Queen Jane Seymour. 14” × │ Unknown │Duke of Northumberland
│11” │ │
120 │Mary Tudor, Queen of │ Unknown │Earl Brownlow
│France. 6½” × 5½” │ │
121 │Henry Howard, Earl of │ Hans │Countess Delawarr
│Surrey. Dated 1546. │ Holbein │
│Canvas, 81” × 51” │ │
122 │Joanna Fitz-Alan, Lady │ " │John Webb, Esq.
│Abergavenny. She died │ │
│before 1519. 16” × 22” │ │
123 │Charles Brandon, Duke of │ Unknown │Earl Brownlow
│Suffolk. 7” × 6” │ │
124 │Henry VIII. 28” × 22” │ Hans │Her Majesty (Hampton
│ │ Holbein │Court)
125 │Queen Jane Seymour. 24” × │ Unknown │Countess Delawarr
│19” │ │
126 │Thomas Cromwell, Earl of │ Hans │“
│Essex. 30” × 24½” │ Holbein │
129 │Sir Henry Guildford, Kt. │ " │John Webb, Esq.
│34” × 25” │ │
131 │Queen Katherine Parr. 70” │ Hans │Richard Booth, Esq.
│× 34” │ Holbein │
132 │Queen Anne of Cleves. 28” │ " │Charles Morrison, Esq.
│× 22” │ │
133 │Sir Henry Wyat, Kt. 30” × │ Unknown │Earl of Romney
│24” │ │
134 │Henry VII and Henry VIII. │ Hans │Duke of Devonshire, K.G.
│Cartoon, 102” × 54” │ Holbein │
135 │Henry VIII and Jane │Van Remée,│Her Majesty (Hampton
│Seymour, &c. 39” × 36” │ after │Court)
│ │ Holbein │
138 │Will Somers. 28” × 23½” │ Hans │“
│ │ Holbein │
141 │Sir William Sidney, Kt. │ " │Lord De L’Isle and Dudley
│“Holbein f. 1523.” 48” × │ │
│38” │ │
142 │Thomas Cranmer. Canvas, │ " │Captain Byng
│36” × 29” │ │
143 │Erasmus. Dated 1537. 23” ×│ G. Pencz │Her Majesty (Windsor
│18” │ │Castle)
144 │Henry VIII. 92” × 53” │ Hans │H. Danby Seymour, Esq.,
│ │ Holbein │M.P.
146 │Henry VIII. 24” × 19” │ Unknown │Royal College of Surgeons
149 │Sir Henry Guildford, Kt. │ Hans │Her Majesty (Windsor
│32” × 26” │ Holbein │Castle)
150 │Sir John More and Sir │ " │Sir Henry Ralph Vane, Bt.
│Thomas More. Dated 1530. │ │
│Canvas, 55” × 48” │ │
151 │Sir Thomas Pope. 47” × 33”│ " │Countess of Caledon
152 │Henry VIII, Princess Mary,│ Unknown │Earl Spencer, K.G.
│and Will Somers. Canvas, │ │
│63” × 50” │ │
153 │Edward Stanley, 3rd Earl │ Hans │Earl of Derby, K.G.
│of Derby, K.G. 13” × 10” │ Holbein │
154 │Sir John Cheke, Kt. 13” × │ " │Duke of Manchester
│9½” │ │
156 │Henry VIII. 30” × 24” │ Unknown │Christ Church, Oxford
157 │Sir Thomas More. 29” × 23”│ Hans │Henry Huth, Esq.
│ │ Holbein │
159 │William, 1st Lord Paget. │ " │Duke of Manchester
│12½” × 9½” │ │
161 │Sir John Thynne, Kt. Dated│ " │Marquis of Bath
│1566. 50” × 39” │ │
162 │Sir Nicholas Carew. 42” × │F. Pourbus│Earl of Yarborough
│32” │ │
163 │Sir Thomas More and his │ Hans │Charles Winn, Esq.
│Family. Canvas, 138” × 99”│ Holbein │
165 │Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of│ " │Her Majesty (Windsor
│Norfolk, K.G. 30” × 22” │ │Castle)
167 │Henry VIII. Oval, 29” × │ Unknown │Andrew Fountaine, Esq.
│24” │ │
170 │Henry VIII and his Family.│ Hans │Her Majesty (Hampton
│Canvas, 138” × 66” │ Holbein │Court)
172 │Edward VI. 40” × 32” │ " │"
173 │Sir Thomas Smith, Kt. │ P. │Eton College
│1856. 29” × 23½” │ Fischer, │
│ │ after │
│ │ Holbein │
175 │Edward VI. Dated 1546. 11”│ Hans │Earl of Hardwicke
│× 11” │ Holbein │
176 │Edward VI. 22½” × 16½” │ " │Earl of Yarborough
177 │Edward VI. Aged 9. 20” × │ " │Christ’s Hospital
│16” │ │
179 │Edward VI. 40” × 30” │ " │“
180 │Edward VI. Dated 1547. 28”│ " │Duke of Manchester
│× 21” │ │
181 │Thomas, Lord Seymour of │ Hans │Marquis of Bath
│Sudeley, K.G. 23” × 17” │ Holbein │
182 │Sir Thomas Wyat the │ Unknown │Earl of Romney
│Younger. Circular, 15” │ │
│diam. │ │
187 │Edward VI. Canvas, 26” × │ " │King’s College, Cambridge
│21” │ │
192 │Edward VI presenting │ Hans │Bridewell Hospital
│Charters. Canvas, 106” × │ Holbein │
│115” │ │
202 │Stephen Gardiner, Bishop │ " │Lord Taunton
│of Winchester. 13” × 10” │ │
208 │Princess Mary Tudor, │ " │Marquis of Exeter, K.G.
│afterwards Queen Mary. │ │
│Dated at back 1544. 12” × │ │
│9” │ │
236 │Margaret Douglas, Countess│ " │Her Majesty (Hampton
│of Lennox. Dated 1572. 92”│ │Court)
│× 54” │ │
247 │Queen Elizabeth. Aged 16. │ " │Her Majesty (St. James’s
│42” × 31” │ │Palace)
302 │Ambrose Dudley, Earl of │ " │Marquis of Salisbury, K.G.
│Warwick. 37” × 28” │ │
364 │Sir William Harris. Dated │ Gerard │Rev. J. M. St. Clere
│1596. 34” × 28” │ Lucas │Raymond
│ │ Horebout │
371 │Sir John Spencer. Dated │G. Stretes│Earl Spencer, K.G.
│1590. Canvas, 35” × 28” │ │
373 │Admiral Sir John Wallop, │ Hans │Earl of Portsmouth
│K.G. 24” × 17” │ Holbein │
374 │Lady Harris. 34” × 27” │ Gerard │Rev. J. M. St. Clere
│ │ Lucas │Raymond
│ │ Horebout │
VI. THIRD AND CONCLUDING EXHIBITION OF NATIONAL PORTRAITS ON LOAN TO THE
SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM, APRIL 1868
625 │Sir Brian Tuke, Kt. 19” × │ Hans │Marquis of Westminster
│15” │ Holbein │K.G.
626 │Henry Howard, Earl of │ Ascribed │Lord Taunton
│Surrey, and a Lady, │to Holbein│
│supposed to be the Fair │ │
│Geraldine. 6½” × 4½” │ │
627 │Edward Seymour, Duke of │ Hans │Duke of Northumberland
│Somerset, K.G. 8½” × 7 │ Holbein │
628 │John Reskimer. 18” × 13” │ “ │Her Majesty (Hampton
│ │ │Court)
629 │William West, Lord │ “ │R. S. Holford, Esq., M.P.
│Delawarr. 52” × 31” │ │
639 │Queen Katherine Parr. 14” │ Ascribed │Sir G. R. Osborn, Bt.
│× 10” │ to │
│ │ Amberger │
651 │Edward VI. Aged 2. 52” × │ Hans │Duke of Northumberland
│30” │ Holbein │
655 │Sir John Bourchier, 2nd │ “ │Lord Berners
│Baron Berners. 24” × 20” │ │
656 │John Stokesley, Bishop of │ “ │Her Majesty (Windsor
│London, 20” × 15” │ │Castle)
657 │Edward VI. 51” × 32” │ “ │Sir G. R. Osborn, Bt.
659 │Lady Guildeford. Dated │ “ │Thomas Frewen, Esq.
│1527. 34” × 27” │ │
VII. ROYAL ACADEMY OF ARTS: WINTER EXHIBITIONS OF WORKS BY THE OLD
MASTERS, 1870-1912
=1870=│ │ │
23 │The First Lord De la Warr.│ Hans │R. S. Holford, Esq.
│Panel, 52” × 30½” │ Holbein │
108 │Portrait, with a │ “ │Her Majesty (Windsor
│Manuscript. Panel, 24” × │ │Castle)
│18” │ │
111 │Portrait of John, Elector │ “ │R. S. Holford, Esq.
│of Saxony. Panel, 24” × │ │
│18½” │ │
120 │Portrait of Sir Thomas │ “ │Henry Huth, Esq.
│More. Panel, 29” × 23½” │ │
147 │Portrait of Edward VI. │ “ │Duke of Northumberland
│Panel, 51” × 29” │ │
152 │Portrait of a Youth. │ “ │Her Majesty (Windsor
│Panel, 23½” × 17½” │ │Castle)
=1871=│ │ │
153 │Portrait of Thomas Howard,│ “ │“
│3rd Duke of Norfolk. │ │
│Panel, 31” × 24” │ │
292 │Portrait of Geronimo │ “ │J. H. Anderdon, Esq.
│Deodati, murdered at │ │
│Antwerp 1551. Panel, 12” ×│ │
│8½” │ │
296 │Portrait of Francis I. │ “ │Earl of Dudley
│Panel, 28” × 23” │ │
=1872=│ │ │
52 │A Portrait of a Man. │ “ │J. E. Millais, Esq., R.A.
│Panel, 20” × 15” │ │
66 │Portrait of Lady Heneage, │ “ │J. C. Hanford, Esq.
│Cousin of Ann Boleyn. │ │
│Panel, 16½” × 13” │ │
82 │Portrait of Warham, │ “ │Archbishop of Canterbury
│Archbishop of Canterbury. │ │
│Panel, 32” × 25¼” │ │
94 │Portrait of Sir William │ “ │W. H. Pole-Carew, Esq.
│Butts, Kt., principal │ │
│Physician to Henry VIII. │ │
│Panel, 18” × 14¼” │ │
96 │Portrait of Lady Butts. │ “ │“
│Panel, 18” × 14¼” │ │
138 │Portrait of Sir Henry │ “ │Her Majesty (Windsor
│Guildford, K.G., Master of│ │Castle)
│the Horse to Henry VIII. │ │
│Panel, 32” × 26” │ │
213 │Portrait of John │ “ │Her Majesty (Hampton
│Reskimeer, a Cornish │ │Court)
│Gentleman. Panel, 17½” × │ │
│12¼” │ │
214 │Portrait of Dr. Thomas │ “ │W. Fuller Maitland, Esq.
│Linacre, Physician to │ │
│Henry VII and Henry VIII. │ │
│Founded the College of │ │
│Physicians, and was its │ │
│First President. Panel, │ │
│10⅞” × 8½” │ │
225 │“Noli Me Tangere.” Panel, │ “ │Her Majesty (Hampton
│29½” × 36¾” │ │Court)
=1873=│ │ │
114 │The Two Ambassadors. │ Hans │The Earl of Radnor
│Panel, 81” × 83” │ Holbein │
175 │Ægidius, the Friend of │ “ │“
│Erasmus. Panel, 29” × 20” │ │
178 │Portrait of Erasmus, │ “ │“
│signed “Johannes Holbein, │ │
│1523.” Panel, 29” × 20” │ │
198 │Portrait of a Young Man in│ “ │George P. Boyce, Esq.
│a Green Striped Dress. │ │
│Panel, 17½” × 13” │ │
=1875=│ │ │
167 │William Tell, an imaginary│ “ │Sir W. Miles, Bt.
│Portrait. Panel, 31” × 27”│ │
=1876=│ │ │
66 │Portrait of Mary Queen of │ Lucas │Earl of Radnor
│Scots. Panel, 39” × 30” │ d’Heere │
173 │Portrait of the Three │ Mabuse │“
│Children of Christian II │ │
│of Denmark. Panel, 14” × │ │
│18½” │ │
=1877=│ │ │
146 │Portrait of Anne Roper │ Hans │Lord Methuen
│(also thought to be a │ Holbein │
│portrait of Margaret, │ │
│Countess of Richmond and │ │
│Derby, mother of Henry │ │
│VII, by Mabuse). Panel, │ │
│14” × 10” │ │
171 │Portrait of Queen Mary. │ Lucas │Society of Antiquaries
│Signed and dated 1554. │ d’Heere │
│Panel, 41” × 31” │ │
184 │Portrait of King Edward │ Hans │W. More Molyneux, Esq.
│VI. Panel, 27½” × 20” │ Holbein │
232 │Portrait of a Gentleman, │ “ │Sir John Neeld, Bt.
│aged 48. Dated 1547. │ │
│Panel, 31” × 25” │ │
249 │Portrait of King Henry │ “ │St. Bartholomew’s Hospital
│VIII. Canvas, 46” × 37” │ │
=1878=│ │ │
217 │The Wheel of Fortune. │ Hans │Duke of Devonshire, K.G.
│Dated 1533. Distemper on │ Holbein │
│canvas. 28” × 18¾” │ │
224 │Portrait of Geronimo │ “ │J. H. Anderdon, Esq.
│Deodati. Panel, 12½” × 8½”│ │
=1879=│ │ │
212 │Portrait of Queen Mary. │Attributed│Lord Chesham
│Panel, 8” × 6” │ to Hans │
│ │ Holbein │
Case │Queen Katherine of Aragon.│ Unknown │Duke of Buccleuch, K.G.
F. 1 │Miniature │ │
“ 2 │Edward VI. Miniature │ From a │“
│ │picture by│
│ │ Holbein │
“ 5 │Queen Katherine of Aragon.│ Holbein │“
│Miniature │ │
“ 8 │Queen Elizabeth. Miniature│ John │“
│ │ Bettes │
“ 9 │Edward VI as a Boy. │ Hans │“
│Miniature │ Holbein │
Case │Henry VIII. Miniature │ Unknown │Duke of Buccleuch, K.G.
F. 10 │ │ │
“ 11 │Henry VII. Miniature │ “ │“
“ 12 │Henry VII. Miniature │ “ │“
“ 13 │Queen Katherine of Aragon.│ “ │“
│Miniature │ │
“ 14 │Queen Mary. Miniature │ Sir │“
│ │ Antonio │
│ │ More │
“ 15 │Henry VIII. Miniature │ Hans │“
│ │ Holbein │
“ 16 │Edward VI. Miniature │ Unknown │“
“ 20 │Queen Catherine Howard. │ “ │“
│Miniature │ │
“ 21 │Queen Katherine of Aragon │ “ │“
│holding a Monkey. │ │
│Miniature │ │
“ 22 │Queen Catherine Howard. │ After │“
│Miniature │ Holbein │
“ 25 │Portrait of the Painter. │ Hans │“
│Signed “H. H., 1543, │ Holbein │
│_ætat._ 45.” Miniature │ │
“ 27 │Henry VIII. Miniature │ From a │“
│ │picture by│
│ │ Holbein │
“ 28 │Queen Katherine of Aragon.│ Hans │“
│Miniature │ Holbein │
“ 29 │Hans Holbein. Miniature │ Unknown │“
“ 30 │Edward VI. Miniature │ “ │“
Case │Catherine Howard. │ Hans │Her Majesty
I. 3 │Miniature │ Holbein │
“ 4 │Henry Grey, Duke of │ “ │“
│Suffolk. Miniature │ │
“ 5 │Charles Brandon, Duke of │ “ │“
│Suffolk. Miniature │ │
Case │Sir Thomas More. Miniature│ After │Duke of Buccleuch, K.G.
L. 4 │ │ Holbein │
218 │Head of a Man, perhaps │ Hans │Duke of Devonshire, K.G.
│Francis North, Earl of │ Holbein │
│Guildford. Drawing signed │ │
│“H. H.” │ │
219 │A Theological or Legal │ “ │Edward J. Poynter, Esq.,
│Discussion. Eng. by Tobias│ │R.A.
│Stimmer. Drawing │ │
231 │Full-length Figures of │ “ │Marquis of Hartington,
│Henry VII and Henry VIII. │ │M.P.
│Cartoon │ │
217, │The Windsor “Heads” │ │Her Majesty
200-21,│" │ " │
223-30,│" │ " │
232-45│" │ " │
=1880=│ │ │
147 │Head of an Old Man. Panel,│ “ │Duke of Devonshire, K.G.
│13½” × 10” │ │
149 │Portrait of Lady Vaux. │ “ │Her Majesty (Hampton
│Panel, 14½” × 11” │ │Court)
150 │Portrait of a Man. Panel, │ “ │Duke of Devonshire, K.G.
│14” × 9” │ │
152 │Portrait of Henry Howard, │ “ │Charles Butler, Esq.
│Earl of Surrey. Dated │ │
│1534. Panel, 15½” × 11” │ │
155 │Portrait of Henry Grey, │School of │G. P. Boyce, Esq.
│Duke of Suffolk. Panel, │ Holbein │
│13½” × 10½” │ │
157 │Portrait of Lady Heneage. │ Hans │G. C. Handford, Esq.
│Panel, 16” × 11” │ Holbein │
161 │Portrait of Henry VIII. │ “ │Duke of Devonshire, K.G.
│Panel, 16½” × 12½” │ │
162 │Portrait of a Child. │ “ │Sir Henry Ainslie Hoare
│Panel, 8” × 6” │ │
163 │Portrait of Edward VI when│ “ │Duke of Northumberland
│Prince of Wales │ │
165 │Sir Thomas Gresham. Panel,│School of │The Gresham Committee
│71” × 42” │ Holbein │
167 │Portrait of William West, │ Hans │R. S. Holford, Esq.
│First Lord Delawarr. │ Holbein │
│Panel, 52” × 31” │ │
168 │Portrait of a German Lady.│ “ │Earl Spencer
│Panel, 23” × 19” │ │
169 │The Wheel of Fortune. │ “ │Duke of Devonshire, K.G.
│Distemper on canvas, 27” ×│ │
│18”. Dated 1533 │ │
170 │Portrait of a Man. Panel, │ “ │J. E. Millais, Esq., R.A.
│20” × 14½” │ │
171 │Portrait of Lady │ “ │Edward Frewen, Esq.
│Guildford. (Inscribed │ │
│“Anno 1527. Ætatis Suae │ │
│27.”) Panel, 32” × 26” │ │
172 │Portrait of Derek Berck. │ “ │Lord Leconfield
│Panel, 20” × 16” │ │
173 │Portrait of Thomas Howard,│Attributed│Duke of Norfolk
│3rd Duke of Norfolk. │to Holbein│
│Panel, 30” × 23” │ │
174 │Portrait of Sir Henry │ Hans │Her Majesty (Windsor
│Guildford. Panel, 32” × │ Holbein │Castle)
│26” │ │
175 │Sir W. Butts. Panel, 18” ×│ “ │W. H. Pole-Carew, Esq.
│14” │ │
176 │Portrait of Clement Newce,│School of │W. M. Martin-Edmunds, Esq.
│Esq., of Much Hadham. │ Holbein │
│Panel, 32” × 26”. Dated │ │
│1559. │ │
177 │Portrait of Christina of │ Hans │Duke of Norfolk
│Denmark, Duchess of Milan │ Holbein │
178 │Portrait of Lady Butts. │ “ │W. H. Pole-Carew, Esq.
│Panel, 18” × 14” │ │
179 │Portrait of W. Warham, │ “ │Archbishop of Canterbury
│Archbishop of Canterbury. │ │
│Panel, 32” × 26” │ │
180 │Portrait of Thomas Howard,│ “ │Her Majesty (Windsor
│Third Duke of Norfolk. │ │Castle)
│Panel, 31” × 24” │ │
181 │Portrait of John, Elector │ “ │R. S. Holford, Esq.
│of Saxony. Panel, 25” × │ │
│28½” │ │
182 │Portrait of Sir John More.│ “ │Earl of Pembroke
│Panel, 29” × 24” │ │
183 │Portrait of a Merchant of │ “ │Her Majesty (Windsor
│the Stahlhof or Steelyard.│ │Castle)
│Panel, 23½” × 18” │ │
184 │Portrait of a Young Man. │ “ │G. P. Boyce, Esq.
│Panel, 17” × 13” │ │
185 │Portrait of John Reskimer.│ Hans │Her Majesty (Hampton
│Panel, 17” × 12½” │ Holbein │Court)
186 │Portrait of a Gentleman. │School of │Duke of Buccleuch, K.G.
│Panel, 13” × 11” │ Holbein │
187 │“Noli Me Tangere.” Panel, │ Hans │Her Majesty (Hampton
│29½” × 37” │ Holbein │Court)
188 │Sir Bryan Tuke. Panel, │ “ │Marchioness of Westminster
│18½” × 14½” │ │
190 │Portrait of Anton Fugger │ “ │Francis Cook, Esq.
│of Augsburg. Panel, 14½” ×│ │
│11” │ │
191 │Portrait of John Herbster.│ “ │Earl of Northbrook
│Panel, 16” × 11” │ │
192 │Portrait of Sir Nicholas │ “ │Duke of Buccleuch, K.G.
│Carew. Panel, 36” × 40” │ │
195 │Portrait of the Princess │ “ │Her Majesty (St. James’s
│(afterwards Queen) │ │Palace)
│Elizabeth. Panel, 42” × │ │
│31½” │ │
198 │Portrait of a Young Man. │ “ │Duke of Marlborough
│Panel, 17” × 13” │ │
203 │William Tell (an imaginary│ “ │Sir P. Myles
│portrait). Panel, 31” × │ │
│26” │ │
204 │Thomas Cromwell, Earl of │ “ │Duke of Devonshire, K.G.
│Essex, Panel, 6” × 5” │ │
205 │Portrait of Thomas Howard,│ “ │“
│Duke of Norfolk. Panel, 6”│ │
│× 5” │ │
237 │Portrait of Edward VI on │ “ │Duke of Buccleuch, K.G.
│horseback. Canvas, 66” × │ │
│59” │ │
=1881=│ │ │
194 │Portrait of Sir Thomas │ “ │Mrs. Henry Huth
│More. Panel, 29” × 23½” │ │
201 │Portrait of a Lady. Panel,│ “ │Mrs. Herbert Blackburne
│14½” × 10” │ │
=1882=│ │ │
198 │Christ Mocked. Panel, 30” │ Holbein │C. Magniac, Esq., M.P.
│× 24” │ (?) │
216 │Portrait of a Lady. Panel,│ Hans │Mrs. Charles Fox
│7” × 6¼” │ Holbein │
222 │Portrait of Thomas │ “ │Countess of Caledon
│Cromwell, Earl of Essex. │ │
│Panel, 30” × 24½” │ │
=1884=│ │ │
288 │The Banker. Panel, 25” × │ “ │Marquis of Lansdowne
│19” │ │
=1886=│ │ │
184 │Portrait of Henry VIII. │ “ │H. R. Hughes, Esq.
│Panel, 34½” × 25” │ │
=1887=│ │ │
157 │Portrait of one of the │School of │Marquis of Bath
│Children of Sir John │ Holbein │
│Thynne. Dated 1582. Panel,│ │
│33” × 26” │ │
166 │Portrait of one of the │ “ │“
│Children of Sir John │ │
│Thynne. Dated 1574. Size │ │
│not given │ │
172 │Sir Thomas More as a Young│ Hans │Ralph Bankes, Esq.
│Man. Panel, 13¼” × 12” │ Holbein │
=1893=│ │ │
166 │Portrait of a Man. Panel, │School of │Captain G. L. Holford
│17” x 15” │ Holbein │
176 │Portrait of Sir Thomas │ “ │The Gresham Committee
│Gresham. 71” x 42” │ │
=1894=│ │ │
175 │Portrait of a Gentleman. │ Hans │Mrs. Percy Macquoid
│Panel, 14” x 11” │ Holbein │
=1895=│ │ │
175 │Portrait of a Banker. │School of │Charles L. Eastlake, Esq.
│Panel, 12” x 9” │ Holbein │
178 │The Death of the Virgin in│ Hans │Dr. J. P. Richter the
│the Presence of the │ Holbein │Elder
│Apostles. Panel, 65” x 59”│ │
D. 24 │Design for a Painted Glass│ Hans │Sir J. C. Robinson
│Panel, supposed to │ Holbein │
│represent a Meeting of the│ │
│Early Swiss Reformers. │ │
│Dated 1522. │ │
Case G│Pendant, known as the │ — │Her Majesty
51 │“Holbein George.” Made for│ │
│Henry VIII │ │
=1896=│ │ │
138 │Portrait of Sir Thomas │ Hans │Edward Huth, Esq.
│More. Dated 1527. Panel, │ Holbein │
│29” x 23½” │ │
=1902=│ │ │
155 │Portrait of John Chamber, │ School │Merton College, Oxford
│M.D. Panel, 26” x 18½” │ofHolbein │
157 │Portrait of a Man. Panel, │ Hans │Right Hon. Lewis Fry
│18” x 15½” │ Holbein │
160 │Portrait of Edward VI. │Attributed│Sir J. C. Robinson, C.B.
│Panel, 37” x 30” │to William│
│ │ Stretes │
168 │Portrait of a Man. Dated │ Hans │Worcester College, Oxford
│1566. Panel, 9½” x 10” │ Holbein │
=1907=│ │ │
13 │Portrait of a Lady. Panel,│ “ │Major Charles Palmer
│16½” x 12½” │ │
=1908=│ │ │
2 │Portrait of William West, │ William │Major G. L. Holford
│1st Lord Delawarr. Panel, │ Stretes │
│52” x 31” │ │
4 │Portrait of Queen Mary │ Lucas │Sir W. Cuthbert Quilter,
│Tudor. Panel, 30” x 22½” │ d’Heere │Bt.
=1910=│ │ │
60 │Portrait of William, 1st │ Hans │Lord Gwydyr
│Lord Paget, K.G. Panel, │ Holbein │
│18½” x 13” │ │
106 │Portrait of Mrs. Anne │ “ │Lord Methuen
│Roper. Panel, 14” x 10”. │ │
│(This picture has also │ │
│been thought to be a │ │
│portrait by Mabuse of │ │
│Margaret, Countess of │ │
│Richmond and Derby, mother│ │
│of Henry VII) │ │
=1912=│ │ │
45 │Portrait of Alderman │School of │Lord De Saumarez
│Robert Trappes. Dated │ Holbein │
│1554. Panel, 23½” x 19½” │ │
VIII. GROSVENOR GALLERY, WINTER EXHIBITION OF DRAWINGS BY THE OLD
MASTERS, 1878-9
562 │Saturn. Pen drawing │ Hans │Christ Church College,
│ │ Holbein │Oxford
563 │Study of a Pilgrim. Pen │ “ │John Malcolm, Esq.
│and bistre, touched with │ │
│red chalk │ │
564 │Portrait of a Man. │ Ascribed │“
│Silver-point, touched with│to Holbein│
│red chalk │ │
565 │A Figure of a Wild Man. │ Hans │“
│Pen, shaded with │ Holbein │
│Indian-ink and colour │ │
566 │Design for a Lamp. Pen and│ “ │Christ Church College,
│bistre │ │Oxford
567 │Two Whole-length Figures │ “ │John Malcolm, Esq.
│of Ladies. Indian-ink │ │
│touched with colour │ │
568 │Portrait Head, in profile,│ “ │“
│of a Young Man wearing a │ │
│Cap. Silver-point │ │
579 │Pieta. Probably a design │ “ │Alfred Seymour, Esq.
│for a tomb. Pen and bistre│ │
580 │A Man seated at a Table, │ “ │Christ Church College,
│with back to spectator. │ │Oxford
│Pen and bistre │ │
581 │Design for a Dagger │ “ │Earl of Warwick
│Sheath, representing a │ │
│Battle. Pen-and-wash │ │
IX. EXHIBITION OF THE ROYAL HOUSE OF TUDOR, NEW GALLERY, 1890
5 │Mary Tudor, Dowager Queen │ Johannes │Mrs. Dent of Sudeley Corvus
│ of France. Panel, 22½” x │ │
│ 18” │ │
7 │Sir Henry Wyat in Prison, │ Unknown │Earl of Romney
│ and the Cat bringing him │ │
│ a Pigeon. Canvas, 29” x │ │
│ 24” │ │
17 │Sir Henry Wyat. Panel, 15” │ “ │“
│ x 12” │ │
19 │The Three Children of Henry│ Jan de │Mrs. Dent of Sudeley
│ VII. Panel, 13” x 18” │ Mabuse │
21 │The Cat that fed Sir Henry │ Unknown │Earl of Romney
│ Wyat. Panel, 15” x 11½” │ │
30 │Arthur, Prince of Wales. │ “ │Her Majesty (Windsor
│ Panel, 14¾” x 10¾ │ │Castle)
38 │Charles Brandon, Duke of │ Hans │Lord Donington
│ Suffolk, K.G. Panel, 34” │ Holbein │
│ x 27” │ │
39 │Thomas Cromwell, Earl of │ “ │Duke of Sutherland, K.G.
│ Essex. Panel, 20” x 17” │ │
41 │Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of │ “ │Duke of Norfolk, K.G.
│ Norfolk, K.G. Panel, 30” │ │
│ x 23” │ │
42 │Cartoon of Henry VII and │ “ │Marquis of Hartington, M.P.
│ Henry VIII. 103” x 54” │ │
43 │Queen Katherine of Aragon. │ Unknown │Merton College, Oxford
│ Panel, 23” × 17” │ │
44 │Queen Jane Seymour. Panel, │ “ │Lord Sackville
│ 24” × 18” │ │
45 │John, 2nd Lord Braye (d. │ Hans │Lord Braye
│ 1557). Panel, 40” × 32” │ Holbein │
46 │Gertrude, Lady Petre (d. │ “ │Right Rev. Monsignor Lord
│ 1541) │ │Petre
47 │Embarkation of Henry VIII │ Vincent │F. J. Thynne, Esq.
│ from Dover, 31st May │ Volpe │
│ 1520. Canvas, 121” × 63½”│ │
49 │Henry VIII. Dated 1544. │Attributed│St. Bartholomew’s Hospital
│ Canvas, 47” × 38” │ to Hans │
│ │ Holbein │
50 │Sir Anthony Browne, K.G. │ Unknown │Lord Vaux of Harrowden
│ (d. 1548). Canvas, 37” × │ │
│ 30” │ │
51 │Henry Howard, Earl of │ Guillim │Duke of Norfolk, K.G.
│ Surrey. │ Stretes │
52 │Hans Holbein. Canvas, 20½” │ Hans │Her Majesty (Windsor
│ × 18½” │ Holbein │Castle)
53 │Elizabeth Schmid, wife of │ “ │“
│ Hans Holbein │ │
54 │Charles Brandon, Duke of │ “ │W. Holman Hunt, Esq.
│ Suffolk, K.G. Panel, 8” ×│ │
│ 6½” │ │
55 │Henry VIII. Panel, 38” × │ “ │Earl of Yarborough
│ 29” │ │
57 │Meeting of Henry VIII and │ Unknown │Her Majesty (Hampton Court)
│ Francis I at Field of │ │
│ Cloth of Gold. Canvas, │ │
│ 66” × 159” │ │
59 │Henry VIII. Panel, 36” × │ Hans │Henry Willett, Esq.
│ 30” │ Holbein │
61 │Cardinal Fisher, Bishop of │ Unknown │Hon. H. Tyrwhitt-Wilson
│ Rochester Panel, 21½” × │ │
│ 16½” │ │
62 │Portrait of a Man. Panel, │School of │Charles Eastlake, Esq.
│ 23” × 15” │ Hans │
│ │ Holbein │
65 │Queen Katherine Parr. │ Unknown │Earl of Ashburnham.
│ Panel, 25½” × 20½” │ │
67 │Portrait of a Man. Panel, │ Hans │Sir J. E. Millais, Bt.,
│ 20” × 14½” │ Holbein │R.A.
69 │Edward Stafford, Duke of │ “ │Sir Henry Bedingfeld, Bt.
│ Buckingham, K.G. Panel, │ │
│ 19½” × 13½” │ │
70 │Sir John More. Panel, 33” ×│ “ │William Seward, Esq.
│ 26” │ │
71 │Queen Jane Seymour. Panel, │ Unknown │Society of Antiquaries.
│ 16½” × 14” │ │
72 │John Reskemeer of Cornwall.│ Hans │Her Majesty (Hampton Court)
│ Panel, 17½” × 12½” │ Holbein │
73 │Henry Howard, Earl of │ Unknown │“
│ Surrey. Panel, 75” × 40½”│ │
74 │Henry VIII. Panel, 17” × │ “ │Charles Butler, Esq.
│ 13” │ │
75 │Charles Brandon, Duke of │ “ │Duke of Sutherland, K.G.
│ Suffolk, K.G. Panel, 24” │ │
│ × 18” │ │
76 │Lady Butts. 35” × 26½” │ Hans │William Seward, Esq.
│ │ Holbein │
77 │Thomas Wriothesley, 1st │ “ │Major-General F. E. Sotheby
│ Earl of Southampton. │ │
│ Dated 1545. Panel, 24” × │ │
│ 18” │ │
79 │Sir Nicholas Poyntz, Kt. │ “ │Marquis of Bristol
│ Dated 1535. Panel, 24” × │ │
│ 17” │ │
80 │Queen Jane Seymour. Panel, │ Unknown │Marquis of Hertford
│ 21” × 13½” │ │
81 │Queen Anne Boleyn. Canvas, │ “ │Earl of Warwick
│ 14” × 12” │ │
82 │Portrait of a Man. Panel, │ Hans │Duke of Devonshire, K.G.
│ 14” × 9” │ Holbein │
83 │Mary Tudor, Dowager Queen │ “ │Earl Brownlow
│ of France. Panel, 7” × 6”│ │
84 │Henry Howard, Earl of │ “ │Charles Butler, Esq.
│ Surrey. Dated 1534. │ │
│ Panel, 15½” × 11” │ │
85 │Erasmus. Panel, 20” × 12” │ Lucas │Mrs. Du Buisson
│ │ Cranach │
86 │Hugo Price, LL.D., Founder │ Hans │Jesus College, Oxford
│ of Jesus College, Oxford.│ Holbein │
│ Panel, 18½” × 13” │ │
88 │Sir Anthony Denny, Kt. │ Unknown │Sir Henry Bedingfeld, Bt.
│ Panel, 15½” × 11½” │ │
89 │Portrait of a Gentleman. │Attributed│Henry Reeve, Esq., C.B.
│ Dated 1555. Panel, 25½” ×│ to Hans │
│ 20½” │ Holbein │
90 │Sir Henry Guldeford, K.G. │ Hans │Her Majesty (Windsor
│ Panel, 32” × 25½” │ Holbein │Castle)
91 │Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of │ “ │“
│ Norfolk. Panel, 30” × 24”│ │
92 │Christina, Duchess of │ “ │Duke of Norfolk, K.G.
│ Milan. Panel, 70” × 32” │ │
93 │Charles Brandon, Duke of │ Unknown │C. W. Chute, Esq.
│ Suffolk, K.G. Panel, 34” │ │
│ × 27” │ │
94 │Sir Thomas More. Panel, 29”│ Hans │Edward Huth, Esq.
│ × 23½” │ Holbein │
95 │Sir John Cheke, Kt. Panel, │ “ │Duke of Manchester, K.P.
│ 13” × 9½” │ │
96 │William, Lord Paget, K.G. │ “ │“
│ Panel, 13” × 9½” │ │
97 │Henry VIII. Panel, 35” × │ “ │“
│ 25” │ │
98 │Katherine of Aragon. Panel,│ “ │“
│ 13” × 9½” │ │
99 │Portrait of a Spanish │ “ │“
│ Nobleman. Panel, 13½” × │ │
│ 10½” │ │
100 │Sir John More. Panel, 29” ×│ “ │Earl of Pembroke
│ 24” │ │
101 │Henry VIII and his Family. │ Guillim │Her Majesty (Hampton Court)
│ Canvas, 66” × 138” │ Stretes │
│ │ (?) │
102 │Queen Anne Boleyn. Panel, │ After │G. Milner-Gibson-Cullum,
│ 9” × 7” │ Vercolie │Esq.
104 │Queen Katherine Parr. │ “ │“
│ Panel, 9” × 7” │ │
106 │Queen Katherine Parr. │ Hans │Richard Booth, Esq.
│ Canvas, 72” × 42” │ Holbein │
107 │William Warham, Archbishop │ “ │Viscount Dillon
│ of Canterbury. Dated │ │
│ 1527. Panel, 32½” × 26” │ │
108 │Queen Anne of Cleves. │ “ │Miss Morrison
│ Panel, 28” × 21” │ │
109 │Cardinal Wolsey. Panel, 21”│ “ │T. L. Thurlow, Esq.
│ × 17” │ │
110 │Henry VIII. Panel, 13½” × │ Unknown │Sir Henry Bedingfeld, Bt.
│ 11½” │ │
111 │Queen Katherine Parr. │ Unknown │Marquis of Hertford
│ Panel, 17½” × 13” │ │
112 │Erasmus. Parchment (?). │ Hans │Her Majesty (Hampton Court)
│ 21½” × 12½” │ Holbein │
113 │Sir Thomas le Strange, Kt. │ “ │Hamon le Strange, Esq.
│ Dated 1536. Panel, 15” × │ │
│ 10½” │ │
114 │Charles Brandon, Duke of │ “ │Earl Brownlow
│ Suffolk, K.G. Panel, 7” ×│ │
│ 6” │ │
115 │Erasmus. Panel, 11” × 7” │ “ │Earl of Portarlington
116 │Mary Boleyn, Lady Carey. │ Unknown │Earl of Warwick
│ Canvas 14” × 12” │ │
117 │Queen Jane Seymour. Panel, │ “ │Sir Rainald Knightley, Bt.,
│ 10” × 8” │ │M.P.
120 │Henry VIII “with Scroll.” │ Paris │Merchant Taylors’ Company
│ Panel, 29” × 22” │ Bordone │
122 │Queen Anne Boleyn. Panel, │ Lucas │Earl of Romney
│ circular, 10” │Cornelisz │
125 │Portrait of an Englishman. │ Hans │G. P. Boyce, Esq.
│ Panel, 17¼” × 13” │ Holbein │
126 │Henry VIII. Panel, 36” × │ “ │Earl of Warwick
│ 25” │ │
127 │Sir Thomas More. No │ “ │T. L. Thurlow, Esq.
│ measurements given │ │
128 │Henry VIII. Panel, 88” × │ “ │Trinity College, Cambridge
│ 48” │ │
129 │Nicholas Kratzer. Panel, │ “ │Viscount Galway
│ 34” × 26½” │ │
130 │Portrait of a Man. Panel, │School of │Duke of Manchester K.P.,
│ 10½” × 8” │ Holbein │
131 │Sir Thomas Wyat, Kt. Panel,│ Lucas │Earl of Romney
│ circular, 11½” │Cornelisz │
132 │Queen Anne Boleyn. Panel, │ Unknown │Mrs. S. S. Gwyllim
│ 8” × 6” │ │
133 │Queen Anne of Cleves. Dated│ Barth. │Henry Willett, Esq.
