PORTRAITS OF 1533-1536
Portraits of Robert Cheseman—Thomas Cromwell—Lord Abergavenny—Charles de
Solier, Sieur de Morette—The Earl of Arundel’s collection of
pictures—Roundels of a man and his wife at Vienna—Portraits of members
of the Poyntz family—Nicolas Bourbon—His verses in praise of
Holbein—Design for the title-page of Coverdale’s Bible—Other woodcut
designs produced in England—Hall’s Chronicle—Portraits of Sir Thomas
Wyat—Margaret Wyat, Lady Lee—Sir Richard Southwell—Sir Thomas le
Strange—Lady Vaux—Sir Nicholas Carew.
THERE is only one portrait by Holbein bearing the date 1533 which can be
said with any certainty to represent an Englishman. This is the very
beautiful one of Robert Cheseman, now in the Hague Gallery, which has
been known for so long under the erroneous title of “Henry VIII’s
Falconer” (Pl. 11).[104] It represents a man holding a much higher
social position than that of a mere keeper of hawks. Henry’s falconers
were paid at a rate which did not permit them to employ the services of
the leading artist of the day should they wish—which is not at all
probable—to have their portraits painted. Their wages, in fact, ranged
between fifty and twenty shillings a month. Cheseman, in common with
other gentlemen of that period, chose to be painted with his favourite
hawk upon his wrist, for the same reason that the country squires of the
eighteenth century were so often depicted with their favourite dogs.
Another example of this habit is to be seen in the equally fine portrait
by Holbein of an unknown man, also in the Hague Gallery, dated 1542, who
is evidently a gentleman, and not a professional falconer.[105]
Footnote 104:
Woltmann, 159. Reproduced by Davies, p. 158; Knackfuss, fig. 122;
Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 102; and elsewhere.
Footnote 105:
See p. 203.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 11
ROBERT CHESEMAN
1533
ROYAL PICTURE GALLERY, MAURITSHUIS, THE HAGUE
]
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF ROBERT CHESEMAN]
Robert Cheseman, of Dormanswell, near Norwood, in Middlesex, and
Northcote, in Essex, was a man of wealth, and one of the leading
commoners of the first-named county. He was born in 1485, son and heir
of Edward Cheseman, Cofferer and Keeper of the Wardrobe to Henry VII,
and succeeded to the family estates in 1517. His father is mentioned in
a pardon granted on March 2nd, 1486,[106] “to Edward Cheseman of London,
gentleman, of all fines, forfeitures, etc., due to the King or to
Richard III, late, in deed and not of right, King of England,” which was
granted him as one of the executors of the will of Thomas Windesore,
Constable of Windsor Castle. There was also a William Cheseman, probably
an uncle of Robert, who in 1485 and 1486 received grants of the offices
of bailiff of the rapes of Lewes and of Braneburgh, and of Clerk of the
Market of the town of Lewes, “in consideracion of the true and
feithfulle service that our welbeloved servaunt and true liegeman
William Cheseman hathe doone unto us, as well in the parties of beyonde
the see, as at oure late victorious felde within this oure
royaume.”[107]
Footnote 106:
Rev. William Campbell, _Materials for a History of the Reign of Henry
VII_, Rolls Publications, 1873, p. 336.
Footnote 107:
_Ibid._, p. 345.
On August 30th, 1523, Robert Cheseman was appointed Commissioner for
Essex to collect the subsidy,[108] and in December 1528 was placed upon
the commission of the peace for Middlesex. In 1530 he represented the
same county on a commission “to make inquisition in different counties
concerning the possessions held by Thomas Cardinal Archbishop of York
(Wolsey) on 2 Dec. 15 Hen. VIII, when the Cardinal committed certain
offences against the Crown for which he was attainted.”[109] During his
life he served on a number of commissions for collecting tithes,
subsidies, and the like, including one in 1533, the year in which he sat
to Holbein. In 1536 his name appears among a list of people from whom
money is due to the King by obligations,[110] while in the same year he
supplied thirty men for the army against the Northern rebels, which
proves him to have been a man of considerable substance.[111] He served
on the Grand Jury at the trials of Sir Geoffrey Pole, Sir Edward
Neville, and others, in 1538,[112] and of Thomas Culpeper and Francis
Dereham for treason in connection with the trial of Queen Catherine
Howard in 1541.[113] He was among the “squires” selected to welcome Anne
of Cleves when she first landed in England, and was, in fact, one of
some half-dozen men of position who represented Middlesex on all such
public occasions. In 1543 he supplied ten footmen for the army going
into Flanders “for the defence of the Emperor’s Low Countries,[114] and
in the following year he himself appears to have gone with the English
army into France, and it is noted against his name in the muster book
that he had “10 footmen already beyond the seas.” He married Alice,
daughter of Henry Dacres, of Mayfield, Staffordshire, a merchant-tailor
and alderman of Fleet Street, London. She died on July 31st, 1547, and
was buried at Norwood. His daughter and heir, Anne Cheseman, married
Francis Chamberlayne.
Footnote 108:
_C.L.P._, vol. iii. pt. ii. 3282.
Footnote 109:
_C.L.P._, vol. iv. pt. iii. 6516, 6598.
Footnote 110:
_C.L.P._, vol. x. 1257.
Footnote 111:
_C.L.P._, vol. xi. 580.
Footnote 112:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. ii. 986.
Footnote 113:
_C.L.P._, vol. xvi. 1395 (p. 645).
Footnote 114:
_C.L.P._, vol. xviii. pt. i. 832 (p. 467).
The portrait of Cheseman is a half-length, facing the spectator, the
head and eyes turned to the left. He wears a purplish red silk doublet,
and a black cloak trimmed with fur, and the customary black cap. On his
left hand, which is gloved, he carries a hooded hawk, with a bell on its
claw, and with the other hand strokes its feathers. He is clean-shaven,
and his long hair, which is beginning to turn grey, covers his ears.
Across the plain blue background, which has turned green through the
discoloration of the varnish, on either side of the sitter’s head, runs
the inscription in Roman lettering:
“ROBERTVS CHESEMAN. ETATES SVÆ XLVIII · ANNO DM. M D XXXIII.”
The painting of the beautiful plumage of the bird is a most masterly
piece of work, and the keen, piercing eyes and clean-cut face of its
master are rendered with that unerring truth and wonderful insight which
give Holbein his foremost place among the supreme painters of portraits.
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF ROBERT CHESEMAN]
This picture was seen by Sir Joshua Reynolds during his tour through
Flanders and Holland in 1781, and in his diary he describes it as:—“A
portrait by Holbein; admirable for its truth and precision and extremely
well coloured. The blue flat ground which is behind the head gives a
general effect of dryness to the picture: had the ground been varied,
and made to harmonize more with the figure, this portrait might have
stood in competition with the works of the best portrait painters.”[115]
This accusation of a slight “dryness” is to some extent true of certain,
though by no means all, of the portraits painted by Holbein in England,
when compared with some of his earlier work done in Basel. It has been
suggested that this may have been due to a growing habit, caused by the
increasing demands made upon his time, of placing greater reliance on
his preliminary chalk studies in painting a portrait, and thereby
reducing the number of sittings given him by the actual model.[116]
Footnote 115:
_A Journey to Flanders and Holland in the year 1781._ Works, vol. ii.
Footnote 116:
Wornum, p. 251-2.
An old copy of this portrait was lent to the Tudor Exhibition, 1890 (No.
173A), by the Rev. Charles Shepherd. The original picture was once in
the royal collections of England. It was No. 8 on the list of objects of
art which Queen Anne reclaimed from the Dutch States at the death of
William III as having formed part of the collection belonging to the
English royal house. Her claim was unsuccessful, and the picture
remained in Holland. On the back of the panel are the letters
W.E.H.P.L.C. and the seal of Johan Willem Friso, Prince of
Orange-Nassau, in whose collection it was, and afterwards in that of
William V. The second fine portrait of a man with a hawk in the Hague
Gallery,[117] dated 1542, was another of the pictures claimed by Anne,
and was No. 21 in her list. A third picture in the Hague, the beautiful
portrait of a young woman[118] (No. 275), now considered to represent
Holbein’s wife, has been already described. The Cheseman and the 1542
portrait were evidently taken over to Holland, with other paintings, by
William III during one of his visits to the Hague.
Footnote 117:
See p. 203.
Footnote 118:
See Vol. i. p. 106.
A small round portrait on wood, in the collection of Frau L.
Goldschmidt-Przibram in Brussels,[119] is dated 1533. According to both
Woltmann and Zahn it is in a very damaged condition, but is a genuine
work of Holbein. It represents a young man at half-length, facing the
spectator, but with the head slightly turned to the left. He is
clean-shaven, with bushy hair half hiding his ears, and wears the small
flat black cap and costume of the German merchants of the Steelyard, and
he was probably a member of that body. The right hand only is shown,
holding a carnation. Across the plain background, on either side of the
head, is inscribed “ANNO 1533.” The face is a very attractive one, and
the portrait has for years been regarded as representing the painter
himself. Dr. Woltmann so included it in his book, but it bears little
resemblance to the genuine portraits of Holbein. It was previously in
the Jäger, Gsell, and Fräulein Gabriele Przibram collections in Vienna.
Footnote 119:
Woltmann, 261. Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 104. Exhibition of
Miniatures at Brussels, 1912, No. 855_a_.
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF THOMAS CROMWELL]
During 1533, or in the first months of 1534, Holbein painted Thomas
Cromwell. The future Earl of Essex and “viceregent of the King in all
his ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the realm” was then only at the
beginning of his political career, and filled the minor post of Master
of the Jewel House. The portrait of him in the possession of the Earl of
Caledon,[120] at Tyttenhanger Park, St. Albans, which is evidently the
original of several versions still in existence, although it has
suffered greatly in the course of time, must be regarded as a genuine
work of Holbein’s brush. The face has undergone severe repainting, but
in many of the details his hand can be clearly traced. On one of the
papers on the table in front of the sitter is the following address: “To
our trusty and right wellbiloved Counsailler Thomas Cromwell, Maister of
o^r Jewelhouse,” which proves that it cannot have been painted later
than the first months of 1534, for early in that year Cromwell was
promoted to be First Secretary of State and Master of the Rolls. He
must, therefore, have sat to Holbein at some date between the latter
half of 1532 and the spring of 1534, having been appointed to the Jewel
House on the 12th April 1532 in place of Robert Amadas, the jeweller. If
done after his advancement, his higher titles would have been noted in
the inscription.
Footnote 120:
Woltmann, 249. Reproduced by Davies, p. 159; Pollard, _Henry VIII_, p.
180; Cust, _Burlington Magazine_, vol. xx. p. 7; Ganz, _Holbein_, p.
