THE DUCHESS OF MILAN
Search for a queen to succeed Jane Seymour—Negotiations in France and
Brussels—The Duchess of Milan—Hutton’s description of her—Her portrait
by some unknown Netherland painter—Philip Hoby sent over with Holbein
to obtain her portrait—Cromwell’s instructions to them—Hutton’s letter
describing their visit—The small oil painting at Windsor—Description
of the picture in the National Gallery—Continuation and final failure
of the marriage negotiations—History of the picture—Purchased for the
English nation by the National Art-Collections Fund for
£72,000—Portrait of the Duchess as a child by Mabuse.
ON the very day of Jane Seymour’s death, the King and his Council began,
with almost indecent haste, their search throughout the Courts of Europe
for a new queen to fill her place. Henry’s ambassadors and agents were
instructed to make discreet inquiries as to suitable candidates, and
before the close of the year a number of names had been submitted to him
for his consideration. In spite of this unseemly expedition, however,
nearly two years were to elapse before the final choice was made, for it
was not until the very end of 1539 that Anne of Cleves came to England
as Henry’s fourth queen. Throughout the whole of 1538 marriage
negotiations, which in the end proved fruitless, were carried on
simultaneously with Francis I and the Emperor Charles V. Though Henry
was anxious to marry again, in order that the succession, which rested
on the precarious life of one infant Prince, might be made more assured,
yet his search for a bride both in France and in Imperial circles at one
and the same time was undertaken quite as much for political as for
matrimonial reasons. It was his main object at that time to prevent any
close understanding between his two rivals. With Charles and Francis
united, and Europe at peace, there was nothing to prevent a coalition
against England and an enforcement of the papal excommunication of Henry
by force of arms. By playing off one monarch against the other with the
bait of a proffered matrimonial alliance he hoped to keep the two apart,
and by such means ensure the security of his throne, and be at liberty
to continue the severe methods by which he sought to maintain his
supremacy as self-appointed head of the English Church.
[Sidenote: SEARCH FOR A FOURTH QUEEN]
In the course of these negotiations quite a number of ladies were
suggested, and in most, if not in all, cases, portraits of them were
procured for Henry’s inspection. In some instances he sent his own
painter for the purpose; in others, what may be termed “official”
portraits, painted by foreigners, were forwarded to England by his
ambassadors abroad. Of these portraits, two—those of the Duchess of
Milan and of the Princess Anne of Cleves—were painted by Holbein, who
was despatched to Brussels and to Düren in order to take their
likenesses; but the authorship of the others is less certain, and as the
portraits themselves cannot now be traced, it is difficult, if not
impossible, to arrive at any final conclusion respecting them. There is
much probability, however, amounting in two instances almost to
certainty, that Holbein made other special journeys, in addition to the
two just mentioned, for the purpose of painting ladies who had been
reported to the King as beautiful or desirable. These journeys were to
France, and solve, in the writer’s opinion, the mysterious journey to
Upper Burgundy; but as the negotiations for a French marriage were
running concurrently with those for the hand of the Duchess of Milan, it
will be better, in order to avoid confusion, to deal separately with
each of these proposed alliances, and the various portraits to which
they gave rise. For this reason the present chapter is concerned with
Holbein’s painting of the Duchess, while in the following one evidence
is brought forward which indicates that he also received orders from the
King to take the likenesses of several high-born ladies of France.