│ 1534. Panel, 15” × 11” │ Bruyn │
134 │John Frobenius. Canvas, 21”│ Unknown │Sir H. B. St. John Mildmay,
│ × 13” │ │Bt.
136 │Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke │ Hans │Lord Donington
│ of Buckingham, K.G. │ Holbein │
│ Panel, 22½” × 18” │ │
137 │Erasmus. Panel, 25½” × 21½”│ Unknown │Charles Butler, Esq.
138 │Cardinal Fisher, Bishop of │ Hans │St. John’s College,
│ Rochester. Panel, 28” × │ Holbein │Cambridge
│ 24” │ │
139 │Margaret Roper. Panel, 34” │Attributed│F. L. Devitt, Esq.
│ × 2” (?) │to Sir A. │
│ │ More │
140 │Queen Anne Boleyn. Panel, │ Hans │Earl of Denbigh
│ 11” × 8½” │ Holbein │
141 │Queen Jane Seymour. Panel, │ Unknown │Duke of Northumberland,
│ 14” × 11” │ │K.G.
142 │Henry VIII. Panel, 38½” × │ Hans │Hon. H. Tyrwhitt-Wilson
│ 29” │ Holbein │
145 │Henry VIII, Anne Boleyn, │ Unknown │Major-General F. E.Sotheby
│ and Others. “The Dancing │ │
│ Picture.” Panel, 52” × │ │
│ 42” │ │
146 │Sir Henry Guideford, K.G. │ “ │Hon. H. Tyrwhitt-Wilson
│ Panel, 25½” × 20½” │ │
147 │Sir William Petre, Kt. │ Hans │Right Rev. Monsignor Lord
│ Dated 1545. No │ Holbein │Petre
│ measurements given. │ │
148 │Henry VIII. Panel, 24” × │ “ │“
│ 22” │ │
149 │Henry VIII. Panel, 33” × │ “ │T. L. Thurlow, Esq.
│ 25” │ │
150 │Sir Thomas More and his │ “ │Sir Henry Vane, Bt.
│ Father, Dated 1530. │ │
│ Canvas, 55” × 45” │ │
151 │Henry VIII. Dated 1547. │ Unknown │Viscount Galway
│ Panel, 35” × 27” │ │
152 │Henry VIII granting the │ Hans │Barber-Surgeons’ Company
│ Charter to the │ Holbein │
│ Barber-Surgeons’ Company.│ │
│ Panel, 122” × 71” │ │
153 │Francis, Prince of Thurn │ “ │Baroness Burdett-Coutts
│ and Taxis. Dated 1514. │ │
│ Panel, 21½” × 18” │ │
155 │Henry VIII. Panel, 30” × │ Unknown │Christ Church, Oxford
│ 24” │ │
157 │Henry VIII. Panel, 33½” × │ “ │Governors of Bridewell
│ 27” │ │Hospital
158 │Henry VIII. and his Family.│ Sir A. │Mrs. Dent of Sudeley
│ Panel, 51” × 71” │ More │
160 │Thomas Cromwell, Earl of │ Unknown │Corpus Christi College,
│ Essex, K.G. Panel, 22½” ×│ │Cambridge
│ 17” │ │
161 │Sir Thomas More. Panel, │ “ │Baroness Burdett-Coutts
│ 17½” × 13½” │ │
162 │Thomas Cromwell. Panel, 18”│ “ │Charles Penruddocke, Esq.
│ × 16” │ │
163 │Thomas Cromwell. 14” × 11½”│ Hans │Duke of Manchester, K.P.
│ │ Holbein │
164 │Charles Brandon. Panel, │ Unknown │Sir Henry Bedingfeld, Bt.
│ 12½” × 8” │ │
165 │Portrait of a Gentleman. │ Hans │Right Rev. Monsignor Lord
│ Panel, 18” × 13½” │ Holbein │Petre
167 │Margaret Tudor, Queen of │ Unknown │Charles Butler, Esq.
│ Scotland. Panel, 16½” × │ │
│ 12” │ │
168 │Queen Katherine Parr. │ Hans │Earl of Denbigh
│ Canvas, 70” × 50” │ Holbein │
169 │Sir Thomas Wyat the Elder. │ Unknown │Bodleian Library, Oxford
│ Panel, 17½” × 13” │ │
170 │Elizabeth, wife of Lord │ Hans │Her Majesty (Hampton Court)
│ Vaux. Panel, 14½” × 11” │ Holbein │
171 │Head of an Old Man. Panel, │ “ │Duke of Devonshire, K.G.
│ 13½” × 10” │ │
172 │Henry Grey, 3rd Marquis of │School of │G. P. Boyce, Esq.
│ Dorset. Panel, 15¾” × 11”│ Holbein │
173 │Henry VIII. Circular panel,│ Hans │Duke of Sutherland, K.G.
│ 29” │ Holbein │
173*│Robert Cheseman. Dated │ “ │Rev. Charles Shepherd
│ 1533. Panel, 30” × 22” │ │
174 │Edward VI as a Child. │ “ │Earl of Yarborough
│ Panel, 22½” × 16½” │ │
175 │Edward VI, aged 10. Panel, │ Unknown │W. More Molyneux, Esq.
│ 27½” × 20” │ │
176 │Edward VI as a Boy. Canvas,│ F. │Sir P. Pauncefort Duncombe,
│ 19” × 15½” │ Zucchero │Bt.
178 │Edward VI. Panel, 21” × 15”│ Unknown │Lord Castletown
180 │Edward VI. Panel, 16½” × │ “ │Duke of Portland
│ 10” │ │
181 │Edward VI presenting the │ Guillim │Governors of Bridewell
│ Charter to Bridewell │ Stretes? │Hospital
│ (1553). Canvas, 115” × │ │
│ 108” │ │
182 │Edward VI. Panel, 24” × 22”│ Hans │Right Rev. Monsignor Lord
│ │ Holbein │Petre
183 │Edward VI. Panel, 28” × 21”│ Unknown │Duke of Manchester, K.P.
184 │Edward VI. Panel, 32½” × │ “ │T. L. Thurlow, Esq.
│ 21” │ │
186 │Edward VI. Panel, 17” × 15”│ Hans │A. H. Frere, Esq.
│ │ Holbein │
187 │Edward VI. Panel, 18” × 13”│ Unknown │Malcolm Wagner, Esq.
188 │Edward VI. Panel, 17½” × │ “ │“
│ 12” │ │
189 │Edward VI. as a Child. │ Hans │Duke of Northumberland,
│ Panel, 50” × 29” │ Holbein │K.G.
190 │Edward VI. Panel, 46” × 34”│ “ │Earl of Denbigh
196 │Edward Seymour, Duke of │ Unknown │Mrs. Dent of Sudeley
│ Somerset. Dated 1535. │ │
│ Panel, 35” × 26½” │ │
199 │Edward Seymour, Duke of │ Hans │Duke of Northumberland,
│ Somerset. Panel, 8½” × 7”│ Holbein │K.G.
200 │Queen Mary. Panel, 41½” × │ Unknown │Earl of Ashburnham
│ 31” │ │
203 │Queen Mary. Canvas, 93” × │After Sir │Her Majesty (St James’s
│ 57” │ A. More │Palace).
204 │Queen Mary. Panel, 19½” │ Sir A. │Dean and Chapter of Durham
│ │ More │
206 │Queen Mary. Dated 1554. │ Lucas │Society of Antiquaries
│ Panel, 40” × 30” │ d’Heere │
208 │Queen Mary. Panel, 22” × │ Unknown │Trinity College, Cambridge
│ 16½” │ │
211 │Henry Fitz-Alan, 23rd Earl │Cornelius │Duke of Norfolk, K.G.
│ of Arundel. Panel, 36” × │ Ketel │
│ 28” │ │
213 │Queen Mary. Circular panel.│ Unknown │Sir William Drake, Bt.
│ 6½” │ │
214 │Queen Mary. Dated 1546. │ “ │Lord de L’Isle and Dudley
│ Panel, 28” × 22” │ │
215 │Queen Mary. Dated 1556. │ “ │H. P. Spencer Lucy, Esq.
│ Panel, 20” × 16” │ │
217 │Sir Richard Southwell. Æt. │ “ │W. H. Romaine Walker, Esq.
│ 95. Panel, 29½” × 25” │ │
222 │Sir George Penruddocke. │ Lucas │Charles Penruddocke, Esq.
│ Panel, 104” × 66” │ d’Heere │
224 │Sir Thomas Wyat the │ Unknown │Earl of Romney
│ Younger. Panel, circular,│ │
│ 15” │ │
229 │Queen Mary. Panel, 18” × │ “ │Charles Butler, Esq.
│ 15” │ │
230 │Queen Mary. “Hungad │ Lucas │Mrs. Stopford Sackville
│ Petition.” Panel, 44” × │ d’Heere │
│ 35” │ │
233 │Queen Mary. Panel, 22½” × │ Sir A. │Lord Castletown
│ 16½” │ More │
235 │Queen Mary. Panel, 8” × 6½”│ Lucas │Colonel Wynne Finch
│ │ d’Heere │
240 │Queen Mary. Panel, 28½” × │ Sir A. │Earl of Carlisle
│ 22” │ More │
242 │Portrait of a Man. Panel, │ Hans │W. Castell Southwell, Esq.
│ 6” × 5” │ Holbein │
243 │Queen Mary as a Child. │ Unknown │Duke of Norfolk, K.G.
│ Panel, 19” × 13½” │ │
246 │Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop │ Hans │Jesus College, Cambridge
│ of Canterbury. Dated │ Holbein │
│ 1547. Panel, 17½” × 12” │ │
255 │Frances Brandon, Duchess of│ Lucas │Colonel Wynne Finch
│ Suffolk, and her Second │ d’Heere │
│ Husband, Adrian Stokes. │ │
│ Dated 1559. Panel, 19½” ×│ │
│ 27” │ │
292 │Margaret Audley, Second │ “ │Duke of Norfolk, K.G.
│ Wife of Thomas, 4th Duke │ │
│ of Norfolk. Dated 1565. │ │
│ Canvas, 38” × 29” │ │
348 │William Paulet, 1st Marquis│ Hans │Duke of Northumberland,
│ of Winchester, K.G. │ Holbein │K.G.
│ Panel, 15½” × 11½” │ │
357 │Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of │ Lucas │Duke of Norfolk, K.G.
│ Norfolk, K.G. Dated 1566.│ d’Heere │
│ Panel, 12” × 10” │ │
399 │Sir William Sidney, Kt. │ Hans │Lord de L’Isle and Dudley
│ Dated 1523. Panel, 47” × │ Holbein │
│ 37” │ │
428 │Henry VIII. Panel, 21½” × │ Unknown │T. M. Whitehead, Esq.
│ 16” │ │
429 │Henry VIII. Panel, 16” × │ “ │Duke of Devonshire, K.G.
│ 12” │ │
430 │Queen Jane Seymour. Panel, │ “ │Mrs. S. S. Gwyllim
│ 7” × 5½” │ │
431 │Edward VI. Copper, 7¾” × 6”│ “ │Hon. Mrs. Trollope
432 │Henry VIII. Panel, 26½” × │ “ │C. W. Chute, Esq.
│ 19½” │ │
435 │Henry VIII. Panel, 13” × │ “ │Marquis of Hertford
│ 10” │ │
438 │Edward VI. Panel, 10” × 8” │ “ │Sir Rainald Knightley, Bt.
442 │Henry VIII. Panel, 21” × │ “ │Sir G. D. Clerk, Bt.
│ 17” │ │
455 │Margaret Clifford, Countess│ Lucas │T. F. C. Vernon Wentworth,
│ of Derby. Æt. 49. Panel, │ d’Heere │Esq.
│ 38½” × 24” │ │
486 │Queen Mary. Canvas, 35” × │ Unknown │Christ Church, O×ford
│ 27” │ │
495 │The Windsor “Heads” │ Hans │Her Majesty (Windsor
to │ │ Holbein │Castle)
573 │ │ │
906 │Edward VI. Miniature in │Attributed│Granville E. Lloyd Baker,
│ wood │ to Hans │Esq., M.P.
│ │ Holbein │
907 │Henry VIII. Miniature in │ “ │“
│ wood │ │
1066│Henry VIII. Miniature (oil)│ Hans │Her Majesty (Windsor
│ │ Holbein │Castle)
1067│Queen Catherine Howard. │ “ │“
│ Miniature │ │
1070│A Man’s Head, unfinished. │ Ascribed │Right Hon. Sir Chas. Dilke,
│ Inscribed, “A.D. 1539. │ to Hans │Bt.
│ Ætat. 30” │ Holbein │
1071│Thomas Cromwell. Miniature │ Hans │Major-General F. E. Sotheby
│ │ Holbein │
1072│Thomas Cromwell. Miniature │ “ │Lord Willoughby de Eresby
1073│Henry VIII. Miniature │ Unknown │Albert Hartshorne, Esq.
1074│Henry VIII. Carving in │ Hans │Mrs. Dent of Sudeley
│ honestone │ Holbein │
1075│Henry VIII. Miniature │ Unknown │“
1076│Queen Katherine Parr. │ Hans │“
│ Miniature │ Holbein │
1077│Thomas, Lord Seymour of │ “ │“
│ Sudeley. Miniature │ │
1078│Edward VI. Miniature │ Unknown │Mrs. Dent of Sudeley
1079│Queen Jane Seymour. │ Hans │“
│ Miniature │ Holbein │
1080│Queen Anne Boleyn. │ Unknown │“
│ Miniature │ │
1081│Henry VIII. Carving in │ Hans │“
│ boxwood │ Holbein │
1082│Edward VI. Miniature │ Unknown │Lieut.-General W. Bulwer
1083│Thomas Cromwell. Miniature │ “ │Duke of Devonshire, K.G.
1085│Henry VIII. Miniature │ “ │Mrs. Prothero
1086│Queen Anne of Cleves. │ “ │Baroness Burdett-Coutts
│ Miniature │ │
1087│Family Group of the More │ Peter │Major-General F. E. Sotheby
│ Family in Two │ Oliver │
│ Generations. Miniature │ │
1089│Queen Anne Boleyn. │ Unknown │Countess of Yarborough
│ Miniature │ │
1091│Henry VIII and Family with │ “ │Dowager Duchess of
│ Will Somers. Panel, 6” × │ │Buccleuch
│ 11” │ │
1092│William Warham. Miniature │ “ │Henry Willett, Esq.
1093│William Warham. Miniature │ “ │Henry Howard, Esq., of
│ │ │Greystoke
1094│Erasmus. Miniature │ “ │“
1095│Sir Anthony Denny. │ “ │“
│ Miniature │ │
1096│Henry VIII. Miniature │ “ │Baroness Burdett-Coutts
1117│Henry VIII. Miniature in │ “ │J. Lumsden Propert, Esq.
│ copper │ │
1118│Queen Jane Seymour. │ Hans │“
│ Miniature │ Holbein │
1119│Charles Brandon, Duke of │ “ │“
│ Suffolk. Miniature │ │
1121│Edward VI. Miniature │ Levina │“
│ │Teerlinck │
│ │ (?) │
1411│Henry VIII. Wax medallion │ Unknown │Her Majesty
1412│Sir Thomas More. Wax │ “ │“
│ medallion │ │
1414│Thomas Cromwell, Earl of │ Hans │Earl of Pembroke
│ Essex. Drawing │ Holbein │
X. EXHIBITION OF THE ROYAL HOUSE OF TUDOR. CORPORATION OF MANCHESTER ART
GALLERY, 1897.
In this exhibition the greater number of the pictures were the same as
those exhibited
at the Tudor Exhibition in the New Gallery, 1890. The following were
among those not
included in the earlier collection:
48 │Sir Nicholas Poyntz, Kt. │ Hans │Right Hon. Evelyn Ashley
│ Panel, 24” × 17” │ Holbein │
56 │Catherine Pole, Countess of│ “ │Trustees of the late Lord
│ Huntingdon. Panel, 34” × │ │ Donington
│ 25” │ │
59 │Sir Thomas More. Dated │ “ │Miss Sumner
│ 1532. Panel, 21” × 17” │ │
60 │Cardinal Wolsey. Panel, 21”│ “ │“
│ × 17” │ │
61 │Henry VIII. Panel, 47” × │ Unknown │Martin Colnaghi, Esq.
│ 35” │ │
69 │Queen Anne Boleyn. Panel, │ Hans │C. J. Radcliffe, Esq.
│ 22½” × 17¾” │ Holbein │
70 │Sir Thomas More. Panel, 16”│ Unknown │John Eyston, Esq.
│ × 11” │ │
71 │Sir Thomas More and Family.│Attributed│“
│ Canvas, 91” × 118” │to Holbein│
XI. NEW GALLERY, WINTER EXHIBITION, 1901-2. MONARCHS OF GREAT BRITAIN
AND IRELAND.
34 │The Three Children of Henry│ Jan de │H. Dent-Brocklehurst, Esq.
│ VII. Panel, 13” × 18” │ Mabuse │
41 │The Three Children of Henry│ Unknown │Earl of Pembroke
│ VII. Panel, 14” × 18” │ │
45 │Queen Katherine of Aragon. │ “ │Merton College, Oxford
│ Panel, 23” × 17” │ │
47 │Queen Anne Boleyn. Panel, │ Lucas │Earl of Romney
│ circular, 10” │Cornelisz │
48 │Henry VIII. Panel, 19” × │ Unknown │Society of Antiquaries
│ 13½” │ │
49 │Queen Katherine of Aragon. │ “ │Duke of Devonshire, K.G.
│ 14” × 10½” │ │
50 │Mary Tudor, Dowager Queen │ Johannes │H. Dent-Brocklehurst, Esq.
│ of France. Panel, 22½” × │ Corvus │
│ 18” │ │
51 │Katherine of Aragon and │ Unknown │Charles Butler, Esq.
│ Arthur, Prince of Wales. │ │
│ Panel, 15” × 20” │ │
52 │Henry VIII, Princess Mary, │ “ │Earl Spencer, K.G.
│ and Will Somers. Canvas, │ │
│ 63” × 50” │ │
53 │Henry VIII. Panel, 35” × │ Hans │Viscount Galway
│ 27” │ Holbein │
54 │Marriage of Henry VIII with│ Unknown │Earl of Ancaster
│ Katherine of Aragon │ │
│ (1501). Panel, 11” × 29” │ │
55 │Henry VIII and his Family. │ Sir │H. Dent-Brocklehurst, Esq.
│ Panel, 51” × 71” │ Antonio │
│ │ More │
56 │Edward VI. Panel, 16” × 12”│Attributed│Earl of Pembroke
│ │to Holbein│
57 │Queen Katherine Parr. │ Unknown │Archbishop of Canterbury
│ Panel, 21” × 17” │ │
58 │Queen Anne of Cleves. │ Hans │Charles Morrison, Esq.
│ Panel, 28” × 21” │ Holbein │
59 │Queen Jane Seymour. Panel, │ Unknown │Society of Antiquaries
│ 16½” × 14” │ │
60 │Edward VI. Panel, 20” × │ Gwillim │Lord Aldenham
│ 16½” │ Stretes │
61 │Queen Anne Boleyn. Canvas, │Attributed│Lord Zouche
│ 15” × 12” │ to Janet │
62 │Cartoon of Henry VII and │ Hans │Duke of Devonshire, K.G.
│ Henry VIII. 103” × 54” │ Holbein │
63 │Edward Seymour, Duke of │ Unknown │H. Dent-Brocklehurst, Esq.
│ Somerset. Dated 1535. │ │
│ Panel, 35” × 26½” │ │
64 │Charles Brandon, Duke of │ Hans │Executors of LordcDonington
│ Suffolk, K.G. Panel, 34” │ Holbein │
│ × 27” │ │
70 │Edward VI. Panel, 46” × 34”│ “ │Earl of Denbigh
73 │Queen Mary I. Panel, 19½” │ Sir │Dean and Chapter of Durham
│ │ Antonio │
│ │ More │
75 │Queen Mary I. Dated 1554. │ Lucas │Society of Antiquaries
│ Panel, 40” × 30” │ d’Heere │
_Miniatures_
201 │Charles Brandon, Duke of │ Hans │Earl Brownlow
│ Suffolk, K.G. Panel, 7” ×│ Holbein │
│ 6” │ │
202 │Mary Tudor, Dowager Queen │ “ │“
│ of France. Panel, 7” × 6”│ │
204 │Queen Katherine Parr │ “ │H. Dent-Brocklehurst, Esq.
205 │Queen Jane Seymour │ “ │“
206 │Queen Anne Boleyn │ Unknown │“
217 │Queen Catherine Howard │ Hans │His Majesty
│ │ Holbein │
218 │Henry VIII. Aged 57 │ “ │“
219 │Henry VIII │ Unknown │H. Dent-Brocklehurst, Esq.
220 │Edward VI │ “ │“
252 │Queen Mary I │ Lucas │Colonel Wynne Finch
│ │ d’Heere │
342 │Henry VIII. Carving in │ Hans │H. Dent-Brocklehurst, Esq.
│ honestone │ Holbein │
348 │Henry VIII. Carving in │ “ │“
│ boxwood │ │
XII. LOAN COLLECTION OF PORTRAITS OF ENGLISH HISTORICAL PERSONAGES WHO
DIED PRIOR TO THE YEAR 1625. OXFORD, 1904
21 │William Warham, Archbishop │ Hans │Viscount Dillon
│ of Canterbury. Panel, 32”│ Holbein │
│ × 25½” │ │
22 │William Warham. Panel, 32” │Copy from │New College, Oxford
│ × 25½” │ Holbein │
23 │Catherine of Aragon. Panel,│ Unknown │The Warden of Merton
│ 22½” × 17” │ │ College, Oxford
24 │Sir Thomas Wyat. Panel, │Based upon│Curators of the Bodleian
│ 17¼” × 12½” │a drawing │ Library
│ │by Holbein│
25 │King Henry VIII. Panel, 24”│ Unknown │Dean of Christ Church,
│ × 19½” │ │ Oxford
26 │King Henry VIII. Panel, 27”│ “ │Archdeacon of Oxford
│ × 22” │ │
27 │Dr. John Chambre. Panel, │Copy from │Merton College, Oxford
│ 25¼” × 18½” │ Holbein │
30 │Anne of Cleves. Panel, │ Flemish │The President of St. John’s
│ arched top, 19¾” × 14¼” │ School │ College, Oxford
33 │Sir Thomas Pope. Panel, │School of │The President of Trinity
│ 45½” × 31½” │ Holbein │ College, Oxford
XIII. EXHIBITION ILLUSTRATIVE OF EARLY ENGLISH PORTRAITURE, BURLINGTON
FINE ARTS CLUB, 1909
_Reprinted by kind permission of the Committee of the Club._
14 │Margaret Wotton, │Copy of a │Duke of Portland, K.G.
│ Marchioness of Dorset. │ Portrait │
│ Panel, 40½” × 31½” │ possibly │
│ │by Holbein│
19 │Lady of the Court of Henry │School of │Society of Antiquaries
│ VIII. Panel, 16½” × 14¼” │ Holbein │
21 │King Henry VIII. Panel, │ Unknown │Lord Sackville
│ 37¾” × 28¼” │ │
23 │Henry VIII. Panel, 46” × │ “ │Governors of St.
│ 37¼” │ │ Bartholomew’s Hospital
24 │Henry VIII “with Scroll.” │ “ │Merchant Taylors’ Company.
│ Canvas, 28¾” × 22¼” │ │
25 │Unknown Lady. Panel, 14⅞” ×│ Possibly │Duke of Norfolk, K.G.
│ 10⅝” │H. Eworth │
28 │Mary Tudor, Sister of Henry│ Johannes │H. Dent-Brocklehurst, Esq.
│ VIII. Panel, 22¼”× 18¼” │ Corvus │
30 │Edmund Butts. Panel, 21” × │Attributed│Prince F. Duleep Singh
│ 15½” │ to J. │
│ │ Bettes │
33 │King Henry VIII. Panel, │ Unknown │Society of Antiquaries
│ 18¼” × 13¼” │ │
34 │Sir W. Fitzwilliam, Earl of│Copy after│Duke of Devonshire
│ Southampton. Panel, 13⅛” │ Holbein │
│ × 9¾” │ │
38 │King Henry VIII. Panel, │ Hans │Earl Spencer, K.G.
│ 10½” × 7½” │ Holbein │
39 │An Elderly Man, Unknown. │Attributed│R. Langton Douglas, Esq.
│ Panel, 15⅝” × 12” │to Holbein│
40 │King Henry VII and King │ Hans │Duke of Devonshire
│ Henry VIII. Cartoon, │ Holbein │
│ 103½” × 54” │ │
41 │Sir Thomas le Strange, Kt. │ “ │Hamon le Strange, Esq.
│ Panel, 15¼” × 10½” │ │
42 │Sir Thomas le Strange. │Attributed│“
│ Panel, 19¼” × 15½” │to Holbein│
43 │Sir Bryan Tuke. Panel, 18½”│ Hans │Miss Guest of Inwood
│ × 14½” │ Holbein │
44 │Margaret Roper. Panel, 25½”│Copy after│Lord Sackville
│ × 19½” │ Holbein │
45 │Sir Nicholas Carew. Panel, │ Hans │Duke of Buccleuch, K.G.
│ 36” × 40” │ Holbein │
46 │Queen Jane Seymour. Panel, │Copy after│Lord Sackville
│ 24” × 19” │ Holbein │
48 │Sir Thomas Wyat the │ Ascribed │Rt. Hon. Lewis Fry
│ Younger. Panel, circular,│to Holbein│
│ 13” diam. │ │
49 │Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of │Copy after│Duke of Norfolk, K.G.
│ Norfolk. Panel, 30” × 23”│ Holbein │
50 │Sir Thomas Wyat. Panel, │ “ │Bodleian Library, Oxford
│ 17¼” × 12¼” │ │
51 │William West, 1st Lord │Attributed│Lieut.-Col. G. L. Holford,
│ Delawarr (?). Panel, 51¾”│to Holbein│ C.I.E.
│ × 30¾” │and to G. │
│ │ Stretes │
52 │Sir Thomas More. Panel, 25”│ Unknown │Lord Sackville
│ × 19¼” │ │
53 │Sir Thomas More. Panel, │ Hans │Edward Huth, Esq.
│ 29¼” × 23¼” │ Holbein │
54 │Henry Howard, Earl of │Attributed│Duke of Norfolk, K.G.
│ Surrey. Canvas, 86” × 85”│ to G. │
│ │ Stretes │
56 │Sir Anthony Wingfield. │Attributed│T. Humphry Ward, Esq.
│ Panel, 34” × 27¾” │to Holbein│
60 │King Edward VI. Panel, 18” │ Unknown, │Lord Sackville
│ × 12¼” │ after │
│ │ Holbein │
62 │Edward VI as a Child. │ Ascribed │Earl of Yarborough
│ Panel, 22½” × 16⅝” │to Holbein│
63 │King Edward VI. Panel, 19¾”│Attributed│Lord Aldenham
│ × 16½” │ to G. │
│ │ Stretes │
64 │Margaret Wyat, Lady Lee │ Hans │Major Charles Palmer
│ (?). Panel, 16½” × 12½” │ Holbein │
65 │Unknown Lady. Panel, 11⅜” ×│Attributed│P. T. Davies Cooke, Esq.
│ 8⅞” │to Holbein│
66 │Unknown Lady. Signed “H. │ Hans │Marquis of Zetland
│ H.” Panel, 12¾” × 9¾” │ Holbein │
68 │King Edward VI. Panel, 16⅜”│ Unknown │Duke of Portland, K.G.
│ × 9⅞” │ │
70 │George Nevill, 3rd Lord │ Hans │Earl of Pembroke
│ Abergavenny. Drawing in │ Holbein │
│ coloured chalks, 10¾” × │ │
│ 9½” │ │
72 │An English Lady, supposed │ “ │George Salting, Esq.
│ to be Margaret Roper. │ │
│ Drawing in coloured │ │
│ chalks, 10⅞” × 7⅝” │ │
_Miniatures._
Case│ │ │
B. │ │ │
1 │King Henry VIII. Diam. 1¼” │ Hans │J. Pierpont Morgan, Esq.
│ │ Holbein │
2 │Queen Jane Seymour. Diam. │ “ │Vernon Watney, Esq.
│ 1½” │ │
3 │Mrs. Pemberton. Diam. 2⅛” │ “ │J. Pierpont Morgan, Esq.
4 │Queen Anne of Cleves. Diam.│ “ │George Salting, Esq.
│ 1¾” │ │
5 │Portraits of Two Little │ Livina │“
│ Girls. Oval, 1-15/16” × │Teerlinck │
│ 1½” │ │
6 │Queen Jane Seymour. Diam. │ Hans │H. Dent-Brocklehurst, Esq.
│ 1⅝” │ Holbein │
7 │Queen Katherine Parr (?). │ “ │“
│ Diam. 1⅞” │ │
Case│ │ │
C. │ │ │
1 │Margaret Wotton (?) (called│ “ │Duke of Buccleuch, K.G.
│ Queen Katherine of │ │
│ Aragon). Diam. 1½” │ │
2 │King Henry VIII. Diam. 2⅜” │ “ │“
4 │Queen Catherine Howard. │ “ │“
│ Diam. 2” │ │
5 │Queen Jane Seymour (called │ “ │“
│ Katherine of Aragon). │ │
│ Diam. 1½” │ │
6 │King Henry VIII. Diam. 1¾” │Copy after│Duke of Buccleuch, K.G.
│ │ Holbein │
7 │King Henry VIII. 2” × │ Possibly │“
│ 1-13/16” │ French │
8 │Eight Miniatures in one │ │
│ frame, among them: │ │
│D. King Henry VIII. Diam. │ Hans │“
│ 1¾” │ Holbein │
│F. Queen Mary. Diam. 2⅛” │ Anthonis │“
│ │ Mor │
│G. King Edward VI. Diam. │ Unknown │“
│ 1¾” │ │
12 │A Boy (called Edward VI). │ Hans │“
│ Oval, 1¼” × 1⅛” │ Holbein │
13 │King Edward VI. Oval, │ Unknown │“
│ 1-11/16” × 1-7/16” │ │
15 │Katherine of Aragon. │Attributed│“
│ 1-15/16” × 1-13/16” │to Holbein│
17 │Sir Thomas More. Oval, │ Possibly │“
│ 1-5/16” × 1⅛” │by Holbein│
19 │King Edward VI. Diam. 1⅝” │ Unknown │“
22 │George Nevill, 3rd Lord │ Hans │“
│ Abergavenny. Diam. 1¾” │ Holbein │
23 │Hans Holbein. Diam. 1-7/16”│ “ │“
25 │King Henry VIII. Diam. 1¾” │ Unknown │“
Case│ │ │
D. │ │ │
1 │Hans Holbein. Panel, diam. │ Hans │George Salting, Esq.
│ 4½” │ Holbein │
2 │Katherine Willoughby, │ Unknown │Earl of Ancaster
│ Duchess of Suffolk. │ │
│ Inscribed in later hand │ │
│ “H. Holbein Fecit.” Diam.│ │
│ 2⅛” │ │
3 │Katherine of Aragon │ Hans │Mrs. Joseph
│ │ Holbein │
_In Writing-Room._
17 │Sir Anthony Browne, K.G. │ Unknown │Lord Vaux of Harrowden
│ Canvas, 37” x 30” │ │
18 │King Edward VI. Panel, 41” │ “ │Major Eley
│ × 29” │ │
XIV. PICTURES BY OR ATTRIBUTED TO HOLBEIN DESCRIBED BY DR. WAAGEN IN HIS
“TREASURES OF ART IN GREAT BRITAIN,” 1854.
Vol. I │ │
p. 203 │The Holbein Drawings in the │
pp. │ British Museum │
236-7 │ │
p. 429 │William Warham │Lambeth Palace
│ │
Vol. II │ │
p. 73 │Man with the Golden Fleece │Duke of Sutherland, Stafford
│ │ House
p. 86 │The Duke of Norfolk │Duke of Norfolk
pp. 93-4│Man in a Furred Robe │Devonshire House
p. 112 │Unnamed Portrait │Lord Ashburton
p. 199 │Portrait wrongly called Duke│R. S. Holford, Esq.
│ Frederick of Saxony │
p. 241 │Henry VIII │Henry Danby Seymour, Esq.
p. 242 │Portrait of a “Plump Child” │“
p. 245 │Portrait of a Woman adorned │Collection of Mr. Neeld
│ with many jewels. Dated │
│ 1536 │
p. 246 │A Man’s Portrait. Dated 1547│“
pp. │Henry VIII granting the │Barber-Surgeons’ Hall
327-8 │ Charter to the │
│ Barber-Surgeons’ Company │
p. 328 │Edward VI at Bridewell │Bridewell Hospital
p. 331 │“A Male Portrait in a rich │C. S. Bale, Esq.
│ dress.” Coloured drawing │
p. 332 │“A Female Portrait.” │“
│ Miniature │
pp. │The Pictures in Hampton │“
361-7 │ Court │
p. 420 │Drawing of a Female Saint │Rt. Hon. Henry Labouchere at
│ │ Stoke
pp. │The Pictures and Drawings in│“
430-50 │ Windsor Castle │
Vol. III│ │
p. 6 │Portrait of a Young Man │W. Fuller Maitland, Esq.,
│ weighing Gold │ Stanstead House
p. 29 │The Duchess of Milan │Duke of Norfolk, Arundel
│ │ Castle
p. 30 │The Duke of Norfolk │“
“ │The Earl of Surrey, │“
│ inscribed “William Strote”│
p. 33 │“A Female Figure with a Ring│Colonel Egremont Wyndham,
│ on one Finger” │ Petworth
p. 36 │Edward VI standing under a │“
│ Canopy │
p. 41 │Henry VIII, whole length │“
“ │Portrait of a Man with a │“
│ Falcon │
p. 42 │Portrait of a Man with a │“
│ Letter in his Hand (Derich│
│ Berck) │
p. 52 │Henry VIII, bust. │University Galleries, Oxford
p. 123 │A Man’s Head, about 1530 │Duke of Marlborough,
│ │ Blenheim Palace
p. 138 │Portrait of Erasmus │Earl of Radnor, Longford
│ │ Castle
p. 139 │Peter Ægidius │“
“ │Two Male Portraits, the size│“
│ of life, in one picture. │
│ (Two Ambassadors) │
“ │Luther (?) │“
“ │Anthony Denny │“
p. 140 │Æcolampadius │“
“ │King Edward VI │“
p. 152 │The Father of Sir Thomas │Earl of Pembroke, Wilton
│ More │ House
“ │William, 1st Earl of │“
│ Pembroke │
“ │King Edward VI │“
“ │Lord Cromwell (drawing) │“
p. 155 │The Wilton Porch │“
p. 170 │Catherine Howard │Earl of Suffolk, Charlton
│ │ Park
p. 185 │“A half-length Undraped │J. P. Miles, Esq., Leigh
│ Figure, here, in defiance │ Court
│ of all probability, called│
│ a William Tell” │
p. 210 │John Fisher, Bishop of │Lord Northwick, Thirlstane
│ Rochester │ House
p. 211 │Man’s Head. Miniature │“
p. 215 │Henry VIII │Warwick Castle
p. 225 │Portrait of a Man Praying │Mr. Martin, Ham Court,
│ │ Worcestershire
p. 236 │The Prodigal Son │Liverpool Institution
p. 252 │Sir Thomas More │Mr. Blundell Weld of Ince
p. 264 │Woman with a White Pigeon │Earl of Lonsdale, Lowther
│ │ Castle
p. 313 │Sir Nicholas Carew │Duke of Buccleuch, Dalkeith
│ │ Palace
p. 323 │Duke of Norfolk │Earl of Carlisle, Castle
│ │ Howard
“ │Henry VIII │“
p. 334 │Man’s Portrait │Mr. Meynell Ingram, Temple
│ │ Newsham
pp. │Sir Thomas More and his │Mr. Charles Winn, Nostell
334-5 │ Family │ Priory
p. 342 │Portrait of Æcolampadius │W. V. Wentworth, Esq.,
│ │ Wentworth Castle
p. 346 │Henry VIII, full-length │Duke of Devonshire,
│ │ Chatsworth
“ │Head of an Old Man │“
p. 359 │The Drawings at Chatsworth │“
p. 388 │Portrait of a Man │Earl of Shrewsbury, Alton
│ │ Towers
p. 398 │Henry VIII, full-length │Duke of Rutland, Belvoir
│ │ Castle
p. 407 │Henry VIII, half-length │Marquis of Exeter, Burleigh
│ │ House
“ │Edward VI │“
p. 428 │Anne Boleyn │Sir John Boileau,
│ │ Ketteringham Hall
p. 443 │Portrait of a Woman with │Mr. Tomline, Orwell Park
│ folded hands │
“ │“A small picture in a │“
│ circle, dated 1527” │
p. 449 │William Fitzwilliam, Earl of│Fitzwilliam Museum,
│ Southampton │ Cambridge
p. 456 │Henry VIII │Earl Spencer, Althorp
“ │Henry VIII, Princess Mary, │“
│ and Somers │
p. 462 │Queen Catherine Parr │Glendon Hall
p. 482 │James, King of Scotland, and│Marquis of Bute, Luton House
│ his Wife, Margaret, │
│ Daughter of Henry VII │
“ │Henry VIII (attributed to │“
│ Gerard Horebout) │
│ │
Vol. IV │(_Supplemental_, 1857) │
pp. 35-8│The British Museum drawings │
p. 67 │Edward VI as an Infant │Lord Yarborough, Arlington
│ │ Street
“ │Henry VIII │“
p. 77 │“Portrait of a Man with │Alexander Barker, Esq.
│ features resembling the │
│ House of Habsburg” │
p. 97 │Johann Herbster │Mr. Baring’s Collection
p. 119 │Princess Mary, afterwards │C. Sackville Bale, Esq.