106.
It is very possible that Cromwell first made the acquaintance of Holbein
through their common friends, the merchants of the Steelyard, with whom
the future Lord Privy Seal was closely allied in more than one business
transaction, more particularly in connection with the wool trade, of
which the Hanse merchants then had a monopoly. He also made constant use
of their services later on in his career for the collection of
continental news, the forwarding of diets to various English ambassadors
abroad, the translating of foreign letters, and so on.
Eustace Chapuys, the Spanish Ambassador in London, in reply to a query
from his Imperial master as to the character of Henry’s new minister,
sent, in November 1535, a short and amusing biographical sketch of his
career, interesting as showing how Cromwell appeared in the eyes of a
foreigner.
“The Secretary, Cromwell,” he wrote, “is the son of a poor farrier, who
lived in a little village a league and a half from here (London), and is
buried in the parish graveyard. His uncle, father of the cousin whom he
has already made rich, was cook (_cousinier_) of the late archbishop of
Canterbury. Cromwell was ill-behaved when young, and after an
imprisonment was forced to leave the country. He went to Flanders, Rome,
and elsewhere in Italy. When he returned he married the daughter of a
shearman, and served in his house; he then became a solicitor. The
cardinal of York, seeing his vigilance and diligence, his ability and
promptitude, both in evil and good, took him into his service, and
employed him principally in demolishing five or six good monasteries. At
the Cardinal’s fall no one behaved better to him than Cromwell. After
the Cardinal’s death Wallop attacked him with insults and threats, and
for protection he procured an audience of the King, and promised to make
him the richest king that ever was in England. The King immediately
retained him on his Council, but told no one for four months. Now he
stands above everyone but the Lady (Anne Boleyn), and everyone considers
he has more credit with his master than Wolsey had—in whose time there
were others who shared his credit, as Maistre Conton (Compton), the duke
of Suffolk, and others, but now there is no one else who does anything.
The Chancellor is only his minister. Cromwell would not accept the
office hitherto, but it is thought that soon he will allow himself to be
persuaded to take it. He speaks well in his own language, and tolerably
in Latin, French and Italian; is hospitable, liberal both with his
property and with gracious words, magnificent in his household and in
building.”[121]
Footnote 121:
_C.L.P._, vol. ix. 862.
This is the man whom Holbein painted when he was merely Master of the
Jewel House and Clerk of the Hanaper of Chancery. He is shown, in Lord
Caledon’s picture, at half-length, seated in a high-backed wooden seat,
his head and body turned to the left, looking towards a window, only a
small part of which is seen, with a small table beneath it covered with
a Turkish cloth, on which papers are placed. He is dressed in a black
surcoat with a deep fur collar, and a black cap. He rests his left elbow
on another table in front of him, and holds a paper in his left hand, on
the first finger of which is a heavy signet ring. The right hand is not
shown. He is clean-shaven, and his bushy hair almost covers his ears and
falls on the back of his neck. On the table are pen and ink, a
richly-bound book with jewelled clasps, and several papers, on one of
which is the inscription already quoted. On a second paper the word
“Counseilor” can be deciphered at the head. The face, with its small
eyes set closely together, its thin, compressed lips and double chin,
and its sinister expression of cold determination, is a far from
attractive one, and lays bare that side of Cromwell’s character for
which he was so heartily hated by the Catholic party. In it is to be
seen little of that other side of him, of which, after his downfall,
Cranmer spoke, when writing to Henry on behalf of his old minister.
“Cromwell,” he said, “was such a servant in my judgment, in wisdom,
diligence, faithfulness, and experience, as no prince in this realm ever
had.” A large scroll stretching across the top of the picture, evidently
added after Cromwell’s death, contains a Latin inscription in his
praise. The portrait is on panel, 30 in. × 24 in.
[Sidenote: PORTRAITS OF THOMAS CROMWELL]
A smaller portrait of Cromwell, a circular painting with a green
background, and enclosed in a painted square stone frame, showing the
head only, is described by Wornum and Woltmann.[122] It was at that time
in the possession of Captain Ridgway, of Waterloo Place, London.[123] It
is 12 in. square, and differs in some details from the Tyttenhanger
portrait. Both writers appear to regard it as a genuine work by Holbein.
A portrait of Cromwell was one of the few works mentioned by name by Van
Mander when describing De Loo’s collection of Holbein’s works:—“the old
Lord Crauwl, about a foot and a half high, taken unusually artistically
by Holbein.” Although the dimensions do not quite agree, Woltmann
suggests that Captain Ridgway’s little picture was the one thus
described. According to Mr. Lionel Cust,[124] the few portraits of
Cromwell which have any claim to authenticity are all traceable to
Holbein, and fall into two groups, or at most three, each group deriving
from an original portrait by him. In the first class are the
Tyttenhanger picture and others based directly upon it. This portrait,
he says, descends direct from Sir Thomas Pope, one of Cromwell’s
instruments in the suppression of the monasteries. The second group
includes such pictures as the one in the National Portrait Gallery (No.
1683, 16¾ in. × 13 in.),[125] purchased in 1897, of which there are
several versions in existence, though there is no portrait of this type
so far traced which can be attributed to Holbein himself. The pictures
in this group show the head and shoulders only, and differ in minor
details from the Tyttenhanger type. The look of craftiness is
accentuated, and he is shown with a slight grey whisker, and the pointed
arch of the eyebrows is more strongly marked. The third group, which is
closely allied to the second, includes the recently-discovered miniature
in the late Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan’s collection,[126] and the medal in
the British Museum, of the date 1538, which, according to Mr. Cust, is
evidently based on a drawing by Holbein.[127] There was a portrait of
Cromwell in the Arundel collection, which is entered in the inventory as
“ritratto de Cromwell.” This was evidently the one in the possession of
De Loo, which afterwards passed, with other works by Holbein, from that
dealer’s collection into that of the Earl. Hollar’s engraving,[128]
which is not signed or dated, does not appear to have been taken from
the portrait at Tyttenhanger, but was most probably based upon the
Arundel picture; but whether that picture was an original by Holbein,
now lost, or one of the numerous versions now in existence, it is
impossible to say. One of these versions is in the collection of M. Ch.
Léon Cardon, Brussels.
Footnote 122:
Woltmann, 212, and i. 376; Wornum, p. 287.
Footnote 123:
Now, according to Dr. Ganz (_Holbein_, p. 241) in that of M.
Kleinberger, Paris.
Footnote 124:
In an interesting paper on “A newly-discovered miniature of Thomas
Cromwell,” _Burlington Magazine_, vol. xx., October 1911, pp. 5-7.
Footnote 125:
Reproduced in Mr. Cust’s illustrated catalogue of the National
Portrait Gallery, vol. i. p. 19, and in the _Burlington Magazine_,
vol. xx. p. 7.
Footnote 126:
Described in chapter xxv. See p. 231 and Pl. 31 (6).
Footnote 127:
Reproduced in _Burlington Magazine_, vol. xx. p. 7.
Footnote 128:
Parthey, 1386.
Several portraits of Cromwell were included in the Tudor Exhibition,
1890, wrongly attributed to Holbein. Among them was a bust portrait, to
the right, with a jewel in the cap, and the Garter George suspended from
a black ribbon, lent by the Duke of Sutherland (No. 39, 20 in. × 17
in.); a small half-length, to the left, wearing both collar and George
of the Garter, from Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (No. 160, 22½ in.
× 17 in.); and versions of the Tyttenhanger picture lent by Mr. Charles
Penruddocke (No. 162, 18 in. × 16 in.), and the Duke of Manchester (No.
163, 14 in. × 11½ in.).[129] In addition to the Hollar print, engravings
were made, from one or other of the copies of the original picture, by
Houbraken for his _Heads of Illustrious Persons_, 1745, from a picture
in the possession of Mr. Edward Southwell, and by Freeman for Lodge’s
_Portraits_, 1835, the latter from a picture in the possession of Sir
Thomas Constable, Bt., at Tixall. Probably both engravings were done
from the same painting.
Footnote 129:
A portrait of Cromwell, attributed to Holbein, the property of the
late Mr. J. P. Hardy, was sold at Christie’s on 13th December 1912.
There is a magnificent drawing, one of the most powerful studies Holbein
ever accomplished, in the collection of the Earl of Pembroke and
Montgomery at Wilton House,[130] which until recently has been generally
regarded as a portrait of the Lord Privy Seal—though it bears little
likeness to the Tyttenhanger panel—because the words “Lord Cromwell” and
“Holbein” have been inscribed in the bottom corners by a later hand than
the painter’s. It is in black and red chalk on paper tinted pink, with
slight touches of colour on the fur of the gown and the jewel in the
cap. The outlines of the features have been reinforced in ink, but this,
in contradistinction to some of the drawings in the Windsor collection,
where such retouching is evidently from a later hand, has been carried
out with such power combined with delicacy that it seems certain that it
was done by Holbein himself. The drawing evidently at one time formed
part of the Windsor series, at the date when the latter was given by
Charles I to an earlier Earl of Pembroke in exchange for the little “St.
George” by Raphael, which is now in the Hermitage. This book of drawings
was afterwards given by Pembroke to the Earl of Arundel, and it is most
probable that the so-called “Cromwell” drawing remained behind, perhaps
by accident. Quite recently it has been definitely identified as the
portrait of George Nevill, third Lord Abergavenny, by means of a
miniature in the possession of the Duke of Buccleuch, in water-colours,
on a playing card, which is based on Holbein’s drawing, and is inscribed
“G. Abergaveny.”[131] It bears a very strong likeness to the drawing,
and is attributed to Holbein himself. Further proof of identity is
obtained from a picture, which agrees with the miniature but does not
show the hands, in the collection of the Marquis of Abergavenny at
Edridge Castle, Kent. Both the Wilton drawing and the miniature were
included in the Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition, 1909 (No. 70 and
Case C. No. 22), and the former was in the Tudor Exhibition, 1890 (No.
1414).
Footnote 130:
Woltmann, 263. Reproduced by Davies, p. 162; Vasari Society, pt. v.
No. 28; _Catalogue of Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition_, 1909, Pl.
xxviii.
Footnote 131:
Reproduced in _The Connoisseur_, vol. xviii. No. 71, July 1907,
frontispiece (in colour); and in the _Illustrated Catalogue of the
Burlington Fine Arts Exhibition_, Pl. xxxiii.
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF MORETTE]
Singularly few examples remain of work executed by Holbein in 1534 and
1535. There are no dated portraits from his brush of the former year,
with the exception of the two small roundels in Vienna, and none of the
latter year, for the date on the beautiful miniature of little Henry
Brandon at Windsor, usually given as 1535, has been misread.[132] There
are one or two portraits which must have been done during this period,
among them the Morette, the drawing of Nicolas Bourbon, and a portrait
of Nicholas Poyns the younger; but there are so few examples which can
be definitely given to these two years that the writer hazards the
conjecture that for a part of the time Holbein was out of England.