Shortly after the imposing funeral ceremonies of Queen Jane Seymour,
Cromwell wrote to John Hutton, the English agent in Brussels at the
court of the Regent of the Netherlands, Queen Mary of Hungary, the
Emperor’s sister, to ask him to make secret inquiries as to suitable
brides for the King, and in Hutton’s reply, dated December 4, 1537,
occurs the first mention of the Duchess of Milan as a possible Queen of
England. Hutton wrote:
“Uppon the recept of your letters addressid unto me by this
berrar, I have made as myche secret sherche as the tyme wold
permyt. The which, albeit had byn of lengar contenewance, I cold
not perceve that anny sherche cold have found wone soo notable a
personage as were meit to be lykynd to that noble Raynge. In the
Court ther is wayttyng uppon the Queyn a lady of thage of 14
yerres, daughtar unto the Lord of Breidrood, of a goodly
statwre. She is noted varteos, sadde, and womanly; hir beautie
is competent, hir mother is departid this world, who was
daughter to the Cardynall of Luikes sister. It is thought that
the said Cardinall wold give a good dote to have hir bestoid
after his mynd. Ther is a widdowe, the wiche also repayrithe
offten to the Court, beyng of goodly personage. She was the
wyffe of the late Yerle of Egmond, and, as I ame inffarmyd, she
parsithe fortie yeres of age, the wich dothe not apeire in my
judgement by hir face. Ther is the Duches of Myllayn, whom I
have not seyn, but as it is reportid to be a goodly personage
and of excellent beawtie. The Dewke of Clevis hathe a daughter,
but I here no great preas neyther of hir personage nor beawtie.
I have not myche exsperiens emonges ladies, and therfore this
commission is to me very hard; soo that, yf in anny thyng I
offend, I beseche your Lordshipe to be my mean for pardon. I
have wryttyn the treuthe, as nighe as I canne possible lerne,
levyng the further judgment to other, that are better skillid in
such matters.”[254]
Footnote 254:
_C.L.P._, vol. xii. pt. ii. 1172. _St. P._, viii. 5.
* * * * *
The Duchess reached Brussels shortly after this letter was despatched,
and Hutton wrote again to Cromwell on the 9th of December, after a
personal inspection of the lady, whom he thought to be very like Mrs.
Shelton, one of Anne Boleyn’s ladies, as follows:
[Sidenote: HUTTON’S LETTERS ABOUT THE DUCHESS]
“The Duches of Myllan ... arived here as ystarday, very
honorably acompenyd as well of hyr owen treyn as withe suche
that departed from hence to meit hyr. I ame inffurmyd she is of
the age of 16 yeres, very high of stature for that age. She is
highar then the Regent, a goodly personage of boddy, and
compytent off beawtie, of favor excellent, sofft of speche, and
very gentill in countenance. She werythe moornyng aparell aftre
the maner of Ytalie.... She resemblythe myche wone Mystris
Shelton, that somtyme watid in Court uppon Queyn Anne. She
ussithe most to spek Frenche, albeit that as it is reportid she
can [speak] Ytalian and Highe Almeyn. I knowlige my self of
judgment herein very yngnorant, albeit I have inployd my wittes
to sartiffie your Lordshipe off the trewthe.”[255]
Footnote 255:
_C.L.P._, vol. xii. pt. ii. 1187. _St. P._, viii. 6.
In a transcript of the same letter, addressed to Thomas Wriothesley, one
of Cromwell’s secretaries, and despatched to England on the same date,
Hutton added:
“Ther is non in theis parties off parsonage, beawtie, and
byrthe, lyke unto the Duches off Myllayn. She is not soo pewre
whyt, as was the late Qweyn, whois soal God pardon; but she
hathe a syngular good countenaunce, and when she chancesithe to
smyl, ther aperithe two pittes in hir cheikes, and wone in hyr
chyne, the wiche becommythe hyr right excellently well.”[256]
Footnote 256:
_C.L.P._, vol. xii. pt. ii. 1188. _St. P._, viii. 7.
* * * * *
He wrote still further in her praise in a third letter to Cromwell,
dated December 21:
“Synns my letter of the 4th sent unto your Lordshipe by Fraunces
the corror, I wrot your Lordshipe wone other of the 9th, wherin
I sartified the arivall of the Duches of Myllan, withe my
judgement of hir personage and beawtie. Synns wiche tyme I have
dayly notid hir gestur and countenance, the wiche presentithe a
great majestie with myche sobrenes, soo that in the furtherance
of that matter I thynke your Lordshipe shuld doo highe sarvis to
the Kynges Highness, and to the whole commune welthe of his
Realme like proffit.”[257]
Footnote 257:
_C.L.P._, vol. xii. pt. ii. 1243. _St. P._, viii. 8.