│ Queen. Miniature │
p. 188 │The Ascension. Drawing, │William Russell, Esq., 38
│ design for a painted │ Chesham Place
│ window │
p 269 │Edward VI │Duke of Northumberland, Syon
│ │ House
“ │Duke of Somerset, the │“
│ “Protector” │
“ │Bust of Henry VII, in dark │“
│ stone, “by Pietro │
│ Torregiano, 1519” │
p. 272 │Portrait of Sir Thomas │Lord Jersey, Osterley Park
│ Gresham. (“Not by Holbein,│
│ but possibly of the │
│ Lombard School”) │
p. 331 │John Russell │Duke of Bedford, Woburn
│ │ Abbey
p. 339 │Henry VIII │Earl Amherst, Knole Park
p. 355 │Sir Anthony Denny │Lord Folkestone, Longford
│ │ Castle
pp. │Erasmus │“
356-7 │ │
p. 357 │Peter Ægidius │“
p. 359 │The Two Ambassadors │“
“ │A Man in a Black Dress │“
│ called Luther │
p. 361 │Lady Carey │“
p. 364 │Lady Jane Grey │Earl of Normanton, Somerley
p. 394 │“Portrait of Scanderbeg” │Lord Methuen, Corsham Court
p. 435 │Sir Nicholas Carew │Duke of Buccleuch, Dalkeith
│ │ Palace
p. 464 │Lord Cromwell │The late Lord Douglas,
│ │ Bothwell Castle
“ │Sir Thomas More │“
“ │Erasmus │“
p. 498 │Henry VIII │William Drury Lowe, Esq.,
│ │ Locko Park
p. 509 │Portrait of a Man in a Black│Duke of Newcastle, Clumber
│ Dress and Cap │ Park
p. 511 │Portrait of a Man with a Cap│“
│ and Bâton, said to be Sir │
│ Thomas More │
p. 515 │Portrait of a Man in a Black│Duke of Portland, Welbeck
│ Dress, holding a Palm in │ Abbey
│ his Left Hand │
p. 516 │Portrait of Nicolas Kratzer │Viscount Galway, Serlby
p. 517 │Henry VIII, full-length │“
A SHORT BIBLIOGRAPHY
The following list includes only a few of the more modern and more
important of the many contributions to the literature dealing with the
life and art of Hans Holbein the Younger. A very complete bibliography
of the artist will be found in _Schweiz. Künstlerlexikon_, vol. ii.,
Frauenfeld, 1906, to which the student is referred. Additional
references will be found in the text and footnotes of this book.
AMIET, _Hans Holbeins Madonna von Solothurn und der Stifter Nikolaus
Conrad_, 1879.
BALDRY, A. L., _Drawings of Hans Holbein_, “Drawings of the Great
Masters” series. George Newnes, Ltd. Not dated.
BELL, C. F., F.S.A., _Catalogue of a Loan Collection of Portraits of
English Historical Personages who died prior to the year 1625_.
Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1904.
BENOIT, FRANÇOIS, _Holbein_ (“Les Maîtres de l’Art”). Paris. Not dated.
BINYON, LAURENCE, _Catalogue of Drawings by British Artists and Artists
of Foreign Origin working in Great Britain, preserved in the British
Museum_, Vol. ii. p. 326-243.
BLACK, W. H., F.S.A., and FRANKS, A. W., F.S.A., _Discovery of the Will
of Hans Holbein_. Archæologia, vol. xxxix. pp. 1-18.
BLACK, W. H., F.S.A., _On the Date and other Circumstances of the Death
of Holbein_, &c. Archæologia, vol. xxxix. pp. 272-6.
BLOMFIELD, R., A.R.A., _History of Renaissance Architecture in England_,
i. p. 18, 1897.
BREWER, J. S., M.A., and GAIRDNER, DR. JAMES, C.B., _Letters and Papers,
Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII, 1509-1543_,
1862-1902.
BURCKHARDT, A., _Hans Holbein_. Basel, 1885.
BURCKHARDT, A., _Hans Holbeins Ehefrau und ihr erster Ehemann Ulrich
Schmid_, Basler Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Altertumskunde, Bd.
v. p. 420.
BURCKHARDT-WERTHEMANN, D., _Drei wiedergefundene Werke aus Holbeins
früherer Basler Zeit_. Basler Zeitschrift für Geschichte und
Altertumskunde, iv. 27.
CHAMBERLAIN, A. B., _A Newly Discovered Portrait of Thomas Cromwell_.
Burlington Magazine, No. cv. vol. xx. (December, 1911) p. 175.
CHAMBERLAIN, A. B., _Holbein’s Visit to “High Burgony.”_ Burlington
Magazine, No. cix. vol. xxi. (April, 1912) pp. 25-30.
CHATTO, W. A., _A Treatise on Wood Engraving_, ed. H. G. Bohn. Chatto
and Windus, 1861.
CHURCHILL, S. J. A., _Two Unpublished Portraits by Hans Holbein_.
Burlington Magazine, No. cvi. vol. xx. (January, 1912) p. 239.
COLVIN, SIR SIDNEY, _The Ambassadors Unriddled_ (review of Mr. W. F.
Dickes’ book). Burlington Magazine, No. vi. vol. ii. (August, 1903)
pp. 367-9.
COLVIN, SIR SIDNEY, _On a Portrait of Erasmus by Holbein_. Burlington
Magazine, No. lxxx. vol. xvi. (November, 1909) pp. 67-71.
CONWAY, SIR MARTIN, and CUST, LIONEL, M.V.O., _Portraits of the Wyat
Family_. Burlington Magazine, No. lxxxi. vol. xvi. (December, 1909)
pp. 154-9.
COX, MARY L., _Inventory of Pictures, &c., in the possession of Alethea,
Countess of Arundel, at the time of her Death at Amsterdam in 1654_.
Burlington Magazine, No. ci. vol. xix. (August, 1911) pp. 282-6; No.
cii. vol. xix. (September, 1911) pp. 323-5.
CUST, LIONEL, M.V.O., F.S.A., _Lucas d’Heere_. Magazine of Art, August,
1891.
CUST, LIONEL, M.V.O., _Notice of the Life and Works of Lucas d’Heere_,
&c. Archæologia, vol. liv. pt. i. pp. 59-80.
CUST, LIONEL, M.V.O., _The National Portrait Gallery_. Illustrated
Catalogue, 2 vols., Cassell & Co., 1901.
CUST, LIONEL, M.V.O., _Foreign Artists of the Reformed Religion working
in London from about 1560 to 1660_. Proceedings of the Huguenot
Society in London, vol. vii. No. i. pp. 45-82, 1903.
CUST, LIONEL, M.V.O., _The Royal Collection of Paintings_, vol. ii.,
_Windsor Castle_. Heinemann, 1906.
CUST, LIONEL, M.V.O., _John of Antwerp, Goldsmith, and Hans Holbein_.
Burlington Magazine, No. xxxv. vol. viii. (February, 1906) pp.
356-60.
CUST, LIONEL, M.V.O., _The Lumley Inventory and the Painter H. E._
Burlington Magazine, No. lxxii. vol. xiv. (March, 1909) pp. 366-8.
CUST, LIONEL, M.V.O., _A Portrait of Queen Catherine Howard by Hans
Holbein the Younger_. Burlington Magazine, No. lxxxviii. vol. xvii.
(July, 1910) pp. 193-9.
CUST, LIONEL, M.V.O., _On a Portrait Drawing by Hans Holbein the
Younger_ (Sir Charles Wingfield). Burlington Magazine, No. xcv. vol.
xviii. (February, 1911) pp. 269-70.
CUST, LIONEL, M.V.O., _On Two Portraits attributed to Gerlach Flicke_.
Burlington Magazine, No. c. vol. xix. (July, 1911) p. 239.
CUST, LIONEL, M.V.O., _Notes on the Collections formed by Thomas Howard,
Earl_ _of Arundel and Surrey, K.G._ Burlington Magazine, No. ci.
vol. xix (August, 1911) pp. 278-81; No. civ. vol. xx (November,
1911) pp. 97-100; No. cvi. vol. xx. (January, 1912) pp. 233-6); No.
cviii. vol. xx. (March, 1912) pp. 341-3; No. cxiii. vol. xxi.
(August, 1912) pp. 256-8.
CUST, LIONEL, M.V.O., _A Newly-discovered Portrait of Thomas Cromwell_.
Burlington Magazine, No. ciii. vol. xx. (October, 1911) pp. 5-6.
CUST, LIONEL, M.V.O., _“The Family of Sir Thomas More,” by Hans
Holbein_. Burlington Magazine, No. cxv. vol. xxii. (October, 1912)
pp. 43-4.
CUST, LIONEL, M.V.O., and BELL, C. F., F.S.A., _Burlington Fine Arts
Club, Catalogue of Exhibition illustrative of Early English
Portraiture_, 1909.
DAVIES, GERALD S., M.A., _Hans Holbein the Younger_. George Bell & Sons,
1903.
DAVIES, RANDALL, _An Inventory of the Duke of Buckingham’s Pictures in
1635_. Burlington Magazine, No. xlviii. vol. x. (March, 1907) pp.
376-82.
DEVELAY, V., _Eloge de la Folie d’Erasme_. 3rd ed. Paris, 1876.
DICKES, W. F., _Holbein’s “Ambassadors” Unriddled_. Cassell & Co., Ltd.
Not dated.
DIMIER, L., _French Painting in the Sixteenth Century_. (Trans. by
Harold Child.) Duckworth & Co., 1904.
DIMIER, L., _Le Primatice_. Paris, 1900.
DODGSON, CAMPBELL, _Neues über Holbeins Metallschnitte zum Vaterunser_.
Mitteilungen der Gesellsch. für vervielfältig. Kunst, 1903, p. 1,
and 1905, p. 10.
DODGSON, CAMPBELL, _Hans Lützelburger and the Master N. H._ Burlington
Magazine, No. xlvii. vol. x. (February, 1907) pp. 319-22.
DODGSON, CAMPBELL, _An Alphabet by Hans Weiditz_. Burlington Magazine,
No. lix. vol. xii. (February, 1908) pp. 289-93.
DODGSON, CAMPBELL, _A Portrait by Hans Holbein the Elder_. Burlington
Magazine, No. lxvii. vol. xiv. (October, 1908) pp. 37-43.
DODGSON, CAMPBELL, _Das Holzschnittporträt von N. Borbonius_. Gesells.
für vervielfältigende Kunst, Mitteilungen xxxi. 1908, p. 37.
DODGSON, CAMPBELL, _Catalogue of Early German and Flemish Woodcuts, &c.,
in the British Museum_, vol. ii. 1911, p. 320.
DODGSON, CAMPBELL, notes by, Vasari Society, Pt. i. Nos. 17 and 18; Pt.
ii. No. 31; Pt. v. No. 28.
DOUCE, FRANCIS, _Holbein’s Dance of Death_. 1858 edition. H. G. Bohn.
EARP, F. R., M.A., _Descriptive Catalogue of the Pictures in the
Fitzwilliam Museum_, pp. 97-8. University Press, Cambridge, 1902.
EINSTEIN, LEWIS, _The Italian Renaissance in England_, 1902.
FIDLER, G., _Holbein’s Porch_. The Art Journal, 1897, pp. 45-8.
FORTESCUE, MRS. G., _Holbein_. (Little Books on Art.) Methuen & Co.,
1904.
FOSTER, J. J., _British Miniature Painters and their Works_. 1898.
FRISCH, A., and WOLTMANN, A., _Hans Holbein des Aeltern
Silberstiftzeichnungen im kgl. Museum zu Berlin_. Soldau, Nuremberg.
FRÖLICHER, ELSA, _Die Porträtkunst Hans Holbeins des Jüngeren und ihr
Einfluss auf die schweizerische Bildnismalerei im XVI Jahrhundert_
(Studien zur deutschen Kunstgeschichte, No. 117). Heitz & Mündel,
Strasburg, 1909.
FRY, ROGER, E., _Early English Portraiture at the Burlington Fine Arts
Club_. Burlington Magazine, No. lxxiv. vol. xv. (May, 1909) pp.
73-5.
GANZ, PAUL, _Hans Holbein d. J. Einfluss auf. d. schweizerische
Glasmalerei_. Jahrb. d. kgl. preuss. Kunstsamml., xxiv. (1903) pp.
197-207.
GANZ, PAUL, _Handzeichnungen schweiz. Meister des XV-XVIII Jahrh_.
Helbing and Lichtenhahn, Basel, 1908.
GANZ PAUL, _Handzeichnungen von Hans Holbein dem Jüngeren_. Julius Bard,
Berlin, 1908.
GANZ, PAUL, _Hans Holbeins Italienfahrt_. Süddeutsche Monatshefte, May,
1909, p. 599.
GANZ, PAUL, _Two Unpublished Portraits by Hans Holbein_. Burlington
Magazine, No. ciii. vol. xx. (October, 1911) pp. 31-2.
GANZ, PAUL, _Hans Holbein d. J.: des Meisters Gemälde in 252
Abbildungen_. (Klassiker der Kunst in Gesamtausgaben No. xx.)
Stuttgart, 1912. French translation, Hachette & Co., Paris, 1912.
GANZ, PAUL, _Die Handzeichnungen Hans Holbeins des Jüngeren_. Deutscher
Verein für Kunstwissenschaft E.V., Julius Bard, Berlin. In course of
publication. To be completed in 50 parts (500 plates).
GANZ, PAUL, and MAJOR, EMIL, _Die Entstehung des Amerbach’schen
Kunstkabinets und die Amerbach’schen Inventare_, in the 29th Annual
Report of the Public Picture Collection in Basel, 1907.
GAUTHIEZ, PIERRE, _Hans Holbein sur la route d’Italie_. Gazette des
Beaux-Arts, December, 1897; February, 1898.
GAUTHIEZ, PIERRE, _Holbein: Biographie Critique_ (Les Grands Artistes),
Laurens, Paris. Not dated.
GLASER, CURT, _Hans Holbein der Ältere_ (Kunstgeschichtliche
Monographien, XI). K. W. Hiersemann, Leipzig, 1908.
GOETTE, A., _Holbeins Totentanz und seine Vorbilder_. Strasburg, 1897.
HEATH, DUDLEY, _Two New Portrait Miniatures by Hans Holbein_. The
Connoisseur, July, 1907, pp. 143-4.
HEGNER, U., _Hans Holbein der Jüngere_. Reimer, Berlin, 1827.
HEITZ, P., _Basler Büchermarken_. Heitz, Strasburg, 1895.
HERVEY, MARY F. S., _Holbein’s “Ambassadors”: the Picture and the Men_.
George Bell & Sons, 1900.
HERVEY, MARY F. S., _A Portrait of Jean de Dinteville, one of Holbein’s
Ambassadors_. Burlington Magazine, No. xvi. vol. v. (July, 1904) p.
413.
HERVEY, MARY F. S., _Notes on Some Portraits of Tudor Times_. Burlington
Magazine, No. lxxv. vol. xv. (June, 1909) pp. 151-60.
HERVEY, MARY F. S., _Notes on a Tudor Painter: Gerlach Flicke_.
Burlington Magazine, No. lxxxvi. vol. xvii. (May, 1910) pp. 71-9;
No. lxxxvii. vol. xvii. (June, 1910) pp. 147-8.
HERVEY, MARY F. S., and MARTIN-HOLLAND, R., _A Forgotten French Painter:
Félix Chrétien_. Burlington Magazine, No. xcvii. vol. xviii. (April,
1911) pp. 48-55.
HES, WILLY, _Ambrosius Holbein_ (Studien zur deutschen Kunstgeschichte,
No. 145). Heitz and Mündel, Strasburg, 1911.
HIND, A. M., _Great Engravers: Hans Holbein the Younger_. Heinemann,
1912.
HIS-HEUSLER, E., _Hans Holbeins des Aelteren Feder- und
Silberstiftzeichnungen in den Kunstsammlungen zu Basel, &c._ Soldau,
Nuremberg.
HIS-HEUSLER, E., _Die Basler Archive über Hans Holbein und seine
Familie_, Zahns Jahrbücher für Kunst, iii. p. 113 _et seq._ Leipzig,
1870.
HIS-HEUSLER, E., _Hans Lützelburger, le Graveur des Simulacres de la
Mort d’Holbein_. Gaz. des Beaux-Arts, 2nd period, iv. (1871) p. 481.
HIS-HEUSLER, E., _Dessins d’Ornements de Hans Holbein_. Boussod,
Valadon, and Co., Paris, 1886.
HIS-HEUSLER, E., _Einige Gedanken über die Lehr- und Wanderjahre H. H.
d. J._ Jahrbuch für K. K. preuss. Kunstsamml., 1891, 2nd fasc., p.
59 _et seq._
HIS-HEUSLER, E., _Holbeins Bergwerkzeichnung im britischen Museum_.
Jahrbuch für K. K., &c., 1894, iii. p. 207 _et seq._
HIS-HEUSLER, E., _Holbeins Verhältniss zur Basler Reformation_. Rep. für
Kunstwissenschaft, iii. p. 156.
HIS-HEUSLER, E., _Ambrosius Holbein als Maler_. Jahrbuch der kgl.
preuss. Kunst., xxiv. 1903, pp. 243-6.
HOLMES, SIR RICHARD, K.C.V.O., _Hans Holbein: Portraits of Illustrious
Personages of the Court of Henry VIII, in the Royal Library, Windsor
Castle_, 2 vols. Hanfstaengl. Not dated.
HOLMES, SIR RICHARD, K.C.V.O., _Note on an Unpublished Holbein Miniature
in the Collection of the Queen of Holland_. Burlington Magazine, No.
ii. vol. i. (April, 1903) p. 218.
HOLMES, SIR RICHARD, K.C.V.O., _A Miniature by Holbein_ (Mrs.
Pemberton). Burlington Magazine, No. xvi. vol. v. (July, 1904) p.
337.
HOLMES, SIR RICHARD, K.C.V.O., _English Miniature Painters_: No. I.
_Nicholas Hilliard_. Burlington Magazine, No. xxxiv. vol. viii.
(January, 1906) pp. 229-34.
HUEFFER, F. M., _Hans Holbein the Younger: a Critical Monograph_
(Popular Library of Art). Duckworth & Co. Not dated.
HUPPERTZ, A., _Der Sebastiansaltar in der Münchener A. Pinak_.
Repertorium für Kunst., xxxiv. 1911, p. 255.
ISELIN, L., _Holbein_, in Historisch und geographisches Lexikon, Basel,
1726.
KAINZBAUER, L., _Holbein der “Verbesserte.” Eine neue Untersuchung der
beiden Madonnen des Bürgermeisters Mayer in Basel_, 1906.
KINKEL, G., _Hans Holbein_ (review of Woltmann’s and Wornum’s books).
Fine Arts Quarterly Review, June, 1867.
KNACKFUSS, H., _Hans Holbein der Jüngere_. Velhagen & Klasing, Bielefeld
and Leipzig, 1896; 4th edition, Bielefeld, 1902.
KNACKFUSS, H., _Holbein_, English translation by Campbell Dodgson. H.
Grevel and Co., 1899.
KOEGLER, HANS, _Ergänzungen zum Holzschnittwerk des Hans und Ambrosius
Holbein_. Jahrb. d. preuss. Kunstsamml., xxviii. (1907) p. 85.
KOEGLER, HANS, _Hans Holbeins Holzschnitte für Sebastian Münsters
“Instrument über die zwei Lichter,” Basel, 1534_. Jahrb. d. preuss
Kunstsamml., xxxi. p. 254.
KOEGLER, HANS, _Der Hortulus Animæ, illust. von H. Holbein_. Zeitschrift
f. bildende Kunst., xx. (1908) p. 35.
KOEGLER, HANS, _Die grösseren Metallschnittillustrationen Hans Holbeins
d. J. zu einen “Hortulus Animæ.”_ Monatshefte f. Kunstwissenschaft,
iii. (January, 1910) pp. 13-17; (June, 1910) pp. 317-33.
KOEGLER, HANS, _Kleine Beiträge zum Schnittwerk Hans Holbein d. J.: Der
Meister C.S._ Monatshefte, &c. (September, 1911), pp. 389-408.
KOEGLER, HANS, _Hans Holbein d. J. und Dr. Johann Fabri_. Repertorium
für Kunstwissenschaft, vol. 35, pts. 4 and 5, pp. 379-84, 1912.
KUGLER, _Handbook of Painting: German, Flemish, and Dutch Schools_.
Remodelled by Dr. Waagen, and revised by Sir J. A. Crowe, 2 vols.,
3rd ed. John Murray, 1898.
LAPPENBERG, DR., _Urkundliche Geschichte des Hansischen Stahlhofs zu
London_. Hamburg, 1851.
LARPENT, S., _Sur le Portrait de Morette_. Christiania, 1881.
LAW, ERNEST, _The Royal Gallery of Hampton Court_. George Bell & Sons,
1898.
LAW, ERNEST, _Holbein’s Pictures at Windsor Castle_. Hanfstaengl, 1901.
LEIGHTON, LORD, _Addresses to the Students of the Royal Academy_. 2nd
edition, 1897.
LEITHÄUSER, _Hans Holbein in seinem Verhältnisse zur Antike und zum
Humanismus_. Hamburg, 1886.
LIEBENAU, TH. VON, _Das Alte Luzern_, 1881.
LIEBENAU, TH. VON, _Hans Holbeins d. J. Fresken am Hertenstein Haus in
Luzern_, 1888.
LOFTIE, W. J., F.S.A., _Whitehall: Historical and Architectural Notes_.
Portfolio Monograph, 1895.
MACHIELS, A., _Les Portraits d’Erasme_. Gazette des Beaux-Arts, November
1911, pp. 349-61.
MACHIELS, A., _Quelques œuvres de H. Holbein en Angleterre_. Revue de
l’Art Ancien et Modern, xx. p. 227.
MAJOR, E., _Das Fäschische Museum und die Fäschischen Inventare_. 60th
Annual Report of the Basel Public Picture Collection, 1908.
MAJOR, E., _Basler Horologienbücher mit Holzschnitten von Hans Holbein_.
Monatshefte, &c., iv. 1911, pp. 77-81.
MANDER, CAREL VAN, _Het Schilder-Boeck_, 1604. French translation, ed.
H. Hymans, 2 vols., 1884.
MANNERS, LADY VICTORIA, _Notes on the Pictures at Belvoir Castle_. The
Art Journal, May, 1904, pp. 161-6.
MANTZ, P., _Hans Holbein_. A. Quantin, Paris, 1879.
MANTZ, P., _Les Portraits d’Erasme par Holbein_. Bull. de l’Art pour
Tous, xliii. No. 226, October, 1904.
MAUCLAIR, CAMILLE, _Les Dessins de Hans Holbein au Musée de Bâle_. L’Art
et les Artistes. December, 1911, pp. 99-112.
MECHEL, CHRÉTIEN DE, _œuvres de Jean Holbein_, &c. Basel, 1780.
NICHOLS, F. M., F.S.A., _Observations on a further Correction of the
Date of the Birth Year of Sir Thomas More_. Proceedings of the
Society of Antiquaries, vol. xvi. No. iii. (March, 1897) pp. 321-7.
NICHOLS, F. M., F.S.A., _On some Works executed by Hans Holbein during
his first Visit to England_, 1526-1529. Proceedings of the Society
of Antiquaries, vol. xvii. No. i. (March, 1898) pp. 132-45.
NICHOLS, J. G., F.S.A., _Notices of the Contemporaries and Successors of
Holbein_, Archæologia, vol. xxxix, pp. 19-46.
NICHOLS, J. G., F.S.A., _Remarks upon Holbein’s Portraits of the Royal
Family of England_, &c. Archæologia, vol. xl. pp. 71-80.
NICOLAS, SIR N. H., F.S.A., _The Privy Purse Expenses of King Henry the
Eighth_, Pickering, 1867.
NORMAN, DR. PHILIP, _Notes on the later History of the Steelyard in
London_. Archæologia, vol. lxi. pt. ii. (1909), pp. 389-426.
NORMAN, DR. PHILIP, _Nicholas Hilliard’s Treatise concerning “The Arte
of Limning_,” with introduction and notes. Walpole Society, 1st
annual vol., 1911-12, pp. 1-54.
OCHS, P., _Geschichte von Basel, Stadt und Landschaft_, 8 vols. Berlin,
1786-1821.
PARTHEY, GUSTAV, _Verzeichniss der Kupferstiche Wenzel Hollars_. Berlin,
1853.
PATIN, CHARLES, _Relations hist. et curieuses de Voyages_, &c. Basel,
1673, pp. 211 _et seq._; Lyon, 1674; Amsterdam, 1695.
PATIN, CHARLES, _Index operum Holbenii, appendix ad Morias Encomium_.
Basel, 1676.
PELTZER, R. A., _Porträt des D. Tybis von Duisburg: Inschriften_.
Blätter f. Gemäldek., iii. 1907, p. 161.
PHILLIPS, SIR CLAUDE, _The Picture Gallery of Charles I_. Portfolio
Monograph, 1896.
PHILLIPS, SIR CLAUDE, _The Collection of Pictures at Longford Castle_.
The Art Journal, 1897, pp. 97-104.
POLLARD, A. F., _Henry VIII_. Goupil & Co., 1902.
RACZYNSKI, _Les Arts en Portugal_, 1846, p. 295.
RAWNSLEY, CANON H. D., _The Revival of the Decorative Arts at Lucerne_.
Lucerne, 1897.
REINACH, S., _Répertoire de Peintures du Moyen Age et de la Renaissance,
1280-1580_, 3 vols. E. Leroux, Paris, 1905-10.
RICHARDSON, _Architectural Remains of the Reigns of Elizabeth and James
I_. 1838.
ROPER, W., _The Life and Death of Sir Thomas More_, &c. Ed. Rev. J.
Lewis, 1731.
RUSKIN, JOHN, _Sir Joshua and Holbein_. Cornhill Magazine, March, 1860,
p. 328 _et seq._; reprinted in “On the Old Road,” vol. i. pt. i. pp.
221-36.
RUSKIN, JOHN, _Design in the German Schools of Engraving_, Lecture V in
“Ariadne Fiorentina,” pp. 127-70. George Allen, 1876.
SAINSBURY, _Original Unpublished Papers illustrative of the Life of Sir
P. P. Rubens_, &c. London, 1859.
SANDRART, J. VON, _Teutsche Akademie_, 1675.
SCHARF, SIR GEORGE, F.S.A., _Royal Picture Galleries_, in “Old London.”
John Murray, 1867.
SCHARF, SIR G., _Additional Observations on some of the Painters
contemporary with Holbein_. Archæologia, vol. xxxix, pp. 47-56.
SCHARF, SIR G., _Remarks on some Pictures from Windsor Castle, Hampton
Court_, &c. Archæologia, vol. xxxix. pp. 245-71.
SCHARF, SIR G., _Notes on several of the Portraits described in Mr. J.
G. Nichols’ Memoir_. Archæologia, vol. xl. pp. 81-8.
SCHARF, SIR G., F.S.A., _Remarks on a Portrait of the Duchess of Milan
recently discovered at Windsor Castle_, &c. Archæologia, vol. xl.
pp. 106-12.
SCHMID, H. A., _Hans Holbein d. J. Jugendentwickelung_, 1515-1526.
Basel, 1892.
SCHMID, H. A., _Die Gemälde Hans Holbeins d. J. im Basler Grossratsaal_.
Jahrbuch der kgl. preuss. Kunsts., xvii. (1896) p. 73.
SCHMID, H. A., _Holbeins Tätigkeit für die Basler Verleger_. Jahrbuch
der kgl. preuss. Kunstsammlungen, vol. xx. p. 233.
SCHMID, H. A., _Die Darmstädter Madonna_. Graphische Künste. Vienna,
1901.
SCHNEELI, G., and HEITZ, P., _Initialen von Hans Holbein_. Heitz,
Strasburg, 1900.
SEEMAN, A., _Der Brunnen des Lebens von H. Holbein_. Zeitschrift f.
bild. Kunst, May, 1903.
SHEPPARD, DR. EDGAR, _The Old Royal Palace of Whitehall_, pp. 385-6.
Longmans, Green & Co., 1901.
SIMON, K., _Holbeins Morusbild_. Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft, xxx.
1907, p. 332.
SKETCHLEY, R. E. D., _Holbein as Goldsmith’s Designer_. The Art Journal,
June, 1910, p. 175.
SMITH, H. CLIFFORD, _Jewellery_. The Connoisseur’s Library.
SQUIRE, W. BARCLAY, and HELEN MATILDA, COUNTESS OF RADNOR, _Catalogue of
the Pictures in the Collection of the Earl of Radnor_, 2 vols.
Chiswick Press, 1909.
STEPHENS, F. G., _The Private Collections of England_: Nos. lviii. and
lix., _Nostell Priory, Wakefield_. The Athenæum, Nos. 2760-1,
September 18 and 25, 1880.
STODDART, JANE T., _Girlhood of Mary Queen of Scots_, chap. xxi. p. 346
_et seq._ 1909.
STÖDTNER, FRANZ, _Hans Holbein der Aeltere_. Berlin, 1896.
STOW, JOHN, _Summarie of Englysh Chronicles_, &c., 1565.
STOW, JOHN, _The Annales of England_, &c., 1592.
STOW, JOHN, _A Survay of London_, &c., 1598.
STRONG, S. ARTHUR, _Reproduction of Drawings by the Old Masters at
Chatsworth_. Duckworth & Co., 1902.
STRONG, S. ARTHUR, _Critical Studies and Fragments_. Duckworth & Co.,
1905.
STRYIENSKI, C., _“Pedigree” d’un Holbein: Portrait de G. Gisze_.
Chronique des Arts, 1911.
STRYPE, REV. JOHN, _Annals of the Reformation in England_, 1709-31.
TONJOLA, _Basilea Sepulta_, 1661, p. 382.
VÖGELIN, S., _Ein wiedergefundenes Meisterwerk Holbeins_. Frankfurter
Zeitung, 1871 (Nos. 236-7, 244, 248).
VÖGELIN, S., _Ergänzungen und Nachweisungen zum Holzschnittwerk H. H. d.
J._ Repertorium f. Kunstwissenschaft, ii. (1877) pp. 162, 312; v. p.
179.
VÖGELIN, S., _Der Holbeintisch auf der Stadtbibliothek in Zürich_.
Vienna, 1878.
VÖGELIN, S., _Holbeins Fassadenmalereien zu Basel_. Anzeiger für
schweiz. Altertumskunde, xiii., 1880, p. 50.
VÖGELIN, S., _Fassadenmalerei in der Schweiz_. Anzeiger für schweiz.
Altertumskunde, 1884.
VÖGELIN, S., _Wer hat Holbein die Kenntnis des klassischen Altertums
vermittelt?_ Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft, x. p. 345.
VOLL, KARL, _Meisterwerke der Gemäldegalerie im Haag_. Hanfstaengl,
1903.
VOLL, KARL, _Holbein und Böcklin_. Süddeutsche Monatshefte, 1905, ii. 8,
p. 177.
VOSS, H., _Holbein und Raphael_. Monatshefte für Kunst., iii. (1910) p.
159.
WAAGEN, G. F., _Kunstwerke und Künstler in Deutschland_, 1845.
WAAGEN, G. F., _Treasures of Art in Great Britain_, 4 vols. Translated
by Lady Eastlake. John Murray, 1854-7.
WALPOLE, HORACE, _Anecdotes of Painting in England, with some Account of
the Principal Artists_. Additions by the Rev. James Dallaway,
revised by Ralph N. Wornum, 3 vols. Swan, Sonnenschein, Lowrey &
Co., 1888.
WEALE, W. H. JAMES, _Simon Binnink, Miniaturist_. Burlington Magazine,
No. xxxv. vol. viii. (February, 1906) pp. 355-6.
WEALE, W. H. JAMES, _Livina Teerlinc, Miniaturist_. Burlington Magazine,
No. xl. vol. ix. (July, 1906) p. 278.
WERNER, ANTON, _Die Holbein in Augsburg_. Der Sammler, No. 143, 1907.
WILLIAMSON, G. C., _The History of Portrait Miniatures_, 1531-1860, 2
vols. George Bell & Sons, 1904.
WILLIAMSON, G. C., _Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan’s Catalogue: The Miniatures_.
Privately printed.
WILLIAMSON, G. C., _Portrait Miniatures_. The Studio, Spring Number,
1910.
WOLTMANN, ALFRED, _Holbein und seine Zeit_, 2 vols., second edition. E.
A. Seeman, Leipzig, 1874-6.
WOLTMANN, ALFRED, _Holbein and his Time_. Translation of vol. i. first
edition, by F. E. Bunnett. Richard Bentley & Son, 1872.
WOLTMANN, ALFRED, _Holbein at the National Portrait Gallery_.
Fortnightly Review, vol. vi. (1866) p. 160.
WOLTMANN, ALFRED, _Holbein und Q. Metsys in Longford Castle_.
Zeitschrift für bild. Kunst., i. p. 198.
WORNUM, RALPH N., _Some Account of the Life and Works of Hans Holbein,
Painter, of Augsburg_. Chapman & Hall, 1867.
WORNUM, RALPH N., _Hans Holbein and the Meier Madonna_. Arundel Society,
1871.
WURSTISEN, _Epitome Historiæ Basiliensis_. Basel, 1577.
WYATT, M. DIGBY, F.R.I.B.A., _On the Foreign Artists employed in England
during the Sixteenth Century, and their influence on British Art_.
Transactions of the Royal Institute of British Architects. Session
1867-8 (May 18, 1868), pp. 209-58.
WYZEWA, T. DE, _À propos d’un Livre nouveau sur Holbein le Jeune_
(review of Dr. Ganz’ _Holbein_). Revue des Deux Mondes, January 15,
1912.
ZAHN, A. VON, _Hans Holbein d. J. und seine Familie_. Jahrbücher für
Kunstwissenschaft, iii. (1870) p. 115.
ZAHN, A. VON, _Die Augsburger Steuerbücher über Hans Holbein d.
Aeltern_. Jahrbücher für Kunstwissenschaft, iv. 1871, p. 267.
ZETTER-COLLIN, F. A., _Die Zetter’sche Madonna von Solothurn_.
Festschrift des Kunst-Vereins der Stadt Solothurn, 1902.
_A Drawing by Holbein in the Collection of the Duke of Devonshire._
Burlington Magazine, No. ii. vol. i. (April, 1903) pp. 223-4.
_Drawings attributed to Holbein in the Collection of the Duke of
Devonshire._ Burlington Magazine, No. iii. vol. i. (May, 1903) p.
354.
_A Portrait of a Man by Holbein recently acquired by the Metropolitan
Museum of New York._ Burlington Magazine, No. xliii. vol. x.
(October, 1906) pp. 48-53.
_A Portrait by Holbein._ Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New
York, vol. i. No. 12 (November, 1906) p. 150-3.
Catalogue of the Exhibition of the Royal House of Tudor. New Gallery,
1890. Illustrated.
Catalogue of the Exhibition of Works by Hans Holbein the Younger at
Basel, 1897-8.
Katalog der Oeffentlichen Kunstsammlung in Basel, 1908. Illustrated.
Cust, Lionel, M.V.O., _The Painter HE (“Hans Eworth”)_. Walpole Society,
2nd annual vol., 1912-13, pp. 1-44.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
INDEX^{TN}
(_The Lists of Pictures by or attributed to Holbein, &c., exhibited at
various exhibitions between 1846 and 1912, Vol. ii. p. 359-389, are
not included in the Index._)
Abbate, Niccolo dell’, of Modena, i. 281, 287 _note_
Abergavenny, castle and lordship, ii. 288
—— George Nevill, 3rd Earl of, ii. 222, 248, 255
Acorre, i. 105 _note_
_Adagia_ (Erasmus), i. 45, 49
Addison, Joseph, i. 328 _note_
Advocates’ Library, Edinburgh, ii. 148, 343
Ægidius, Petrus, i. 62, 163, 193, 255, 288-289, 298, 339;
ii. 265
Æmilius (œmmel), George, i. 212, 224
_Æneæ Platonici Christiani_, &c. (pub. Froben, 1516), i. 191
Airell, Richard, i. 265
Aix-la-Chapelle, ii. 15
Aix-les-Bains, i. 344 _note_
Akersloot, W., engraver, i. 87
Albertina, Vienna, i. 5, 60, 161 _note_, 344 _note_
Albury, i. 171 _note_
Alciat, i. 84, 174
Aldegrever, ii. 52 _note_
Aldenham, Lord (collection), ii. 169
Alessandro of Milan, _see_ Carmillian, Alys
Alexander VI, Pope, i. 271
Alexander, Thomas, painter-stainer, i. 261
Alexe of Myllen, _see_ Carmillian, Alys
Algarotti, Count Francesco, i. 242-243
Allington Castle, Kent, i. 336
Alsop, T., barber-surgeon, ii. 291, 293
Altdorfer, ii. 270
Althorp, ii. 14, 72, 93, 107, 141, 352
Altishofen, Colonel Karl Pyffer von, i. 71
Altman, Mr. Benjamin (collection), ii. 82, 348
Altorf, i. 74, 77
Amadas, Robert, Master of the Jewel House, ii. 58, 287
Amberger, C., ii. 17 _note_, 310
Ambraser Collection, Vienna, i. 60;
ii. 70
Amerbach, Basilius, i. 45, 85, 102, 181, 345
—— Bonifacius, i. 39, 45, 74-75, 84-87, 90, 122, 151, 174, 177, 180,
250, 253, 341, 343, 345, 352;
ii. 87-88, 256, 259, 264, 331, 340, 344
—— Collection, Inventory, &c., i. 5, 38, 40, 44, 55-56, 60, 75, 79,
84-85, 87, 99, 100-102, 106, 113, 121, 135, 146, 157, 161, 174,
180-181, 186, 199, 246-247, 250, 344-345, 347;
ii. 87-88, 260-261, 329
Amerbach, family house, i. 122
—— Hans, i. 85
Amiet, ii. 390
Amsterdam, i. 27, 28, 106, 224, 240-241, 243-244, 335;
ii. 15, 25-27, 64, 112, 199, 213, 231, 248
—— Museum, i. 165;
ii. 304, 308
Andermatt, i. 77;
ii. 324
Andlau, ii. 82
Andlau, Convent of, Alsace, ii. 326
Andlau, Von, family, i. 145;
ii. 326
“Androw, painter,” _see_ Wright, Andrew
Angelrot, Balthazar, goldsmith of Basel, i. 117-118
Angeviller, Mons. d’, ii. 327
Anne, Queen of England, i. 107;
ii. 52, 203
—— Boleyn, Queen, _see_ Boleyn
—— of Cleves, Queen, _see_ Cleves
Anthony, Anthony, of the Ordnance Department, ii. 297-298
“Anthony, Mr., the King’s servant,” ii. 294, 296-298
Anstis, _Order of the Garter_ (1724), i. 319
Antiquaries, Society of, i. 287 _note_, 291, 313;
ii. 110, 125, 137, 271
_Antiquities of Westminster_ (J. T. Smith), ii. 267
Antonine Abbey of Isenheim, Vicar of, i. 254
Antwerp (town), i. 62, 163-164, 176, 245, 264, 268-269, 273-274,
288-289, 329;
ii. 27, 87, 152, 176, 198, 230, 264, 298, 307-308, 341
“Antwerp, Glazier of” (Galyon Hone?), i. 268
Antwerp, Hans of, ii. 8-14, 215, 275, 286-288, 295-297
Antwerp Museum, i. 164
Anwarpe, Augustine, ii. 13
Anwarpe, Roger, ii. 13
Apelles, i. 227, 247;
ii. 75
Apethorpe Hall, Northamptonshire, ii. 222
Apian, Peter, ii. 50
Apiarius, _see_ Bienenvater
Appuldurcombe, Isle of Wight, ii. 165
Aragon, Queen Katherine of, i. 272;
miniature of, 308, 317;
ii. 109-110, 117, 131, 212, 233, 235, 237
Arbury, Warwickshire, ii. 210
_Archæologia_, ii. 38, 110, 125, 137, 170
Archangell, Italian lead-caster, i. 314
Archer, Wykeham, ii. 2 _note_
_Architectural Remains of Reigns of Elizabeth_, &c. (Richardson), ii.