Throughout his too short career the painter seems never to have severed
his connection with Basel, nor to have broken the friendly relationships
which existed between him and its Council. He remained a citizen of his
adopted city, and apparently retained his membership of the Painters’
Guild, until his death. To do so he must have paid some heed to the
somewhat strict laws as to the duties of citizenship then in force. The
customary leave of absence was about two years, and Holbein may well
have returned to Basel more often than is generally supposed. He did not
accede to the Council’s request contained in their letter of September
2nd, 1532, but at the end of two years, in the summer of 1534, he may
possibly have paid a visit of some duration to Switzerland, returning to
England in the summer or autumn of 1535. This is only conjecture, for
there is no evidence of his presence in Basel during that period, but it
would account for the lack of English portraits of that date, and would
also help to explain the fact—in some ways inexplicable—that he did not
enter the service of the royal house of England until about 1536.
Against this assumption it must be noted that when he paid his
well-known visit to Basel in September 1538 he was feasted and fêted by
his fellow-citizens in a way which seems to indicate that he had been
absent for a longer period than three years. Still, it is not impossible
that he was there in 1534-5, and that he even paid a final visit home,
about the winter of 1540-41, before his death in 1543, in this way
retaining until the end his citizenship and the pension paid by the
Basel authorities to his wife.
Footnote 132:
See p. 225.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 12
CHARLES DE SOLIER, SIEUR DE MORETTE
ROYAL PICTURE GALLERY, DRESDEN
]
The wonderful portrait of Morette in the Dresden Gallery (Pl. 12)[133]
must certainly have been painted during the period under discussion.
Charles de Solier, Sieur de Morette, a well-known French diplomatist and
fighting man of his day, who had paid more than one earlier visit to
England, in each case of short duration, arrived in London as French
resident ambassador in place of Castillon, on Good Friday, April 3rd,
1534, and returned to France on July 26th, 1535. This was his last and
longest sojourn in this country, and Holbein must have painted him
between these two dates. Even though the painter may have paid a visit
to Basel as suggested, it would still leave ample time for the portrait
to have been taken in the summer of either year. Probably Holbein’s
introduction to Morette was brought about through the good offices of
Jean de Dinteville. Though the Bailly of Troyes had left England in the
previous November, Morette may have seen the “Ambassadors” picture in
France in the interval, or have heard of it from Castillon, who
succeeded Dinteville in London. In any case, Morette, who was one of the
special ambassadors who came over for the signing of the treaty in the
spring of 1528, was acquainted with at least one work of Holbein, the
“Battle of Spurs,” in the temporary banqueting-hall at Greenwich, to
which the King had drawn the particular notice of the envoys.
Footnote 133:
Woltmann, 145. Reproduced by Davies, p. 156; Knackfuss, fig. 128;
Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 116.
[Sidenote: THE ARUNDEL COLLECTION]
The first known reference to the portrait of Morette occurs in the
correspondence of Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel and Surrey, the great
collector of Holbein’s work, who employed friends and agents on the
Continent to hunt up and buy everything from his brush that they could
discover. He got together a remarkably fine series of pictures and
drawings by Holbein, which, on his death at Padua, 1646, came into the
possession of his widow, then residing in Holland. Upon her decease in
1654, at Amsterdam, her youngest son, Lord Stafford, who was living with
her, propounded a nuncupative will in his own favour, and began as
quickly as he could to sell the pictures, which it had been the
intention of the Earl should become heirlooms, but the deed had never
been executed. The sale, however, was stopped by other representatives
of the Arundel family, and a lawsuit resulted. Among the documents in
connection with these proceedings was one of very great interest, an
inventory of the pictures and objects of art in the possession of the
Countess at the time of her death. The original list, which was in
Italian, and probably drawn up for the Earl in Padua, has disappeared,
but a copy of it has been recently discovered by Miss Mary L. Cox in the
Record Office. This valuable document was evidently copied from the
original by some clerk in Amsterdam ignorant of the Italian language,
for it is full of mistakes. The complete inventory was published by Miss
Cox, with an introduction by Mr. Lionel Cust, in the _Burlington
Magazine_.[134] From it we learn that Lord Arundel possessed no less
than forty-one works by or attributed to Holbein, in addition to the
drawings, which are not included in the inventory. Among the portraits,
some of which have been already noted, were those of the Duchess of
Milan, Jane Seymour, Anne of Cleves, Edward VI, the Duke of Norfolk and
his son the Earl of Surrey, Sir Thomas Wyat, Cromwell, Erasmus, the Earl
of Southampton, Thomas and John Godsalve, Sir Edward Gage, Sir Henry and
Lady Guldeford, Archbishop Warham, Dr. John Chamber, Derich Born, and
Sir Thomas More and his family, as well as several unnamed portraits, to
all of which reference will be found in these pages. Very possibly some
few of these pictures, such as the full-length of the Earl of Surrey,
were not by Holbein, though given to him in the list. Lord Arundel also
possessed several works which so far have not been traced, though the
titles may help towards their future rediscovery. Among them is a
portrait said to be of Holbein’s wife, which is most probably the
picture at the Hague;[135] one of a lady “con gli mani giunti e un agato
atacato al beretino”; another of a lady, aged 40, with the inscription,
“In all things, Lord, thy wilbe fulfilled”; the portrait of a
musician;[136] one of an armed man, which may possibly be the portrait
of Sir Nicholas Carew; the portrait of the goldsmith Hans of Zürich; the
Death’s-head and bones already referred to in speaking of Ambrosius
Holbein; a picture of gamblers or people playing games (“un quadretto
con divers figure Jocatori, &c.”); another with the title “Legge Vecchio
& Nove” (ancient and modern law); and the Arms of England in
water-colours. Before his relations could interfere Lord Stafford had
sold a number of pictures to the Spanish Ambassador in London, to
Eberhard Jabach, of Cologne, and to the agent of the Archduke Leopold,
and this may account for the fact that certain of them remained abroad,
such as the Jane Seymour and Dr. Chamber in Vienna, and the Thomas and
John Godsalve in Dresden.
Footnote 134:
Vol. xix., August and September 1911, and vol. xx., January 1912, from
which the above facts are taken.
Footnote 135:
See Vol. i. p. 106.
Footnote 136:
See above, p. 52.
In a letter from Turin, dated November 26th, 1628, from Sir Isaac Wake
to William Boswell, the former states: “The picture after which you do
seem to inquire was made by Hans Holbein in the time of Henry VIII, and
is of a Count of Moretta. My Lord of Arundel doth desire it, and if I
can get it at any reasonable price he must and shall have it.”[137] The
picture was evidently then in the market, under the true names of both
sitter and painter, but apparently the price was too high, and so
Arundel, who possessed the original drawing for it, was not able to
secure it. It was eventually bought by the Marquis Massimiliano
Montecucculi, ambassador of the house of Este at Parma and Rome, and
presented by him to the Duke Francesco d’Este, and so passed into the
Modena gallery. According to Venturi, the portrait was at that time
attributed by the Marquis Montecucculi to “Gio. Olben.” Some thirty
years after the date of Wake’s letter, Scannelli, in his
_Microcosmo_,[138] describes, under the name of “Olbeno,” a picture in
the Modena collection which can be no other than the “Morette.” He says:
“There was also lately among ultramontane painters a certain Olbeno, a
highly qualified master, and in painting individual portraits verily
stupendous. It is true in his execution there is something of that
native hardness which belongs to his country in other respects; yet
through his extreme diligence and truthful fidelity to nature it shows a
high degree of perfection. As we see, for example, in the already
noticed gallery of H.S.H. the Duke of Modena, where there is a
half-length portrait by him which in its exact imitation of nature is
quite wonderful.”
Footnote 137:
For this and other letters see Sainsbury, _Original Unpublished
Papers_, &c., 1859, Appendix, Nos. 44, 53, 55, 57. See also Appendix
(K).
Footnote 138:
Ed. 1657, Vol. ii. p. 265. See also Vol. i. p. 306.
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF MORETTE]
At a later date the true name of the sitter appears to have become lost.
It has been suggested[139] that, owing to the similarity of the sound,
the name Morette was first changed to Morus, as the name of Sir Thomas
More would naturally suggest itself in connection with Holbein. In
Italy, Morus, again naturally, would become Moro, and so in course of
time the picture was said to represent Lodovico Sforza, familiarly known
as Il Moro. There is no need, however, to bring in the name of Sir
Thomas More at all. The change must have been directly from Morette to
Maurus, which was Sforza’s second name, from which his popular nickname
“Il Moro” was taken.[140] Holbein’s name in connection with the picture
having been by this time forgotten, the title “Maurus,” combined with
the beauty of the work, gave rise to the supposition that it could only
be from the hand of Sforza’s great countryman, Leonardo da Vinci; and it
was as a portrait of Il Moro by Leonardo that it was purchased by
Augustus III, King of Poland and Elector of Saxony, from the Duke
Francesco of Este-Modena in 1746. It formed part of a collection of
about one hundred pictures, known as the “Modena Gallery,” some of which
are now among the chief masterpieces of the Dresden Gallery, which,
after long and secret negotiations, the Elector procured for his own
collection at the cost of one hundred thousand sequins and very liberal
largesse to various agents and go-betweens. For the next hundred years
it remained at Dresden as a portrait of Lodovico and a masterpiece by Da
Vinci. Then Rumohr, the critic, pointed out that the style and quality
of the painting proved it to be an undoubted work by Holbein, while at
the same time Von Quandt produced evidence to show that it did not
represent Il Moro, but a certain jeweller employed by Henry VIII named
Hubert Morett. The paper he contributed to the _Kunstblatt_ in 1846 was
accompanied by a reproduction of Hollar’s engraving of the original
drawing of the picture, upon which his case was based. This engraving is
inscribed “Mr. Morett” and “W. Hollar fecit, ex Collectione Arundeliana.
A^o 1647. 31 Decē.” In spite of Rumohr’s criticism, however, the picture
continued to be described in the official catalogues as by Leonardo, the
authorities, it is said, objecting to the change of name, as in so doing
the collection would be robbed of its sole work by Da Vinci; and it was
not until the death of King Frederick Augustus that Holbein was allowed
to come into his own again. There was considerable opposition, too, to
the change from Il Moro to Mr. Morett, the goldsmith, Hollar’s engraving
being a poor one, and not very much like the picture. The title was not
changed, nor was the final restitution made to Holbein until 1860, in
which year Holbein’s original drawing for the portrait made its
appearance in London, in the sale of Samuel Woodburne, the art dealer,
when it fetched £43, and was purchased immediately afterwards for the
Saxon Government by Herr L. Gruner, the director of the Dresden
Gallery.[141] For the next twenty-five years the picture was known as
“Mr. Hubert Morett, goldsmith to Henry VIII,” who was considered by all
writers to be an Englishman, his sumptuous apparel, quite unlike the
sober garments worn by jewellers in those days, being explained away by
a reference to the tradition that in the sixteenth century all
Englishmen, of whatever class of society, had a passion for finery in
dress.