* * * * *
These descriptions were considered to be so satisfactory that Hutton’s
other suggestions were discarded, and the young Duchess selected as a
possible wife for Henry, if good terms could be arranged. Christina of
Denmark, youngest daughter of King Christian II of Denmark and Isabella
of Hungary, sister of Charles V, was born in 1523, and had been married,
in 1534, when only eleven years of age, to Francesco Maria Sforza, the
last Duke of Milan, who died in the following year, October 24, 1535.
She was now in her sixteenth year, and as the niece of the Emperor, a
marriage with her, so Henry and his Council considered, would be of
great political advantage, as it would give the world a proof that his
quarrel with Charles over the divorce of Katherine of Aragon was at an
end. Henry, therefore, wrote on January 22, 1538, to Sir Thomas Wyat,
his ambassador in Spain, ordering him to suggest the marriage to the
Emperor, who in his reply, sent through his representative in London,
Eustace Chapuys, declared that he would be glad to treat of it. Henry,
who naturally wished to see the lady, if possible, before committing
himself too far, began to throw out suggestions that she should be
brought to Calais, in order that he might make her acquaintance, but
this proposal was displeasing to the other parties concerned; and so, as
the next best thing, it was determined to obtain her portrait. Hutton
was instructed to procure one if he possibly could, and he wrote to
Cromwell on February 21, describing a dinner-party he had attended given
by the “Ladie Marqueis of Barrough,” at which she promised to show him,
when finished, a portrait for which the Duchess of Milan was sitting,
and for the purpose of which she had put off her mourning dress. This
picture, apparently, was to be given to the Lady Marquis. He told
Cromwell:
“The Lady Marqueis demaundid of me, yff the letters, wiche I had
delyverid the Queyn, cam from the Kynges Highnes my master. Unto
wiche I made answar that the cam frome the Empror. Then she said
that when she sawe me delyver them, hir hart rejoissid, thynkyng
ther had byne some good newis consarnyng the Duches of Myllain,
of whom she made great preis, as well for hir beawtie, favor,
wisdom, as for hir myche gentilnes. All wiche saynges I
affirmyd. Withe that she said, yf I had seyn hir owt of hir
mornyng aparell, so gorgeosly as she had seyn hir the day
beffore, I wold have marveillid, for she said, to tell me in
secret, she cawssid hir pikture to be made, wiche beyng
fenisshed, the Duches had promissid to give it unto hir, soo
that she of hir owen motion said, assone as it cam to hir handes
I shuld have a sight therof.”[258]
Footnote 258:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. i. 326. _St. P._, viii. 14.
He goes on to describe an interview with the Duchess on the following
day, in which she complained of the rain, telling Hutton, “This wether
likythe not the Queyn, for She is therby pynnyd upp, that She cannot
ride abrode to hunt. Then I demandid if Hir Grace did not love huntyng.
She answered, ‘Non better,’ and soo pawssid.
“She spekithe French, and semythe to be of fewe wordes. In hir
spekyng she lispithe, wiche dothe nothyng mysbecom hir. I canot
in anny thyng perceve, but she shuldbe off myche sobreness, and
very wisse and no les gentill. It may pleis your Lordship to
consedar that my poore knowlege is not to give anny judgement in
suche matters, but only to showe my openyon. And for that it
wilbe yet theis 8th dais, beffore I can com by hir pikture, I
thought it my duetie to sartiffie your Lordshipe the premissis;
and incontinent the said pikture shall com to my handes, it
shalbe sent your Lordshipe with spedy deligence. Advertissyng
the Lady Marques that I did send it unto Barough, for that my
wiffe had myche dessire to se the Duches.”[259]
Footnote 259:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. i. 326. _St. P._, viii. 14.
[Sidenote: HOBY AND HOLBEIN GO TO BRUSSELS]
Matters seemed now to be progressing so favourably that it was decided
to send over Philip Hoby to Brussels, with some show of secrecy, for the
purpose of a personal interview with the young lady, and, as Henry was
very anxious to obtain an accurate likeness of her, it was also arranged
that Holbein should go with him, without waiting for the portrait which
Hutton hoped to secure.