271 _note_
Arcos, Duke d’, i. 272
Aristotle, i. 159, 199
Arkeman, Philyp, painter, i. 278
Art Treasures Exhibition, Manchester, 1857, ii. 360-361
Arthur, Prince of Wales, ii. 136
Arundel, Alathea, Countess of, i. 106, 178, 335;
ii. 25, 64, 199, 209, 248
—— Castle, ii. 135, 137, 197, 199, 201, 303, 307
—— Collection and Inventory (1655), i. 27-28, 60, 71, 106, 171, 177,
179 _note_, 285, 295 _note_, 318-319, 323, 325 _note_, 328 _note_,
335;
ii. 15, 19, 25, 44, 53, 61, 64-65, 67-69, 72, 77, 81, 84, 89,
112, 164, 166 _and note_, 181 _and note_, 182 _and note_, 193,
198 _and note_, 200-201, 205 _and note_, 209, 213 _note_, 214,
216, 219, 231, 246, 248, 263, 270, 276, 283, 342
—— Earl of, in Basel, i. 252
—— Elizabeth, of Telverne, i. 334
—— Henry Fitz-Alan, 12th Earl of, i. 178;
ii. 307
—— Henry Frederick, Earl of (1608-52), ii. 219
—— Philip Howard, Earl of (1557-95), ii. 135
—— Thomas Howard, Earl of (1585-1646), i. 28, 178, 241, 318, 323, 328
_note_, 335;
ii. 19, 25, 61-62, 64-66, 68-69, 77, 84, 107, 135, 166, 181, 193,
198, 201, 209, 216, 231, 246, 247 _and note_, 248, 299,
341-342
—— Sir John, of Teloerne, i. 334
—— House, ii. 25
Asper, Hans, ii. 311 _note_
_Athenæum_, i. 297, 305
Aubrey, i. 301
Audley, Lady, ii. 220, 222-223, 255, 258
—— John Touchet, 9th Lord, ii. 223
Augsburg (town), i. 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13-15, 19, 20, 22, 23, 29, 31, 32,
42, 65, 74, 145, 148, 168, 189, 190, 214, 331;
ii. 162, 300
Augsburg, decorative arts in, i. 31
—— Cathedral, i. 7
—— Episcopal Library, i. 4
—— Gallery, i. 3, 4, 8, 10, 23, 24, 39, 110;
ii. 323
—— Kaisheimer Hofs, i. 7 _note_
—— Painters’ Guild, i. 22
—— St. Katherine, Convent of, i. 4, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, 23, 24
—— St. Moritz Church, i. 13
—— St. Sauveur Church, i. 15
Augustus III, King of Poland and Elector of Saxony, i. 242-243;
ii. 67
Augustyne, John, i. 262
Aumale Collection, Chantilly, i. 11
Austria, Duke Leopold of, i. 71
—— Margaret of, _see_ Margaret
Autun, ii. 148
Auxerre, ii. 43, 45 _note_
Avaux family, ii. 37
Avignon, i. 84, 174
Avogadro, Venetian banker, i. 242-243
Aylif, T., Warden of Barber-Surgeons’ Company, ii. 291
Bacon, John, of Cambridgeshire, ii. 210
Baer, Hans, i. 35-36, 53
—— Magdalena, i. 53, 234
Baggeley, Mr., ii. 107
Bagnols, agent of Frederick, Prince of Wales, ii. 199
Baker, Mr. C. H. Collins, ii. 89 _note_
Balcarres, Lord, ii. 136
—— MSS., ii. 148, 343
Baldinucci, i. 306
Baldry, A. L., ii. 390
Baldung, Hans, _see_ Grien
Bale, C. Sackville (collection), ii. 237
Ballard, Thomas, painter-stainer, i. 261
Bamberg (town), i. 69
—— Library, i. 19
Bandz, Tomas, ii. 7
Banister, Edward, i. 178
Bar and Lorraine, François, Duke of, ii. 120, 130
Bar-le-Duc, ii. 147
Bar-sur-Seine, ii. 40, 42
Barbers, Company of, ii. 289
Barber-Surgeons’ Company, ii. 289-291, 293-294
—— Hall, ii. 289, 293, 346, 350
Bardi family, i. 270
—— Pietro di, i. 271
Barker, Christopher (Garter), i. 262
Barnborough Hall, i. 300;
ii. 335-336
Barnes, Dr., ii. 173
Barnet, ii. 335
Baron, Bernard, engraver, ii. 294
“Barough,” ii. 119
Barrett family, of Lee Priory, ii. 181-182, 235
—— Mr., of Lee Priory, ii. 109, 181-182
—— Mr. T. B., ii. 182
“Barrough, Ladie Marqueis of,” ii. 118-119, 182, 128
Bartolozzi, F., R.A., ii. 250
Basel, i. 1, 15, 22-23, 31-33, 35-37, 43, 45-46, 49, 53, 55, 57-58, 65,
75, 78, 80-82, 84, 87, 90, 101, 104, 106, 109, 111, 115-116, 137,
141-142, 145, 147, 151, 153, 157, 158-159, 162-163, 166-169, 172,
174-177, 188, 190-191, 195, 200-202, 204-206, 208, 211, 218, 225,
228, 232-233, 236, 241, 245-248, 252-255, 262, 288, 291, 298-299,
321, 338-341, 343, 347, 351;
ii. 5, 6, 12 _note_, 32-35, 46-47, 56, 63-64, 71, 77, 87, 91,
150-151, 154-164, 186, 191-192, 211, 213, 219, 227, 240, 260, 268,
297, 300-301, 311, 313, 319, 325-326, 328-330
— Bäumleingasse, No. 18 (“zum Luft”), i. 163;
zur Blume, inn, i. 123;
Carthusian Monastery, i. 90;
Cathedral, i. 87, 91, 95, 113-115, 148, 154, 340;
Dominican Monastery, i. 205, 208;
ii. 156;
Eisengasse, i. 117-118, 120;
Fischmarktplatz, i. 123, 163;
Gerbergasse (“zum Papst”), i. 1;
Historical Museum, i. 83, 150;
Kunstverein, i. 51;
Library, i. 5, 91-92, 113, 239;
ii. 6, 329;
Painters’ Guild (Zunft zum Himmel), i. 58-59, 82-83, 97, 121, 232;
ii. 32-33, 47, 63, 157-158;
Public Picture Gallery (_see below_);
Rheingasse, i. 122;
Rhine Bridge, i. 102, 117;
Rhine Gate, i. 351;
St. Leonhard, i. 190;
St. Johann Vorstadt, i. 205, 339;
ii. 156;
Haus zum Tanz, _see_ Dance, House of the;
Town Archives, i. 58-59, 83, 126, 339;
Town Council, i. 59, 90, 106, 124, 126-127, 130, 181, 198, 205, 232,
252, 254-255, 338-340, 347, 351;
ii. 34-35, 63, 158-159, 161-163, 191, 300;
Town Hall and Council Chamber (wall-paintings), i. 91-92, 106, 118,
123-134, 343, 347-352;
ii. 157, 262-264, 313-314;
University, i. 37, 45, 84, 93, 145, 183;
ii. 328-329, 357
Basel Public Picture Collection (Gallery), i. 7 _note_, 9, 19, 26, 35,
37, 39, 42-43, 45, 50-52, 54 _note_, 55, 58-61, 63, 65, 68, 77-79,
81, 84-85, 87-88, 91, 98-99, 101, 106, 112-113, 120-121, 125,
127-131, 137, 142-143, 145, 147-150, 159-161, 172-173, 175, 177,
180, 182-183, 185, 186 _note_, 188, 205, 207, 228, 230, 236, 241,
245, 289, 291, 321, 338, 343, 346-348, 350-351;
ii. 87 _and notes_, 167-168, 189, 211, 238, 248, 255-256, 259-260,
273, 275-278, 281, 283-284, 314, 327-329, 356-357, 400
—— Jergen ze, ii. 7
_Basilea Sepulta_ (Tonjola), i. 127, 130
Basville, Marquis de, ii. 46
Bathoe (James II’s catalogue of pictures), ii. 249
_Battle of Bosworth Field_ (jewel with pendant miniatures, by
Hilliard), ii. 234
_Battle of Spurs_ (Hampton Court), i. 258, 315-316;
ii. 64, 91, 215
“Bauerntanz,” _see_ Dance, House of the Bavaria, i. 15
—— Duke Albrecht V of, ii. 241
—— Maximilian I, Elector of, i. 17
Bavarian National Museum, Munich, ii. 241-242
Bayersdorfer, A., i. 237
Bayonne, ii. 38
Beard (Byrd), Richard, ii. 173-175, 177, 184
Beauchamp, Earl (collection), ii. 304, 309
Beaufort, Lady Margaret, her monument, i. 272
Beaujon, Nicolas, ii. 45 _and note_, 46
—— Sale and Catalogue, 45 _and note_, 46-47
Beaune, i. 153, 174
Beaver, Alfred, _Memorials of Old Chelsea_, i. 315;
ii. 272
Bebelius, Johannes, printer, i. 202, 225
Beckford Collection, ii. 278
Beckman, Barthold, Steelyard merchant, ii. 6
Bedford, Duke of (sale and collection), i. 304 _note_;
ii. 112, 351
Bedford, John Russell, Earl of, ii. 256
Bell, Mr. C. F., F.S.A., ii. 237, 390
—— John (painter of Henry VIII’s tomb), i. 269, 272
Bellay, Guillaume du, ii. 38-39
—— Jean du, ii. 38-39
Bellin, Nicolas, of Modena, i. 281-286, 287 _note_, 314;
ii. 186, 201, 269 _note_, 303, 333
Belvoir Castle, ii. 100
Bemberg Ducal Library, ii. 277
Bemposta, Castle of, i. 16
“Benedict, the King’s tomb-maker,” _see_ Rovezzano
Bentinck family, ii. 187
Bentinck, Hans William, 1st Earl of Portland, ii. 187
Bentinck, William, 3rd son of 1st Earl of Portland, ii. 187
“Benting, Lord William, Lord of Rhoon,” ii. 187
Berck (Berg), Derich, Steelyard merchant, ii. 22-23, 83
Bergh, Mayer van den, Collection, Antwerp, ii. 230
Beringen, Anna von, i. 33
—— Ycher von, i. 33
Berkeley, Thomas, Lord, ii. 72
Berlepsch, H. E. von, i. 121
Berlin, i. 204, 242
Berlin, Kaiser Friedrich Museum and Royal Print Room, i. 11, 18, 21,
25-26, 119-120, 142-143, 182, 206-207, 214, 242, 354;
ii. 4-6, 15, 16, 31, 201, 205-206, 248, 255, 259, 278, 324, 353
Bermondsey, i. 262
Bernal, Ralph, Sale (1855), ii. 53
Bernardi family, painters, i. 287
Bernburg Library, i. 5
Berne, i. 3, 32, 77, 202, 204, 241;
ii. 161-162
—— Dominican Monastery, i. 206;
Historical Museum, i. 141;
Town Council, ii. 162
Bernoulli, Dr. C. Chr., ii. 331, 341
Beromünster Cloisters, Lucerne, i. 79
Berry, dukes of, i. 175
—— Duke Jehan of, and Duchess, i. 175-176
Bertholdo, i. 271
Besançon, i. 149, 174, 179 _note_
Besselsleigh, Berks., i. 301
Bettes, John, ii. 210, 241, 308-309
—— Thomas, ii. 241, 309
Beverley, Yorks., ii. 334
Bewick, John, _Emblems of Mortality_, i. 214
—— Thomas, i. 214
Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, i. 142, 144, 207
Bickley Hall, Kent, ii. 33
Bicocca, battle of, i. 72
Bienenvater, Matthias (Apiarius), printer of Berne, i. 202
Binck, Jacob, ii. 250
Binnink, Simon, of Bruges, miniaturist, ii. 238-239
Binyon, Mr. Laurence, i. 356;
ii. 390
Birmann, i. 127
Bisschop, Jan de, i. 243;
ii. 27-28
Black, Mr. W. H., F.S.A., ii. 294, 297-298, 390
Blackheath, i. 295
Blakenhall, William, i. 327
Blamire, Mr. W., sale (1863), ii. 230, 237
“Blanche Rose,” i. 283;
ii. 333
Blankenberghe, near Bruges, ii. 238
Bletz, Zacharias, registrar of Lucerne, i. 64
Bloemaert, ii. 341
Blomefield, Norfolk, i. 326
Blomfield, Mr. Reginald, A.R.A., ii. 272 _and note_, 390
Blond, Michel le, _see_ Le Blond
Bock, Hans, the Elder, i. 105-106, 126-127;
ii. 311 _note_
Bode, Dr., i. 335;
ii. 196, 342
Bodenham family, i. 353, 355-356;
ii. 351
—— Mr. Charles, i. 355
—— Thomas, i. 356
Bodleian Library, Oxford, i. 171 _note_, 326;
ii. 81, 113, 247, 274
Boetius, _De Consolatione Philosophiæ_, i. 296
Bohemia, King and Queen of, i. 241
Boisserée, i. 91 _note_
_Boke called the Governour_ (Sir T. Elyot), i. 336
Boleyn, Queen Anne, i. 178, 262, 306, 319;
ii. 30-33, 38, 59, 78, 91, 104, 109-110, 116, 192, 196, 208, 235,
237, 288
—— Sir Thomas, Earl of Wiltshire and Ormonde, i. 327;
ii. 256
—— Sir William, ii. 272
Boling, Sir John, and his mother, miniature, signed “L.,” ii. 240
Bolingbroke, Lord, ii. 230
Bollonia, Hierome Trevix, _see_ Treviso, G. da
Bologna, i. 286
Bonnat, M. Léon, Paris (collection), i. 19, 148
Bonner, wood-engraver, i. 214
Booth, Mrs., of Glendon Hall (collection), i. 269
Borcht, H. Van der, ii. 15
Bordeaux, i. 329
Bordone, Paris, ii. 107
Born, Derich, Steelyard merchant, ii. 17-20, 65
—— Theodoricus, ii. 18-19
Borough, Lady, ii. 256
Boston, U.S.A., ii. 210, 347
Boswell, William, ii. 65
“Bottle, The,” Bermondsey, i. 262
Botzheim, von, family, i. 33
—— Johann von, i. 33;
ii. 332
—— Michael von, i. 33
Bouchot, Mons., i. 305
Boulogne, i. 286, 326;
ii. 144, 303
—— Captain of, ii. 6
—— siege of, ii. 119
Bourbon, Nicolas, i. 211, 227, 328;
ii. 38, 63, 72-75, 79, 90-91, 92 _note_, 288
Bourges Cathedral, i. 175-176
Brabant, i. 269
Bracquemond, Félix, etcher, i. 173
Braganza, Catherine of, i. 16
Brandon, Anne, Lady Powys, ii. 227
—— Charles, Duke of Suffolk, i. 269;
ii. 11, 44 _note_, 59, 193, 214, 220, 223-225, 227, 241, 280
—— Charles, son of above, ii. 201, 220, 222-227, 258
—— “Duke of,” ii. 224
—— Eleanor, Countess of Cumberland, ii. 195, 227
—— family, ii. 227
—— Frances, Countess of Dorset, ii. 227
—— Henry, afterwards Duke of, ii. 63, 167, 220, 222-227
—— Mary, Lady Monteagle, ii. 227
Braneburgh, ii. 55
Brasseur, Herr, of Cologne, i. 344 _note_
Braun, _Urbium Præcipuarum Mundi_, &c. (1583), i. 276
—— photographer, ii. 72, 342
Bray, i. 78
—— Sir Edward, of Shere, i. 309-310
—— family, of Shere, i. 309
Brede Church, Sussex, ii. 272
Breidrood, Lord of, ii. 116
Brentano-Birckenstock Sale (1870), ii. 207
Brentford, i. 300
Brera Gallery, _see_ Milan
Brescia, i. 275
Breslau, i. 83
Bretten, i. 185
Brewer, Dr., i. 256, 315;
ii. 390
Brian, Sir Francis, Master of the Toils, ii. 142, 144-146
Brickdon, Huntingdonshire, ii. 226
Bridewell Hospital, _see_ London
—— Palace, ii. 42-43, 292
Brighton Art Gallery, ii. 104
Bristol, Marquis of, ii. 72
British Institution Exhibition, 1846, ii. 359
British Museum, Print Room, i. 21-22, 63, 80, 146, 156, 182, 188, 207,
214 _note_, 307, 324, 356;
ii. 26-27, 40, 61, 92 _note_, 113, 196, 211, 219, 226-227, 246, 247
_note_, 254, 269-270, 273-274, 276-280, 283-284, 314, 327, 337
Brocklebank, Mr. Ralph (collection), i. 54 _note_
Brockwell, Mr. Maurice W., i. 354-355, 357
Browne, Sir Anthony, ii. 180, 227
—— John, serjeant-painter, i. 258-262, 273-274, 314
Bruce, Mr., ii. 79
Bruges, i. 289;
ii. 5, 238-239;
Carmelite Church, i. 245;
Golden Fleece Exhibition (1907), ii. 141 _note_;
Painters’ Guild, i. 269
Brunner, Barbara, i. 35
Brunswick Gallery, i. 73, 79;
ii. 18, 22, 323, 326, 353
Brussels, i. 170;
ii. 57, 61, 115-116, 119-120, 125, 127, 129, 140-141, 148, 150, 153,
155, 180, 349
Brussels Exhibition of Miniatures (1912), ii. 57 _note_, 230
—— Museum, i. 304
Bruyn, Bartholomäus, i. 96
Buccleuch, Duke of (collection), ii. 62, 88, 109, 170, 192-194,
221-222, 230-231, 234, 237-238, 346, 351
Bucer, Martin, ii. 225
Buchanan, dealer, ii. 37
Büchel, Emmanuel, i. 113, 205
Buchheit, Dr. Hans, ii. 241-242
Buckingham (town), ii. 52
—— Duke of, i. 166, 240, 320
—— —— Collection and Inventory (1635), i. 320;
ii. 14, 87, 215, 237, 308
—— Earl of, ii. 292
—— Edward Stafford, Duke of, ii. 44 _note_
—— House, ii. 26
—— Palace, ii. 249
Bugenhagen, _Interpretation of the Psalms_, i. 198
Buildwas Park, Shropshire, ii. 212, 348
Bullinger, Heinrich, ii. 156
Bulstrode Park, Bucks., ii. 52-53, 352
Burckhardt family, i. 74
Burckhardt, A., ii. 390
Burckhardt-Werthemann, D., ii. 390
Büren, Colonel May von, i. 71-72
Burford Priory, Oxfordshire, i. 301-302 ii. 335
Burgkmair, Hans, i. 4, 6, 12, 30-31, 55 _note_, 74
—— Thomas, i. 4
Burgratus, Francis, ii. 152, 172-173
Burgundy, ii. 38
—— county of, ii. 150
—— duchy of, ii. 150
Burke’s _Peerage_, ii. 225
Burleigh House, ii. 107
Burlington, Earl of, ii. 294
—— Fine Arts Club Exhibition (1906), i. 20, 81
—— —— (1909), i. 269, 286-287, 303, 308, 332;
ii. 81, 85, 88, 103-104, 107, 109, 165, 167, 169-170, 193-194,
199, 204, 210, 221-222, 230, 234-239, 384-386
—— —— Catalogue, ii. 106, 194, 204, 233-235, 239
—— House, ii. 135
_Burlington Magazine of Fine Arts_, ii. 23, 45 _note_, 52 _and note_,
60 _note_, 65, 228-229, 231, 337, 400
Burnet, Bishop, _History of the Reformation_, ii. 178-179
Burrell, Sir William, i. 320
Burton, Sir Frederick, ii. 44
Bute, Marquis of (collection), i. 266;
ii. 102
Buttery, Mr. Ayerst H., i. 353, 357-358;
ii. 351
Buttessey, Bamardyne, ii. 188
Butts, Edmund, ii. 210-211, 309
—— family, ii. 210-211
—— Lady, ii. 83, 205, 209-210, 255
—— Sir William, ii. 73, 205, 208-211, 255, 289, 291, 309
Byfield, John, wood-engraver, i. 214
Bygnalle, Rychard, painter-stainer, i. 261
Byrom, George, of Salford, ii. 6
Calais, i. 163, 178, 258-259, 268, 273, 289;
ii. 118, 144-145
Calard, Rychard, painter-stainer, i. 261
Caledon, Earl of, ii. 58-59, 351
_Calendars of Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic_, &c., i. 273,
284, 287 _note_, 312, 314, 327, 334, 356-357;
ii. 4, 6, 10, 11, 15, 19, 21, 43, 92, 120, 141, 146, 152-153, 172,
179-180, 202, 253, 272, 298
“Calumny of Apelles,” i. 62
Cambridge, ii. 211;
Corpus Christi College, ii. 61;
Fitzwilliam Museum, ii. 43, 71, 204-205, 304;
King’s College, ii. 270;
Pepysian Library, ii. 346;
St. John’s College, i. 325;
ii. 226;
Trinity College, ii. 101, 332;
University, ii. 244
Campo, _History of Cremona_, ii. 137
Campori, Monsignor, i. 306
Camusat, Nicolas, antiquary, ii. 41-42
Canaletto, ii. 346
Canterbury, ii. 334
—— Archidiaconal Court of, ii. 302
—— Prerogative Court of, i. 262
Cappes, Adryan, ii. 333
Carden, R. W., _Italian Artists in England_, &c., i. 287 _note_
Cardiff, ii. 27 _note_
Cardon, Mons. C. Léon, Brussels (collection), ii. 61
Carew, Sir George, ii. 256
—— Sir Nicholas, Master of the Horse, i. 279, 337;
ii. 65, 87-89, 256, 260
—— Lady, ii. 87 _note_, 260
—— Sir Peter, portrait by Flicke, i. 306
Carl the Big, Emperor, ii. 326
Carleton, Sir Dudley, i. 241;
ii. 341
Carlisle, Earl of, ii. 245 _note_
Carmeliano, Peter, of Brescia, i. 275
Carmenelle, Elys, _see_ Carmillian Alis
Carmillian, Alys or Ellys, i. 273-276, 314
Carmillione, Elisa, _see_ Carmillian
Carmyan, Ellys, _see_ Carmillian
Carne, Dr. Edward, ii. 131, 133, 173
Caroline, Queen, wife of George II, ii. 249
Carracci, Agostino, ii. 137
Carwardine, Sir Thomas, Master of the Revels, ii. 244
Caspar, Lucerne goldsmith, i. 64
Cassel, i. 180
Castiglione, Count Balthazar, ii. 38
Castillon, Louis de Perreau, Sieur de, French Ambassador in England,
ii. 64, 139-145, 152, 154
Castle Howard, ii. 44, 104, 245
Catherine of Braganza, _see_ Braganza
Cavalcanti, Bernardo, i. 271
—— family, i. 270
Cavendish’s _Life of Wolsey_, ii. 109
Cavendish, Richard, ii. 11
Cazillac, François de, _see_ Cessac
Cebes of Thebes, i. 193
“Cebes, Table of,” i. 193-195
Cellini, Benvenuto, i. 257, 272
Cerny, Prince de (collection), ii. 45 _note_
Certosa of Pavia, i. 69, 76, 140
Cessac, De, family, ii. 46
—— François de Cazillac, Baron de, ii. 44, 46
Chaloner, Thomas, ii. 214
Chamber, Dr. John, ii. 65, 112, 205, 208-209, 255, 289, 291
Chamberlaine, John, _Imitations of Holbein’s Drawings_, i. 334;
ii. 249-250
Chamberlayne, Francis, ii. 56
Champagne, ii. 147
Chantilly, i. 11, 16;
ii. 44, 52, 245
Chapuys, Eustace, Imperial Ambassador in London, ii. 30, 32, 58-59,
111, 118, 124, 152, 172
Charing Cross, i. 265
Charles I of England, i. 106, 166-167, 172, 334;
ii. 104, 198, 224, 234, 245
—— —— Collection and Catalogue, i. 165-166, 173, 304 _note_, 334;
ii. 13-14, 20, 24-25, 62, 81, 107, 110, 166, 188, 209, 224,
233-234, 245-246, 248, 253, 274, 308
—— II of England, i. 16, 97;
ii. 94-95
—— V, Emperor, i. 19;
ii. 6, 30, 32, 40, 42, 111, 114, 117, 124, 131-133, 137-138, 148,
152, 171-172, 177
—— VIII of France, his tomb, i. 271
—— Prince, of Hesse-Darmstadt, i. 242
—— de France, Monsieur, ii. 40
Chateaudun, ii. 343
Chatsworth, i. 336;
ii. 97 _note_, 101, 103 _note_, 248, 283, 285-286, 351
Chatto, _Treatise on Wood Engraving_, i. 223, 227;
ii. 391
Chaumont, ii. 147
Cheam, i. 276
Cheke, Sir John, ii. 225, 244
Chelsea, i. 289-290, 302, 314, 316, 338;
ii. 1, 145, 272, 338
—— Church (More Chapel), ii. 271-272
Cheltenham, ii. 169
Cherbourg, i. 284
Cheseman, Anne, ii. 56
—— Edward, ii. 54-55
—— Robert, of Dormanswell, ii. 54-56, 203, 206, 255
—— William, of Lewes, ii. 55
Chetwynd, Mr., ii. 183
Childe, John, painter-stainer, i. 261
Cholmondeley Sale (1898), ii. 194
Chrétien, Félix, painter, of Auxerre, ii. 45 _note_
Christie’s, Messrs., i. 301, 307, 332;
ii. 45 _note_, 61 _note_
Christina of Denmark, Duchess of Milan, _see_ Milan
Christina, Queen of Sweden, i. 180
Chur, i. 145
Churchill, Mr. Sydney J. A., ii. 52 _note_, 391
Cibber, Caius Gabriel, sculptor, ii. 33
Cibber, Colley, dramatist, ii. 33
Circignano, Nicolo, _see_ Pomerantius
Clarendon Press, ii. 332
Clauser, Jakob, i. 46, 87;
ii. 311 _note_
Clement, Dr. John, i. 293;
ii. 340
—— Margaret, _see_ Gigs
Cleve, Joos van (“Sotto” Cleef), ii. 105-107, 206, 308
Cleves (duchy), ii. 12 _note_, 174-175, 177, 180
—— Amelia of, ii. 154, 174-176, 178, 236
—— Queen Anne of, i. 178;
ii. 55, 65, 114-116, 154, 171, 173-184, 192, 215, 232, 235-236, 271
—— Duchess of, ii. 178
—— Duke of, ii. 116, 172-173, 178, 180
—— young Duke of, ii. 172-174, 177
—— Sybille of, Duchess of Saxony, ii. 173, 178
Clinton, Edward, Lord, ii. 256
Clouet, François, ii. 261-262
—— Jean, ii. 44, 106, 194, 216 _note_, 261
Clouets and their school, i. 175
Cob, Thomas, painter-stainer, i. 261
Cobham, George Brooke, Lord, ii. 256
—— Lord, ii. 257
Cochin, N., engraver, i. 299
Cocles, Peter, i. 163
Cokayne family, ii. 169
Cokethorpe Park, Ducklington, Oxfordshire, i. 301
Colbert, i. 335
Coligny, Gaspard de, Admiral of France, miniature by Bettes, ii. 309
College of Heralds, i. 262
Colmar, i. 5, 18, 91, 190
Colnaghi, Messrs. P. & D., & Co., ii. 136
Cologne, i. 214, 328, 335, 344 _note_;
ii. 5, 15-16, 19, 22, 175, 202
—— Bible (1480), i. 230 _note_
—— University, ii. 19
Colvin, Sir Sidney, i. 177-178;
ii. 38, 44, 48, 69, 196, 391
Colynbrowgh, Hans, Steelyard merchant, ii. 6
Commonwealth Commissioners (sale of Charles I’s pictures), i. 167;
ii. 14, 25, 107, 137, 170, 246
Como, i. 77, 95, 98, 100, 139
Compiègne, ii. 131, 148, 344
_Compleat Gentleman_ (Peacham), ii. 186 _note_, 270, 332
Condover Hall, Shropshire, ii. 194
_Connoisseur, The_, ii. 221
Conon, Johann, of Nuremberg, i. 84
Constable, Sir Thomas, Bt., of Tixall, ii. 61
Constance (town and lake), i. 1, 32-33, 44 _note_;
ii. 331-332
Constantyne, George, ii. 177
“Conton, Maistre,” ii. 59
Conway, Sir Martin, i. 335;
ii. 83, 391
Cook, Sir Frederick (collection), i. 20
Cope, Robert, painter-stainer, i. 261
—— Sir Walter, i. 323, 328 _note_
Copenhagen Museum, i. 16
Copp, Dr. Johannes, _Evangelistic Calendar_, i. 200
Cornelisz, Lucas, ii. 81, 83
“Coronation of Henry VIII” (wall-painting in Westminster Palace), i.
261
Correggio, i. 88
Correra, Mons, de, ii. 123
Corrozet, Gilles, i. 209, 212, 227
Corsham House, ii. 137
Corsi family, i. 270
Corsini Gallery, Rome, i. 166
Corvus, Johannes, i. 269-270;
ii. 303-304
Cosimo II, Grand Duke of Tuscany, ii. 84
_Cosmography_ (Sebastian Münster), i. 173, 198, 350
Cosway Collection, ii. 226
Cotes, Mr. Charles, ii. 35
Cottrell-Dormer family, i. 301
“Court of Francis II,” painting by Félix Chrétien, ii. 45 _and note_
Court, Lord Benedike, ii. 123
Coutrai, i. 77
Coverdale’s _Bible_, title-page, ii. 76-77, 91, 106
Cowden, Kent, i. 262
Cowdray House, ii. 204
Cox, Miss Mary, ii. 64, 391
Cracherode, Rev. C. M., i. 324
Cranach, Lucas, the Elder, i. 168;
ii. 174
Cranmer, Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, ii. 60, 73, 305-306
Cranmer’s _Catechism_, ii. 78-79
Cratander, i. 62, 188, 200-202
Cresacre, Anne, wife of John More, i. 292, 294, 303;
ii. 335-337
—— family, i. 300
Crispin, John, jeweller of Paris, ii. 288
Croft, Sir Archer, ii. 212
—— Elizabeth, ii. 212
—— Rev. Herbert, Bishop of Hereford, ii. 212
Croi, Charles de, Prince de Chimaix, ii. 154
Croke, Master John, Commissary-General, ii. 295
Cromhout, Jacob, and sale, i. 241-244
Cromwell family, ii. 231 _note_
—— Thomas, Earl of Essex, K.G., i. 262, 278, 326, 329;
ii. 3, 6, 11, 13, 58-62, 65, 76, 88, 92, 115-122, 124, 127, 138,
140, 146, 149-150, 152-153, 172, 174, 178-179, 192, 199, 211,
222, 231-232
—— —— —— accounts, i. 281;
ii. 12, 232
Crozat Collection, ii. 27, 31, 246
Crust, John, painter, i. 287
Crystyne, Thomas, painter-stainer, i. 261
Cuddington, i. 276
Cudnor, William, painter-stainer, i. 261
Culpeper, Thomas, ii. 55, 196
Cumberland, i. 178
—— Countess of, _see_ Brandon, Eleanor
—— Duke of, ii. 267
Cunningham, Allan, ii. 267
Curio, Valentine, publisher, i. 202
Cust, Lionel, M.V.O., F.S.A., i. 264, 269, 270, 275 _note_, 281, 319
_note_, 335;
ii. 10-11, 12 _and note_, 13, 60 _and note_, 61, 65, 108, 133, 192,
193 _note_, 194-196, 205 _note_, 231-233, 245, 248, 253-254, 283,
296, 307, 337, 391-392, 400
“C. V.” (metal cuts after Holbein), i. 188
Cyny, Domynyke, i. 273
Dacres, Alice, wife of Robert Cheseman, ii. 56
—— Alderman Henry, of Mayfield, ii. 56
Dalkeith, ii. 305, 351
Dallaway, Rev. James, i. 301, 325;
ii. 189, 219 _note_, 247 _note_, 249, 268
Dalton, keeper of George III’s drawings, ii. 249
_Dance of Death_ (Douce), i. 214
“Dance of Death,” early representations, i. 204-206
“Dance of Death” woodcuts, i. 48, 85, 153, 159, 175, 187, 190-191,
204-224, 290;
ii. 187-188, 314-315
“Dance of Death,” at Whitehall, ii. 186-188
Dance, House of the, i. 117-121, 200;
ii. 315
Dancey, Elizabeth, i. 293, 296, 301, 303;
ii. 336, 339
Dantiscus, Johannes, Bishop of Kulm, i. 179-180
Danzig, ii. 5
Darcy of Chiche, Thomas, 1st Lord, ii. 305
Darmstadt, Grand-Ducal Palace and Museum, i. 50, 232;
ii. 316, 328, 354
Darnley, Lord, and his brother Charles (portrait by Eworthe), ii. 307
David, Gherardt, i. 245, 289
—— Jakob, Basel goldsmith in Paris, i. 176;
ii. 162-164, 298, 300
Davies, Mr. Gerald S., i. 12, 29, 42, 96-97, 108, 112-113, 245, 250,
288-289;
ii. 252-253, 392
—— Miss, ii. 182
—— Mr. Randall, ii. 215 _note_, 392
Dean, engraver, i. 295 _note_
De Cessac, _see_ Cessac
Delahante, Parisian picture-dealer, i. 245
Delahay, William, i. 265
Delawarr, Countess, i. 308
_De Levens en Werken_, &c. (Immerzeel), i. 265
Delfino family, of Venice, i. 242-244
Delfino, Giovanni, i. 242
Demayns, John, _see_ Maiano
Demyans, John, _see_ Maiano
Denisot, Nicolas, i. 304-305
Denmark, Christian II, King of, ii. 117, 130, 134, 136-137
—— Christian IV, King of, ii. 130
—— Prince of, ii. 137
Denny, Sir Anthony, ii. 127, 214, 276, 286, 307
Dent-Brocklehurst, Mr. H. (collection), i. 269, 286;
ii. 237-238
Deovanter, Perpoynt, Steelyard merchant, ii. 6
Dequevauvillers, François, engraver, i. 173
Derby, Edward Stanley, Earl of, ii. 256
—— Earl of, Collection (1865), ii. 183
Dereham, Francis, ii. 55, 196
Dering, Sir Edward, Bt., ii. 334
Desenfans Collection, ii. 293
Dessau Library, i. 159
Deuchar, David, i. 214
Deutsch, Niklaus Manuel, i. 159, 206, 249, 340
Develay, V., ii. 392
Deventer, ii. 18-19
Devil’s Bridge, Andermatt, i. 77, 138
Devonshire, Duke of (collection), ii. 93, 97, 99, 141, 204, 248, 351,
400
Devynk, John, painter, i. 278
Dexter, Mr. Elias, _Holbein’s Ambassadors Identified_, ii. 38-39
Dickes, Mr. W. F., _Holbein’s Ambassadors Unriddled_, i. 305 _note_;
ii. 5, 17 _note_, 18-19, 32, 39, 45-47, 48 _and note_, 49, 50, 158,
392
_Dictionary of National Biography_, i. 302;
ii. 209, 225
Didlington, Norfolk, i. 325
Dielitz, Privy Councillor, ii. 15
Diepold (Augsburg), i. 2, 4
Diesbach, Nikolaus von, Dean of Solothurn, i. 109
Digby, John, Earl of Bristol, ii. 309
Dijon, i. 149, 174
Dillon, Viscount, i. 323
Dimier, Mons. L., i. 281-282;
ii. 254, 306, 392
Dinteville family, ii. 41
—— Claude de, ii. 44
—— François II de, Bishop of Auxerre, ii. 43, 45 _note_
—— Jean de, Bailly of Troyes, French Ambassador to England, ii. 35-36,
38-46, 49-53, 64, 69, 255, 257, 284
Diocletian, Emperor, i. 15
Ditchley, Enstone, Oxfordshire, i. 323;
ii. 82, 101
Dobson, Austin, i. 214 _note_
Dodgson, Mr. Campbell, i. 21, 214 _note_, 309;
ii. 226, 227 _note_, 252, 392
“Domyngo,” Italian painter, i. 314
Donaueschingen, i. 38, 40
Donauwörth, i. 9
Doort, A. Van der, _see_ Van-Doort der Doort
Dorchester House, i. 89 _note_;
ii. 72
Dordrecht, ii. 342
Dormanswell, near Norwood, ii. 54
Dorset, Marchioness of, ii. 256
Douce, Francis, i. 214;
ii. 182, 186-188, 392
Dover, i. 258
“Drei Herrn,” i. 124
Dresden, i. 204, 244;
ii. 206, 211
—— Gallery and Print Room, i. 17, 201, 237, 325 _and note_;
ii. 38, 63, 65, 67-68, 263, 329, 354
—— Holbein Exhibition (1871), i. 237
Dublin, i. 336;
ii. 350
Ducheman, John, servant to Hans of Antwerp, ii. 13
Ducie, Mr., ii. 215
Ducklington, Oxfordshire, i. 301
Ducy, Sir William, i. 304 _note_
Dugdale, Sir William, i. 322
Duisburg, ii. 20-21
Dunn, Mr. James H., Canada (collection), ii. 195, 348
Dunois, the Bailly of, ii. 343
Dunster Castle, ii. 307
Düren, ii. 115, 173, 175-176, 181, 184, 235-236
Dürer, Albrecht, i. 42-44, 56, 60, 92, 159, 166, 168, 170-171, 197,
224, 264, 329;
ii. 266, 270, 318 _and note_, 319-320
Düsseldorf, ii. 175
Dutch States, i. 107;
ii. 57
Dyck, A. van, _see_ Van Dyck
Earp, F. R., ii. 392
East Bursham, i. 270
East Hendred, Berkshire, i. 300, 304 _note_;
ii. 335, 340
Easterlings, _see_ Steelyard
Eastlake, Sir Charles and Lady (collection), ii. 26 _and note_
_Ecclesiastical History_ (Fox), ii. 309
Edinburgh, ii. 141;
Advocates’ Library, ii. 148, 343;
University Library, ii. 218
Edward III of England, ii. 2
—— IV of England, ii. 197
—— VI of England, i. 178, 279, 285-286, 314 _note_, 326;
ii. 12 _note_, 65, 70, 97 _and note_, 107, 113, 127, 136, 138,
164-171, 200, 205, 208, 226-227, 234-235, 238-239, 243-244, 255,
269, 288, 303-305, 310
“Edward VI transferring Bridewell to the City of London,” formerly
attributed to Holbein, ii. 169
“Edward VI,” miniature by Bettes, ii. 309
“Edward VI,” portrait by “Hans Hueet,” ii. 308
Edward VI, his portraits, ii. 164-171
Eewouts, Hans, _see_ Eworthe
Eglin, painter, of Lucerne, i. 72
Egmond, Earl of, ii. 116
Eigner, A., i. 24, 110
Einstein, L., ii. 392
Eisenach, i. 16
Elberfeld Collection, ii. 202
Eichinger, Anna, i. 3;
ii. 162
Elector Palatine, ii. 20
Eleonora of Spain, wife of Francis I, ii. 106
Elizabeth, Princess, _see_ Elizabeth, Queen of England
“Elizabeth, Princess,” portrait once attributed to Holbein, ii. 110,
169
Elizabeth, Princess, of Prussia, i. 242
—— of York, wife of Henry VII, ii. 91, 94-96, 235
—— Queen of England, i. 269, 314 _note_;
ii. 13, 24, 84, 92, 110, 133, 135, 208, 235, 239, ii. 272, ii. 292,
310
Eltham, i. 295;
ii. 334, 337
Elyot, Sir Thomas, i. 336-337
Elyot, Lady, i. 336-337;
ii. 258
“Embarkation of Henry VIII from Dover” (Hampton Court), i. 274
_Emblems of Mortality_ (John Bewick), i. 214
_Emendations of Pliny_ (B. Rhenanus), i. 168
_Encomium Moriæ_, _see_ Erasmus
Engelberg, Burkhart, i. 20
Engel-Gros, Herr F. (Collection), ii. 71, 353
Engleberd, Melchior, painter-stainer, i. 261
English Artists in the reign of Henry VIII, i. 256-263
Enschede, publisher, of Haarlem, i. 183
Enstone, Oxfordshire, ii. 101
_Epigrams_ (Sir Thomas More), i. 193
Episcopal Library, Augsburg, i. 4
Episcopus, Nic., i. 182
_Epitomæ Historiæ Basiliensis_ (Wurstisen), i. 124
Erasmus, i. 44-49, 84, 86, 90, 146, 151, 161-174, 177-185, 192-193,
198-199, 253, 255, 288-292, 294, 298, 313, 321-324, 329, 338-343,
350-351;
ii. 19, 25, 65, 188, 215, 256, 265, 276, 321, 329, 331, 337, 340-341
Erasmus, _Adagia_, i. 45, 49, 181;
_Colloquies_, i. 171;
_Ecclesiastæ_, &c., i. 181;
_Hyperaspistes_, i. 291;
_Institution of Christian Marriage_, i. 291;
_New Testament_, i. 45, 62, 162, 192;
_Paraphrase of the Gospel of St. Mark_, i. 172;
_Praise of Folly_ (_Encomium Moriæ_), i. 45-50, 85, 171;
_Praise of Matrimony_, i. 191;
_Precatio Dominica_ (metal cuts by C. V.), i. 188;
_St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans_, i. 165
Eresby, Catherine Willoughby de, _see_ Suffolk, Duchess of
—— William, 10th Lord Willoughby de, ii. 225
Erhart, Dominica, i. 4
Ermeland, i. 179-180
Eschenbach, Ulrich von, painter of Lucerne, i. 72
Este, Duke Francesco d’, ii. 66
Este-Modena, Duke Francesco of, ii. 67
Eustace, Clerk of the Works at Hampton Court, i. 327
Evangelic League, Diet of the, ii. 173
_Evangelistical Calendar_ (Dr. Johannes Copp), i. 200
Evelyn, John, _Diary_, i. 97, 171, 276, 304 _note_, 323, 333;
ii. 95, 188, 215;
_Sculptura_, ii. 188
Evolls, Hans, _see_ Eworthe
Ewen, Nicholas, gilder of Henry VII’s tomb, i. 271
Eworthe, Hans, painter, i. 270;
ii. 307-308
Exeter, Duke of, i. 334
—— Marquis of (temp. Hen. VIII), ii. 87
—— —— (collection), ii. 107
Exhibitions, _see_ Basel, Brussels, Burlington Fine Arts Club, Dresden,
Manchester, Oxford, Royal Academy, Tudor, &c. &c.