Footnote 139:
Wornum, p. 301, and Dresden Catalogue, 1884.
Footnote 140:
See _Milan under the Sforza_, by C. M. Ady, p. 124.
Footnote 141:
Woltmann, 146. Reproduced by Wornum (photograph), p. 300.
As a matter of fact Hubert Morett was not an Englishman at all, nor
could he be rightly described as “goldsmith” to Henry VIII. He was a
Frenchman, one of several jewellers of Paris, who paid periodical visits
to London for the purpose of selling their wares to the King and Court.
Thus, in August 1536, in Gostwick’s accounts, is the entry: “Hubbert
Morret, jeweller of Paris, for jewels bought by the King £282, 6_s._
8_d._,”[142] while in January 1532 he received 242 crowns, or £56, 9_s._
4_d._, for similar goods.[143] Granger’s statement that Morett “did many
curious works after Holbein’s designs” has no foundation in fact.
Hollar’s engraving[144] simply calls the subject “Mr. Morett,” though
Parthey, in a second edition of his book, cites a second state of the
engraving, sold in 1844, with the added words, “Jeweller to Henry VIII”;
no one, however, has so far succeeded in discovering a proof of this
state, and, in all probability, these words were merely written on this
particular proof by someone who had noted the reference to Morett in the
_Privy Purse Expenses of Henry VIII_, published by Nicolas in 1827.
This, no doubt, was the source of the legend, adopted at Dresden, that
the picture represented a court jeweller.
Footnote 142:
_C.L.P._, vol. xi. 381.
Footnote 143:
_C.L.P._, vol. v., Privy Purse Expenses of Henry VIII, under January
1532.
Footnote 144:
Parthey, No. 1470.
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF MORETTE]
It remained for a Swedish critic, M. S. Larpent, finally to re-establish
the identity of the sitter as that Count of Moretta mentioned in Wake’s
letter in the seventeenth century. In a pamphlet published in
Christiania in 1881, _Sur le Portrait de Morett_, he proved conclusively
that the Dresden picture represents Charles de Solier, Sieur de Morette.
M. Larpent drew attention to the fact that the drawing for the head was
once in the possession of Richardson, the painter, and that at his sale
in 1746 it was included in his catalogue as “One Holbein, sieur de
Moret, one of the French hostages in England,” this, no doubt, being the
traditional title which had remained with the drawing since it was in
the Arundel collection. It has been suggested that Hollar’s engraving
was done neither from the Dresden picture nor from the drawing, as it
shows considerable differences in the dress and details, and is circular
in shape, while the inscription is “Holbein pinxit” not “delineavit,”
indicating that it was done from a painting and not a drawing, and thus
proving that the Earl of Arundel possessed another portrait of Morette,
which has disappeared. In this connection Sir Sidney Colvin draws
attention to the print by Hollar of an unknown man after a painting by
Holbein formerly in the Earl of Arundel’s collection, which he thinks
represents Jean de Dinteville.[145] “Now, this print of Hollar’s,” he
says, “is an exact companion to his other print from the ‘Mr. Morett’ in
the Arundel collection. Both are small rounds, apparently taken from
paintings of almost miniature size, such as Holbein is in several
instances known to have made of persons who had also sat to him for
full-sized portraits. I conclude that he had painted two such companion
miniatures, besides his larger pictures, of the two successive French
envoys, Dinteville and Morette, and that both came into the possession
of the Earl of Arundel.”[146]
Footnote 145:
This is the print, already mentioned (see p. 44), in connection with
the fine Windsor drawing to which Miss Hervey first drew attention as
a possible likeness of Dinteville.
Footnote 146:
In a letter to _The Times_, 11th September 1890.
The identity of the sitter was established beyond all possibility of
doubt in 1903 by the late Mr. Max Rosenheim’s discovery of a fine
contemporary medallion portrait of the same personage, carved in
boxwood, with his name and titles in full, and on the back his device of
a seaport, a horse, and a dolphin.[147] Charles de Solier was born in
1480, and was fifty-four years old when resident ambassador in England
in 1534, the year in which Holbein painted him. He represented him
life-size and half-length, standing facing the spectator, dressed in a
doublet of black satin, the sleeves of which, from the elbow downwards,
are slashed with white silk. His surcoat is of the same black material,
with a heavy collar and lining of fur. Both dress and black cap are
decorated with gold tags, and in the latter he wears a circular gold
enseigne with a figure of Fortune. Round his neck hangs a gold chain to
which is suspended a medallion or watch-case of open-work. In his right
hand he holds a glove, and his left, which is gloved, grasps the gilt
and elaborately chased sheath of a dagger, suspended from his girdle by
a chain with a large tassel, such as the one worn by Dinteville. His
long beard of a reddish colour is touched here and there with grey. The
background consists of a curtain of green damask. It is about 3 ft. 1
in. high by 2 ft. 6½ in. wide.
Footnote 147:
See _Burlington Magazine_, vol. ii., August 1903, p. 369. The
medallion is in the Salting Collection, and the costume is the same as
in the picture. The inscription runs: “CAROLVS · DE · SOLARIO · DNS ·
MORETY · ANNO · AGENS · L.”
Holbein’s art, both in the subtle insight it displays into character and
in its technical achievement, is seen in its highest manifestation in
this superb and nobly-dignified portrait, which bears the stamp of truth
in every touch. The handling is both brilliant and delicate in all the
accessories, in the fine modelling of the flesh, and in the wonderful
draughtsmanship of the right hand grasping the glove. As a likeness of a
living man and as an expression of the most intimate traits of his
character, it holds its own with any piece of portraiture in the world,
and is, indeed, complete in every respect, displaying the finest taste
in conception combined with consummate skill and unerring accuracy in
execution, and most harmonious colour. The original study for it, which,
no doubt, once formed a part of the Windsor collection, and now hangs by
the side of the picture in Dresden, is unsurpassed for its truth and
force, and the subtlety with which the likeness is expressed by the
simplest means, eye and hand acting in perfect accord and allowing
nothing essential to escape them.
[Sidenote: ROUNDELS OF ENGLISHMAN AND WIFE]
The two small roundels, about six inches in diameter, portraits of a
man, probably an Englishman, and his wife, in the Vienna Gallery[148]
(Nos. 1482, 1484), formerly in the Schloss Ambras collection, are dated
1534. They are fine works, almost in miniature, though they do not show
Holbein at his highest point of achievement. The man, who has a
dark-brown beard, wears a black cap and a scarlet surcoat on which the
letters H. & R. are embroidered in black and gold, indicating that he
was in the service of Henry VIII. Across the background is inscribed:
“ETATIS SVÆ 30. ANNO 1534.” The woman, of a very homely type of face, is
wearing a dark-brown and black dress, and a white head-dress, which
hides her hair and falls on her shoulders in the form of a cape. This
head-dress is identical with the one worn by the unknown lady in the
Windsor collection (Holmes No. 10), which Sir Richard Holmes thought
might be a portrait of “Mother Jack,” nurse to Edward VI. It is
inscribed: “ETATIS SVÆ 28. ANNO 1534.” Both portraits have now a very
dark blue-green background with a small circular ring of gold round the
outer edge. The two are evidently husband and wife, and the latter has
more the appearance of a German than an Englishwoman. It may be
suggested, therefore, though with diffidence, that it is not impossible
that these two small portraits represent Susanna Hornebolt and her
husband, John Parker, the King’s bowman and a yeoman of the robes. Dürer
speaks of Susanna as being “about eighteen” in 1521, which does not
quite tally with the age of the sitter in the Vienna roundel, who was
twenty-eight in 1834, but it is again not impossible that Dürer imagined
the young lady to be two or three years older than she was in reality.
Dr. Ganz draws attention to the close likeness between this portrait and
the one of an unknown man, also a small roundel, in the possession of
Herr F. Engel-Gros, at Château de Ripaille near Thonon,[149] which he
reproduces for the first time. The sitter is clean-shaven, facing
three-quarters to the right, with a small flat red cap, elaborate black
and white Spanish work on his shirt collar, and a red livery coat, lined
with blue, with black bands and the initials “H. R.” embroidered on it.
He considers him to be either a Netherlander or a German, and suggests
that he was possibly a painter in Henry VIII’s service. It may be
permitted to go a step further and to suggest that we have here a
portrait of Susanna’s brother, Lucas Hornebolt. It was first exhibited
in Basel in 1891, and nothing of its earlier history is known. It bears
no signature or date, but is evidently of the same period as the two
Vienna roundels. There is an excellent old copy on copper of this
roundel in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (No. 537),[150] in which,
however, the cap and coat are black, while no trace of the royal
initials on the latter can be discerned.
Footnote 148:
Woltmann, 256, 257. Reproduced in _Magazine of Art_, March 1897, p.
279; _Masterpieces of Holbein_ (Gowan’s Art Books, No. 13), pp. 46,
47; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 105.
Footnote 149:
Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 115. Purchased by the present owner
in Paris.
Footnote 150:
Reproduced in F. R. Earp’s _Descriptive Catalogue of the Pictures in
the Fitzwilliam Museum_, 1902, and in _The Principal Pictures in the
Fitzwilliam Museum_, Gowans & Gray, Ltd., 1913, p. 86.
Among the Windsor drawings there are three, two of them very fine, which
represent members of the Poyns or Poyntz family—John Poyns,[151] of
North Wokendon, Essex, a member of the royal household and one of Wyat’s
most intimate friends, in which the face is almost in profile to the
right, with the eyes turned upwards, and a small round black cap which
only covers the hair in part; and two of Nicholas Poyntz, of the
Gloucestershire branch of the family.[152] Both are inscribed “N. Poines
Knight,” and they are generally regarded as portraits of a father and
son, and are described as Sir Nicholas Poyntz the Elder, and Sir
Nicholas Poyntz the Younger. In the one he is represented almost
full-face, with beard and bare head, a free drawing without the black
lines, and somewhat rubbed. The other is a small head in profile to the
left, with a short beard and moustache, wearing a round cap with white
feather, and a gold chain on his shoulders. There seems to be no great
difference between the ages of the two, and as Nicholas Poyntz’s father
was named Anthony, probably the inscription on the first-named drawing
is incorrect, and the sitter is not a member of this family. There are
various portraits based upon the second drawing, all apparently
contemporary copies of a lost original.[153] One of them was lent by the
Marquis of Bristol to the Tudor Exhibition, 1890 (No. 79). It is a
life-size portrait, half-length, in a black dress, on panel, 24 × 17 in.
