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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------