Exposition du Palais Bourbon (1874), ii. 342
Eycks, the Van, _see_ Van Eyck
Eyston, Mr. Charles John, i. 300, 304 _note_
Faber, Jakob, i. 188, 200;
ii. 79 _note_
Fabri, Dr. Johann, bishop of Vienna, ii. 330-332
Fabrinus, Petrus, rector of Basel University, i. 145
Faesch, Johann Rudolf, ii. 328
—— Johann Rudolf (_d._ 1823), ii. 329-330
Faesch, Remigius, burgomaster of Basel, i. 239-240;
ii. 328, 330
—— Dr. Remigius, grandson of above, collection and inventory, i. 5, 54
_note_, 88, 166, 168, 180, 239-241, 346;
ii. 156, 328-330
_Faeschische Museum_, &c. (Major), ii. 329
Falkland, Viscount, i. 301
Fallen, Cyriacus, Steelyard merchant, ii. 17, 22
Farrer, picture-dealer, i. 303
Fattore, Il, _see_ Penni, G. F.
Félibien, _Entretiens sur les Vies_, &c., ii. 25-26
Feltes, John, painter-stainer, i. 261
Fenrother, Alderman Robert, jeweller, ii. 287
Fenwolf, Morgan, _see_ Wolf-Morgan, Morgan
Ferdinand, Archduke, ii. 137
—— III, Emperor, i. 91
Ferrara, Duke of, i. 284
Ferrari, Gaudenzio, i. 89 _note_, 95, 105 _and note_
Ferreris, Bartholomäus, i. 28
Fidler, G., ii. 392
Field of Cloth of Gold, i. 259, 273;
ii. 86, 103 _note_, 106
“Field of Cloth of Gold” (Hampton Court), i. 258, 274
Figdor Collection, ii. 52 _note_
Fischart, Johann, ii. 94, 186 _note_
Fisher, John, Bishop of Rochester, i. 169, 289, 299, 323-325, 337;
ii. 76, 212, 254, 267
Fitz-Alan family, ii. 135
—— Henry, Earl of Arundel, _see_ Arundel
—— Lady Joan, ii. 133
—— Lady Mary, ii. 135
Fitzroy, Henry, Duke of Richmond and Suffolk, natural son of Henry
VIII, ii. 110, 257
Fitzwater, Lord, ii. 133
Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, ii. 43, 71, 204-205, 304
Flaxman, John, ii. 267
Fleckenstein, Hans, of Lucerne, i. 79;
ii. 323-324
Fleischmann, Privy Councillor, of Strasburg, ii. 27
Fliccius, Gerlach, painter, i. 270;
ii. 303, 305-306
Flint, Richard, painter-stainer, i. 261
Florence, i. 271-272, 276-278, 280
—— Uffizi Gallery, ii. 23, 83, 355
—— Duke of, i. 280
Flötner, Peter, of Nuremberg, ii. 278
Flower, Dr. Wickham, ii. 184 _note_
Flushing, i. 289
Folkestone, ii. 302
—— 1st Lord, i. 164
Fontainebleau, i. 280-284, 315;
ii. 75, 186, 333
Foreign artists at the Court of Henry VIII, i. 256-258, 263-287
Forest Monstier, ii. 40
Förster, i. 15
Fortescue, Mrs., _Holbein_, i. 108-109, 248 _note_, 351;
ii. 49, 393
Foster, Mr. J. J., _British Miniature Painters_, ii. 240, 393
“Fountain of Youth,” i. 70
Fox, i. 329
—— _Ecclesiastical History_, ii. 309
Foxe, Richard, Bishop of Winchester, i. 269;
ii. 304
France, Admiral of, i. 284
Franche Comté, ii. 150
Francis I, King of France, i. 211, 217, 229, 257, 259. 266, 269,
281-285, 311;
ii. 6, 40, 44, 45 _note_, 72, 91, 106, 114, 124, 131, 133, 139-142,
144-145, 148, 154, 171, 177, 197, 333
Francis the Courier, ii. 117
Frankfurt, i. 9, 29, 161 _note_, 224;
ii. 173
—— Staedel Institut, ii. 205, 207, 264, 354
Franks, Sir Augustus W., F.S.A., ii. 189, 296-297
Franz, Arnold, of Basel, ii. 219, 240-241
Freeman, engraver, ii. 61
—— John, jeweller, ii. 288
Freiburg, i. 90-91, 111, 177, 180, 185, 338, 341, 351;
ii. 331, 341
—— University of, i. 84, 145;
University Chapel in Minster, i. 88, 91;
ii. 354
Freihamer, Thomas, i. 13
Frellon, Jehan and François, publishers, of Lyon, i. 212-213, 224,
227-228
French royal accounts, i. 281, 284
Frescobaldi family, i. 270
Frewen, Mr. T., i. 320;
ii. 348
Frey family, of Lucerne, i. 65
Frick, Mr. H. C., New York (collection), ii. 340, 348
Friedländer, Dr., i. 20;
ii. 196, 354
Frisch, A., ii. 393
Friso, Johan Willem, Prince of Orange-Nassau, ii. 57
Froben, Hieronymus, i. 182, 350
—— Johann, printer of Basel, i. 44-45, 47, 57, 62, 162-163, 166-168,
181-184, 188-192, 194, 198, 201, 208, 253, 290, 339;
ii. 241, 256, 329, 331
Frölicher, Elsa, _Die Porträtkunst H. Holbeins des J._, &c., ii. 311
_note_, 393
Fromont, Hans de, ii. 11
Froschover, Christopher, printer of Zürich, i. 202, 228;
ii. 76
Fruytiers, Philip, painter, ii. 198, 200
Fry, Rt. Hon. Lewis, ii. 81-82
—— Roger E., ii. 82-83, 99, 108, 169, 393
Fugger family, i. 6, 19
—— Anton, i. 19
—— Jacob, i. 19
—— Raimund, i. 19
—— Ulrich, i. 19
Fulham, i. 264;
ii. 210
Fürstenberg, Prince Carl von, i. 38
Fusina, Andrea, tomb at Milan, i. 140
Gage, Sir Edward, ii. 65
Gairdner, Dr. James, ii. 153 _and note_, 390
_Galerie du Musée Napoléon_, i. 173
Galway, Viscount (collection), i. 328 _and note_;
ii. 104
Ganz, Dr. Paul, director of the Public Picture Collection, Basel, i.
35, 39, 42, 44, 47, 56, 65, 69, 79, 81, 85 _note_, 88, 97, 107, 109,
112, 121, 130, 139-140, 143, 148-149, 151, 153, 157, 159-160, 174,
184, 234 _note_, 344 _note_, 346, 350, 356;
ii. 14-15, 117, 23, 26 _note_, 28, 52, 71, 83, 86, 87 _note_, 88
_note_, 93 _note_, 103, 108, 186 _note_, 193, 196, 213 _and note_,
214, 226-227, 230, 257, 260, 292, 323-324, 327-328, 347, 352, 393
Gardiner, Stephen, ii. 138
Gardner, Mr. E., ii. 346
Gardner, Mrs. John, Boston (collection), ii. 210, 347
Garrard, Martin, jeweller of Paris, ii. 288
Gassner, Veronica, i. 19
Gates, Richard, painter-stainer, i. 261
“Gaunt, a painter of,” i. 268
Gauthiez, Mons. Pierre, i. 78, 81;
ii. 393
Gay, Mr. Walter, Paris (collection), i. 171
_Gazette des Beaux-Arts_, i. 173, 238
Gebweiler (town), i. 32
Gebwiler, i. 84
Gegenbach, Pamphilius, i. 62
Geigy-Schlumberger, Dr. Rudolph, Basel (collection), ii. 213, 358
Gelderland, ii. 177
Genoa, i. 286
Gentils (Gentilz), President, i. 282-283;
ii. 333
_Gentleman’s Magazine_, i. 302
George II, King of England, ii. 249
—— III, King of England, ii. 249
——, Simon, ii. 205, 207-208, 252, 255
“Gerarde,” i. 267
“Gerhart, Master, Illuminator,” _see_ Hornebolt, Gerard
German Merchants in England, _see_ Steelyard
_German Old Testament_ (Petri), i. 229
Gerster, Hans, town archivist of Basel, i. 109, 111
Gesner, Conrad, of Zürich (_Partitiones Theologicæ_, &c.), i. 224
_Gesta Romanorum_, i. 67
_Geuchmatt_ (Thomas Murner), i. 59
Ghent, i. 265, 268, 289, 307;
Guild of St. Luke, i. 263; St. Bavon, i. 264
Ghirlandajo, Ridolfo, i. 276
Gibson, Richard, i. 260, 315
Giehlow, Dr. Carl, i. 21
Gigs, Margaret, i. 293, 296, 301, 303;
ii. 337, 339-340
Gilpin, ii. 189
Gisze, Georg, Steelyard merchant, ii. 4-8
Glarus, i. 344
Glaser, Dr. Curt, _Hans Holbein the Elder_, i. 15, 20;
ii. 393
Glass-painting, Holbein’s designs for, i. 135-157
Glass-painting in Switzerland, i. 135-136
“Gleane, The,” Southwark, i. 262
Glendon Hall, i. 269
Godefroy brothers, ii. 41-42, 47
Godfrey, R., engraver, ii. 346
Godington Park, Kent, i. 332
Godolphin-Quicke Collection, ii. 220
Godsalve, Sir John, i. 299, 325-327, 337;
ii. 65, 255;
miniature by Bettes, 309
—— Thomas, i. 299, 325-326, 337;
ii. 65, 255
Goelenius, of Louvain, i. 179-180
Goes, van der, _see_ Gow, John van der
Goette, A., ii. 393
Golden Fleece, Exhibition of the, Bruges (1907), ii. 141 _note_
Golden Norton, ii. 11
Goldschmidt-Przibram, Frau L. (collection), ii. 57, 349
Goldsmiths’ Company, ii. 11, 13
Goltzius, ii. 24
Gonzaga, i. 234 _note_
Goodrich Court, ii. 182, 235
Gostwick’s Accounts, ii. 68
Gow, John van der (Hans of Antwerp), ii. 10, 12-13
Gower, Lord Ronald Sutherland, i. 309
Graf, Urs, i. 47, 62, 158, 193, 197, 340
Grafton, ii. 176
Graham, William, Collection, i. 54 _note_
Granger, ii. 68, 194
Great Fire of London, i. 261;
ii. 24
_Great Harry_ (ship), i. 259, 273
Great Wardrobe Accounts, i. 262
_Greek New Testament_ (Bebelius), i. 225
Greenwich, ii. 184, 240, 294, 297-298;
Banqueting House (1527), i. 274-275, 281, 290, 311-316, 331, 336-337;
ii. 64, 91, 310 _note_, 346;
King’s House, ii. 337;
Palace, i. 271, 311, 317;
ii. 208;
Park, ii. 32;
Revels at, i. 260
Gregorius, sculptor, of Augsburg, i. 9
Gregory XIV, Pope, i. 305-306
Grenchen, Chapel of All Saints, i. 110
Grenville, Rt. Hon. George, ii. 237
Gresham, Sir Thomas, i. 287;
ii. 205, 304
Grey, Henry, Duke of Suffolk, i. 269
—— Thomas, i. 253
—— of Wilton, William, Lord, portrait by Flicke, ii. 305
Greystoke Castle, i. 177-179;
ii. 214
Grien, Hans Baldung, i. 31, 56, 88, 147, 168
Griesher, Hans, i. 19, 20
Griffoni, i. 243
Grimm, H., i. 24, 165, 169
Grinder, Mr., ii. 137
Grooth, Nikolaus, i. 75, 92-93
Grosvenor Gallery, Winter Exhibition (1878-1879), ii. 374
Grün, Heinrich, i. 20
—— tailor, of Augsburg, i. 20
Gruner, Herr L., ii. 67
Grünewald, Matthias, i. 31, 147-148
Grünstadt, Bavaria, i. 1, 23
Gsell Collection, ii. 57
Guarienti, Pietro, i. 17
Gubbins (Gobions), Hertfordshire, i. 301;
ii. 335-336
Gueiss, Albert von, ii. 5
Gueldres, ii. 178, 344
Guest, Miss, of Inwood, i. 332;
ii. 351, 355
—— Lady, Theodora, i. 332
Guicciardini, Lodovico, i. 265;
ii. 218, 239 _and note_
Guild of St. Luke, _see_ Ghent
Guise, Anthoinette de Bourbon, Duchess of, ii. 144, 146-150, 337,
343-344
—— Anthoinette de, daughter of Duke Claude, ii. 148-149, 344
—— Claude, Duke of, ii. 139, 144-146, 150, 154, 343-344
—— Claude, son of Duke Claude, ii. 148, 343
—— François II, Duke of, ii. 147
—— Louise of, ii. 142-146, 148-149, 153 _and note_, 154-155, 173, 176,
343-344
—— Marie of, Duchess of Longueville, afterwards Queen of Scotland, ii.
139-144, 147-149, 153 _and note_, 154-155, 235, 343-344
—— Renée of, ii. 144-146, 149, 155, 173, 176
Guises, Castle of the, at Joinville, ii. 147
Guisnes, i. 259, 273
Guldeford, Sir Henry, i. 299, 313, 316-321, 337;
ii. 1, 2, 65, 250, 254-255
—— Lady, i. 299, 318, 320-321, 337;
ii. 65, 87 _note_, 147
—— Sir Richard, i. 319
—— Joan, Lady, i. 319
Guldenknopf, Barbara, i. 109
Gwalther, Rudolph, ii. 156 _and note_
Gysin, _see_ Gisze
Gyssler, Jacob, butcher, of Basel, Holbein’s son-in-law, ii. 301
Haarhaus, J. R., i. 165 _note_
Haarlem, i. 183
Haas, publisher, of Basel, i. 188
Haberdashers’ Company, i. 260
Haddon, Dr. Walter, ii. 226
Hague, The, i. 179, 241;
ii. 59, 229, 341
—— Gallery, i. 106-107, 346-347;
ii. 54, 57, 65, 113, 203, 229, 355
Haig, Mr. J. R., i. 333
_Hall’s Chronicle_, i. 188 _note_;
ii. 79, 294, 309
—— _Triumphant Reigne of Kynge Henry the VIII_, i. 311-312, 316
Halsey, Miss Ethel, _Gaudenzio Ferrari_, i. 89 _note_, 95 _note_;
ii. 393
Hamburg, ii. 6
Hamilton, Duke of, i. 172
Hampton Court Palace, i. 95-96, 98, 165-167, 183-184, 258, 267, 270,
274, 281, 283-284, 301, 315-317, 333;
ii. 77, 86, 93-94, 97, 104-106, 136, 192, 204, 215, 267, 292, 304,
310, 349
Hampton Court Palace Accounts, i. 277
_Handzeichnungen Hans Holbeins des Jüngeren_ (Ganz), ii. 323-327
Hanfstaengl, Mr. F., ii. 250
Hanover, Provinzial Museum, i. 184, 351;
ii. 15, 164-166, 205, 353-354
Hanseatic League in London, _see_ Steelyard
Hanworth, i. 278
Hardie, Mr. Martin, ii. 219 _note_
Harding, S., i. 320
Hardwick Hall, ii. 97, 99, 101 _note_, 141, 205 _note_, 236, 351
Hardy, Mr. J. P., Collection, ii. 61 _note_
Haringworth, ii. 259
Harleian MSS., ii. 246
Harman, Dr. (Barber-Surgeons picture), ii. 291
Harris, John, Sir T. More’s “famulus,” i. 296, 301;
ii. 336-339
Harrowby, Earl of, Collection, ii. 72 _note_, 61
Harrowden, i. 319;
ii. 52, 86
Hartmann, Canon, i. 110
Hasse, George, Steelyard merchant, ii. 6
Hastings, Marquis of, ii. 80
—— plat of, i. 274
Hatfield Priory, Essex, ii. 267
Hauntlowe, Richard, painter-stainer, i. 261
Hauser, of Munich, i. 238;
ii. 22 _note_
Havering, i. 278
Havre, Le, ii. 139-140, 143-144, 146, 148-149, 155, 344
“Haward, a Dutch Juello^r,” portrait by Eworthe, ii. 307
Hawkins, Mr. C. Heywood T., sale (1904), ii. 228, 239-240
—— Mr. J. Heywood (collection), i. 308 _note_
Hay, Mr., Savile Row, i. 304
Haydock, Richard, i. 302;
ii. 218, 308
Hayes, Cornelis, court jeweller;
ii. 73, 92, 164, 287-288
Hazlitt, W. Carew, ii. 345
Heath, Mr. Dudley, ii. 221-222, 307
—— John, _see_ Hethe
Hebdenring, Wilhelm, i. 239
Heere, Lucas d’, ii. 307-308
Heerweghe, Jan van, i. 264
Hefner-Alteneck, Herr J. H. von, ii. 100
Hegner, Ulrich, i. 74, 77, 81, 84;
ii. 156 _note_, 239
Heitz, P., ii. 394, 398
Hemingham, Sir Anthony, ii. 258
—— Lady, ii. 237, 256, 258
“Henegham,” _see_ Hemingham
Henri II of France, i. 281;
ii. 147
Henry II, Emperor, i. 114
—— III of England, ii. 51
Henry VI of England, i. 205
—— VII of England, i. 269, 271-272, 275;
ii. 55, 94-96, 394, 188, 234-235, 267, 301
—— VIII, i. 97, 169, 176, 178, 256-259, 265-266, 268-270, 272-276,
279-280, 282-287, 294, 305-307, 311-312, 314-317, 319, 326-331, 338,
355-356;
ii. 3, 11, 12 _note_, 36, 45 _note_, 54, 59, 60, 65, 67-68, 70-73,
76, 79, 86-87, 90-110, 112-115, 117-120, 122-125, 127, 129-136,
138-144, 145-146, 148-149, 151-152, 154, 157-159, 164, 169,
171-180, 182, 184-185, 186 _note_, 187-188, 192, 194, 196-197,
200, 208-209, 211, 217-218, 221, 223, 225, 231-239, 244-247,
263, 266-267, 271, 274, 276, 278-279, 282, 310, 313, 333, 338
—— —— his collection and inventory of pictures, i. 97;
ii. 109, 127, 133-134, 137, 149, 170
—— —— portraits of, i. 266-267;
ii. 93-109
—— —— his tomb, i. 272, 280-281, 287 _note_
_Henry VIII_ (Shakespeare), ii. 211
“Henry VIII and his Family” (Hampton Court), ii. 97
_Henry Grace à Dieu_ (ship), _see_ _Great Harry:Great-Harry_
Henry, Prince of Wales, ii. 24-26
Henshaw, Charles, ii. 334
Hentzner, Paul, ii. 94-95, 97, 267
Heralds, College of, i. 262, 279
Herbert, Sir William, ii. 268
Herbster, Hans, i. 39, 40, 58, 60-61, 340
Hereford (town), i. 353;
ii. 212
Heresius, _see_ Harris, John
Herlins, Hans, i. 19
Hermitage Gallery, St. Petersburg, i. 61;
ii. 62, 245-246
Heron, Cecilia, daughter of Sir Thomas More, i. 294, 297, 303, 357;
ii. 250, 334-336
—— Essex, i. 300;
ii. 334-335
—— Giles, ii. 334, 336
—— Margaret, ii. 335
—— Sir William, of Heron, Kt., ii. 335
Herrault, Christopher, jeweller of Paris, ii. 288
Hert, illuminator, i. 267
Hertenstein, Benedikt von, i. 70, 72-74, 162;
ii. 278
—— Caspar von, i. 65
—— House decorations, ii 57-58, 64-72, 122
—— Jakob von, ii 57, 65-67, 69, 70, 74, 79
—— Leodegar von, i. 70
—— Peter von, Canon of Basel, i. 79
Hertford, Earl of, ii. 200
Hervey, Miss Mary F. S., _Holbein’s Ambassadors_, ii. 5, 39-41, 70, 45
_note_, 46-47, 49, 50, 52, 69 _note_, 257, 305, 327, 394
Herwart, Margreth, sister of Hans Holbein the Elder, i. 3;
ii. 162
Hes, Dr. Willy, i. 25-26, 45, 47, 60, 63;
ii. 394
Heseltine, Mr. J. P. (collection), i. 318 _note_, 324;
ii. 71 _note_, 3
Hess, Hieronymus, painter, i. 81, 127-130
Hesse, Grand Duke of, i. 232
Hesse-Darmstadt, Prince Charles of, i. 242
Hethe (or Heath), John, painter-stainer, i. 261-263
—— Lancelot, painter-stainer, i. 263
—— Lawrence, painter-stainer, i. 263
_Het Schilder Boek_ (Carel van Mander), _see_ Van Mander:Mander
Hewen, Von, family, i. 145;
ii. 326
—— —— Wolfgang von, rector of Freiburg University, i. 145
Heymans, Mynheer, ii. 187
Higham Park, Northamptonshire, ii. 228
“High Burgony,” _see_ Upper Burgundy
Hilliard, Laurence, ii. 234
—— Nicholas, i. 302;
ii. 90-91, 112-113, 218-219, 234-235, 237, 246, 81-309
Himmel, Zunft zum (Basel Painters’ Guild), i. 58-59, 82-83, 97, 121,
232
Hind, Mr. A. M., i. 230 _note_, ii. 394
Hirth, publisher, of Munich, i. 214
His-Heusler, Dr. Edouard, i. 50, 80, 190, 338;
ii. 157, 299, 394
_History of Portrait Miniatures_ (G. C. Williamson), ii. 220, 230
Hoby, Sir Philip, i. 176;
ii. 119-125, 130-131, 140-141, 143-144, 58, 148-151, 153-156, 343-344
—— Sir Thomas, ii. 168
—— William, of Leominster, ii. 119
Hoefnagel, Joris, engraver, i. 277
Holbein family, i. 1-4
Holbein, Ambrosius, elder son of Hans Holbein the Elder, i. 4, 5;
his portrait by his father in the “St. Paul” altar-piece and in
drawings, 11, 20, 25-27;
training in his father’s workshop, 29;
sets out for Switzerland with his brother, and settles in Basel, 32;
his share in the “Virgin and Child” picture of 1514, 34-35;
his drawings, 34;
date of his arrival in Basel, 37;
his share in the “Passion” series of paintings, 39-42;
designs for Basel printers, 44-45;
his share in the “Praise of Folly” drawings, 47-48;
portrait of a man at Darmstadt (1515), 50-51;
probable visit to Lucerne, 58;
citizen of Basel, and joins Painters’ Guild, 58-59;
portrait of Schweiger, and probable date of his death, 59;
his paintings, and portrait of Herbster, 60-61;
his drawings and designs, 61;
portrait at St. Petersburg, 61-62;
woodcut designs, 59, 62-63;
his art, 63, 82, 185, 189, 192, 254;
ii. 65
Holbein, Ambrosius—
_Pictures and Drawings_
Portraits of Two Boys (Basel), i. 34, 51, 59, 60, 63
Portrait of a Little Girl (Vienna), i. 60
Portrait of Hans Herbster (Basel), i. 39, 50, 60-61
Portrait of a Young Man, dated 1515 (Darmstadt), i. 50-51
Portrait of Jörg Schweiger (Basel), i. 59
Portrait of a Young Man (Hermitage), i. 61-62
The Saviour as the “Man of Sorrows” (Basel), i. 60
Study of Two Death’s Heads (Basel), i. 60
Drawing of a Girl, “Anne” (Basel), i. 34, 61, 63
Drawing, Head of an Unknown Man (Basel Kunstverein), i. 51
Silver-point studies for Portraits of Two Boys (Vienna and Paris), i.
60
Drawing, Head of a Young Woman (Basel), i. 61
Drawing, Head of Young Man turned to left, 1517 (Basel), i. 61
Drawing, coloured, of a member of the Von Rüdiswiler family (Basel), i.
58, 185
Drawing, Head and Body of a Baby (British Museum), i. 63
Glass design, “Foundation of Basel” (Basel), i. 61
Drawings, “Pyramus and Thisbe” and “Hercules and Antæus,” two roundels
(Karlsruhe), i. 63
Woodcut designs for T. Murner’s _Geuchmatt_, i. 59
Woodcut designs for More’s _Utopia_, i. 62, 192
Woodcut designs for title-pages, initial letters, &c., i. 62-63
Woodcut design for title-page, “Tarquin and Lucrece,” i. 193
Holbein, Anna, sister of Hans Holbein the Elder, _see_ Eichinger, Anna
—— Barbara, sister of Hans Holbein the Elder, _see_ Oberhausen, Barbara
von
—— Bruno, mythical brother of Ambrosius and Hans Holbein, i. 4, 5
—— Elsbeth (Schmid), wife of Hans Holbein the Younger, i. 83-84,
105-109, 222, 245, 248, 252-253, 339, 343-347;
ii. 63, 65, 160-162, 168, 300
—— Felicitas, wife of Conrad Volmar, ii. 301
—— Hans, supposed grandfather of Hans Holbein the Younger, i. 3, 4, 7
—— Hans, the Elder, i. 2;
his family, 3, 4;
forged signatures on his pictures, 3;
his birth and earliest works, 4;
his art, 5-7;
settles in Ulm, 8;
visits Frankfurt, 9;
work for the Monastery of Kaisheim, 9-11;
portraits of himself and sons in “Baptism of St. Paul,” 11-12;
drawings of his sons, 11, 20, 25-27;
work for the Church of St. Moritz, Augsburg, 13;
financial troubles, 13;
the “St. Sebastian” altar-piece, 14-16, 30;
“Fountain of Life,” 16-18;
portrait-studies of heads in silver-point, 18-21;
portrait of a Lady, Sir F. Cook’s Collection, 20-22;
his last years, 22;
letter claiming his painting materials left at Isenheim, i. 22,
254;
his death, i. 22; 34, 38, 40, 51;
legend that he lived in Lucerne with his sons, 58, 92, 108, 148,
186, 254
Holbein, Hans, the Elder—
_Pictures and Drawings_
The Virgin with the Infant Christ in her Arms (Augsburg), i. 3
Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore (Augsburg), i. 4, 7
Joachim’s Sacrifice, Birth of Mary, Presentation of Mary, and
Presentation of Christ, four altar panels (Augsburg), i. 7
The Death of Mary, Afra altar-piece (Basel), i. 7 _note_
Crowning of the Virgin, Vetter altar-piece (Augsburg), i. 8, 38
Genealogy of Christ and of the Dominicans, &c. (Frankfurt), i. 9
Kaisheim Altar-piece (Munich), i. 9, 27
Transfiguration of Christ (Augsburg), i. 10
Basilica of St. Paul (Augsburg), i. 10, 11, 27, 186
Martyrdom of St. Sebastian (Munich), i. 14-17, 30, 33, 104
The Fountain of Life (Lisbon), i. 5, 16-18, 22, 34
Portrait of a Lady (Sir F. Cook’s Collection), i. 20-21
Martyrdom of St. Catherine, Legend of St. Ulrich, The Virgin and St.
Anne Teaching the Infant Christ to Walk, &c., altar panels
(Augsburg), i. 23-25, 30
The Death of Mary (Basel), i. 26-27
Passion Series (Donaueschingen), i. 38, 40
Drawing, Study of his Own Head (Chantilly), i. 11
Drawing of a Lady’s Head, perhaps his wife (Munich), i. 12
Studies for St. Sebastian (Copenhagen), i. 16
Studies for Sir F. Cook’s portrait of a Lady (British Museum and
Berlin), i. 21-22
Portrait-Studies of his Sons, i. 11, 20, 25, 27, 186
Portrait-Studies in silver-point, i. 18-21
Study for the “Death of Mary” (Basel), i. 26
Holbein, Hans, the Younger, his portrait by his father in the “St.
Paul’s” altar-piece (1504), i. 11;
and in his father’s drawings, i. 11, 25-27;
personal appearance, i. 11;
works of his father wrongly ascribed to him, 14-15;
his supposed share in the “St. Sebastian” altar-piece, 15, 16, 30;
place and date of his birth, 23-29;
miniatures of himself, 28;
house where born, 29;
training in his father’s workshop, 29-30;
influence of Burgkmair, 30, of the Italian Renaissance, 30-31, and of
Grien and Grünewald, &c., 31;
sets out with his brother Ambrosius for Switzerland, 32;
date of arrival in Basel, 37;
early works in Basel, 32-45;
possibility that he worked for a time in Hebster’s studio, 39;
work for printers and “Praise of Folly” drawings, 44-49;
legends as to his character, 49-50;
double portrait of Jakob Meyer and his wife, 52-55;
his methods of work at that time, 53;
work in Lucerne and decoration of the Hertenstein House, 57-72;
his visit to Lombardy and its influence on his art, 74-78;
other work in Lucerne, 78-81;
returns to Basel, enters Painters’ Guild, and becomes a burgher,
82-83;
his marriage, 83-84;
portrait of Bonifacius Amerbach, 84-87;
sacred pictures and drawings of this period, 88-101;
Italian influences in his work, and growing mastery of technique,
&c., 86, 94-95, 98;
Dead Christ in the Tomb, 101-103;
Solothurn Madonna, 103-111;
portraits of his wife, 106-109;
wall-paintings for the House of the Dance, and other buildings,
117-123;
his wall-paintings in the Council Chamber of the Basel Town Hall,
123-134;
work as a designer for glass-painters, 135-157;
costume studies and other drawings, 157-161;
his various portraits of Erasmus, 164-174;
his journey though the South of France, 174-176;
portraits of Froben, 166-168, 183-184, of Melanchthon, 184-185, and
of himself, 185-186;
designs for woodcuts and book illustrations, 187-203;
the Dance of Death woodcuts, 204-224;
the happy partnership of Holbein and Lützelburger in these cuts,
223-225;
Alphabet of Death and Old Testament woodcuts, 224-230;
the Meyer Madonna, 232-252;
resolves to visit England, 252-253;
attempts to get his father’s painting materials from Isenheim, 254;
Erasmus’ letter of introduction to Ægidius, 255;
leaves Basel for England, 288;
his relationships with Sir Thomas More, 290-291;
painting of the More Family Group, 291-302;
other portraits of More and his family, 303-310;
his work in connection with the temporary Banqueting House at
Greenwich (1527), 311-316;
portraits of Sir Henry Guldeford, Warham, Fisher, Thomas and John
Godsalve, Kratzer, and others, 317-337;
returns to Basel and purchases two houses, 338-339;
portrait of his wife and two children, 343-346;
finishes his wall-paintings in the Basel Town Hall, 347-350;
paints a new portrait of Erasmus, 351;
lack of work caused by severe iconoclastic outbreaks sends him back
to England, 352
ii. Second residence in London, and connection with the German
merchants of the Steelyard, 1-32;
portraits of Gisze, Hans of Antwerp, Wedigh, Born, Tybis, Fallen,
Berck, &c., 4-23;
his decorative paintings of the Triumphs of Riches and Poverty,
23-30;
triumphal arch designed for Anne Boleyn’s Coronation, 30-32;
painting of “The Two Ambassadors,” 34-53;
portraits of Cheseman, Thomas Cromwell, Morette, Poyntz, Nicolas
Bourbon, 54-75;
woodcuts of the English period, 76-79;
portraits of members of the Wyat family, Sir Richard Southwell, and
others, 79-89;
enters the service of Henry VIII, 90-92;
the Whitehall fresco of Henry VII and Henry VIII, &c., 93-100, and
other portraits of the King and of Jane Seymour, 100-113;
goes to Brussels to paint the Duchess of Milan (1538), 119-137;
goes to Havre in June and to Joinville and Nancy in August (1538), to
take likenesses of ladies of the Guise and Lorraine families,
139-155, 343-344;
revisits Basel, and is entertained at a banquet, 156;
offer of a pension from Basel Town Council, 158-161;
death and will of his uncle Sigmund, 161-162;
returns to England, 162-164;
portraits of the infant Prince of Wales, 164-168;
goes to Düren (1539) to paint Anne of Cleves, 175-182;
his work in Whitehall Palace, 185-187;
residing in parish of St. Andrew Undershaft, 188-189;
payments in advance of his salary, 190-191;
possibility of a visit to Basel in 1540, 191-192;
portraits of Queen Catherine Howard, the Duke of Norfolk, the Earl of
Surrey, the Earl of Southampton, Dr. John Chamber, Sir William and
Lady Butts, and others of unknown men and ladies, 192-212;
various miniatures and portraits of himself, 213;
his work as a miniature painter, 217-242;
his drawings of the heads of the men and women of Henry’s court, now
in the Royal Library, Windsor, 243-259;
similar drawings in Berlin, Basel, &c., 259-261;
comparison between his portrait-drawings and those of the two
Clouets, 261-262;
his work as a practical designer for craftsmen and jewellers, and
architectural designs, 265-286;
his connection with various London goldsmiths, 287-288;
his last large picture, for the Barber-Surgeons’ Company, left
unfinished, 289-294;
his death and will, and executors, 294-298;
earlier mistakes as to the date of his death, 298-299;
his wife, children, and descendants, 299-301;
some of his contemporaries and successors at the English Court,
302-311;
destruction or loss of all his larger decorative works, 312-314;
fertility of his invention and power of dramatic composition,
314-315;
influence of the Italian Renaissance on his art, 315-316;
the brilliance of his draughtsmanship, 316-318;
comparison of his art with Dürer’s, 318-320;
Lord Leighton and Ruskin upon his art, 319-321;
his early drawings and glass designs, 323-327;
his connection with Dr. Johann Fabri, 330-332;
his return to England in 1532, 340-341;
his studio in Whitehall, 344-346
Holbein, Hans, the Younger—_Pictures, Drawings, Woodcuts, &c._—
_Pictures_
Virgin and Child, 1514 (Basel), i. 32-35, 37;
ii. 332, 356
Christ bearing the Cross, 1515 (Karlsruhe), i. 38, 43, 101;
ii. 354
Crowning with Thorns, 1515 (Karlsruhe), i. 39;
ii. 354
Painted Table (Zürich), i. 35-37, 53, 77;
ii. 358
Heads of the Virgin Mary and St. John (Basel), i. 37-38, 56;
ii. 356
Scenes from Christ’s Passion, on canvas (Basel), i. 39-42, 68, 93, 99,
104, 156;
ii. 356
1. The Last Supper, i. 39, 40, 42, 76;
ii. 356
2. Christ on the Mount of Olives, i. 40, 42;
ii. 356
3. The Arrest in the Garden, i. 40, 42, 87;
ii. 356
4. The Scourging of Christ, i. 39, 40-42, 56;
ii. 356
5. Pilate Washing his Hands, i. 41-42;
ii. 356
Schoolmaster’s Signboard, 1516 (Basel), i. 48 _note_, 51-52;
ii. 356
Adam and Eve, 1517 (Basel), i. 38, 55-56, 112;
ii. 93, 356
Passion of Christ Altar-piece (Basel), i. 43-44, 87, 91-96, 150, 350;
ii. 312. 316, 357
The Last Supper (Basel), i. 75-76. 88, 91 _note_, 340;
ii. 357
Coat of Arms for the Painters’ Guild Chamber, Basel, i. 83
Christ as the Man of Sorrows, i. 98-99;
ii. 357
Mary as Mater Dolorosa, i. 98-99;
ii. 357
The Nativity (Freiburg), i. 87-91, 98;
ii. 354
The Adoration of the Kings (Freiburg), i. 87-91, 98;
ii. 354
Dead Christ in the Tomb, 1521 (Basel), i. 77, 160;
ii. 356
St. George, 1522 (Karlsruhe), i. 111-113, 160;
ii. 354
St. Ursula, 1522 (Karlsruhe), i. 111-113, 249;
ii. 354
Solothurn Madonna, 1522 (Solothurn), i. 84, 103-113, 149, 160, 235,
245, 249, 345-346;
ii. 316, 324, 358
Meyer Madonna (Darmstadt), i. 33, 103, 149, 232-246, 249-250, 293
_note_, 243;
ii. 260, 312, 316, 328, 330, 341, 354
Meyer Madonna (Dresden), i. 236-239, 241-244;
ii. 328-329, 354
Magdalena Offenburg as Laïs, 1526, i. 75, 158, 162, 245-252, 289;
ii. 357
Magdalena Offenburg as Venus, 1526, i. 75, 158, 162, 245-252, 289;
ii. 357
“Noli Me Tangere” (Hampton Court), i. 76, 95-98;
ii. 77, 349
Organ Doors, Basel Minster (Basel), i. 87, 113-115, 154, 249, 340;
ii. 357
“Triumph of Riches,” i. 159;
ii. 23-30, 262-263, 313-314
“Triumph of Poverty,” ii. 23-26, 28-30, 262, 313
Various copies and engravings of the Triumphs of Riches and Poverty, by
Zuccaro, Vorsterman, Bisschop, Merian, &c., ii. 26-27
Coats of arms painted for the borough of Waldenburg, i. 233
_Lost Pictures and Pictures Attributed to Holbein_
Head of Christ (Altorf), attributed to Holbein, i. 77
Crucifixion (Altorf), attributed to Holbein, i. 77
Christ in the Tomb (Altorf), copy of the 1521 painting, i. 77-78
Five pictures mentioned by Patin as in Lucerne churches in his day, i.