Another is described by Woltmann, who saw it in the possession of the
Marquis de la Rosière in Paris.[154] It was photographed by Braun, but
since then has disappeared. It agrees with the drawing and Lord
Bristol’s picture. Both are inscribed on the right-hand side of the blue
background:—“ETATIS SVÆ 25. ANNO 1535,” and above, a three-lined French
motto—“IE OBAIS A QVI IE DOIS. IE SERS A QVI ME PLAIST. ET SVIS A QVI ME
MERITE.” Woltmann regarded the Paris example as a fine and genuine work
by Holbein,[155] but it is only an old copy. There is another in the
possession of Lord Spencer at Althorp. Wornum notes a miniature on
vellum, with a plain blue background, then in the possession of Mr. R.
S. Holford, of Dorchester House, which corresponds with the Windsor
drawing.[156] Sir Nicholas Poyntz was the eldest son of Anthony Poyntz,
of Iron Acton, Gloucestershire, and Elizabeth, daughter and heir of
William Hudson, of Devonshire. He does not appear to have held any
office in connection with the Court. He married Joan, daughter of
Thomas, Lord Berkeley, and died in 1557.
Footnote 151:
Woltmann, 301; Wornum, i. 9; Holmes, i. 47. Reproduced by Davies, p.
220; and in _Drawings of Hans Holbein_ (Newnes), Pl. xx. A fine head
of “John Poines,” on a reddish ground, was in the recently dispersed
collection of Mr. J. P. Heseltine.
Footnote 152:
Woltmann, 299, 300; Wornum, i. 19, 36; Holmes, i. 37, ii. 26;
reproduced in _Drawings of Hans Holbein_, Pl. xxii. xxv.
Footnote 153:
This original is in Lord Harrowby's collection. See Appendix (K).
Footnote 154:
Woltmann, 239. Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 217. There was a
portrait of the “Cavaglier Points” in the Arundel Collection.
Footnote 155:
Woltmann, i. pp. 408-9.
Footnote 156:
Wornum, p. 404. It was included in the Exhibition of Miniatures held
at South Kensington in 1865, No. 763.
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF NICOLAS BOURBON]
Another portrait painted by Holbein in 1535 was that of the French poet,
Nicolas Bourbon de Vandœuvre, who was in England during that year.
Bourbon was court-poet to Francis I, but eventually fell into disgrace
owing to certain passages in his poems. In 1534 he was thrown into
prison, from which he was finally released through the intervention of
Henry VIII, whose interest in him had been aroused both by Anne Boleyn,
who had made his acquaintance during her residence at the French Court
in her younger days, and also by Henry’s physician, Dr. Butts. To show
his gratitude he came over to England in 1535, and found plenty of
employment in court circles as an instructor of youth. He returned to
France in 1536, leaving many friends behind him. While in London he
appears to have lodged with Cornelis Hayes, one of the chief goldsmiths
employed by the King. Among his more intimate friends were Kratzer and
Holbein, as may be gathered from a letter which he wrote after his
return to France to Thomas Solimar, the King’s secretary, in which he
says:—“I have yet to beg you to greet in my name as heartily as you can
all with whom you know me connected by intercourse and friendship: Mr.
Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury ... Mr. Cornelius Heyss, my
host, the King’s goldsmith; Mr. Nicolaus Kratzer, the King’s astronomer,
a man who is brimful of wit, jest, and humorous fancies; and Mr. Hans,
the royal painter, the Apelles of our time. I wish them from my heart
all joy and happiness!”[157]
Footnote 157:
Quoted by Woltmann, i. p. 404.
Bourbon held Holbein’s art in the greatest admiration, and more than one
reference to it, couched in terms of high praise, appears in his printed
works. The original study for the portrait Holbein painted of him is
among the Windsor drawings,[158] but the picture itself has disappeared.
In the sketch he is represented turned to the left, with a pen in his
hand, as though in the act of composing. He has a small beard, and wears
a black cap over his long hair, and looks thoughtfully in front of him,
the right arm and hand being only roughly indicated. It is inscribed
“Nicholas Borbonius Poeta,” and is a fine drawing, in excellent
condition, but some doubts have been expressed as to whether it really
represents the poet. Bourbon was delighted with the portrait Holbein
painted of him, and sings its praises in an epigram on the “incomparable
painter” Hans Holbein, which he published in his _Nugae_. It runs:
Footnote 158:
Woltmann, 311; Wornum, i. 30; Holmes, i. 54. Reproduced by Knackfuss,
fig. 123; _Drawings of Hans Holbein_, Pl. xxxv.
“Dum divina meos vultus mens exprimit Hansi,
Per tabulam docta præcipitante manu,
Ipsum et ego interea sic uno carmine pinxi:
Hansus me pingens major Apelle fuit.”
(“While the divine genius of Hans immortalises my features,
tracing them on the panel with skilful hand, I also have painted
him thus in verse; Hans, thus painting me, was greater than
Apelles.”)
Holbein made a smaller drawing of the portrait, which was produced as a
woodcut for the 1538 edition of Bourbon’s poems, the _Nugae_. In this
also the poet is engaged in writing, but the position is reversed. It is
inscribed “Nic. Borbonius Vandop. Anno Aetatis xxxii. 1535.” The
portrait is circular, within a square, the corners being filled in with
Renaissance ornament, and below two naked boys supporting a shield with
Bourbon’s coat of arms, a swan surmounted by a cross. On the last page
is printed the following:
“IN IMAGINEM SVI.
Corporis effigiem pictor saepe exprimit arte:
Forma animi nulla pingier arte potest.
Corpora corporeo mortalia lumine cernis,
O homo: noto Deus pectora solus habet.”
Both his friendship for Holbein and his admiration for his art find
expression in a further poem or epigram printed in the _Nugae_, headed
“In picturam Hansi regii apud Britannos pictoris et amici.” The verses
describe a miniature painting by Holbein:
“Sopitum in tabula puerum meus Hansus eburna
Pinxerat, et specie qua requiescit Amor:
Ut vidi, obstupui, Chaerintumque esse putavi,
Quo mihi res non est pectore chara magis
Accessi propius, mox saevis ignibus arsi;
Osculaque ut coepi figere, nemo fuit.”
(My Hans has painted on an ivory panel a slumbering boy, looking
like a reposing Cupid; I see him, I am astonished, I regard him
as Charintus, whom my heart loves most warmly; I approach
burning with passion, yet as I kiss him, it is only a
semblance.)
All traces of this miniature, which Bourbon extols so highly, have
disappeared. Two other laudatory references to Holbein occur in the
_Nugae_. In the 1538 edition, which was published in Lyon in the same
year as the “Dance of Death” cuts and the Old Testament illustrations,
the following lines have reference to the former designs:
“_De morte picta a Hanso pictore nobili._
Dum mortis Hansus pictor imaginem exprimit,
Tanta arte mortem retulit, ut mors vivere
Videatur ipsa: et ipse se immortalibus
Parem Diis fecerit operis huius gloria.”
(On the picture of Death by the noble painter Hans.
Painter Hans has expressed the image of Death with so much art,
that Death himself now seems a living being, and he by the glory
of his work has made himself the compeer of the immortal gods.)
[Sidenote: NICOLAS BOURBON AND HOLBEIN]
These verses read as though they were written to accompany the first
edition of the “Dance of Death” woodcuts, but for some reason were never
used. They are interesting, too, as containing the only contemporary
reference to Holbein as the actual designer of the series. In the same
edition occur the following lines:
“Videre qui vult Parrhasium cum Zeuxide,
Accersat a Britannia
Hansum Ulbium et Georgium Reperdium
Lugduno ab urbe Galliae.”
which may be paraphrased as—“Whoever wishes to see the painter equal to
Parrhasius or Zeuxis must call Hans Holbein from England and Georgius
Reperdius from the French town of Lyon.” Reperdius was the Italian
engraver Reverdino, about whom little is known, except that much of his
engraved work was after Primaticcio. The latter was working at
Fontainebleau at this period, and, if Bourbon is to be believed,
Reperdius was settled in Lyon, where the poet probably met him when
visiting that town for the purpose of making arrangements for the
republishing of his _Nugae_.
For the second edition of the “Old Testament” illustrations, published
in 1539, Bourbon furnished, as already noted,[159] a Latin poem in which
Holbein, as the designer of the woodcuts, is compared with and placed
above the greatest painters of antiquity. It describes a scene in
Elysium, in which the three great Greek painters, Apelles, Zeuxis and
Parrhasius appear:
Footnote 159:
See Vol. i. p. 227.
“Nuper in Elysio cum forte erraret Apelles
Una aderat Zeuxis, Parrhasiusque comes.”
Apelles breaks forth into a lament over the eclipse of their fame
brought about by Holbein, and exclaims:
“Holbius est homini nomen, qui nomina nostra
Obscura ex claris ac prope nulla facit.”
The verses are too long for quotation. Bourbon has added to them a Greek
distich, with its translation into Latin:
“Cernere vis, hospes, simulacra simillima vivis?
Hoc opus Holbinae nobile cerne manus.”
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 13
TITLE-PAGE OF COVERDALE’S BIBLE
1535
_From a copy in the British Museum_
]
No other portrait by Holbein can be definitely attributed to the year
1535. It was in this year that he lost two of his first English patrons,
and both on the scaffold—Sir Thomas More and Bishop Fisher, and his
distress must have been keen, more particularly over the death of the
former, who had done so much for him when he first arrived in London, a
practically unknown foreign painter, with no knowledge of the English
language. One other work of his, however, the design for the title-page
of Coverdale’s Bible, in the publication of which Thomas Cromwell was
greatly interested, was issued in this year, and possibly it was he who
placed the commission in Holbein’s hands. It is interesting to note that
Holbein, who illustrated the first translations of the Bible into German
in Switzerland, also supplied a design for its first complete rendering
into English, which was published under the title of “Biblia. The Bible,
that is, the holy Scripture of the Olde and New Testament, faithfully
and truly translated out of Douche and Latyn in to Englishe, M.D.XXV.”
This fine folio was printed in Zürich by Froschover, and no doubt
Holbein’s title-page[160] (Pl. 13) was also cut abroad, for there was no
one in England at that time capable of producing so excellent an
engraving. The design is divided into six little pictures which surround
the title. The one across the top contains the Fall and the Redemption;
on the left Adam and Eve stand under the Tree, and on the right Christ
rises from the tomb, triumphant over Death and Hell. On the left-hand
side of the page Moses is shown on Mount Sinai receiving the Tables of
the Law, and beneath him is a representation of Ezra reading the Old Law
to the Jews on their return from the Captivity. On the opposite side, in
the upper picture, Christ is sending forth His disciples into the world
to preach the gospel, and in the lower Paul is seen preaching. In the
panel across the bottom of the page Henry VIII is seated on his throne
under a canopy, with a sword of state in one hand and a Bible in the
other, which he presents to the high dignitaries of the Church and the
nobles of his Court, who kneel below him. On either side within arched
niches are the figures of King David playing the harp, and the Apostle
Paul. The King is represented with a beard, which became the fashion in
the year Coverdale’s Bible was published, but in facial likeness there
is little resemblance to Henry, due, possibly, to the fact that the
block was cut in Switzerland. The design, as a whole, is a particularly
fine and effective one, and has not suffered to any great extent from
the cutting, which is good, though not the handiwork of a Lützelburger.
Certain of the figures are of great beauty, in particular those of the
risen Christ, the Adam and Eve, and the Paul. The resemblance, in facial
type and movements, between the figure of the Saviour sending forth His
disciples to preach and the Christ in the “Noli me Tangere” picture at
Hampton Court, has been already noted.[161]
Footnote 160:
Woltmann, 237. Reproduced by Woltmann, i. dedication; Davies, p. 192.
Footnote 161:
See Vol. i. p. 97.
The few designs which Holbein made for woodcuts while in England appear
to have been all done at about this time, when the abuses of the Church
were being attacked most severely and the monasteries were being swept
away; though some of them were not actually published until some years
later. In them Holbein, just as he had done in his woodcuts produced in
Basel, in no way attempts to disguise his adherence to the reformed
religion. This feeling was shown very strongly in a series of twenty-two
small satirical drawings of the Passion which appear to have been
preserved in a little book, now unfortunately lost. At one time it was
in the possession of the Earl of Arundel, and was shown by him to
Sandrart as a work of Holbein’s. The latter mentions it in his _Teutsche
Akademie_, stating that each sheet was full of little figures of every
kind, that of the Redeemer always appearing under the form of a monk
attired in black. Sixteen of these designs were engraved in the
seventeenth century, no doubt while in the Arundel collection, and most
probably by Hollar, though they are unsigned and have not the customary
“Ex Collec. Arundell:” beneath them. In them “the enemies of Christ are
represented in the dress of monks and friars, and instead of weapons
they bear croziers, large candlesticks, and other church ornaments;
Judas appears as a capucin, Annas as a cardinal, and Caiaphas as a
bishop. In the subject of Christ’s Descent to Hades the gates are hung
with papal bulls and dispensations; above them are the Pope’s arms, and
the devil as keeper of the gate wears a triple crown.”[162]
Footnote 162:
Chatto, _Treatise on Wood Engraving_, p. 378, note. Described more
fully by Woltmann, i. 395-7. See also Walpole, _Anecdotes_, ed.
Wornum, i. p. 98.
Woltmann describes a second title-page, very finely cut, which he
considers to have been produced during Holbein’s sojourn in England. So
far it has not been discovered in any published book, but there is a
fine proof of it in the Munich Print Room. On either side stand St.
Peter and St. Paul, the latter pointing upwards, two tall slender
figures. They appear as pillars of the church, and are represented as
supporting the blank title itself, which is in the form of a paper
scroll. In an arch above is Christ risen from the Tomb, trampling upon
Death and Satan, and below are the arms of Henry VIII supported by two
heraldic beasts.[163]
Footnote 163:
Woltmann, 238.
Something of the same satirical feeling shown in the lost drawings of
the Passion is to be seen in two or three small woodcuts of this
period, which, from the inferiority of the cutting, were very probably
produced in England. Two of them appeared among the twenty-six little
cuts in _Cranmer’s Catechism_, a small octavo volume published in
1548, the full title being, “Catechismus, that is to say, a shorte
instruction into Christian religion for the singular commoditie and
profyte of childrē and yong people. Set forth by the mooste reverende
father in God, Thomas Archbyshop of Canterbury, primate of all
Englande and Metropolitane.—Gualterus Lynne excudebat, 1548.” The
first of Holbein’s two small pictures (folio CL) represents the
parable of the Pharisee and the Publican,[164] the scene taking place
in a church, with the Pharisee as a monk, kneeling at an altar, whom
Christ points out to His disciples, while the Publican stands with
head bent in front of them. On the edge of a book on the altar steps
are the initials “H. H.” The subject of the second cut (folio CCI) is
Christ casting out the Devil from the possessed man,[165] which, in
spite of the unsatisfactory cutting, is very dramatic and retains much
of the beauty and individuality of Holbein’s design. The Pharisees and
others who stand behind are represented as bishops, monks and priests.
It is signed in full “HANS HOLBEN.” A third woodcut, very similar to
these, but still more feeble in execution, represents Christ as the
Good Shepherd,[166] surrounded by His disciples, and pointing to the
“hired servant,” here again dressed as a monk, who is flying before
the wolf which scatters his frightened flock. This also is signed in
full “HANS HOLBEIN.” It appears in a small English pamphlet, “A lytle
treatise after the manner of an Epystle, wryten by the famous clerk
Doctor Vrbanus Regius,” which was also published by Walter Lynne, in
the same year, 1548, as the Catechism.
Footnote 164:
Woltmann, 198. Reproduced by Chatto, p. 380; and in _Hans Holbein_
(Great Engravers Series), ed. A. M. Hind.
Footnote 165:
Woltmann, 199. Reproduced by Woltmann, i. p. 391; Chatto, p. 381;
Wornum, p. 191; and in _Hans Holbein_ (Great Engravers Series), ed. A.
M. Hind.
Footnote 166:
Woltmann, 200. Reproduced by Woltmann, i. p. 399.
A third, and more important, publication of 1548, _Hall’s Chronicle_,
contains a large folio woodcut representing King Henry VIII in
Council,[167] which Woltmann regarded as undoubtedly of Holbein’s
design. The scene takes place in a magnificent chamber hung with
tapestries, with the King, his legs apart in his characteristic
attitude, seated on a throne beneath a baldachin bearing his arms. He is
surrounded by his councillors, twenty-seven in number, some listening,
others lost in thought, and others again whispering among themselves.
The cutting is excellent, and was probably done in Switzerland. The
socle with the framework enclosing the inscription “King Henry the
eyght,” and the two supporting sirens, are almost identical with the
socle and supports in the beautiful woodcut of Erasmus with the figure
of Terminus already described. These, with the small portraits of Wyat
and Bourbon, and the “Charitas” device for Reinhold Wolfe, constitute
almost the whole of Holbein’s work as a book-illustrator while in
England.
Footnote 167:
Woltmann, 210. Reproduced by Dibdin, _Typographical Antiquities_, vol.
iii. It bears the engraver’s initials, “I. F.,” possibly Faber.
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF SIR THOMAS WYAT]
There are several undated portraits and studies for portraits which must
have been produced between the years 1535 and 1537, among them the
likeness of Sir Thomas Wyat, the famous poet and courtier, whose father,
Sir Henry Wyat, had been painted by Holbein during his first English
visit. Wyat was about the Court during the period under discussion; a
few years later he was often absent from England on foreign embassies.
There is a study for his portrait among the Windsor drawings (Pl.
14)[168] which is one of the finest in the collection, though
considerably rubbed and stained, and also a good, possibly contemporary,
copy.[169] He is represented nearly full-face, wearing a cap, and with a
long flowing beard, both hair and beard being modelled with the brush.
The portrait which must have been painted from this singularly
attractive study is not now known to exist; a small painting in oils
corresponding to the drawing, but not by Holbein, was exhibited by Mr.
Bruce at the National Portrait Exhibition in 1866. A second portrait of
Sir Thomas was drawn by Holbein at a somewhat later date, which was
reproduced as a woodcut, shortly after the poet’s death, in the little
book entitled _Næniæ in Mortem Thomæ Viati Equitis Incomparabilis_,
written by John Leland, the antiquary, in honour of his memory, and
published in 1542. The portrait,[170] which is a small roundel in the
style of the circular portraits in wax or boxwood which were at that
time much in vogue, may have been drawn by Holbein himself on the block.
The engraving itself is somewhat crudely done, but was, no doubt, the
best that could be procured at that time in London; yet in spite of its
roughness the little portrait is a true likeness, full of character,
such as no one in England but Holbein could have produced. Wyat is
represented almost in profile to the right, with a long beard and a high
bare forehead, bearing out Leland’s description in his panegyric that
“nature had given the youth dark auburn hair, but this gradually
disappeared and left him bald, but the thick forest of his flowing beard
increased more and more.” The neck is bare, and bounded by a slight
drapery in the classical manner, giving it the appearance of a
medallion. Underneath the woodcut, which is printed on the reverse of
the title, are the following lines in praise of both painter and poet:
Footnote 168:
Woltmann, 289; Wornum, i. 18; Holmes, i. 32. Reproduced by Knackfuss
fig. 139, and elsewhere.
Footnote 169:
Woltmann, 290; Wornum, i. 40; Holmes, not numbered.
Footnote 170:
Woltmann, 209; reproduced by him, i. 364.
“_In Effigiem Thomæ Viati._
“Holbenus nitida pingendi Maximus arte
Effigiem expressit graphice; sed nullus Apelles
Exprimet ingenium felix animumque Viati.”
(Holbein, the greatest in the magnificent art of painting, has
sketched this portrait, yet no Apelles can express in painting
Wyat’s mind and happy genius.)
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 14
SIR THOMAS WYAT
_Drawing in black and coloured chalks_
WINDSOR CASTLE
]
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF SIR THOMAS WYAT]
The drawing, no doubt, was made by Holbein on purpose for the book, but
whether it was an original study from memory, or was based on a portrait
of Wyat he had painted some little time previously, is uncertain.