80-81
Taking Down from the Cross (Palermo), copy of lost original, i. 81
Christ on the Cross between Mary and John (Basel), copy of lost
original, i. 87
Christ taken Prisoner (engraving only), copy of lost original, i. 87
Lamentations over Christ, &c. (etching), copy of lost original, i.
87-88
St. Barbara (etching), copy of lost original, i. 88
Series of Prophets, on canvas (Basel), by Sarburgh after lost
originals, i. 88;
ii. 328, 330
Siege of Terouenne, painting for the Greenwich Banqueting Hall, 1527,
i. 315-316;
ii. 64, 313
Painting of “Adam and Eve,” for a royal cradle (1534), ii. 92-93
Death of Virginia (Dresden), copy of a lost picture, ii. 263-264
Death’s Head and Cross Bones (Arundel Collection, 1655), ii. 65
A Picture with “divers figure Jocatori, &c.” (Arundel Collection,
1655), ii. 65
Arms of England in water-colours (Arundel Collection, 1655), ii. 65
“Legge Vecchio & Nove” (Arundel Collection, 1655), ii. 65
Jupiter and Io, water-colour (BuckinghamInventory, 1635), ii. 215
_Wall-Paintings_
Hertenstein House wall-paintings, i. 57, 64-72, 117, 127, 142
Tarquin and Lucrece, original fragment of above (Lucerne), i. 68;
ii. 358
House of the Dance wall-paintings, i. 117-121, 127, 200;
ii. 157, 315
Basel Town Hall wall-paintings, i. 123-134, 142, 232, 252, 343,
347-352;
ii. 157, 357
Charondas, i. 127-128
Curius Dentatus, i. 127-128, 130-131
Zaleucus, i. 127-130;
ii. 284
Sapor and Valerian, i. 128-129, 131-132
Rehoboam rebuking the Elders, i. 126-128, 347-349;
ii. 263, 314
Samuel and Saul, i. 126-128, 347, 349;
ii. 314
Hezekiah breaking the Idols, i. 128, 347
Single figures of Christ, David, &c., i. 128, 132-133
Original fragments of “Curius Dentatus,” i. 127, 130;
ii. 357
Original fragments of “Rehoboam,” i. 127, 347-349;
ii. 357
Copies of some of the remains by H. Hess, i. 127-129
Whitehall fresco—Henry VII and Elizabeth of York, Henry VIII and Jane
Seymour, i. 286;
ii. 91, 93-97, 100, 103, 105, 109, 113, 185, 187-188, 271, #313
_Portraits (arranged alphabetically)_
Amerbach, Bonifacius, 1519 (Basel), i. 74, 84-87, 90, 122, 162, 170;
ii. 256, 356
Amelie of Cleves (lost portrait), ii. 174-176
Anne of Cleves, 1539 (Louvre), ii. 65, 115, 171, 174-176, 181-182,
236-237, 255, 311, 353;
other portraits, ii. 183-184
Antwerp, Hans von, 1532 (Windsor), ii. 8-14, 16, 215, 350
Antwerp, Hans of, roundel (Salting Collection), ii. 14-15, 350
Antwerp, Hans of (?), roundel (Lord Spencer), after Holbein (?), ii.
14-15, 352
Berck, Derich, 1536 (Petworth), ii. 22-23, 83, 351;
copy at Munich, ii. 23, 355
Born, Derich, 1533 (Windsor), ii. 17-20, 65, 350
Born, Derich (Munich), ii. 20, 355
Bourbon, Nicolas (lost portrait), ii. 72-73
Butts, Sir William (Mrs. Gardner, Boston), ii. 205, 209-210, 289, 347
Butts, Lady (Mrs. Gardner, Boston), i. 354;
ii. 83, 205, 209-210, 347
Carew, Sir Nicholas (Dalkeith), i. 337;
ii. 65, 87-89, 134, 255, 351
Chamber, Dr. John (Vienna), ii. 65, 112, 208-209, 255, 289, 349; copy
at Oxford, ii. 209
Cheseman, Robert, 1533 (Hague), ii. 46, 54-57, 203, 206, 255, 355
Cromwell, Thomas, 1534 (?) (Tyttenhanger Park), i. 328;
ii. 58-60, 65, 88, 255, 311, 351;
other versions of Cromwell portrait, ii. 60-61
Denny, Sir Anthony (lost portrait?), ii. 214
Dinteville, Jean de, and George de Selve, 1533 (The Ambassadors),
(National Gallery), i. 327, 330;
ii. 5, 17 _note_, 19, 35-53, 64, 158, 255, 339, 349
Edward VI (Hanover), ii. 12 _note_, 65, 164-165, 171, 205, 288, 354
Edward VI (Lord Yarborough), ii. 165, 353;
other versions, after Holbein, and by Stretes and others, ii.
166-170, 165
Erasmus, 1523 (Longford Castle), i. 164, 167-172, 177, 179, 180-182,
219, 253, 322-323;
ii. 256, 352
—— 1523 (Louvre), i. 168-169, 172-173, 181-182;
ii. 353
—— 1523 (Basel), study for Louvre portrait, i. 172-174;
ii. 357
—— 1530 (Parma), i. 177, 179-180, 351;
ii. 355
—— roundel (Basel), i. 171 _note_, 177, 179-180, 184, 351
—— (Pierpont Morgan Collection), i. 171 _note_, 177-180;
ii. 347
—— various copies of above, i. 167-168, 171, 180-181;
ii. 328-329
—— and Froben, double portrait, i. 166, 182;
ii. 329
—— (Arundel Collection, 1655), ii. 25, 65
—— (Lumley Inventory, 1590), ii. 134
Fallen, Cyriacus, 1533 (Brunswick), i. 73;
ii. 17, 22, 353
Fisher, John, Bishop of Rochester (lost portrait), i. 299, 323-325, 337
Fitzwilliam, William, Earl of Southampton (Cambridge), after Holbein,
ii. 43, 65, 204, 304
Froben, Johann (Hampton Court and Basel), i. 162, 166-167, 172,
183-184;
ii. 256, 349, 357
Gage, Sir Edward (Arundel Collection, 1655), ii. 65
George, Simon (Frankfurt), ii. 205, 207, 354
Gisze, Georg, 1532 (Berlin), i. 54;
ii. 4-8, 10 _and note_, 14, 18, 43, 129, 353
Godsalve, Thomas and John, 1528 (Dresden), i. 299, 317, 325-326, 337;
ii. 65, 255, 354
Guise, Louise of, 1538 (lost portrait), ii. 144, 146-149, 299
Guldeford, Sir Henry, 1527 (Windsor), i. 299, 317-320, 337;
ii. 65, 134, 311, 350
Guldeford, Lady, 1527 (W. C. Vanderbilt, New York), i. 299, 318-320,
337;
ii. 65, 134, 311, 348
Henry VIII (Althorp), ii. 93, 107-109, 299, 352
Henry VIII (Rome), ii. 93 _note_, 101-103, 171 _note_, 356
Henry VIII presenting a Charter to the Barber-Surgeons’ Company
(Barber-Surgeons’ Hall), ii. 208-209, 289-294, 346, 350
Henry VIII, various portraits after Holbein or by his contemporaries,
at Warwick Castle, ii. 100-102, 104, 217, 290;
Windsor Castle, ii. 103-104, 236;
St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, ii. 101, 103, 234;
and at Belvoir, Petworth, Chatsworth, and elsewhere, ii. 100-107,
101, 169, 234, 236
Henneage, Sir Thomas (Lumley Inventory, 1590), ii. 134
Hertenstein, Benedikt von, 1517 (New York), i. 72-74, 86, 162;
ii. 278, 347
Holbein, Elsbeth, early portrait (The Hague), i. 106-108, 345;
ii. 57, 65, 355
Holbein’s Wife and Children, 1528-529 (Basel), i. 106-107, 185, 250,
343-347;
ii. 164, 189, 255, 357;
other versions, i. 344-345
Holbein, Hans (Uffizi), ii. 213, 231, 355
—— —— (Geigy Collection, Basel), ii. 213, 358
Howard, Queen Catherine (Dunn Collection, Canada), i. 354;
ii. 192, 195-196, 207, 283, 348;
copy in National Portrait Gallery, ii. 194-196
Kratzer, Niklaus, 1528 (Louvre), i. 299, 317, 325, 327-328, 337, 350;
ii. 4, 88, 241, 255, 353
Le Strange, Sir Thomas (Mr. H. Le Strange), ii. 85-86, 134
Lorraine, Anne of, 1538 (lost portrait), ii. 144, 146-149, 154
Lovell, Sir Thomas (Lumley Inventory, 1590), ii. 135
Melanchthon, Philip, roundel (Hanover), i. 184-185, 351;
ii. 354
Meyer, Jakob, and his Wife, 1516 (Basel), i. 52-55, 73-74, 86, 162;
ii. 328, 356
Milan, Christina, Duchess of, 1538 (National Gallery), ii. 25, 43, 51,
65, 88, 115, 125-130, 133-137, 142, 150-151, 155, 171, 255, 349;
copy of the upper half (Windsor), ii. 125-127
More Family Group, i. 293, 328, 337, 357;
ii. 1, 43, 65, 244, 260, 289, 313, 334-340
—— —— —— (Nostell Priory), i. 295-300, 308;
ii. 334-340
—— —— —— (East Hendred), i. 300;
ii. 335-336, 125, 352
—— —— —— (Thorndon), i. 300;
ii. 334-336
—— —— —— (Burford), i. 301-302;
ii. 45 _note_, 300-336, 351
—— —— —— miniature after the Burford picture, by R. Lockey (?) (Sotheby
Collection), i. 302
—— Sir Thomas and his Father (Hutton Hall), i. 300
More, Sir Thomas, 1527 (Frick Collection), i. 293, 299, 303-307,
316-317;
ii. 221, 289, 340, 348
—— Sir Thomas (Lumley Inventory, 1590), ii. 134
—— Sir Thomas (Arundel Collection, 1655), ii. 25, 65
—— Lady (Methuen Collection), i. 299, 303, 307-308;
ii. 289
Morette, Charles de Soliers, Sieur de (Dresden), i. 306;
ii. 17 _note_, 38, 49 _note_, 63-70, 255, 341, 354
Musician, Portrait of a, called Dinteville (Bulstrode Park), ii. 52-53,
65, 87 _note_, 352
Norfolk, Duke of (Windsor), i. 330;
ii. 65, 171, 197-199, 330, 350;
other versions, ii. 197-199
Poyntz, Sir Nicholas (various versions), ii. 63, 72, 342-343
Reskimer (Hampton Court), i. 299, 320, 333-334;
ii. 349
Rich, Sir Richard, attributed to Holbein (Knepp Castle, destroyed by
fire), ii. 311
Rich, Lady (America), ii. 212, 348
Roper, Margaret (Knole), after Holbein, i. 303. 307-309, 337;
ii. 352
Russell, Sir John, attrib. to Holbein (Woburn Abbey), ii. 351
Seymour, Queen Jane (Vienna), i. 54;
ii. 65, 109, 111-113, 181, 237, 280, 349;
other versions, ii. 112-113, 169, 351-352, 355
Southwell, Sir Richard, 1536 (Florence), i. 330;
ii. 23, 83-85, 355;
other versions, ii. 83, 85, 353
Surrey, Earl of (lost portrait), ii. 65, 171, 198, 200, 303-304
Tuke, Sir Bryan (Miss Guest and Munich), i. 299, 331-332, 337;
ii. 351, 355;
other versions, i. 332-333
Tybis, Derich, 1533 (Vienna), ii. 7, 10, 17, 20-21, 348
Vaux, Lord (lost portrait), ii. 87 _and note_
—— Lady (Hampton Court and Prague), ii. 86-87, 348, 349
Warham, Archbishop (Louvre and Lambeth), i. 299, 317, 321-323, 328,
337;
ii. 65, 350, 353
—— —— (Viscount Dillon), i. 323
Wedigh of Cologne, 1532 (Schönborn Collection), ii. 15-16, 349
Wedigh, Hermann H., 1533 (Berlin), ii. 16-17, 17 _note_, 18, 22, 49
_note_, 353
Wyat, Sir Henry (Louvre), i. 304, 306, 335-337;
ii. 353;
other versions (Dublin and Countess of Romney), i. 335;
ii. 350
—— Sir Thomas (various portraits), ii. 65, 79-81, 134, 255
—— Margaret, Lady Lee (Altman Collection, New York), ii. 82-83, 348
Zürich, Hans von (lost portrait), ii. 15, 65
Unknown Young Woman, about 1528 (Basel), unfinished, i. 346-347;
ii. 357
—— Young Man, 1533, roundel (Goldschmidt-Przibram), ii. 57, 349
—— Man in Henry VIII’s livery, 1534, roundel (Vienna), ii. 62, 70-71,
348
—— Lady, wife of above, 1534, roundel (Vienna), ii. 62, 70-71, 348
—— Young Man in Henry VIII’s livery, roundel (F. Engel-Gros), ii. 71,
353
—— —— copy of above in Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, ii. 71
—— —— aged 28, 1541 (Vienna), ii. 202-203, 206, 255, 349
—— —— aged 37, 1541 (Berlin) ii 201-202, 353
—— Man with Falcon, 1542 (Hague), ii. 54, 57, 203, 205, 255, 355
—— Lady (Vienna), ii. 205, 207, 349
—— Middle-aged Man (Berlin), ii. 205-206, 255, 353
—— Man (Basel), ii. 211, 255, 357
—— English Lady (Lanckoronski Collection, Vienna), ii. 211-212, 349
—— English Lady (Mr. A. H. Buttery), i. 353-358;
ii. 351
—— Elderly Man (Prado), formerly attributed to Holbein, i. 334-335;
ii. 356
Portrait of a Lady, “con gli mani giunti” (Arundel Collection, 1655),
ii. 65
Portrait of a Lady aged forty, with motto “In all things,” &c. (Arundel
Collection, 1655), ii. 65
Portraits of various unknown men, ladies, and boys, only known from
Hollar’s etchings after Holbein, ii. 214-215
_Miniatures (by or attributed to Holbein)_
Abergavenny, Lord (Duke of Buccleuch), ii. 62, 222, 351
Anne of Cleves (Salting Bequest), ii. 181-182, 232, 236, 350
Audley, Lady (Windsor), ii. 220, 222-223, 350
Brandon, Charles, Duke of Suffolk (Morgan Collection), not by Holbein,
ii. 241
—— Charles, son of the Duke (Windsor), ii. 201, 220, 222-225, 227, 350
—— Henry, son of the Duke (Windsor), ii. 63, 220, 222-225, 227, 350
Cromwell, Thomas (Morgan Collection), ii. 61, 231-232, 348
Edward VI, various miniatures, ii. 238
Franz, Arnold (Morgan Collection), ii. 219, 240-241
Henry VIII (Morgan Collection), ii. 182, 235-236, 348
—— —— (Duke of Buccleuch), ii. 109, 234;
other miniatures of Henry VIII not by Holbein, ii. 234-235, 351
Holbein, Hans (Wallace Collection), ii. 230, 350
Holbein, Hans (Duke of Buccleuch), ii. 230-231, 351
—— —— other versions, ii. 215, 230-231
Howard, Queen Catherine (Windsor), ii. 192-193, 220, 222, 238, 350
—— —— —— (Duke of Buccleuch), ii. 193-194, 220, 222
Kratzer, Niklaus (Morgan Collection), i. 241, 328
Mielich, Hans, or Maynert, Harry (?) (Munich), ii. 241-242, 355
More, Sir Thomas (Morgan Collection), i. 306-308;
ii. 220-222, 348
—— —— —— (Duke of Buccleuch), ii. 221-222, 351
Pemberton, Mrs. Robert (Morgan Collection), ii. 228-229, 348
Seymour, Queen Jane, various miniatures, ii. 237-238, 351
Unknown Youth (Queen of Holland), ii. 220, 229-230, 355
—— Man in Black (Queen of Holland), ii. 230
_Drawings and Designs_
Calvary, early drawing (Augsburg), ii. 323
Bearing the Cross (Basel), i. 42-44
“Praise of Folly” marginal drawings (Basel), i. 45-50, 63, 85, 229
Study for “Leæna and her Judges,” for Hertenstein House (Basel), i. 68
Architectural design, Hertenstein House (Basel), i. 65-66, 69, 122
Dagger sheath with a Roman Triumph (Basel), i. 73
The Archangel St. Michael (Basel), i. 79, 80, 112, 248
Miners at Work (British Museum), i. 80
The Holy Family (Basel), i. 99, 100
Virgin and Child (Basel), i. 99, 100
Virgin and Child (Leipzig), i. 100
Virgin and Child (Brunswick), 1520, ii. 326
Design for Basel organ case (Basel), i. 113-115
Study for Dancing Peasants, House of the Dance (Berlin), i. 119-121
Various tracings and copies of studies for same house (Basel), i.
120-121
Design for a painted house-front with figure of Emperor (Basel), i.
121-122
Design for a painted framework of a window (Basel), i. 122
Design for “Sapor and Valerian,” Basel Council Chamber (Basel), i.
131-132;
ii. 264
Contemporary copies of the designs for the Council Chamber paintings
(Basel), i. 132-133
Studies of Ladies’ Costumes (Basel), i. 138, 157-159, 245, 248
Coat of arms for Petrus Fabrinus (Basel University), i. 145-146;
ii. 357
Costume Study (Dessau), i. 159
Costume study of a Lady, full-length (British Museum), i. 356-357
St. Adrian (Louvre), i. 159-160
Study of a Nude Woman (Basel), i. 160
Fight of Landsknechte (Basel), i. 160-161, 230;
(Albertina), i. 161 _note_
Lamb, Lamb’s Head, and Bat (Basel), i. 161
Duke of Berry, copy of a sepulchral figure (Basel), i. 175-176
Duchess of Berry, copy of a sepulchral figure (Basel), i. 175-176
Designs for painted glass—
Virgin and Child, with Lucerne Bridge (Basel), i. 78-79
Three Peasants with Holdermeier arms (Basel), i. 79
Design for Hans Fleckenstein (Brunswick), i. 79;
ii. 323-324
Design with arms of Lachner family (Stockholm), ii. 325-326
The Banner-Bearer of the Urseren Valley (Berlin), ii. 324-325
Martyrdom of St. Richardis (Basel), ii. 326-327
Design with figure of a Bishop (Basel), i. 77
St. Barbara (Basel), i. 88
Eight panels of Saints (Basel), i. 137-139, 248
The Prodigal Son (Basel), i. 139-141
Two Unicorns (Basel), i. 140-141
Various designs with figures of Landsknechte (Basel, Berlin, Berne,
&c.), i. 140-144
Scroll-work with helmets and coat of arms of Von Hewen family
(Basel), i. 144-145;
ii. 326
Design with coat of arms of Von Andlau family, i. 145;
ii. 326
Terminus, for Erasmus (Basel), i. 146
Wild Man of the Woods (British Museum), i. 146-147
Christ on the Cross between the Virgin and St. John (Basel), i.
147-148
The Annunciation (Paris), i. 147-148
St. Elizabeth (Basel), i. 148-149;
ii. 325
Virgin and Child with kneeling donor (Basel), i. 149-150, 249
Ten designs illustrating the Passion of Christ (Basel), i. 43-44,
115, 136, 150-157;
ii. 327;
replicas in British Museum, i. 156-157;
ii. 327
Rehoboam rebuking the Elders, study for Basel Council Chamber
wall-painting (Basel), i. 347-348
Meeting of Samuel and Saul, study for Basel Council Chamber
wall-painting (Basel), i. 347, 349-350;
ii. 264
Design for Dagger Sheath, dated 1529 (Basel), i. 350
Design for a Cup for Hans of Antwerp (Basel), ii. 11, 275, 286
Triumph of Riches (Louvre), ii. 26-29, 264
Apollo and the Muses on Mount Parnassus, ii. 31-33
Satirical drawings of the “Passion” for woodcuts, ii. 77, 342
Queen of Sheba and King Solomon (Windsor), ii. 262-264, 350
A Transport Ship (Frankfurt), i. 161 _note_;
ii. 264
Design for a royal fireplace (British Museum), ii. 269-270
Queen Jane Seymour’s Cup (Oxford and British Museum), ii. 113, 274-275,
286
Sir Anthony Denny’s Clock (British Museum), ii. 276, 286
Designs for cups, tankards, sword and dagger hilts, jewellery,
hat-badges, &c. (British Museum, Basel, Chatsworth, &c.) i. 73, 161,
350;
ii. 195-196, 275-286
_Drawings: Portrait-Studies (arranged alphabetically)_
(Except where indicated, the drawings are all in the Windsor Castle
Collection.)
Abergavenny, Marquis of (Wilton House), ii. 62, 222, 248, 255
Audley, Lady, ii. 255, 258
Boleyn, Queen Anne, so-called, ii. 110
Boleyn, Thomas, Earl of Wiltshire, ii. 256
Borough, Lady, ii. 256
Bourbon, Nicolas, ii. 63, 73-74
Butts, Lady, ii. 210, 255
Carew, Sir George, ii. 256
—— Sir Nicholas (Basel), ii. 87-88, 248, 256, 260
Clement, Margaret, i. 303
Cleves, Anne of, so-called, ii. 183
Clinton, Edward, Lord, ii. 256
Cobham, George Brooke, Lord, ii. 256-257
Cresacre, Anne, i. 303
Dancy, Elizabeth, i. 296, 303
Dorset, Marchioness of, ii. 256, 258
Edward VI., three drawings, ii. 166-168, 205, 255
—— —— with meerkat (Basel), ii. 167-168
—— —— roundel in Basel Sketch-Book, ii. 168, 238
Elyot, Sir Thomas, i. 336
Elyot, Lady, i. 336;
ii. 258
Erasmus, study of hands for 1523 portraits (Louvre), i. 171
Fisher, John, Bishop of Rochester, i. 324;
other versions in British Museum, &c., i. 324;
ii. 254
Fitzwilliam, William, Earl of Southampton, ii. 204-205
George, Simon, ii. 207-208, 252, 255
Godsalve, Sir John, i. 325-326;
ii. 125, 251, 255
Guldeford, Sir Henry, i. 318-319, 321;
ii. 250-252, 255;
version formerly in Heseltine Collection, i. 318 _note_;
ii. 254
—— Lady (see below, Unknown Lady)
Hemingham, Lady, i. 310 _note_;
ii. 237, 256, 258
Henry VII and Henry VIII, &c., study for Whitehall wall-painting
(Chatsworth), ii. 93, 95, 97-99, 318 _note_, 105, 107, 134, 236, 351
Henry VIII (Munich), ii. 93, 99-101, 104-105, 107-108, 236, 248
Heron, Cecilia, i. 303;
ii. 250
Hoby, Sir Philip, ii. 119
Holbein, Hans (Basel), i. 185-186
Holbein’s Wife as a Girl (?) (Louvre), i. 108, 112, 144
Howard, Queen Catherine, ii. 194, 254-255
Le Strange, Sir Thomas, ii. 86, 256
Lister, Lady, ii. 258
“Mary, Lady, after Queen,” ii. 110, 215, 258
Melanchthon, Philip, ii. 200, 250
Mewtas, Lady, ii. 140, 256-257
Meyer, Jakob, and Wife, study for double portrait of 1516 (Basel), i.
22, 55;
ii. 256, 328
Meyer, Jakob, Wife, and Daughter, studies for the Meyer Madonna
(Basel), i. 236-237;
ii. 256, 260
Monteagle, Lady, ii. 256
More Family Group, study for (Basel), i. 291-296, 298-301, 303, 305,
308-310, 338, 341-342;
ii. 255, 331, 335-339
More, John, i. 303
More, Sir John, i. 303
More, Sir Thomas, i. 303;
ii. 250-251, 255
Morette, Charles de Soliers, Sieur de (Dresden), ii. 66-67, 69, 248,
256
Parker, Lady, ii. 256, 258
Parr, William, Marquis of Northampton, ii. 256
Parry, Sir Thomas, ii. 256
Poyntz, Sir Nicholas, ii. 71-72
Poyntz, John, ii. 71;
another version formerly in Heseltine Collection, ii. 71 _note_, 254
Ratcliffe, Lady, ii. 256
Reskimer, i. 333-334;
ii. 255
Rich, Sir Richard, ii. 212, 256
Rich, Lady, ii. 212, 256, 258
Richmond, Mary, Duchess of, ii. 110-111, 257
Roper, Margaret (?) (Salting Bequest), i. 309;
ii. 248, 252
Russell, Sir John, ii. 256
Seymour, Queen Jane, ii. 112, 251, 255
Sherrington, Sir William, ii. 256
Southwell, Sir Richard, ii. 85, 255
Stanley, Edward, Earl of Derby, ii. 256
Suffolk, Catherine, Duchess of, ii. 226;
replica in British Museum, ii. 226, 254
Surrey, Henry Howard, Earl of—three drawings, ii. 200-201
Surrey, Lady, ii. 201
Tuke, Sir Bryan, ii. 255
Vaux, Lord, ii. 52, 87, 252, 256-257
—— Lady, ii. 87, 252, 255
Warham, William, Archbishop of Canterbury, i. 321;
ii. 250-251, 255
Wentworth, Sir Thomas, ii. 256
Wingfield, Sir Charles, ii. 254
Wyat, Sir Thomas, ii. 79, 250, 252
Zouch, Mary, ii. 256, 259
Unknown Man (called Dinteville), ii. 43, 69 _and note_, 257
—— Englishman (Berlin), ii. 248, 259
—— —— (Chatsworth), i. 336;
ii. 248
—— —— —— i. 337;
ii. 248
—— —— and Wife (Basel), i. 321;
ii. 248, 260
—— English Lady (Lady Guldeford?) (Basel), i. 321;
ii. 87 _note_, 248, 260
—— Young Man with Broad Hat (Basel), i. 186 _note_;
ii. 259-260
—— —— —— profile, to right, ii. 257
—— Lady in White Cap, ii. 258
—— —— ii. 70, 227
—— —— full-face, ii. 214
—— Boy, dated 1520 (Louvre), ii. 214
Portrait group of a Lady and Children (British Museum), ii. 226-227
Windsor Castle, Collection of Heads of the ladies and gentlemen of
Henry VIII’s Court, &c. (general), i. 294, 309, 321, 328, 336;
ii. 62, 69, 70, 73, 79, 85-87, 101, 110, 125, 134, 140, 191, 200-201,
223, 243-259, 318, 342
_Designs for Woodcuts_
Earliest dated title-page, i. 34, 191, 193, 253
Christ Bearing the Cross, i. 44
Jacob’s Ladder (in Wolff’s _Pentateuch_), i. 77
Table of Cebes, i. 77, 193-195
The New Jerusalem (Wolff’s _New Testament_), i. 77
Title-page, Statue-Book of Freiburg, i. 111, 193
Erasmus, roundel, i. 181
Erasmus “in eim Ghüs,” i. 181-182, 350;
ii. 276, 329
Various title-pages, &c., metal cuts by Faber and “C.V.,” i. 188
Mucius Scævola, i. 191-193
St. Peter and St. Paul (Luther’s _New Testament_), i. 195
Four Evangelists (Luther’s _New Testament_, octavo edition), i. 195-196
St. Paul (Platter’s _New Testament_), i. 196, 350
St. John Baptizing the Saviour, &c. (Wolff, _New Testament_), i.
196-197
Death of Cleopatra, i. 198
David Dancing before the Ark, i. 198
Christ the True Light, i. 198-200
The Sale of Indulgences, i. 198-199
Borders, alphabets, printers’ marks, &c., i. 200-202, 231;
ii. 332
Dance of Death woodcuts, i. 48, 85, 153, 159, 175, 187, 190-191,
204-224, 226-229, 290;
ii. 49, 50, 74, 87-88, 188, 264, 314-315, 345
Alphabet of Death, i. 189, 201, 207, 224-226
Old Testament Woodcuts, i. 85, 187, 190, 204, 211-212, 226-230;
ii. 74-75
Title-page, Coverdale’s Bible, i. 97
Designs for Münster’s Cosmography, &c., i. 350-351
Portrait of Nicolas Bourbon, ii. 74, 79
Woodcuts of English period, ii. 78-79
Title-page, _Hall’s Chronicle_, i. 188 _note_;
ii. 79
Portrait of Sir Thomas Wyat in _Næniæ_, ii. 79-81, 205
Holbein, Jacob, Hans Holbein’s younger son, ii. 301
—— Johann Georg, Knight of Holbeinsberg, ii. 300-301
—— John, of Folkestone, and wife, ii. 302
—— Katherine, wife of Jacob Gyssler, Hans Holbein’s daughter, i.
343-347;
ii. 301
—— Kunigunde (Küngolt), wife of Andreas Syff, Hans Holbein’s daughter,
ii. 301
—— Margreth, _see_ Herwart, Margreth
—— Michel, of Oberschönefeld (1448), i. 1, 2
—— —— leather-dresser, father of Hans Holbein the Elder, and his wife,
i. 2, 3
—— Ottilia, i. 3
—— Philip, Hans Holbein’s eldest son, i. 105-106, 176, 343-347;
ii. 162-164, 298, 300
—— Philip, son of above, ii. 300
—— Ursula, _see_ Nepperschmid, Ursula
—— Sigmund, brother of Hans Holbein the Elder, i. 3, 13, 20, 32;
ii. 161-162, 300
—— an Englishman, of Wells, ii. 301
—— Chamber, Strawberry Hill, ii. 249
—— Exhibition, Basel (1897-1898), i. 79
—— —— Dresden (1871), i. 237;
ii. 206, 211
—— Society, i. 214
_Holbein’s Ambassadors_ (Miss M. F. S. Hervey), 1900, _see_ Hervey
_Holbein’s Ambassadors Identified_ (Elias Dexter), 1890, _see_ Dexter
_Holbein’s Ambassadors Unriddled_ (W. F. Dickes), 1903, _see_ Dickes
Holbein’s coat of arms, i. 1;
ii. 280
Holbein’s Gate, _see_ Whitehall
Holbeinsberg, Knight of, _see_ Holbein, Johann Georg
Holbyn, Johannes, of North Stoke, ii. 301
Holdermeier, State Councillor of Lucerne, i. 79
Holford, Lieut.-Col. G. L., C.I.E. (collection), ii. 304
Holford, Mr. R. S. (collection), ii. 72
Holland, Earl of, i. 323
—— Henry, Lord, Duke of Exeter, i. 334
—— House, i. 328 _and note_
—— Jane, i. 334
—— Queen of (collection), ii. 220, 229-230, 355
—— Robert, i. 334
—— William, jeweller, ii. 287
Hollar, Wenceslaus, i. 27-28, 71, 87, 214, 308, 318, 320;
ii. 15, 44, 61, 67-69, 77, 112, 166, 182 _and note_, 193-194, 200,
209, 214-215, 231, 253, 263, 275-276, 283, 329-330, 346
Holmes, Mr. C. J., i. 251
—— Sir Richard, ii. 70, 228-229, 244, 250-251, 394-395
Holtesweller, Henry, jeweller, ii. 287
“Holtein,” i. 17
Holtscho, house-master of London Steelyard, ii. 24
Holyrood Palace, ii. 141
Holywell Priory, Shoreditch, i. 272
Holzwart, Matthias, poet, i. 132
Hondius, H., ii. 15
Hone, Galyon, glazier, i. 268
Honthorst, Gerard, i. 224;
ii. 101 _note_
Hoorenbault family, _see_ Hornebolt
—— Lucas, painter of this name master of Ghent Guild (1512-32), i. 264
Horace, ii. 332
“Horebout, Gerard,” ii. 102
Horne, Sir William van, Montreal (collection), i. 185
Hornebaud, _see_ Hornebolt
Hornebolt family, ii. 233-234
—— Gerard, i. 263-268, 287;
ii. 100, 102, 105, 217, 220
—— Jacomyne, daughter of Lucas, i. 265
—— Lucas, i. 263-268, 287;
ii. 71, 100, 102, 104-105, 141-142, 197, 217-220, 236, 303
—— Margaret, wife of Lucas, i. 265
—— Susanna, i. 263-265, 268, 287;
ii. 70-71, 217, 238-239
Horsham St. Faith’s, ii. 85
Hoskins, John, ii. 235
Houbraken, _Heads of Illustrious Persons_ (1745), ii. 61, 181-182,
193-194
House of the Dance, _see_ Dance
Houth, Thomas, ii. 6
Howard family, ii. 135, 191-192
—— Queen Catherine, ii. 55, 192-197, 200, 207, 220, 222-223, 238,
254-255, 283, 286
—— Charles, i. 178
—— Lord Edmund, ii. 192
—— “Frances, Duchess of Norfolk,” ii. 228
—— family of Greystoke Castle, i. 178;
ii. 214, 347
—— Henry, Earl of Surrey, _see_ Surrey
—— Mr., i. 171 _note_
—— —— Soho Square, ii. 135
—— Thomas, Duke of Norfolk, _see_ Norfolk
—— Lord William, ii. 138
Howell, John, painter-stainer, i. 261
Huber, Andreas, tailor of Basel, i. 58
Hudson, William, ii. 72
Hueet, Hans, _see_ Eworthe
Hueffer, F. M., ii. 395
Hughes, Gerard, jeweller, ii. 287
_Humanae Industriae Monumenta_ (Faesch), ii. 329
Humphreys, H. Noel, i. 214
Hungary, Isabella of, Queen of Denmark, ii. 117
—— Queen Mary of, Regent of the Netherlands, ii. 115-116, 118-120,
122-124, 130-133, 137, 148, 180, 344
Hunstanton, Norfolk, ii. 86
Huppertz, A., ii. 395
Hurebaut, Gheraerd, of Ghent, father of Lucas Hornebolt, i. 264, 268
—— Joris, i. 264
Hutchinson, Colonel, i. 167
Huth family, ii. 340
Huth, Mr. Edward, i. 293, 303, 306;
ii. 221, 348
—— Mr. Henry, i. 303
Hutten, Ulrich von, i. 36
Hutton, John, resident English agent in Brussels, ii. 115-128, 130-131,
180
—— Hall, i. 300
Hymans, H., i. 165 _and note_
Hythlodæus, Raphael, i. 62, 163, 192
Iconoclastic outbreaks in Basel, i. 113, 177, 339-343, 352
_Illustrated London News_, ii. 294
Imhoff Collection, i. 18
Imhoff, Magdalena, i. 14
Immerzeel, _De Levens en Werken_, &c. (1842), i. 265
Imperial Diet at Speier (1529), i. 185
Ingoldstadt, ii. 50
Inquisition, Spanish, i. 272
_Interpretation of the Psalms_ (Bugenhagen), i. 198
_Inventare hansischer Archive_, &c., ii. 19
Ipswich, Wolsey’s College, i. 267
Ireland, National Gallery of, i. 335
Irmi, Anna, _see_ Meyer, Anna
—— Nikolaus, i. 236, 239
—— Rosina, i. 239;
ii. 328
Irnham Hall, Lincolnshire, ii. 305
Iron Acton, Gloucestershire, ii. 72
Isabella of Denmark, sister of Charles V, ii. 132, 137
Iselin, Johan Lucas, i. 190
—— Lucas, i. 239-241;
ii. 328, 330, 344
—— Dr. Ludwig, i. 118, 123;
ii. 156-157, 301
Isenheim, i. 5, 13-15, 18, 22, 32, 82, 148, 254
—— Monastery of St. Anthony, i. 13, 22
Italian influences in Holbein’s pictures, &c., i. 75-78, 80-81, 250-251
—— painters and sculptors in England, i. 270-287
Italy, Holbein’s visit to, _see_ Lombardy
Iveagh, Lord, ii. 35
Jabach, Eberhard, banker, of Cologne, i. 173, 335;
ii. 65
Jacob, Brother, of Dominican Monastery, Basel, ii. 156
Jäger Collection, ii. 57
“Jak, Mother,” nurse to Edward VI, ii. 70, 227
James I of England, ii. 13, 24, 130, 293
—— —— Catalogue, ii. 87
—— II of England, Catalogue, i. 97;
ii. 14, 224, 249
—— V. of Scotland, ii. 139-141, 143, 147
_James V and Marie of Lorraine_, by an unknown Scottish master, ii. 141
_and note_
Jane, maid to Hans of Antwerp, ii. 13
Janet (Jennet), ii. 105, 107, 137, 216 _and note_
Jenks (Gynkes), William, grocer, of London, ii. 212
Jennings, Sir John, ii. 337
Jentill, _see_ Gentils
Jenyns, Robert, the King’s master mason, i. 271
“Jeronimo Italion,” _see_ Treviso, G. da
Jessop, Dr. Augustus, i. 305-306
Jewel House, Master of the, _see_ Amadas and Cromwell
_Jewellery_ (H. Clifford Smith), ii. 281-282
Johann Ernst, Duke of Saxony, ii. 94-95
John IV of Portugal, i. 16
Johnson, Mr. John G., Philadelphia (collection), ii. 206
Joinville, i. 176;
ii. 139, 144, 147-152, 154-155, 343
Joseph, Mrs. (collection), i. 320
Jura, i. 233
Juxon, Archbishop, i. 322
Kainzbauer, L., ii. 395
Kaisheim Monastery, Donauwörth, i. 9
Kale (for Fallen), ii. 22 _note_
Kämlin, Hans, i. 13, 22
Kannengiesser von Tann, Dorothea, wife of Jakob Meyer, i. 52-55,
157-158, 234, 236, 239;
ii. 328
Karlsruhe Gallery, i. 38-39, 43, 63, 87, 101, 112, 160, 180, 249;
ii. 354
—— Grand-Ducal Cabinet, i. 207
Kastner, Adolph, joiner, i. 9
—— Georg, Abbot, i. 9
Katherine of Aragon, _see_ Aragon
Kaulek, ii. 143
Kensington Palace, i. 317, 319, 326;
ii. 249, 252
Ketteringham, Norfolk, ii. 258
Kildare, Earl of, ii. 6
Killigrew, Sir Robert, i. 334
Kimbolton Castle, i. 266;
ii. 104
_King Saul and the Shepherd David_ (M. Holzwart), i. 132
King’s Bench, i. 293
—— Book of Payments, _see_ Royal Household Accounts
—— Walden House, Herts, ii. 104
Kinkel, G., ii. 395
Kinnaird, Lord (collection), i. 319 _note_
Kip, J., engraver, ii. 346
Kirkheimer, Erasmus, King’s armourer, ii. 19, 298
Klingenthal Nunnery, Little Basel, i. 205
Kluber, Hans Hug, painter of Basel, i. 205;
ii. 311 _note_
Knackfuss, Prof. H., i. 50, 96, 112, 184, 186, 249;
ii. 395
Knapton Sale (1804), i. 309
Knepp Castle, Sussex, fire at (1904), i. 320;
ii. 212, 311
Knight, _Life of Erasmus_, i. 320
Knoedler, Messrs., ii. 340
Knole, i. 287, 307-308, 310 _note_;
ii. 112, 201, 303, 352
Knörr, banker, Lucerne, i. 71
Knowsley, ii. 245
Koberger, bookseller of Nuremberg, ii. 331
Koegler, Dr. Hans, i. 98;
ii. 330-332, 395
Kolman family, armourers of Augsburg, i. 31
Konody, Mr. P. G., ii. 45 _note_
Kratzer, Niklaus, Henry VIII’s astronomer, i. 299, 327-330, 337, 350;
ii. 4, 43, 73, 88, 143, 152, 241, 255
Kugler, Dr., i. 237;
ii. 395
Kulm, Dantiscus, Bishop of, i. 179
Kunigunde, Empress, i. 114
_Kunstblatt_, ii. 167
Kyrkenar, Erasmus, _see_ Kirkheimer
Lachner family, of Basel, ii. 325
Lafenestre, i. 173
Lago, Alice di, ii. 228
—— Jago di, of Newcastle-under-Lyme, ii. 228
Laine, Richard, painter-stainer, i. 261
“Lallenkönig,” i. 351
Lambert, Bishop, i. 111
Lambeth Palace, i. 321-323;
ii. 350
Lanckoronski Collection, Vienna, i. 20;
ii. 211, 349
Landgrave, The, ii. 172
Lane, Sir Hugh P., i. 301;
ii. 351
Lange, Jehan, jeweller of Paris, ii. 288
Languedoc, ii. 44
Lappenberg, Dr., ii. 2 _note_, 13, 24-25, 395
Larpent, S., _Sur le Portrait de Morett_, ii. 68, 395
Lasora, Nic., painter, i. 262, 314;
ii. 310 _note_
Latronet, jeweller of Paris, ii. 288
Lausanne, i. 180
Lavater, i. 300
Lavaur (town), ii. 35, 40-42
—— Bishop of, _see_ Selve, George de
Lavena, Trolli von, i. 72
Law, Mr. Ernest, i. 97, 165, 167, 184, 318, 333-334;
ii. 10, 87, 97, 103-104, 193, 199, 223, 225, 395
Lawrence Collection, i. 144, 156, 357;
ii. 327
Layer Marney, i. 270
Le Blond, Michel, i. 28, 166-168, 239-241;
ii. 330
Le Brun, J. B. P., ii. 37-38, 45-48
—— —— —— _Galerie des Peintures_, &c., ii. 37
—— —— Madame Vigée, ii. 37
Lebrune, Isaac, painter, i. 262
Lech Canals, Augsburg, i. 2, 19
Leconfield, Lord (collection), ii. 22, 97 _and note_, 351, 355
Lee, Sir Anthony, ii. 82
—— Sir Henry, K.C., ii. 82
—— Lady, _see_ Wyat, Margaret
—— Dr., i. 329
—— Priory, Kent, ii. 109, 181-182, 235
Leemput, Remigius van, ii. 94-97, 97 _note_, 99, 103-104
Lehmann, Rudolf, i. 238
Leicester, Earl of, i. 333
Leighton, Lord, _Addresses to Students of the Royal Academy_, ii.