Several circular oil paintings exist which are either founded upon the
_Næniæ_ woodcut, or are contemporary copies of a portrait by Holbein
which cannot now be traced. The latter is the more probable supposition,
as in all the paintings the head is turned to the left, whereas in the
woodcut it faces to the right, not having been reversed when drawn on
the block. One of these versions, formerly in the collection of the
Marquis of Hastings, who lent it to the National Portrait Exhibition,
1866, is now in the National Portrait Gallery (No. 1035);[171] a second,
apparently a copy from the former, is in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
This latter was in the Tudor Exhibition, 1890 (No. 169), the Oxford
Exhibition of Historical Portraits, 1904 (No. 24), and the Burlington
Fine Arts Club Exhibition, 1909 (No. 50). It is a bust, three-quarters
to left, with dark hair, beard, and moustache, and bald forehead, red
drapery round the shoulders, and a plain brown background; and is
inscribed “SYR·THOMAS·WYAT.” A smaller circular portrait, also on an oak
panel, belonging to the Countess of Romney, showing Wyat in the same
position, but dressed in the costume of his day, with a black coat lined
with white fur, is attributed to Lucas Cornelisz.[172] It is inscribed,
“Sir Thomas Wiat. B.1503. D.1541. Lucas Cornelii,” but this is of a
later period than the painting, and the date of Wyat’s death is given
wrongly. The head is in the same position as in the _Næniæ_ woodcut. On
the back of this portrait was at one time another panel, which now hangs
by it in Lady Romney’s collection, representing Wyat’s “Maze,” and
painted as a record of an amusing incident in his diplomatic mission to
Italy in 1527. In the centre of the maze is shown a falling centaur with
the Pope’s triple crown on his head. There was a portrait of a Wyat in
the Arundel collection (_il ritratto del Cavaglier Wyat_), but whether
this was one of Sir Thomas, or the one of his father, now in the Louvre,
is uncertain.
Footnote 171:
Reproduced in Mr. Cust’s illustrated catalogue of National Portrait
Gallery, vol. i. p. 20.
Footnote 172:
Reproduced in _Burlington Magazine_, vol. xvi., December 1909, p. 155.
There are two very similar circular portraits in existence of Wyat’s
son, Sir Thomas Wyat, the younger, which bear so strong a likeness to
the portraits of his father that at first sight they appear to have been
painted from the same original. One of them was lent to the Burlington
Fine Arts Club, 1909 (No. 48), by the Rt. Hon. Lewis Fry, and the other
belongs to Lady Romney.[173] He is shown in profile, to the left,
looking upwards, the neck cut off at the beginning of the shoulders, as
in the portraits of his father, and wearing a slight, light brown
moustache, pointed beard, and short hair. Lady Romney’s version is of
the same size as the Cornelisz portrait, while Mr. Fry’s more nearly
approaches that of the National Portrait Gallery and Oxford portraits of
his father. Mr. Fry’s panel was once in the collection of Charles I,
having his brand on the back, and it is possibly the portrait which was
in the possession of John, Lord Lumley, in 1590. The “classical”
treatment followed in the cutting short of the bare neck has led to the
erroneous supposition that the portrait has reference to Wyat’s
decapitation in 1554 for rebellion against Queen Mary. It is possible
that these portraits of the younger Wyat are based on a lost original by
Holbein. He was born in 1521, so that he would have been twenty-two at
the time of Holbein’s death. Mr. Roger E. Fry sees in Mr. Lewis Fry’s
version a predominant Flemish influence. “It remains,” he says, “one of
the most inscrutable riddles of the exhibition. It is a work of such
great technical excellence that its authorship ought to be discoverable.
It seems probable that it was painted in England and from life.”[174]
Footnote 173:
Both reproduced in _Burlington Magazine_, vol. xvi., December 1909, p.
158; and the former in the illustrated edition of the Exhibition
Catalogue, Pl. xvi.
Footnote 174:
_Burlington Magazine_, vol. xv., May 1909, p. 75.
The very interesting and beautiful portrait of a lady lent by Major
Charles Palmer to the Royal Academy Winter Exhibition, 1907 (No. 13),
and to the Burlington Fine Arts Club, 1909 (No. 64) (Pl. 15),[175] is
now identified, with some degree of certainty, as a portrait of Sir
Thomas Wyat the elder’s sister, Margaret Wyat, Lady Lee. This
identification is based upon an enlarged version of the portrait in the
possession of Viscount Dillon at Ditchley, Oxfordshire, which, according
to family tradition, is said to represent that lady, who was the wife of
Sir Anthony Lee, and the mother of Sir Henry Lee, K.G. She is shown at
three-quarters length, three-quarters to the left. Her hair, of reddish
gold, is almost hidden by her black and white French hood decorated with
a band of pearls arranged in groups of four, alternating with small
panels of gold filigree work. Her dress is of dark-brown damask, puffed
at the shoulders, and ornamented with numerous gold tags or points, and
a rose-coloured petticoat. Her hands are clasped in front of her, and
she holds by a short ribbon a circular gold medallion on which is a
figure of Lucrece above a dark oblong stone. On her right hand are two
signet rings, one with a red and one with a dark stone. The dress, open
at the neck, shows a white collar or lining, and white ruffles cover her
wrists. A rose in red enamel is at her breast, and a gold chain round
her neck. Across the plain dark green background is inscribed,
“ETATIS·SVÆ·34.” It is on panel, 16½ in. × 12½ in. Her long, very sharp
nose resembles that of her brother, and her complexion is of a somewhat
unpleasant reddish tone. The drawing of the face, and particularly of
the hands, is very delicate. It is now in the Collection of Mr. Benjamin
Altman, New York.
Footnote 175:
Reproduced in _Burlington Magazine_, vol. xv., June 1909,
frontispiece; illustrated catalogue of Burlington Fine Arts Club
Exhibition, Pl. xxii.; and Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 143.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 15 PORTRAIT OF A LADY
(Probably Margaret Wyat, Lady Lee)
UNTIL RECENTLY IN THE COLLECTION OF MAJOR CHARLES PALMER, NOW IN THAT
OF MR. BENJAMIN ALTMAN, NEW YORK
]
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF MARGARET WYAT, LADY LEE]
Opinion, so far, is divided as to whether this fine work is by Holbein
or not. The first impression received is that it is certainly not by
him, from the flatness of the modelling of the face, a certain hardness
in the execution, and the rather unpleasant red tone of the complexion;
but further examination considerably modifies this opinion. It is
difficult, if the attribution to Holbein is rejected, to suggest the
name of any other artist then practising in England, who possessed the
ability to produce a portrait as fine and as remarkable as this one is.
To Sir Martin Conway “it appears to be obviously and all over
Holbein.”[176] Mr. Roger E. Fry says that “opinion is so divided that it
would be rash to dogmatize. The picture is in wonderful condition and is
entirely in Holbein’s manner. Indeed, it must in any case be derived
directly from a drawing by Holbein. The only question to be settled is
whether the master himself ever became so entirely the craftsman
absorbed in the technical perfection of his work to the exclusion of the
larger issues of expression; whether he could have ever so far lost his
sense of relief, treated line so entirely as a matter of edge with so
little sense of the mass it should define. Such questions can only be
decided by a gradual consensus of opinion. My own belief is that it will
be decided ultimately against Holbein’s having actually executed the
painting, though I am bound to admit no other known imitator comes as
near to Holbein himself as does the author of this.”[177] Dr. Ganz
regards it as a genuine work by Holbein, and dates it 1540, drawing
attention to the similarity of the enamelled rose fastened to her dress
to the one worn by Lady Butts, who was painted by Holbein at about that
date.[178] It will be seen that the critics are divided; and it is
certainly by no means easy to arrive at a definite conclusion. It is
interesting to note, as a minor point, that the gold tags with which
Lady Lee’s dress is decorated are very similar to those on the surcoat
of Sir Thomas Wyat in the Lucas Cornelisz portrait, and are arranged in
much the same manner.
Footnote 176:
_Burlington Magazine_, vol. xvi., December 1909, p. 159.
Footnote 177:
_Ibid._, vol. xv., May 1909, pp. 74-5.
Footnote 178:
See Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 245.
The dated portraits of the year 1536 are only three, one of which, the
Steelyard merchant, Derich Berck, has been already described.[179] The
second is the portrait of Sir Richard Southwell in the Uffizi Gallery,
Florence (Pl. 16),[180] of which there is an excellent replica in the
Louvre. It was finished on the 10th July 1536, when Southwell was
thirty-three years old. It is a small half-length figure, the face
three-quarters to the right, wearing a black dress, open at the neck,
with black satin sleeves, and a black cap with a circular gold medallion
with a negro’s head carved in cornelian. His hands are folded, and he is
wearing a gold ring with a green stone, and a gold chain round his neck.
He is closely shaven, and his black hair, which partly covers his ears,
is cut straight across the forehead. Across the plain dark green
background is inscribed on either side of the head in gold lettering:
Footnote 179:
See pp. 22-23.
Footnote 180:
Woltmann, 149. Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 108.
“· X^O · IVLII · ANNO ETATIS · SVÆ
· H · VIII · XXVIII ANNO XXXIII.”
It is on an oak panel about 19 in. high × 14 in. wide. This is one of
Holbein’s finest portraits of his second English period, and displays a
very subtle insight into what must have been an unattractive and in many
ways despicable nature. The small brown eyes have a look of cunning, and
the face with its smooth fat cheeks has few pretensions to comeliness.
Southwell was heir to great wealth, and was brought up with Henry
Howard, Earl of Surrey, and was intimate with the family of the Duke of
Norfolk. In 1531 he was obliged to pay a fine of £1000 before he could
obtain pardon for being concerned in a murder, yet three years later he
was Sheriff of Norfolk. From 1535 onwards he took an active share in the
dissolution of the monasteries, and was in all ways a willing and able
tool of his royal master. His treachery helped to bring Sir Thomas More
to the scaffold, and, later on, he played an even more treacherous part
at the trial of his early companion, the Earl of Surrey. He was knighted
in 1542, and appointed one of the King’s executors, and under Queen
Elizabeth he became Master of Ordnance. Something of his unsavoury
character is suggested by Holbein in his portrait, which is
distinguished by its remarkable individuality and its fine technical
qualities both in the flesh painting, more particularly in the hands and
the eyes, and in all the details of the costume. Nothing is known of the
history of the picture except that it belonged to the Earl of Arundel,
who presented it to Cosimo II, Grand Duke of Tuscany, in 1620,[181] as
one of the best Holbeins in his collection. It is still in its
seventeenth-century frame, with a silver tablet engraved with the arms
of England and the Medici, and an inscription, “Effigies domini Ricardi
Southwelli Equitis aurati, consiliarii privati Henrici VIII, Regis
Angliae.—Opus celeberrimi artificis Johannis Holbieni pictoris Regis
Henrici VIII.”
Footnote 181:
See _Rivista d’Arte_, vi. 5, 6, 1909.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 16
SIR RICHARD SOUTHWELL
1536
UFFIZI GALLERY, FLORENCE
]
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF SIR RICHARD SOUTHWELL]
The replica in the Louvre (No. 2719)[182] corresponds in all its details
with the Florence picture, and appears to be only a good old copy. It
has on the back the seal of the Newton family, and was brought by
Napoleon from Germany in 1806. Another copy was lent to the National
Portrait Exhibition at South Kensington, 1866, by Mr. H. E. Chetwynd
Stapylton. A portrait of Southwell, apparently based on Holbein’s
picture, was lent to the Tudor Exhibition, 1890 (No. 217), by Mr. W. H.