319-320, 396
Leipzig, and Museum, i. 100, 106;
ii. 31
Leithäuser, ii. 396
Leland, John, ii. 38, 80, 205;
_Næniæ_, i. 202-203;
poem on birth of Prince of Wales, i. 203
Lely Collection, ii. 26
Lely, Sir Peter, ii. 345
Lenthall Sale (1808), i. 301; (1833) i. 301
—— William, Speaker, i. 301;
ii. 336
Leo X, Pope, i. 199
Leominster, ii. 119
Leonardo da Vinci, i. 74-76, 87, 106-107, 160, 173, 250, 257
Leontorius, Conrad, i. 84
Leopold, Archduke, ii. 65, 209
Leopold William, Archduke, ii. 203
Lepzelter, Bastian, sculptor, of Basel, i. 58
—— Martin, sculptor, i. 133
Leslie, Sir John, Bt. (collection), ii. 254
Le Strange, _see_ Strange
Lewes (town), ii. 55
Lewis, F. C., engraver, ii. 250
—— Rev. J., i. 295-296
“Leysure, Nic., a German,” i. 314 _note_;
ii. 310 _note_
Lezard, _see_ Lyzarde
Liancourt, Duc de, i. 173;
ii. 245
_Lieberhaber-Bibliothek_, i. 214
Liestall, near Basel, ii. 5
Lille Museum, i. 344
Linacre, Dr., ii. 208
Lincoln, Bishop of, ii. 226
Lindtmeyer, Daniel, glass-painter of Schaffhausen, ii. 326
Linton, Henry, engraver, ii. 294
Lippmann, Dr. F., i. 214
Lisbon, i. 14, 16, 22;
ii. 300;
Palacio das Necessidades, i. 16, 22 _note_;
Museu Nacional, i. 22 _note_
Lisle, Lord, i. 333
Lister, Lady, ii. 258
Little Basel, i. 90, 122, 351;
St. Theodore, i. 150;
Klingenthal Nunnery, i. 205
_Little Passion_ (Albrecht Dürer), i. 42-43
Lizardi, Nicolo, _see_ Lyzarde
Lloyd, picture-restorer, ii. 293 _note_
Lobons, John, the King’s Master Mason, i. 271
Lock, William, mercer, ii. 19, 92 _note_
Lockey, Rowland, i. 302
Lodge, Edmund, Lancaster Herald, ii. 250
Lodge’s _Portraits_ (1835), ii. 61
Lodi (town), i. 240
—— Giovanni da, i. 240
Lottie Mr. W. J., F.S.A., ii. 346, 396
_Lomazzo on Painting_ (trans. by Haydock), ii. 308
Lombardy, Holbein’s visit to, i. 42, 57, 64-65, 69, 72, 74-78, 80, 143,
251;
ii. 314
“Lomentlin” (Anna), i. 20
London, i. 169, 257, 265, 268, 271, 273, 278, 280, 282-283, 289-290,
295, 302, 315, 328, 331;
ii. 1-4, 9, 11, 13-15, 19, 22, 24, 30, 33, 35, 43-44, 59, 64, 67-68,
76, 80, 87, 91-92, 118, 121, 124, 139, 142, 145, 152, 154-155,
164, 172, 175-176, 184, 219, 221, 233, 261, 281, 288, 294, 297,
299, 300, 308, 319
—— All Hallows St., ii. 2;
Bridewell Hospital, ii. 169;
Bridewell Palace, ii. 42-43, 292;
Cannon St., ii. 2 _and note_;
Christ’s Hospital, ii. 169;
Cousins Lane, ii. 2;
Dowgate, ii. 2;
Farringdon Without and Within, i. 260;
Fenchurch St., ii. 30;
Fleet St. ii. 56;
Gracechurch St., ii. 30;
Great Fire (1666), i. 261;
ii. 189, 299;
Guildhall, ii. 96;
Holywell Priory, Shoreditch, i. 272;
John Ball’s Buildings, ii. 33;
Lombard St., ii. 13, 287;
London Bridge, ii. 189;
Mercers’ Hall, i. 287;
ii. 205, 304;
Monkwell St., ii. 289;
Montagu House, ii. 221-222;
Parliament St., ii. 267;
Rolls Chapel, i. 272;
St. Andrew Undershaft, Aldgate Ward, ii. 1, 188-189, 295-296, 299;
St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, i. 266;
ii. 101, 103, 234;
St. Bride’s, ii. 291;
St. Catherine Cree, ii. 299;
St. Giles without Cripplegate, ii. 305;
St. James’s Palace, i. 284;
ii. 137, 269-271, 333;
St. James St., ii. 269;
St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields, i. 265;
ii. 310;
St. Martin Orgar, i. 280;
St. Nicholas Acon, ii. 12-13;
St. Paul’s Cathedral, ii. 294;
St. Saviour’s, Southwark, ii. 307;
St. Vedast in Chepe, i, 260, 262;
Soho Square, ii. 135, 337;
South-Eastern Railway Station, ii. 2 _and note_;
Stafford House, ii. 165;
Thames St., ii. 2 _and note_, 3, 5, 33;
Tower, ii. 30, 200, 221;
Tyburn, ii. 196;
Waterloo Place, ii. 60;
Westminster, ii. 30;
Westminster Abbey, ii. 50;
Westminster Palace, ii. 127, 310;
Windgoose Alley, ii. 3, 21;
York House, ii. 14, 215
London, Registers of the Commissary of, ii. 294
Longford Castle, i. 164, 167, 169, 171, 177, 289, 292;
ii. 37, 137, 214, 307, 352
Long Walk, Windsor Park, ii. 267
Longueville (town), ii. 140
—— Charles d’Orléans, Duke of, ii. 139
Longueville, Duchess of, _see_ Guise, Marie of
—— François, Duke of, son of Marie of Guise, ii. 146-148, 344
Loo, Andries de, i. 295, 298, 323, 328 _and note_;
ii. 60-61, 334-337
Lord, Robert, jeweller, ii. 287
Lorenzo, Antonio di Piergiovanni di, i. 273
Lorraine, ii. 120, 148, 150
—— Anne of, ii. 145-146, 148-149, 153 _note_, 154-155, 176, 344
—— Duke of, ii. 146, 149-150, 153 _and note_
—— Duchess of, ii. 148, 152
—— Christina, Duchess of, _see_ Milan
Loseley MSS., ii. 244
Loskart, Jasper, i. 241, 243
Lössert, Johann, i. 240-241, 243
Lothian, Marquis of (collection), i. 304 _note_;
ii. 305
Lotter, Jörg, i. 13
Louis XII of France, i. 269;
ii. 225, 234
—— XIII of France, i. 173, 239
—— XIV of France, i. 173, 323, 335;
ii. 181
Louvain, i. 179, 192
Louvre Gallery, Paris, i. 108, 122, 159-160, 171, 234 _note_, 304, 322,
325, 327-328, 335;
ii. 26, 81, 83, 85, 176, 181-183, 214, 237, 241, 255, 314, 353
Lovelace, Richard, _Lucasta_, ii. 345
Lovell, Sir Thomas, i. 272, 274
Lubeck, i. 204
Lucas, William, painter-stainer, i. 261
Lucerne, i. 31, 42, 46, 57-58, 63-67, 70-72, 74, 78-82, 90, 100, 109,
116-117, 137, 142-144, 185, 197, 248;
ii. 313, 323-324, 326
Lucerne, Brotherhood of St. Luke (Painters’ Guild), i. 64;
Church of the Augustines, i. 80-81;
Convent of the Franciscans, i. 78;
Fountain of the Cordeliers, i. 78;
Museum, i. 79, ii. 358;
Town Library, i. 72, 74;
Town Hall, i. 74
Lucian, i. 62
Ludi, Johannes, _see_ Lüdin
Lüdin, Johannes, i. 239-240;
ii. 328-330
Lugano, i. 77
“Luike, Cardinal of,” ii. 116
Luini, i. 81, 87, 95
“Lukas, Master,” _see_ Hornebolt, Lucas
Lumley Castle, Collection and Inventory (1590), i. 178, 304 _and note_,
318-320;
ii. 81, 88-89, 99, 133-135, 243-245, 305, 307
—— family, ii. 89, 245
—— John, Lord, i. 178, 277, 304, 319;
ii. 130, 133-135, 245
Lupset, i. 253
Luther, Martin, i. 212, 260
—— —— _German Translation of New Testament_ (Petri), i. 195
—— —— _German Translation of New Testament_, quarto ed. (Wolff), i. 196
—— —— _German Translation of Old Testament_ (Petri), i. 197
—— —— _Servum Arbitrium_, i. 291
Luton House, i. 266
Lutterell, Sir John, portrait by Eworthe, ii. 307
Lützelburger, Hans, i. 44, 175, 181-182, 188, 189-191, 193, 195-197,
199, 201-202, 206-208, 210-213, 221-223, 226-229;
ii. 77
—— Jacob, i. 190
—— Michael, i. 190
Lutzow, De, i. 237
Lydio, _see_ Lüdin
Lynne, Walter, printer, ii. 78-79
Lyon, i. 149, 174-175, 188, 190, 208-209, 211-213, 222, 224, 226-228;
ii. 6, 38, 74-75, 187-188
—— Corneille de, i. 305
—— St. Pierre-les-Nonnains, i. 209;
St. Romain, i. 210
_Lytle Treatise_, &c. (Dr. U. Regius), ii. 78-79
Lyzarde, Nicholas, i. 287, 314 _note_;
ii. 12, 309, 310 _and note_
Mabuse, i. 56, 307;
ii. 93, 136-137
Machiels, A., i. 164 _note_, 166 _note_, 180 _note_;
ii. 396
Machyn, _Diary_, i. 285
Maçon, i. 174
Madresfield Court, ii. 304, 308
Madrid, Prado, i. 304 _note_, 334;
ii. 356
_Magazine of Art_, ii. 39
Magniac Collection Sale (1892), i. 335;
ii. 234
Maguire, T. H., lithographer, ii. 125
Mähly, J., i. 170
Maiano, Giovanni da, i. 278, 280-281, 287 _note_, 314;
ii. 266-267
Maintz, i. 190
Mair, Paulson, i. 13
Major, Dr. Emil, i. 85 _note_, 241;
ii. 328-329, 396
Malcolm Collection, British Museum, i. 147, 357;
ii. 226
Malermi Bible (1490), i. 230 _note_
Malines, i. 179;
ii. 137
Maltravers, Lord, portrait by Eworthe, ii. 307
Manchester, Art Treasures Exhibition, 1857, ii. 360-361
Manchester, Duke of (collection), ii. 61, 104
Mander, Carel van, i. 23, 27-28, 50, 74, 224, 252, 289-290, 295, 298,
328;
ii. 15, 24, 29, 60, 94, 112, 134, 187, 213, 217, ii. 231, 289, 290,
298-299, 344, 396
“Mane,” _see_ Maiano
Manion, _see_ Maiano
Manners, Lady Victoria, ii. 396
Mannheim, ii. 20
Mantegna, i. 67, 73-74, 95, 114, 121, 151, 234 _note_;
ii. 27, 314
Mantes, ii. 333
Mantz, P., ii. 396
Manuel, H. R., i. 130
—— Niklaus, _see_ Deutsch
—— Rudolf, i. 173
Margaret of Austria, i. 264
—— of Navarre, i. 305;
ii. 145
Margaret, Duchess of Savoy, daughter of Francis I, ii. 139
—— Princess, afterwards Queen of Scotland, i. 353, 357;
ii. 136
Marguyson, i. 284
Mariette Collection, ii. 276
Marignano, battle of, i. 35, 66
Marillac, Charles de, French ambassador in England, i. 282-283;
ii. 176, 197
Marlborough Collection, ii. 206
Marne, ii. 147
Marseilles, i. 305
Marthyn, Cornwall, i. 334
Martin-Holland, Mr. R., ii. 45 _note_
Martyr, Peter, ii. 226
Mary, Princess, Queen of England, i. 178, 266, 269, 311;
ii. 110, 112, 135, 168, 172, 195, 200, 215, 235, 239, ii. 257, 272,
304-305, 310
“Mary, Queen,” portrait by “Evolls,” ii. 308
Mary Tudor, sister of Henry VIII, widow of Louis XII, afterwards
Duchess of Suffolk, i. 269, 357;
ii. 193-194, 225, 227, 234, 258, 304
Mary, Queen of Scots, _see_ Scots
Mary, Princess, daughter of Charles I, ii. 104
_Mary and John_ (ship), i. 258
_Mary Rose_ (ship), i. 258
Marzohl, Lucerne painter, i. 72
Mason, Sir John, ii. 168
Massmünster, Georg von, abbot of Murbach, i. 145
Master of the “Death of Mary,” i. 335
Mather, Mr. F. J., ii. 206
Matted Gallery, Whitehall, _see_ Whitehall
Matthias, Emperor, ii. 300
Mauclair, C., ii. 396
Maximilian, Emperor, i. 19, 20, 31, 49, 189, 217
—— I, Elector of Bavaria, i. 17, 91-92
Mayfield, Staffordshire, i. 156
Mayn, John de la, _see_ Maiano
Maynard, John, painter, i. 269, 271;
ii. 298
Maynert, Henry, painter, witness of Holbein’s will, i. 269;
ii. 242, 295, 298
Maynors, Katherine, miniaturist, i. 268-269;
ii. 298
Mazzoni, Guido (Paganino), i. 270-271
Meade, Dr. (Sale), i. 164, 171;
ii. 183
Meath, ii. 209
Mechel, Christian von, engraver, i. 183, 299;
ii. 5, 27, 300, 396
Mechlin, i. 264
Medici family, i. 199;
ii. 85
—— Lorenzo de’, i. 271
—— Maria de’, i. 239-241;
ii. 330
—— Society, ii. 141
Melanchthon, Philip, i. 184-185, 351;
ii. 200, 241, 250
Melem, Von, i. 332
Melman, Henry, Steelyard merchant, ii. 6
Meltinger, Heinrich, burgomaster of Basel, i. 22, 254
Mélun, ii. 283, 333
Melville, Mr. James, ii. 343
Memlinc, i. 288-289
_Memorials of Old Chelsea_ (Alfred Beaver), i. 315
Mercator, Sir Michael, ii. 178
Mercers’ Hall, i. 287
_Merchants’ Arithmetic Book_ (Apian, 1527), ii. 50
Merchant Taylors’ Company, ii. 107
Meres, Francis, i. 302;
ii. 308-309
Mereworth Castle, Kent, ii. 189
Mergenthau, i. 3
Merian, C., i. 50, 206
—— Friedrich, ii. 301
—— Matthäus, _Topographia Helvetiæ_, i. 113, 131;
ii. 15, 27, 301
Merlin, Conrad, i. 20
Merlo of Cologne Collection, ii. 202
Methuen, General Lord, i. 307
Metropolitan Museum, New York, i. 72, 179;
ii. 347, 400
Metsys, Quentin, i. 163-165, 169, 255, 288-289, 292
Mewtas (Meutas), Lady, ii. 140, 256-257
—— —— Peter, ii. 140-141, 143, 155
Meyer, Adelberg, burgomaster of Basel, i. 124;
ii. 163, 298
—— Anna, i. 234-236, 239
—— C., i. 81
—— Dorothea, _see_ Kannengiesser
—— Jakob, zum Hasen, i. 52-55, 61, 109, 124-125, 131, 157, 174,
233-236, 239, 243, 343;
ii. 34, 256, 328, 330
—— —— —— Hirschen, ii. 34, 158-159
Meyrick, General, ii. 182, 235-236
—— Sir Samuel Rush, ii. 182, 235
Michelangelo, i. 271;
ii. 186 _note_
_Microcosmo_ (Scannelli), ii. 66
Middleton, Alice, _see_ More, Lady
Mielich, Hans, painter, of Munich, ii. 241
Milan, i. 6, 75, 140, 174, 250, 283;
ii. 159-160
—— Brera Gallery, i. 251;
Archæological Museum, i. 140
—— Christina, Duchess of, ii. 25, 65, 88, 115-138, 142, 150-151, 153
_and note_, 154-155, 171, 173-174, 176-178, 235, 255
Milburne, Mr., i. 167-168
Mildmay, Sir Henry B. St. John, Bt., i. 184
Milhars, Château de, Languedoc, ii. 44, 46
Millais, Sir J. E., and Sale (1897), ii. 206, 353
_Miniatura, or the Arte of Limning_ (E. Norgate), ii. 219 _and note_
Miniatures, Exhibition of, Brussels (1912), ii. 57 _note_, 230
—— —— —— Rotterdam (1910), ii. 230
—— —— —— South Kensington (1865), i. 308 _note_;
ii. 72 _note_, 109, 183, 228
Mitcham, i. 279
Mitchell, William, Collection, British Museum, i. 188
Modecio, Nic. de, _see_ Bellin
Modena (town), i. 281, 284;
ii. 186, 201, 303
Modena, Collection, ii. 66-67
—— Duke of, i. 306; _see also_ Este
—— Nicholas de, _see_ Bellin
Modène, _see_ Bellin
Modon, _see_ Bellin
Molitor, Oswald, i. 45-46, 49, 52, 57, 66, 125
Monforde, barber-surgeon, ii. 291
Mont, _see_ Mount
Montagu House, ii. 221-222, 230, 235, 309
Monteagle, Lady, ii. 256
Montecucculi, Marquis Massimiliano, ii. 66
Montmorency, Anne de, Grand Master of France, i. 283;
ii. 42-43, 139, 142-145, 152, 154
Montpellier, i. 84, 149, 151, 153, 174, 176
Montreal, i. 185
Montrottier, i. 210
Moor, The, ii. 110
Mor, Sir Anthonis, ii. 235
Morant, Mr., ii. 53
More family, i. 243, 301
—— Chapel, _see_ Chelsea
—— Sir John (Sir T. More’s father), i. 293, 296-297, 300, 302-303;
ii. 336, 338-339
—— John (Sir T. More’s son), i. 292, 294, 303;
ii. 335-337
—— Lady (Sir T. More’s wife), i. 293-294, 296-297, 299, 300-301, 303,
337, 342;
ii. 337-338, 340
—— Sir Thomas More, i. 45, 62, 163-164, 169, 179, 191-193, 243,
252-253, 255, 289-310, 313, 316, 321-323, 335-338, 341, 357;
ii. 1, 16, 25, 28-29, 65-66, 76, 84, 145, 185, 203-204, 212,
220-222, 250, 255, 271-272, 289, 331, 334-338, 340
—— Thomas (More’s grandson), i. 301
—— —— (More’s great-grandson), i. 301
Morett, Hubert, French goldsmith, ii. 67-69, 288
Morette, Charles de Soliers, Sieur de, French ambassador in England,
ii. 49 _note_, 63-70, 256
Morgan, J. Pierpont, the late (collection), i. 177-179, 307, 328;
ii. 61, 182, 219-221, 227-228, 231-232, 235-236, 240-241, 347-348
—— —— junior, ii. 214
_Morning Post_, i. 354;
ii. 212 _note_
“Moro, Il,” ii. 66-67
Morysin, Sir Richard, ii. 165-166
Moseley, Acton, ii. 212
—— Captain, H. R., ii. 212
—— Mr. Walter Michael, ii. 212, 348
_Moses and Aaron before Pharaoh_ (Félix Chrétien), _see_ Chrétien
Mount (Mont), Christopher, ii. 12 _and note_, 172-174
Mühlhausen, i. 46
Mundy, Alderman Sir John, jeweller, ii. 287
Munich, i. 15, 91, 98, 328-329, 350;
ii. 231 _note_, 241
—— Gallery, i. 9, 14, 27, 104, 331-332;
ii. 20, 23, 93, 99, 100, 104, 248, 355
—— Print Room, i. 12, 182;
ii. 77, 236
—— Academy of Fine Arts, i. 214
—— Bavarian National Museum, ii. 241, 355
Münster, Sebastian, _Cosmography_, i. 173, 198, 350
Müntz, ii. 249
Murbach, i. 82, 145
Murner, Thomas, _Geuchmatt_, i. 59
Murten, battle of, i. 66
Musée Royal, i. 173
Mychell, John, servant to Hans Eworthe, ii. 308
Myconius, _see_ Molitor
Mytens, D., ii. 101 _note_
“Næniæ,” &c. (John Leland), i. 202-203;
ii. 80-81, 205
Nägely, Hans Franz, burgomaster of Berne, ii. 162
Nancy, i. 176;
ii. 139, 148-150, 154-155, 343-344
Napoleon, ii. 85
Nassau family, ii. 104
National Art-Collections Fund, i. 188;
ii. 136
—— Gallery, i. 286;
ii. 17 _note_, 35, 37, 46, 52, 125, 127, 136, 210-211, 309, 340,
349
—— —— Catalogue, ii. 36-37
—— —— of Ireland, i. 335;
ii. 350
—— Portrait Exhibition (1862), ii. 109, 221, 361-362
—— —— —— (1866), i. 297, 308;
ii. 79, 80, 85, 210, 212, 363-367
—— —— —— (1868), i. 320, 332;
ii. 367
—— —— Gallery, i. 269;
ii. 60, 80-81, 104, 109, 167, 170, 194, 196, 205, 210, 305
—— —— —— Trustees, i. 301
Navarre, Margaret of, _see_ Margaret
Negker, Jost de, i. 189, 214 _and note_
Nell, Hans, i. 19
Nepperschmid, Ursula, sister of Hans Holbein the Elder, i. 3;
ii. 162
Netherland New Testament (1532), ii. 19
Neuburg, ii. 39, 48
Nevers, François, Duke of, ii. 154 _note_
Neville, Sir Edward, ii. 55
Newbattle Abbey, Dalkeith, ii. 305-306
Newcastle, ii. 204, 211
Newcastle-under-Lyme, ii. 228
Newdegate-Newdigate, Mr. F. A. (collection), ii. 210
New Gallery Winter Exhibition (1899-1900), ii. 184 _note_; (1901-1902),
ii. 382-383
New Hall, masking at, i. 259
Newmarket, ii. 293
_New Testament_ (Erasmus), i. 45
Newton family, i. 173, 323;
ii. 85
—— J. Adam, i. 173
—— St. Cyres, Devon, i. 306
New Year’s Gifts to and from Henry VIII, i. 267-268;
ii. 12 _and note_, 164, 232, 238-239
New York, i. 72, 179, 320;
ii. 82, 340, 347-348, 400
“N. H.,” of Augsburg, i. 189
Nichol, _History of Leicestershire_, i. 302
Nicholas Florentine, painter, i. 314;
ii. 310 _note_
Nichols, F. M., F.S.A., i. 169 _note_, 291-292, 312-313, 315-316;
ii. 271-273, 396
—— John Gough, F.S.A., i. 164, 263, 274, 284;
ii. 38, 110, 170, 193, 298, 396
Nicolas, Sir Harris, _Privy Purse Expenses of Henry VIII_, ii. 68, 396
Nimeguen, i. 190;
ii. 19
Nimes, i. 174
Nonsuch Palace, i. 263, 276-277, 279, 287;
ii. 135, 245, 270, 298
Norfolk, Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of, ii. 65, 84, 110, 124, 143, 171,
192, 194, 197-200, 216 _note_, 255, 257, 305
—— Thomas Howard, 5th Duke of, ii. 248
—— —— (1678), ii. 216
—— Henry, 7th Duke of, Sale (1686), ii. 249;
(1692), ii. 198-199
—— Duke of (present), ii. 135-136, 201, 303
—— Mary, Duchess of, portrait by Eworthe, ii. 307
—— House, ii. 198-199
Norgate, Edward, _Miniatura_, &c., ii. 219 _and note_, 246-247 _and
note_
Norman, Dr. Philip, ii. 2 _note_, 3 _note_, 33 _note_, 218, 219 _note_,
397
Norris, Sir Edward, of Bray, i. 178
—— Henry, i. 178
—— (or Noryce), John, i. 178
North, rebellion in the, ii. 19, 55
—— Montague, i. 305
—— Hon. Roger, i. 305-306
Northampton, ii. 228
Northbrook, Lord (collection), i. 50
Northcote, Essex, ii. 54
North Stoke, near Bath, ii. 301
Northumberland, Duke of (collection), ii. 112, 166, 352
—— Earl of, ii. 89
Northwick Collection, i. 286
North Wokendon, Essex, ii. 71
Norton, ii. 11
Norwich, i. 325-327
Norwood, ii. 54, 56
Nostell Priory, i. 295, 297, 299, 300;
ii. 334, 336-337, 339-340, 352
Nottingham Pursuivant, i. 259
Noue, Le, Collection, ii. 246
_Nouvelles Archives de l’Art Français_, ii. 327
Noviomagus, Gerardus, of Nimeguen, i. 192-193
_Nugæ_ (Nicolas Bourbon), i. 211;
ii. 73-75
Nunziata, Toto dell’, father of Antonio Toto, i. 276
Nuremberg, i. 9, 92, 168, 171-172;
ii. 278, 320, 331
—— Treaty of (1532), ii. 39, 46, 48
“Nycolas, Master,” painter, i. 313-314;
ii. 310 _note_
Oberhausen, Barbara von, sister of Hans Holbein the Elder, i. 3
Oberried, Hans, i. 90-91
Oberschönefeld, near Augsburg, i. 1, 2
Obynger, Olrycke, merchant, witness of Holbein’s will, ii. 295, 298
Ochs, Peter, i. 91 _note_, 127;
ii. 397
œcolampadius, i. 350 _note_
œmmel, _see_ Æmilius, George
Offenburg, Dorothea, i. 158, 246
—— Hans, i. 158
—— Magdalena, i. 158, 162, 245-249, 252-253, 345-346
Old Testament woodcuts, i. 85, 87, 190, 226-230
Olisleger, Dr. Henry, Vice-Chancellor of Cleves, ii. 174-175, 184
Oliver, Isaac, ii. 188, 209
—— Peter, i. 302;
ii. 166
“Olpeinus,” i. 341
“Olpeius,” i. 342;
ii. 331, 341
Olpeius, Severinus, ii. 331
Oporinus, i. 61
Orange, René, Prince of, ii. 154
—— William of, ii. 104
Ordnance Department, ii. 297
“Oret, Andrewe,” _see_ Wright, Andrew
Orleans, ii. 333
—— Charles d’, Duc de Longueville, _see_ Longueville
—— Collection and Sale, ii. 5 _and note_
—— Duke of, i. 242
—— Gallery, i. 304
Osnabrüch, ii. 305
Ostrelins, Maison des, Paris, ii. 25
Othmarsheim, i. 95
Ottener, Guillim, jeweller of Paris, ii. 288
Otto Henry of Neuburg, Count Palatine of the Rhine, ii. 17 _note_, 39,
46, 48 _and note_, 49 _and note_
Oxenbrigge Chapel, Brede Church, Sussex, ii. 272
Oxford, i. 329;
Bodleian Library, i. 171 _note_, 326;
ii. 81, 113, 247, 274;
Corpus Christi College, i. 269, 329;
Merton College, ii. 208-209;
St. John’s College, ii. 183;
St. Mary’s Church, i. 329;
Wolsey’s College, i. 267
Oxford, Earl of, Sale (1741), ii. 205 _note_, 337
—— Lord Treasurer, ii. 189
—— Exhibition of Historical Portraits (1904), i. 323;
ii. 81, 184, 209, 383
Padua, ii. 64, 208
—— John of, ii. 266
Paganino, _see_ Mazzoni, Guido
“Pageny, Master,” _see_ Mazzoni, Guido
Palermo, i. 81;
ii. 203
_Palladis Tamia_ (F. Meres), ii. 308-309
Palmer, Major Charles, ii. 82, 348
Paludanus, i. 192
Panell, Thomas, ii. 12
Pantalus, first Bishop of Basel, i. 114, 137
Paris, i. 60, 147-148, 171, 176, 204, 266, 325 _note_;
ii. 25-26, 38, 44, 68, 71 _note_, 72, 141, 152, 162-164, 272, 288,
300, 342-343;
Bibliothèque Nationale, i. 142, 144, 207;
Bibliothèque de l’Institut, ii. 41;
Cabinet des Estampes, ii. 145;
Chapeaufort Maison, ii. 45;
Louvre, _see_ Louvre;
Rue du Four, St. Germain-des-Prez, ii. 45;
St. Sulpice, ii. 42, 45
Parkenthorpe, Messrs., ii. 351
Parker, Archbishop, i. 322
—— John, yeoman of the robes, i. 264;
ii. 70, 217
—— Lady, ii. 256, 258
Parliamentary Commissioners (1650), i. 276
Parma and Gallery, i. 177, 180, 351;
ii. 66, 355
Parr, Queen Catherine, i. 269;
ii. 233, 238
—— Sir William, afterwards Marquis of Northampton, ii. 256
Parrhasius, ii. 75
Parry, Sir Thomas, ii. 256
Parthey, G., i. 88;
ii. 209, 397
_Partitiones Theologicæ_, &c. (Conrad Gesner), i. 224
Pasqualigo, Venetian ambassador to England, ii. 98
Passavant, i. 4, 14-15, 49, 50, 296;
ii. 347
“Passion in Folio,” owned by Sandrart, i. 157
Patenson, Henry, i. 294, 301-302, 305
Patin, Caroline, _Tabellæ Selectæ_ (1691), i. 299; 337
—— Charles, i. 5, 23, 36, 80-81, 88, 117, 127;
ii. 397, 167, 180, 186, 240, 253; iii. ii. 94, 97, 231, 330, 397
Pavia, battle of, i. 61
—— Certosa of, i. 69, 76, 140
Paynell, Thomas, ii. 172
Paynter-Stayners’ Company, i. 260-261, 273
—— Hall, Trinity Lane, i. 260-261
Peacham, Henry, _Compleat Gentleman_, ii. 186 _note_, 270, 332
—— —— _Graphice_, ii. 186 _note_
Peartree, Mr. M., ii. 227
Peasants’ War, i. 207, 252, 254
Peltzer, R. A., ii. 397
Pemberton, Lancashire, ii. 228
—— family, ii. 228
—— Major-General R. C. B., ii. 228
—— Robert, ii. 228
—— Mrs. Robert, ii. 220, 228-229
—— William, ii. 228
Pembroke, William Herbert, 1st Earl of (_d._ 1569), ii. 62, 268-269
—— —— 2nd Earl of, ii. 134
—— —— ii. 245-246, 248, 342
—— Collection, ii. 222, 268
—— and Montgomery, Earl of, ii. 62
Pencz, George, portrait of Erasmus, i. 171-172, 181
Pendrecht, ii. 187
“Pene, Anthony,” _see_ Toto
Pennacchi, Girolamo, _see_ Treviso
—— Piermaria, i. 286
Pennant, ii. 267
Penne, Barthilmewe, _see_ Penni, B.
Penni, Bartolommeo, i. 276-277, 280;
ii. 105, 303
Penni, Gian Francesco (Il Fattore), i. 280
—— Luca, i. 280
Penny, Bartholomew, _see_ Penni, B.
Penruddocke, Mr. Charles, ii. 61
Pepys, _Diary_, i. 276;
ii. 95, 186, 188, 271, 293-294
Perréal (de Paris), Jean, ii. 233-234
Perreau, Louis de, _see_ Castillon
Perrenot, Antoine, i. 111
_Peter Pounde Garnarde_ (ship), i. 258
Petre, Dr. William, ii. 175
Petre, Lord, i. 300
Petri, Adam, i. 59, 62, 111, 187, 190, 195, 197-198, 200, 228-229
—— Heinrich, i. 350
Petworth, Sussex, ii. 22, 97, 169, 351
Pfleger, Hans, i. 19
Philadelphia, ii. 206
Phillip, Morgan, _see_ Wolf, Morgan
Philipp of Neuburg, Count Palatine of the Rhine, i. 305 _note_;
ii. 17 _note_, 39, 46, 48 _and note_, 49 _and note_
Phillips, Sir Claude, i. 164 _note_, 309;
ii. 86, 125, 397
—— Sir Thomas, Sale (1903), i. 282
Physicians, Royal College of, ii. 208-209
Picart, C., engraver, ii. 214 _note_
“Picart, Nicolas, Account of,” i. 282
Piccard, T. Nieuhoff, ii. 186-188
Pierron, J. A., engraver, ii. 37-38, 46
Pirkheimer, Wilibald, i. 166, 168, 174, 340
Pisselieu, Anne de, Duchesse d’Estampes, ii. 194
Plasyngton, William, painter, i. 262
Plato, i. 199
Platter, T., publisher of Basel, i. 196, 350 _note_
Playne, David, painter-stainer, i. 261
Plepp, H. J., glass-painter, i. 129 _note_
Plessis-Praslain, M. le Mareschal, ii. 42
Plumier, Alard (Alart Plymmer), jeweller of Paris, ii. 142, 288
Pole, Cardinal, ii. 87
—— Carew, Mr. W. H., ii. 210, 347
—— Sir Geoffrey, ii. 55
Polisy, ii. 35, 38-41, 44, 48, 50
—— Lord of, _see_ Dinteville
Pollard, A. F., ii. 397
Pomarancio, Il, _see_ Pomerantius
Pomerantius (N. Circignano), i. 305-306
Pope, Sir Thomas, ii. 60
Porta, Hugo à, printer of Lyon, i. 227-228
Portland, Duke of, ii. 169
Portrait Miniatures, Special Exhibition of (1865), i. 308 _note_;
ii. 72 _note_, 109, 183, 228
Poyntz (or Poyns), Anthony, ii. 72
—— —— Elizabeth, ii. 72
—— —— Joan, ii. 72
—— —— John, ii. 254
—— —— Nicholas, the Elder, ii. 71
—— —— —— the Younger, ii. 63, 71-72, 342-343
Prado, Madrid, i. 304 _note_, 334
Prague Gallery, ii. 86, 348
“Praise of Folly” drawings, i. 45-50, 63, 85, 171, 186
Pré-Saint-Gervais, ii. 39
Price, J. E., ii. 2 _note_
Primadicis, Francisque de, _see_ Primaticcio
Primaticcio, i. 257, 282;
ii. 75
Prior, Matthew, ii. 345
_Private Collections of England_ (F. G. Stephens), i. 297
Privy Chamber, i. 178;
ii. 119, 140, 173, 177, 185
—— Council, i. 271, 283;
ii. 59, 114, 117, 138, 142, 168, 177, 201, 208, 303-304
—— Purse Expenses, _see_ Royal Payments
_Privy Purse Expenses of Henry VIII_ (Nicolas), ii. 68
Privy Purse Expenses of the Princess Mary, ii. 11
Propert, Lumsden, Collection, ii. 237, 241, 309
Prussia, Princess Elizabeth of, i. 242
—— Prince William of, i. 237, 242
Przibram, Fräulein Gabriele (collection), ii. 57
Puttick and Simpson, Messrs., i. 353, 356
Quad, Matthis, i. 23
Quandt, Von, ii. 67
Queen’s House, _see_ Buckingham
Quesnel, François (portrait of Mary Ann Walker), ii. 141
—— Jacques, ii. 141
—— Nicolas, ii. 141
—— Pierre, ii. 141
Quicke family, of Newton St. Cyres, i. 306-307
—— Mr. John, i. 307
Quaritch, Bernard, i. 214
Quocote, ii. 207
Raczynski, ii. 397
Radnor, second Earl of, ii. 37
—— fifth Earl of, ii. 35
—— Earl of (collection), i. 164;
ii. 214 _and note_, 308 _note_, 352
Raf (Rave), Jan, _see_ Corvus
—— Jehan, painctre de Flandres, _see_ Corvus
Ramsden, Sir John, Bt., of Bulstrode Park, ii. 52-53. 352
Raphael, i. 160, 250, 280, 286;
ii. 24, 62, 245, 314, 338
—— Italian lead-caster, i. 314
Rastall (or Rastell), John, i. 259, 314
Ratcliffe, Lady, ii. 256
Ratisbon, i. 91
Rauner, Gumprecht, i. 19
Ravensburg, i. 1
Ravesbury, Surrey, i. 279
Rawlinson MSS., Bodleian Library, ii. 219
Rawnsley, Canon, ii. 397
Razet, Jacques, i. 28
Record Office, i. 267, 312;
ii. 64, 127, 232
“Ree, Isle of,” i. 166
Regius, Dr. Urbanus, ii. 78
Reinach, S., ii. 22 _note_, 397
Reinhart, H., ii. 209
Rembrandt, ii. 318 _note_, 342
Reperdius, Georgius, _see_ Reverdino
_Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft_, ii. 331
Reskemeer, _see_ Reskimer
Reskimer, i. 299, 333-334;
ii. 255
—— Catherine, _see_ Trethurff
—— Elizabeth, _see_ Arundel
—— Jane, _see_ Holland
—— John, of Marthyn, i. 334
—— William, i. 334
Reuss (river), i. 138;
ii. 324
Reutlingen, i. 84
Reverdino, Italian engraver, ii. 75
_Revue de Champagne et de Brie_, ii. 39
—— _des Deux Mondes_, i. 107 _note_
Reynolds, Sir Joshua, ii. 321
—— —— —— _Journey to Flanders_, ii. 56
Rhenanus, Beatus, i. 84, 125, 168
Rhine, i. 141-142, 176, 288, 339
—— Gate, Basel, i. 351
Rhône, i. 174
Rhoon, ii. 187
Rich, Sir Richard, Lord Chancellor, ii. 212, 256
—— Lady, ii. 212, 256, 258
Richard I of England, ii. 2
—— III of England, ii. 55
—— servant to Hans of Antwerp, ii. 13
Richardson, Jonathan, the Younger, ii. 193
—— Jonathan Collection and Sale (1746), i. 309, 324;
ii. 68, 270
Richardson’s _Architectural Remains_, &c., ii. 271 _note_, 397
Richmond, i. 20;
ii. 184, 249
Richmond and Derby, Margaret, Countess of, i. 307
—— and Suffolk, Duke of, _see_ Fitzroy
—— Mary, Duchess of, wife of Henry Fitzroy, ii. 110-111, 20
Richtenberger, i. 173
Rickenbach, near Constance, i. 33-34, 37;
ii. 332
Ricketts, Mr. Charles, ii. 206
Ridgway, Captain (collection), ii. 60
Rieher, Eucharius, cloth-weaver of Basel, i. 339
Ringle, Sixt, i. 113;
ii. 329
Ripaille, Château de, near Thonon, ii. 71, 353
Rippel, Niklaus, glass painter of Basel, i. 121
Robinson Collection, i. 336;
ii. 226
—— Sir J. C., ii. 38, 292
Rocheford, Thomas, Lord, i. 281;
ii. 38
Rochfort, Lady, ii. 196
Rodriguez Collection, Paris, i. 60
Rölingerin, Dorothea, i. 4, 7
Rollin, Nicolas, Chancellor (his hospital in Beaune), i. 153
Rolls Chapel, i. 272
Romaynes, Peter, jeweller of Paris, ii. 288
Rome, i. 165, 271, 277, 305;
ii. 59, 66, 101, 134;
Corsini Gallery, i. 166;
National Gallery, ii. 93 _note_, 102-103, 356;
Palazzo de’ Crescenzi, i. 306;
Vatican, i. 271
Romney, Constance, Countess of (collection), i. 335;
ii. 81
Ronsard, ii. 218
Roper family, i. 307;
ii. 337
—— Edward, ii. 334
—— Margaret, i. 290, 292, 294-297, 303, 308-310, 337-338, 341-342;
ii. 258, 334, 336
—— William, ii. 334, 397
Rosen, Kunz von der, i. 19
Rosenheim, the late Mr. Max, ii. 69
Rosière, Marquis de la, ii. 72, 342
Rossie Priory, i. 319 _note_
Rosso, i. 280, 282
Rotherwas House, Hereford, i. 353
Rothschild & Sons, Nathaniel, ii. 35
Rotterdam, i. 180-181;
Exhibition of Miniatures (1910), ii. 230
Rouen Museum, i. 245;
town, ii. 272
Rouvray, Madame, ii. 343
Rovesham (Rovesanne), Benedict, _see_ Rovezzano
Rovezzano, Benedetto da, i. 280-281, 287 _note_;
ii. 266
Royal Academy, ii. 319
—— —— Winter Exhibitions (1879), ii. 221, 230;
(1880), i. 320, 332;
ii. 135;
(1901), ii. 209;
(1907), ii. 82;
(1910), ii. 307;
(1870-1912), ii. 368-373
—— Payments and Household Accounts (Hen. VIII), i. 261, 264, 268,
273-274, 276, 277 _note_, 280, 317, 330;
ii. 12, 68, 90, 124-125, 143, 148, 150-151, 155, 175, 180, 190-191,
239
—— Society, ii. 219
Rubens, i. 224, 240, 242, 304 _note_
Rüdiswil, i. 58
Rüdiswiler, Von, family, i. 58, 185
Rumohr, i. 92, 250;
ii. 67
Rushden, Northamptonshire, ii. 228
Rushton Hall, Northamptonshire, ii. 169
Ruskin, John, i. 244;
ii. 8, 321, 397
Russell, Lord High Admiral, ii. 179
Russell, Sir John, ii. 141-142
Rutland, fourth Duke of, ii. 100
Rydham, Norfolk, i. 327
“Rye, plat of,” i. 274
Ryff, Andreas, i. 80
Rynach, Uly von, fisherman of Basel, i. 339
Rypyngale, Richard, painter-stainer, i. 261
Sackville, Lord (collection), i. 308;
ii. 104, 112-113, 167, 169, 201, 352
Saffron Walden, i. 332
Saffroy, Mons., of Pré-Saint-Gervais, ii. 39
Sainsbury, _Original Unpublished Papers_, &c., (1859), ii. 342, 397
St. Albans, ii. 58, 332
—— Andrew Undershaft, _see_ London
St. Albans, Anthony, Monastery, Isenheim, i. 13. 22
—— Bartholomew’s Hospital, i. 266;
ii. 101, 103, 234
—— Benedictus, patron saint of Lucerne, i. 70
—— Catherine, Augsburg, i. 4, 7, 8, 10, 14-15, 23-24
—— Denis, Paris, i. 271
Saint-Dizier, ii. 147
St. Dunstans, near Canterbury, ii. 334
St. Edith, Monastery of, Wilton, ii. 268
—— Gotthard, i. 74, 80, 138;
ii. 325
St. Ildefonse, Spain, ii. 327
—— Moritz, Augsburg, i. 13
—— Nicholas Acon, _see_ London
“St. Nobody” (Zürich Painted Table), i. 37
St. Oswald, Lord, i. 295;
ii. 334, 339, 352
—— Paul’s Cathedral, i. 205
—— Petersburg, Hermitage Gallery, i. 61, 180;
ii. 62, 245-246
—— Pierre de Reims, ii. 144
—— Sauveur, Augsburg, i. 15
—— Ulrich, the monks of, i. 19, 20
—— Ursus, patron saint of Solothurn, i. 103-104, 109, 111, 149, 160
“Saints connected with the House of Habsburg,” woodcuts, i. 189
Salford, ii. 6
Salting, George, Collection, i. 28, 309;
ii. 14, 69 _note_, 181-182, 232, 239-240, 248, 252, 350
Samm, Herr, of Mergenthau, i. 3
Sancroft, Archbishop, i. 322
Sandby, Paul, ii. 346
—— Thomas, R. A., ii. 346
Sanderson, Mr. R., Sale (1848), i. 332
Sandon Hall, Stafford, ii. 342
Sandrart, Joachim von, i. 3, 28, 36, 50, 92, 147, 157, 224, 240-241,
243;
ii. 25, 27, 77, 133, 135, 187, 217, 231, 298-299, 310, 342, 397
Sandwich, i. 331
Sarburgh, Bartholomäus, painter, i. 88, 241;
ii. 328-330
Savoie, Jacques de, Duc de Nemours, portrait by Flicke, ii. 306
Saxony, i. 168
—— King Frederick Augustus of, ii. 67
—— Augustus III, Elector of, i. 242;
ii. 67
—— Johann Ernst, Duke of, ii. 94-95
—— Duke of, ii. 152-153, 172-174
Scannelli, Francesco, i. 306;
ii. 66
Schaeufelin, Hans, ii. 47
Schaffhausen, i. 91;
ii. 326
Schaffner, Martin, i. 20
Scharf, Sir George, i. 286, 320;
ii. 26 _note_, 95 _note_, 110, 125-126, 129-130, 137, 194, 231, 233,
237-238, 397-398
Schiavonetti, i. 320
Schijverts von Merode, Willem, ii. 342
Schinz, von, family, of Zürich, i. 50
Schlegel, Friedrich, i. 244
Schleissheim, i. 9
Schlotthauer, Joseph, i. 214
Schmid, tanner, i. 109
—— Elsbeth, _see_ Holbein, Elsbeth
—— Franz, i. 83;
ii. 162-163, 300
Schmid, H. A., ii. 398
Schneeli, G., ii. 398
Schöffer, printer of Maintz, i. 190
Schönborn, Count von, Vienna (collection), ii. 15, 16, 349
Schöner, Johann, ii. 50
Schongauer, Kaspar, i. 6
—— Martin, i. 5, 6, 18
Schrott, Johannes, i. 19, 20
Schuman, Michel, i. 83
Schwartz, Christopher, of Munich, painter, i. 98
—— Gumpret, i. 20
—— Hans, i. 20
Schwartzensteiner, wife of Burgomaster, i. 20
Schwegler, painter of Lucerne, i. 72
Schweiger, Jörg, Basel goldsmith, i. 59
Scots, Mary, Queen of, i. 353, 357, ii. 147
Scrope, Maria, i. 301
Seder, Herr Anton, i. 33
Seeman, A., ii. 398
Seine, ii. 272
Seld, Jörig, i. 19
Selve, George de, Bishop of Lavaur, ii. 17 _note_, 35-36, 39-43, 48-51,
255
—— Jean de, Premier President of Parliament, Paris, ii. 40-41
“Selve et d’Avaux, MM. de,” ii. 37, 46-47
“Semel” (Seymour), Edward, ii. 112
Seneca, i. 296
Serlby, ii. 104
Sessac, Sieur de, ii. 42
Sesto, Cesare da, i. 250-251
Settignano, i. 273
Seville, i. 272
Seward, Mr. Edwin, ii. 27 _note_
Seymour family, ii. 101, 200, 237
—— Queen Jane, ii. 65, 90-91, 94-96, 101, 109, 111-117, 138-139, 169,
180-181, 208, 234, 237, 254, 259, 274, 276, 280, 286, 313
Sforza, Francesco Maria, last Duke of Milan, ii. 117, 128, 137
—— Lodovico (“Il Moro”), ii. 66-67
Shakespeare, _Henry VIII_, ii. 211
Shelley, Edward, portrait by Eworthe, ii. 307
Shelton, Norfolk, ii. 272
—— Sir John and Lady, ii. 272-273
—— Mrs., ii. 116
Shepherd, Rev. Charles, ii. 57
Sheppard, Dr. Edgar, _Old Royal Palace of Whitehall_, ii. 185, 346, 398
Shere, i. 309
Sherrington, Sir William, ii. 256
Shoreditch, i. 272
Short, Robert, painter-stainer, i. 261
Shrewsbury, Earl of (_temp._ Henry VIII), ii. 211
Shute, John, painter, ii. 308
Silvestre, J., engraver, ii. 346
Simon, K., ii. 398
Simson, John, painter, i. 287
Singer’s edition of Cavendish’s _Life of Wolsey_ (1825), ii. 109
Singh, Prince Frederick Duleep, ii. 210
Sketchley, R. E. D., _Holbein as Goldsmiths’ Designer_, ii. 286 _note_,
398
Slingelandt, G. von (collection), i. 107
Sloane, Sir Hans, ii. 276, 278
Smetyng, Elard, of the Steelyard, ii. 6
Smid, Ludwig, i. 13
Smirke, Sir R., ii. 270
Smith, H. Clifford, _Jewellery_, ii. 281-282, 398
—— John Russell, i. 214
—— J. T., ii. 267
Snecher, Anthony, witness to Holbein’s will, ii. 295, 297-298
Society of Antiquaries, _see_ Antiquaries
Socrates, i. 193
_Solace and Consolation of Princes_ (Spalatinus), ii. 153
Soliers, Charles de, _see_ Morette
Solimar, Thomas, King’s secretary, ii. 73
Solly Collection, ii. 6
Solothurn, i. 58, 106, 109-110
—— Gallery, i. 111;
ii. 358;
Minster, i. 109
Somerset, Charles, Duke of, ii. 237
—— Lord Protector, i. 305
Sotheby, Colonel, ii. 216 _note_
—— Major-General F. E., i. 302;
ii. 216 _note_
Souch, Mary, _see_ Zouch
Sourdis, De, Collection, ii. 246
Southam Delabere, near Cheltenham, ii. 169
Southampton, William Fitzwilliam, Earl of, ii. 65, 204 _and note_, 205,
211, 304
South Kensington, i. 308 _note_;
ii. 228
South Kensington Museum, Exhibition of Portrait Miniatures (1862), ii.
361;
(1865), ii. 362-363
—— Exhibition of National Portraits (1866), ii. 363-367;
(1868), ii. 367
Southwark, i. 262
Southwell, Mr. Edward, ii. 61
—— Sir Richard, i. 330;
ii. 83-85
Spalatinus, Georgius, ii. 152-153
Speier, Imperial Diet at, i. 185
Spencer, Earl (collection), ii. 14, 72, 93, 107, 109, 141, 234, 240,
352
Spenser, Robert, i. 265
—— Thomas, painter-stainer, i. 261
Spontini, i. 242
Squire, Mr. W. Barclay, i. 164 _note_, 166 _note_;
ii. 50, 214, 308 _note_, 398
Stafford, Marquis of, i. 309
—— Viscount, son of Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, i. 335;
ii. 25, 64-65, 199, 248
Stahlhof, _see_ Steelyard
Stanley, Colonel, ii. 95
Stapylton, Mr. H. E. Chetwynd, ii. 85
State Papers, _see_ Calendars of Letters and Papers, &c.
Steck, Matthäus, ii. 156
Steelyard, London, i. 159, 327, 330;
ii. 1-35, 57-58, 88, 215, 219, 229, 255, 262-263, 287
—— Alderman and Deputy, ii. 3, 6, 287
—— allegorical paintings in, ii, 23-30
—— Guild Hall and Council Chamber, ii. 2-5, 11, 13, 20, 24, 28, 313
—— triumphal arch at Anne Boleyn’s Coronation, ii. 30-33
Steenwijk, Vos von, family, ii. 202
Steenwyck, Von, i. 167-168, 183-184
Stephens, Mr. F. G., i. 297-298, 320;
ii. 398
Sternen Platz, Lucerne, i. 66
Stettin, Paul von, i. 4
Stettler, W., i. 50
“Stilliarde, le,” _see_ Steelyard
Stimmer, Tobias, ii. 311 _note_
Stock, Andreas, i. 179;
ii. 15
Stockholm, National Museum, ii. 325
Stoddart, Miss Jane T., _Girlhood of Mary Queen of Scots_, ii. 147, 398
Stödtner, F., ii. 398
Stokesley, Dr. John, Bishop of London, i. 337
Stokesly, Rydham, Norfolk, i. 327
Stolten, Hans, ii. 7
Stow, _Annales_ and _Survey_, i. 330;
ii. 30-31, 179, 294, 299, 346, 398
Stowe, i. 320
Strange, Mr. Hamon le, ii. 85, 352
—— Sir Thomas le, ii. 85-86, 256
Strangeways, Richard, ii. 305-306
Strasburg, i. 145, 168, 204, 253;
ii. 27
Stratford-le-Bow, i. 262
Strawberry Hill and Sale (1842), i. 184-185;
ii. 230, 237, 249
Strein, Richard, of Vienna, i. 181
Stretes, Guillim, i. 270, 287;
ii. 104, 168-170, 201, 204-205, 220, 234, 238, 241, 292, 303-304
Strickland family, of Cokethorpe Park, i. 301
Stroganoff, Count Alexander, Rome (collection), i. 165-166
Strong, S. Arthur, i. 336;
ii. 47 _note_, 98, 101 _note_, 103 _note_, 285 _note_, 398
“Strote, William,” ii. 303
Strowse, Geo., of the Steelyard, ii. 6
Stryienski, C., ii. 398
Strype, _Memorials_, &c., ii. 168, 201, 299, 303, 346, 398
Stuart, Alexander, Archbishop of St. Andrews, i. 146
Stuttgart, i. 92
Subsidies of aliens in England, ii. 12
Sudeley Castle, ii. 137
Suermondt, Herr B. (collection), i. 144;
ii. 15, 202
Suffolk, Anne, Duchess of, ii. 227
—— Charles Brandon, Duke of, _see_ Brandon, Charles
—— Mary, Queen Dowager of France, Duchess of, _see_ Mary Tudor
—— Duke of, _see_ Grey Henry
—— Duchess of, ii. 124
Suffolk, Catherine de Eresby, Duchess of, ii. 225, 227, 254
—— Duke of (_temp._ Charles I), ii. 233-235
—— House, ii. 89
Sultz, Joachim von, i. 246
Surgeons, Guild of, ii. 289
—— Royal College of, ii. 293
Surrenden Dering, Kent, ii. 334
Surrey, Henry Howard, Earl of, i. 287;
ii. 65, 84, 110-111, 168, 171, 194, 198 _and note_, 200-201, 204,
303-304
—— Thomas Howard, Earl of, ii. 200
—— Earl of (in Basel), i. 252
_Survey of the Cities of London and Westminster_ (Stow and Strype), ii.
299
Sussex, Earl of, ii. 133
Sustris, Lambert, painter, i. 98
Sutherland, Duke of (collection), ii. 61, 198
Sutton Place, i. 270
Svaunders, Derich, i. 264
—— Margaret, i. 264
Sweden, King of, i. 165
—— Queen Christina of, i. 180
Sybel, von, Collection, ii. 202
Syff, Andreas, miller of Basel, ii. 301
Symonds, Richard, i. 28;
ii. 89
Syon House, ii. 166, 196, 352
“Table of Cebes,” i. 193-195
Tarbes, Bishop of, French ambassador in London, i. 283;
ii. 124
“Tate, Bartilmew,” _see_ Penni
Teerlinc, George, of Blankenberghe, ii. 238-239
—— Livina, i. 268;
ii. 220, 238-240
Telverne, Cornwall, i. 334
Tenison’s School, Archbishop, Leicester Square, i. 171 _note_
Terouenne, i. 316
Tertullian, i. 194
_Teutsche Akademie_ (Sandrart, 1675), i. 3;
ii. 77, 298
Thames, ii. 42
Thausing, i. 237
Thebes, i. 193
Theodoricus, i. 192
Thirty Years’ War, i. 91, 180
Thonon, ii. 71, 353
Thorndon, near Brentford, i. 300;
ii. 334
Thornham, Norfolk, ii. 210
Thornhill, Sir James, i. 171 _note_
Throgmorton, Margaret, _see_ Pemberton, Mrs. Robert
—— Richard, ii. 228
Tieck, Ludwig, i. 244
Tillman, Bernhard, treasurer of the Berne Council, ii. 162
_Times_, ii. 35, 38-39
Titian, i. 173
Tixall, ii. 61
Toke, Mr. John Leslie, i. 332
Tomkinson Collection, ii. 241
Tonjola, _Basilea Sepulta_, i. 127, 130, 349;
ii. 399
_Topographia Helvetiæ_ (Merian), i. 113
“Tornon, Cardynall of,” ii. 333
Torrigiano, Pietro, i. 271-273, 276, 287 _note_
Torrington, Lord, Sale (1787), ii. 100
Toto, Antonio, serjeant-painter, i. 268, 273, 276-281, 287 _note_;
ii. 105, 142, 269, 298, 303
—— Helen, i. 278
Touchet, John, ninth Lord Audley, ii. 223
Tournai, i. 6, 316
Touzele, Madame Jehanne de, abbess of St. Pierre-les-Nonnains, Lyon, i.
209
Trappes, Thomas, jeweller, ii. 287
Traverse, Carlos de la, ii. 327
Treasurer of the Chamber’s Accounts, _see_ Royal Payments
_Treatise concerning the Arte of Limning_ (Hilliard), ii. 218
Trechsel, Johann, i. 212
—— Melchior and Gaspar, printers, of Lyon, i. 175, 190, 208-213,
226-227
Trelawney family, ii. 16
Trethurff, Catherine, i. 334
—— John, i. 334
Treviso, i. 286
—— Girolamo Pennacchi da, i. 286-287;
ii. 105, 266, 303
Trier, i. 145
“Triumphal Procession” (Burgkmair), i. 31, 189
Troyes, ii. 35, 40-41
—— Bailly of, _see_ Dinteville
Trümpy, Herr E., of Glarus, i. 344-345
Tschekkenbürlin, Amalie, i. 90
—— Hieronymus, i. 90
—— Magdalena, _see_ Offenburg, Magdalena
Tuck, picture-dealer, ii. 182
Tudor Exhibition (1890), i. 184, 300, 302, 319, 323, 325, 328;
ii. 57, 61, 72, 82, 85, 112, 165, 170, 199, 216 _note_, 374-381
Tudor Exhibition, Manchester (1897), ii. 381-382
Tuke, Sir Bryan, Treasurer of the Chamber, i. 275, 299, 331-333, 337;
ii. 90, 191, 223, 255
—— Mr. W. M., i. 332
Tunstall, Bishop, i. 169, 329
Turin, i. 171, 180;
ii. 65
Twiselton, John, jeweller, ii. 287
Tybis, Derich, Steelyard merchant, ii. 7, 17, 20-22
Tyrrell, Sir John, i. 300;
ii. 335
“Tyrwin, plat of,” i. 312, 315-316
Tyttenhanger Park, St. Albans, ii. 58, 60-62, 232, 351
Uffizi Gallery, Florence, ii. 83, 213, 231
Ulm, i. 6, 8, 29
Uncle, Thomas, painter-stainer, i. 261
Upper Burgundy, Holbein’s journey to, ii. 12 _note_, 115, 120, 129,
138-155, 164
Urbino, Duke of, ii. 38
_Urbium Præcipuarum Mundi_, &c. (Braun, 1583), i. 276
Uri, i. 77;
ii. 300, 324
Uri, Heini von, i. 71
Urmeston, Clement, i. 259
Urseren Valley, ii. 324
Usteri, poet and painter, i. 72
_Utopia_ (Sir T. More), i. 45, 62, 163, 191-193, 253, 290, 299
Utrecht, i. 224
Utricke, John van, jeweller, ii. 287
Utterson Collection, ii. 226
Vaga, Perino del, i. 276, 286
Vanderbilt, Mr. W. C., New York (collection), i. 320;
ii. 348
Van der Doort, Abraham, i. 172;
ii. 25, 166, 188, 231, 245, 248
Vandergucht, ii. 37
Van der Weyden, Rogier, i. 5, 6, 289
Van Dyck, ii. 28, 198, 200
Van Eycks, the, i. 288
—— Heerweghe, Jan, i. 264
—— Horne, Sir William, _see_ Horne
—— Leemput, Remigius, _see_ Leemput
—— Mander, _see_ Mander
—— Merode, Willem Schijverts, ii. 342
Vane, Sir Harry, i. 165;
ii. 13, 224, 341
—— —— Henry, Bt., i. 300
Varallo, i. 105
Vasari, G., i. 265, 271, 276-277, 280, 286-287;
ii. 239
—— Society, i. 309;
ii. 226
Vatican, _see_ Rome
Vaughan, Stephen, i. 267;
ii. 131
Vaux of Harrowden, Thomas, Lord, ii. 52-53, 86-87, 87 _note_, 252,
256-257
—— Lady, ii. 86-87, 252, 255
—— Sir Nicholas, i. 259, 319
Vauzelles, Jean de, poet and scholar of Lyon, i. 210-212, 222
Velazquez, i. 349;
ii. 318 _note_
Vendôme, Margaret of, ii. 139, 144-146, 154-155
—— Marie of, ii. 144, 154-155
Venice, i. 6, 230 _note_, 242-243, 286;
ii. 37
Venturi, ii. 66
Vernon, Mr. John, ii. 107
_Versailles Gallery_, ii. 39
Vertue, George, i. 296, 320;
ii. 26, 135, 169, 194, 198, 205 _note_, 216 _note_, 249, 253, 267,
309, 334, 336-338, 346
—— Robert, the King’s master mason, i. 271
Vetter, Christina, i. 8
—— Veronica, i. 8
—— Walburg, i. 8
_Vetusta Monumenta_, ii. 267
Vic, M. de, garde de sceaux, ii. 42
Vicary, T., barber-surgeon, ii. 291
Victoria and Albert Museum, ii. 167, 232, 350
—— Queen, ii. 250
Vienna, i. 20, 60, 161 _note_, 171, 180-181, 189;
ii. 15-16, 57, 211, 236, 300, 331
—— Albertina, i. 5, 60, 344 _note_
—— Imperial Gallery, i. 60;
ii. 7, 17, 20, 62, 65, 70-71, 109, 111-112, 201-203, 205-209, 211,
237, 255, 280, 348-349
Vierwaldstättersee, i. 143
“Vincence of Naples,” _see_ Volpe
Vinci, Leonardo da, _see_ Leonardo
Vischer, Cornelius, i. 165
—— Peter, ii. 270
Vittadini, Signor, Arcorre, i. 105 _note_
Vögelin, Professor Salomon, i. 37;
ii. 399
Voll, Professor Karl, i. 15;
ii. 399
Volmar, Conrad, ii. 301
Volpe, Vincent, i. 258, 273-276, 314-315
Von Hertenstein, _see_ Hertenstein
—— Hewen, _see_ Hewen
—— Hutten, _see_ Hutten
—— Mechel, _see_ Mechel
—— Sandrart, _see_ Sandrart
—— Slingelandt, _see_ Slingelandt
—— Steenwyck, _see_ Steenwyck
—— Sybel, _see_ Sybel
Vorsterman, Lucas, engraver, i. 27-28, 179, 305 _note_;
ii. 26-28, 198, 231, 246
Vosges Mountains, ii. 156
Voss, H., ii. 399
Vries, Joan de, Sale (1738), i. 107
Vulp, _see_ Volpe
Waagen, Dr., i. 14, 24, 242, 250, 266, 289, 297;
ii. 86, 101-102, 107, 269, 303, 386-389, 399
Wagner, Leonhard, i. 20
Wagynton, William, painter-stainer, i. 261
Wake, Sir Isaac, ii. 65-66, 68
Wakefield, i. 295
Waldenburg, i. 233
Wales, Dowager Princess of, widow of Frederick, Prince of Wales, ii.
199
—— Frederick, Prince of, ii. 199
—— Henry, Prince of, son of James I, ii. 244
Walker, Sir Edward, ii. 246
—— Humphrey, metal founder, i. 271
—— Mary Ann, portrait by François Quesnel, ii. 141
—— Mr. W. H. Romaine, ii. 85
Wallace Collection, ii. 230 _and note_, 350
Wallop, Sir John, i. 283-284;
ii. 59, 139, 333
Wall-paintings in Augsburg, i. 65
—— in Basel, i. 117-123
—— in Lucerne, i. 65
—— and decorations in Westminster Palace, i. 261-262
Walpole, Collection and Sale (1842), ii. 26, 230, 237, 270, 276, 337
—— Horace, i. 167, 184, 243, 250, 263, 293, 296-297, 300-302, 322, 325,
328 _and note_;
ii. 26, 28, 94, 133, 135, 169-170, 179, 181, 189, 193-194, 199,
230, 237, 247 _note_, 249-251, 266, 301, 308, 334-335, 344-345,
399
—— Society, ii. 218, 219 _note_
Walther, Anna, i. 10
—— Johann, _Geystliche Gesangbüchlein_, ii. 50
—— Maria, i. 10
—— Ulric, i. 10
Wannewetsch, Hans Jörg, of Basel, painter, i. 81
Warberge, Von, family, i. 242
Ward, Mr. T. Humphry, i. 287
Wardell, Joan, ii. 208
Ware, Abbot Richard, ii. 51
Warham, William, Archbishop of Canterbury, i. 169, 253, 255, 289, 299,
321-323, 337;
ii. 1, 59, 65, 250, 255
Warner, Robert, ii. 133
Wartburg, near Eisenach, i. 16
Warwick Castle, i. 266;
ii. 100-104, 217
—— Countess of, i. 328 _note_
Wassy, ii. 147
Watney, Mr. Vernon J., ii. 169, 237, 352
Wauters, Mr. A. J., i. 305
Weale, Mr. W. H. J., ii. 239-240, 399
Weaver, Mr. Lawrence, ii. 33
Wedigh family, of Cologne, ii. 15-16
—— Hermann Hillebrandt. ii. 16-17, 17 _note_, 49 _note_
Weggis, near Lucerne, i. 66, 70
Wegmann, Hans Heinrich, of Lucerne, painter, i. 81
Weigel, Rudolph, Collection, Leipzig, i. 106;
ii. 31
Weingarten, Abbey of, i. 7
“Weisskunig” (H. Burgkmair), i. 31
Well Hall, Eltham, i. 295;
ii. 344
Wells Cathedral, ii. 301
Welser, Bartholomaeus, i. 10
Welser, Veronica, i. 10, 12, 24
Wenck, Petrus, i. 45
Wentworth, Sir Thomas, ii. 256
Wentz, J., i. 130
Werden, Gerard van, Steelyard merchant, ii. 6, 10
Werner, Anton, ii. 399
West, William, Lord De la Warr, ii. 304
Westbury, Dean of, ii. 177
Westminster, parish of St. Margaret, i. 265;
hermitage of St. Katherine, i. 265;
St. Peter’s, i. 271
—— Abbey, i. 272, 287 _note_
—— Palace, i. 275, 314;
ii. 127, 142
—— Marquis and Marchioness of, i. 332
Westmorland, Earl of, Sale (1892), ii. 222
Wettingen Cloisters, i. 79, 137
Weybridge, ii. 216
Weyden, Rogier, vander, _see_ Van der Weyden
_Wheel of Fortune_ (picture at Chatsworth), ii. 47
Whitehall Palace, i. 97, 257, 286, 301, 305;
ii. 25, 91, 94-95, 97 _and note_, 107, 110, 137, 170, 185-188, 243,
263, 266-269, 292, 344-346
—— —— Fire at (1698), ii. 25, 94-95, 186, 293
—— —— “Holbein’s Gate,” ii. 185, 266-269, 345-346
—— —— Matted Gallery, ii. 95, 186, 271
—— —— Privy Chamber wall-painting, ii. 91, 93-96, 97, 271, 302, 313
_Whitehall, Historical and Architectural Notes_ (W. J. Loftie), ii. 346
—— _Old Royal Palace of_ (Sheppard), ii. 346
Whitley, Surrey, i. 258
Whorstley, English sculptor, i. 265
Wicklow, Earl of, Collection, ii. 277
Wieland, Daniel, i. 46
Wight, Isle of, ii. 165
Willems, Marc, ii. 170
Willett, Mr. Henry (Collection), ii. 104
William III of England, i. 107;
ii. 57, 187, 203
William V of Orange, i. 107;
ii. 57
—— of Prussia, Prince, i. 237, 242
Williams, Lewes, painter, i. 278
Williamson, Dr. G. C., i. 306;
ii. 219 _note_, 220, 228, 230, 231 _and note_, 235, 240-241 _and
note_, 304, 309, 399
Wilson, Hon. H. Tyrwhitt, i. 319, 325
—— Thomas, Secretary of State to Queen Elizabeth, ii. 225
Wilton House, ii. 62, 137, 248, 266, 268-269
Wiltshire and Ormonde, Earl of, _see_ Boleyn, Sir Thomas
Winchester, Bishop of, _see_ Foxe, Richard
Windesore, Thomas, ii. 55
Windsor (town), ii. 208
—— Castle and Collections, i. 97, 171, 178, 302, 317, 319, 324, 333,
337, 357;
ii. 8, 14, 17, 19, 44, 52, 62-63, 73, 90-91, 103, 110, 112, 125,
167, 169, 183, 191-193, 197, 200-201, 204-205, 207, 210, 212,
214-215, 222-223, 226-227, 233-234, 236-237, 243, 262, 307, 339,
350
—— Park, Ranger of (Duke of Cumberland), ii. 267
—— —— Long Walk, ii. 267
—— St. George’s Chapel, i. 280
Wingfield, Sir Anthony, i. 287
—— Sir Charles, ii. 254
—— Sir Richard, i. 268;
ii. 137
Winn family, i. 295
—— Mr. Charles, ii. 334-337
—— Sir Rowland, i. 295;
ii. 334, 337
Winstanley, Mr., i. 332
Wise, Ulric, Steelyard merchant, ii. 10
Witt, Anna de, ii. 342
Wittelsbach Collection (1597), i. 332
Wittemberg, i. 214, 328;
ii. 50
_Wit’s Treasury_ (F. Meres), ii. 308-309
Woburn Abbey, i. 304 _note_;
ii. 112, 351
Wocher, Marquard, painter, i. 81
Wolf, Hans, of Lucerne, i. 66
—— or Wolffe, John, painter, i. 274;
ii. 1, 2, 6, 7 _note_
—— (Fenwolf or Phillip), Morgan, ii. 10, 288
Wolfe, Reinhold, printer, i. 202;
ii. 79, 332
Wolff, Thomas, i. 62, 187, 196, 202
Wolhusen, Christof Truchsess von, i. 158
Wolleb, Conradt, magistrate of Basel, i. 132
Wolsey, Cardinal, i. 169, 259, 267, 280-281, 321, 327, 329, 331, 334;
ii. 16, 55, 59, 137, 187, 199, 288, 333
Woltmann, Dr., i. 4, 5, 14-15, 19, 23-25, 38, 51, 62, 93, 96, 102,
106-107, 109, 112, 121, 123, 165, 169, 174, 184, 187-188, 211, 222,
228, 237, 247, 288, 292, 297, 299, 319, 326, 332, 334, 336, 344
_note_, 356;
ii. 5, 9, 10, 13, 16, 22, 26, 32, 37-38, 57, 60, 72, 77, 79, 97, 101,
105, 108, 125-126, 150, 158, 161-162, 175, 199, 203, 211, 223,
225, 230, 260, 269, 284, 323-325, 327, 329, 342, 347, 393, 399
Woodburne, Samuel, Sale (1860), ii. 67
Wooley, Henry, jeweller, ii. 287
Wooley, Nicholas, jeweller, ii. 287
Wootton, Dr. Nicholas, ii. 173-178, 180
Worcester, i. 265
Worksop Manor, ii. 135
Wörlitz, Gothic House, i. 300
Wornum, R. N., i. 14, 92, 165 _note_, 167, 184, 237, 247, 263, 266,
297, 300, 306, 328, 331-333;
ii. 37, 46, 49, 60, 72, 86, 101, 105, 125, 130, ii. 150, 165-167,
169, 212, 225, 233, 269-270, 292-293, 298, 345, 400
Worsley, Sir Richard, ii. 165
Woulpe, _see_ Volpe
Wright, coach builder, ii. 267
—— Andrew, serjeant-painter, i. 261-262, 273
—— Christopher, painter-stainer, i. 261-262
—— Richard, painter-stainer, i. 261
Wriothesley, Thomas, ii. 117, 131-133, 211
Wurstisen, _Epitome Historiæ Basiliensis_ (1577), i. 126;
ii. 400
Wyat, Sir Henry, i. 304, 306, 313, 327, 335-337;
ii. 79, 255
—— Margaret, Lady Lee, ii. 82-83
—— Sir Thomas, i. 203, 358;
ii. 37-38, 65, 71, 79-83, 118, 205, 250, 252, 280
—— Sir Thomas the Younger, ii. 81-82
“Wyat, Mr.,” i. 357
Wyat’s, Sir T., “Maze,” ii. 81
—— rebellion, ii. 82, 306
Wyatt, Mr. M. Digby, i. 275, 277;
ii. 400
Wyndham, Elizabeth, ii. 237
—— Sir Thomas, portrait by Eworthe, ii. 307
Wysdom family, painter-stainers, i. 261
Wyzewa, Mons. T. de, i. 107 _note_, 248 _note_, 345-346;
ii. 318 _note_, 400
Yarborough, Earl of, ii. 104, 164-166, 353
Yattendon, Berkshire, i. 178
York, Queen Elizabeth of, wife of Henry VII, _see_ Elizabeth of York
—— House, ii. 14, 215, 308
Younge, Mr. John, Master of the Rolls, i. 272
Zahn, A. von, i. 237;
ii. 57, 86, 400
Zasius, Ulrich, i. 84, 111
Zeitblom, Bartolomaeus, i. 6
Zetter, Herr Franz Anton, i. 110-111
Zetter-Collin, Herr F. A., i. 105 _note_, 111 _note_;
ii. 400
Zeuxis, i. 227;
ii. 75
Zimmerman, Görg, tailor of Berne, ii. 161
Zouch (Souch), Lord, of Haringworth, ii. 259
—— Richard, ii. 259
—— Mary, ii. 256, 259
Zuccaro, Federigo, ii. 24, 26 _and note_, 27, 134, 336
Zürichü, i. 35, 46, 50, 202, 224, 228;
ii. 76, 156 _and note_, 213, 358
—— State Library, i. 36-37
Zürich, Hans von, goldsmith, ii. 15, 65
Zwinger, Theodor, i. 118
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Printed by Ballantyne, Hanson & Co.
at Paul’s Work, Edinburgh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
● Transcriber’s Notes:
○ The first volume of this work can be found here:
○ This book’s index includes links to both volume i and volume ii.
○ Missing or obscured punctuation was silently corrected.
○ Typographical errors were silently corrected.
○ Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only
when a predominant form was found in this book.
○ Text that:
was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_);
was in bold by is enclosed by “equal” signs (=bold=).
○ The use of a caret (^) before a letter, or letters, shows that the
following letter or letters was intended to be a superscript, as
in S^t Bartholomew or 10^{th} Century.
-
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Hans Holbein the Younger, Volume 2 (of 2)" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.