Romaine Walker. In this version Southwell’s coat of arms and the
inscription “Copley Stili” are on the right-hand side of the background,
and on the left “Richd. Southwell of Horsham St. Faith’s in Norfolk
ÆT.95.” The age in this inscription is altogether wrong, for Southwell
was fifty-seven at his death in 1561.
Footnote 182:
Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 218.
Holbein’s study for the portrait is one of the most remarkable among the
Windsor drawings.[183] The head and shoulders only are shown, but
otherwise it is almost identical with the Uffizi panel; even the four
black buttons which stand out against the white shirt are indicated in
the same position as in the finished work. It is inscribed “[A]NNO
ETTATIS SVÆ 33,” and bears the note in Holbein’s own handwriting, “die
augen ein wenig gelbass” (the eyes a little yellowish). This study,
which is about 16 in. × 11 in., is in excellent condition.
Footnote 183:
Woltmann, 304; Wornum, i. 20; Holmes, i. 34. Reproduced by Davies, p.
180; Ganz, _Hdz. von H. H. dem Jüng._, Pl. 37; _Drawings of Hans
Holbein_, Pl. xlvi; and elsewhere.
The third portrait of 1536 represents Sir Thomas le Strange. It is on
panel, 15¼ × 10½ in., and was exhibited at the Tudor Exhibition, 1890
(No. 113), and at the Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition, 1909 (No.
41), lent by Mr. Hamon le Strange.[184] It is a bust portrait,
three-quarters to the left. The sitter has greyish hair cut straight
across the forehead, and a short brown beard and moustache. His black
cap has a number of gold tags and a medallion, and he wears a gown with
a brown fur collar over a black dress, a pleated white collar from which
long tags hang down, and a long gold chain over his shoulders. Across
the top, on the green-blue background, is the repainted inscription
“ANNO D^E 1536 ÆTATIS SVÆ 43.” It has suffered considerable repainting
about the face, but it is a picture of much interest, and since it was
last exhibited has been acknowledged by most of the leading critics to
be a genuine work by Holbein. The original drawing for this picture,
which shows some slight differences, is in the Windsor collection.[185]
Sir Thomas Strange or le Strange, of Hunstanton, Norfolk, was born in
1493, and entered the service of Henry VIII as esquire of the body, was
knighted, and accompanied the king to the Field of the Cloth of Gold. He
was High Sheriff of Norfolk in 1532, and died in 1545.
Footnote 184:
Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 109, and in the illustrated
catalogue of the Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition, Pl. xii.
Footnote 185:
Woltmann, 294; Wornum, i. 32; Holmes, ii. 6.
A small, undated bust portrait of Lady Vaux, wife of Thomas, second Lord
Vaux, of Harrowden, the poet, has every appearance of belonging to this
period. There are two versions of it, one in the Prague Gallery (No.
608),[186] and one at Hampton Court (No. 591 (337)).[187] Dr. Ganz
regards both as old copies, but Sir Claude Phillips considers the former
to be the original work by Holbein, and A. von Zahn says that it is
indubitably original, but has suffered so severely and has been so
heavily over-painted that little of Holbein’s handiwork is left. The
Hampton Court version is the better of the two, and is apparently an
excellent copy, though in technique of a somewhat later date.[188] It
has been held, nevertheless, by most English writers to be a genuine but
badly-damaged work of Holbein. The head has been repainted, which gives
it that faded appearance noted by Mr. Wornum[189] and Dr. Waagen,[190]
though the latter attributed it to “the attempt to give the refinements
of the modelling in grey half-tones,” in doing which Holbein “sacrificed
the warm local colours observable in his earlier pictures.” On the other
hand, many of the accessories, such as the gold-and-enamel medallion,
the chain round her neck, the ring, and the cuffs, display a delicacy of
execution not easily attributable to anyone but Holbein. She is
represented to the waist, almost full-face, the body turned slightly to
the spectator’s left, and is dressed in black, with ermine upon the
sleeves, and the customary diamond-shaped hood, edged with pearls, and
with a black fall. She wears a thin black chain round her neck, and at
her breast a circular brooch with a figure of the Virgin enthroned. Her
hands rest in her lap, and in her right she holds a pink. It is on
panel, 1 ft. 3 in. high by 11¼ in. wide. Mr. Law suggests that it is
identical with “The picture of Madame de Vaux, by Holbein,” which was
among the Duke of Buckingham’s pictures sent to be sold at Antwerp,
whence it presumably returned with the “Dutch Gift,” and may, perhaps,
be identified with No. 410 in James I’s catalogue, described as “One of
King Henry VIII’s Queens, holding a gillyflower.”[191] There is a study
for the head among the Windsor drawings,[192] in which the strengthening
lines are exceptionally hard and pronounced, and mar an otherwise fine
drawing. Holbein also painted her husband, though the picture has been
lost, but the very beautiful drawing for it, described in a later
chapter,[193] remains at Windsor. There is a second study of Lord Vaux
by Holbein in the same collection.
Footnote 186:
Woltmann, 243. Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 220.
Footnote 187:
Woltmann, 163. Reproduced by Law, _Royal Gallery of Hampton Court_, p.
212; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 221.
Footnote 188:
See Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 252.
Footnote 189:
Wornum, p. 411.
Footnote 190:
_Treasures of Art in Great Britain_, vol. ii. p. 361.
Footnote 191:
Law, _Royal Gallery of Hampton Court_, p. 213.
Footnote 192:
Woltmann, 321; Wornum, ii. 30; Holmes, i. 24. Reproduced by Davies, p.
218; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. xxxvii.; and elsewhere.
Footnote 193:
See p. 257. See also pp. 52-53 with reference to the “Portrait of a
Musician” at one time considered to represent Lord Vaux.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 17
SIR NICHOLAS CAREW
_Drawing in black and coloured chalks_
BASEL GALLERY
]
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF SIR NICHOLAS CAREW]
The portrait of Sir Nicholas Carew, Henry’s Master of the Horse, was
probably painted during the earlier years of Holbein’s second residence
in London. It could not have been done later than 1537, for in 1538
Carew was thrown into prison for supposed connection with the conspiracy
of Cardinal Pole and the Marquis of Exeter, and was beheaded on March
3rd, 1539. There is a brilliant study for this portrait in the Basel
Gallery (Pl. 17), a drawing in black and coloured chalks.[194] He is
wearing body armour, and has a short beard and moustache; his hair is
concealed by a close-fitting coif, and there are an octagonal medallion
and a white feather in his black cap. It is one of the most masterly
drawings Holbein ever made, searching in its truth, and of exact and
delicate draughtsmanship.[195] As it was included among the collection
of works by Holbein formed by his friend and admirer, Bonifacius
Amerbach, it may have been presented to the latter by the artist himself
when he was in Basel in 1538.
Footnote 194:
Woltmann, 31. Reproduced by Davies, p. 212; Ganz, _Hdz. Schwz. Mstr._,
iii. 40, and _Holbein_, p. xxxiii. Dr. Ganz is of the opinion that
this drawing is of Holbein’s first English period, and that the
finished portrait was painted in 1527 or 1528. See _Holbein_, p. 238.
Footnote 195:
It has been suggested that the fine drawing of an English lady in the
same collection is a portrait of Lady Carew, but it more probably
represents Lady Guldeford. See Vol. i. p. 321.
The oil painting done from this study is in the collection of the Duke
of Buccleuch and Queensberry, K.G.,[196] and was last publicly exhibited
at the Burlington Fine Arts Club in 1909 (No. 45). It is a
three-quarters length, turned to the left as in the drawing. The beard
is brown, and the coif below the black hat is of cloth of gold. The
octagonal gold badge represents a tree stem raguly and a banderole
inscribed “SOLA.” He is wearing full plate-armour, and brown trunks
slashed with cloth of gold. With his right hand he holds a white
truncheon against his hip, and with the other grasps his sword by the
scabbard. The background is a green damask curtain, and on a small
cartellino in the left-hand bottom corner is inscribed in a cursive hand
“SR NICHOLAS CAREWE, MASTER OF THE HORSE TO KING HENRY YE 8.” It is on a
panel of unusual shape, being 36 in. high by 40 in. wide. This picture,
as a whole, is a fine and interesting example of Tudor portraiture, but
parts of it are certainly not by Holbein. The head is good, but the
armour and many of the details are by some other, and possibly a later,
hand. The probabilities are that it was begun by Holbein and finished by
someone else; perhaps the arrest of Carew may have brought the
completion of the work to an abrupt conclusion as far as Holbein was
concerned. The fact that his name is given on the cartellino suggests
that the portrait may be a posthumous one. It was not the usual custom
at that time to place more than the date and the age of the person
depicted upon the panel. Except in the form of a superscription to a
letter held by the sitter, as in the Kratzer, Cromwell, and some of the
Steelyard portraits, Holbein was not in the habit of adding the name to
the pictures he painted in England. The “Duchess of Milan” is an
exception,[197] but even here there is every probability that the
cartellino was painted in at a later date. It is difficult to decide
whether the Carew portrait was begun by Holbein and finished by some
other hand, or whether it is an almost contemporary copy from some lost
original. The head follows the Basel drawing closely, but as the latter
was owned by Amerbach it is improbable that a copyist could have made
use of it; so that, taking all things into consideration, it is safer to
assume that Holbein himself had a share in its painting.[198] This
portrait was in the possession of John, Lord Lumley, in 1590, and was
sold from Lumley Castle in 1785 for ten guineas. In the inventory of
1590 it is described as “Of S^r Nichls Carewe M^r of the horse to
K:H:8”; and it is interesting to note that the words “drawne by Haunce
Holbyn” are not added, as they are after several other works by the
master which Lord Lumley possessed. It has been suggested that this
portrait is the “Ritratto d’homo armato” of the Arundel inventory of
1655, but if the picture remained in the possession of the Lumley family
until 1785 this supposition cannot be correct. Symonds, in his
Note-Books, has an entry of “A Ritratto of an English knight by Holbein
who sits in a chayre and a table by him,” in the collection of the Earl
of Northumberland in Suffolk House, which seems to refer to this
picture.[199]
Footnote 196:
Woltmann, 142. Reproduced in illustrated catalogue of Burlington Fine
Arts Club Exhibition, 1909, Pl. xv.; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 77.
Footnote 197:
Also the Cheseman portrait.
Footnote 198:
Dr. Ganz, as already noted, considers it to be a genuine work of
1527-8.
Footnote 199:
Quoted by Mr. C. H. Collins Baker in _Lely and the Stuart Portrait
Painters_, Vol. ii. p. 184.
------------------------------------------------------------------------