Philip Hoby, who was born in 1505, was the son of William Hoby, of
Leominster. His zeal for the Reformation commended him to Henry VIII and
Cromwell, by whom he was constantly employed from 1538 onwards in
diplomatic services at the courts of Spain and Portugal, and on special
missions elsewhere. He was one of the gentlemen ushers of the King’s
Privy Chamber, and took part in the siege of Boulogne, being rewarded
with knighthood immediately after the conquest of that town in the
autumn of 1544. He was made Master of the Ordnance and admitted to the
Privy Council in 1552, and died in 1558. From his correspondence he
appears to have been a man of culture and refinement. Holbein made two,
if not three, journeys abroad in his company, and painted his portrait,
though its whereabouts is not now known, but the drawing for it, in
which he is shown with a scanty beard and long thin moustache, is in the
Windsor Collection.[260]
Footnote 260:
Woltmann, 302; Wornum, ii. 7; Holmes, i. 40.
Cromwell’s instructions to Hoby were as follows:
“Instructions given by the L. Cromwell to Philip Hoby sent over
by him to the duchess of Lorraine then [to the] duchess of
Milan.
“To repair to Mr. Hutton and tarry secretly at his lodging until
he shall have been with the Regent. Then upon Hutton’s
advertisement to go to the Duchess, present Cromwell’s
commendations and say that no doubt she had heard from the Lady
Regent and by the relation of the King’s ambassador there, the
cause of his coming and Cromwell’s inclination to the
advancement of the same as is declared ‘in the letter.’ He shall
then beg her to take the pain to sit that a servant of the King,
who is come thither for that purpose, may take her physiognomy;
and shall ask when Mr. Hanns shall come to her to do so. The
said Philip shall as of himself express a wish that both for my
Lord’s reports of her virtues and for his own view of them, it
might please the King, being now without a wife, to advance her
to the honour of a queen of England. ‘And he shall well note her
answers, her gesture and countenance with her inclination, that
he may at his return declare the same to the King’s Majesty.’
Her picture taken, he and Hanns shall return immediately.”[261]
Hoby was also supplied with a second document, in which all that
he was to say to the Duchess was carefully drawn up for his
guidance.
Footnote 261:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. i. 380(2).
In the heading to these instructions, which is written in a later hand
than the body of the document, the words “to the” in square brackets
have been inserted by the editor of the _Calendars of Letters and
Papers, &c._ In doing this he has been misled by a very similar set of
instructions issued to Hoby on the eve of a mission to Lorraine in
August of the same year, which is dealt with in the next chapter. He
thus reads the heading as indicating that Hoby was to go first of all to
the Duchess of Lorraine and afterwards to the Duchess of Milan, and that
the one set of instructions was to serve for the two visits. The
inserted words, “to the,” however, are not needed. Christina, a few
years after Holbein painted her, married, in 1540, François, Duke of Bar
and Lorraine, and the writer who added the heading to the copy of Hoby’s
instructions quite correctly describes her as the Duchess of Lorraine,
“then (or “at that time,” _i.e._ at the time of Hoby’s journey to
Brussels) Duchess of Milan.” This is a small point, but it is necessary
to draw attention to it, as it has to do with Holbein’s subsequent
journey to Upper Burgundy.
[Sidenote: HOBY AND HOLBEIN IN BRUSSELS]
The two travellers left London on the 2nd or 3rd of March, and reached
Brussels on the evening of the 10th. The next day was spent in
preliminary interviews, Hutton having audience with the Lady Regent and
the Duchess in the morning, and Hoby delivering his message to the
latter in the afternoon. All going smoothly, Holbein was fetched to the
court at one o’clock on the 12th, and accomplished all that he had to do
within three hours, to the great admiration of Hutton, who considered
that he showed himself to be a master, and that the likeness was very
perfect. The English agent, the day before their arrival, had already
despatched a portrait of the lady to London—in all probability the one
promised him by the Lady Marquis—but after seeing Holbein’s beautiful
drawing, he sent a messenger post haste to stop the bearer of the first
picture, which he now regarded as but “slobbered” in comparison with the
other. Hoby and Holbein, who started upon their homeward journey on the
evening of the 12th, appear to have taken this inferior picture with
them, so that Cromwell might compare the two. There is no evidence to
indicate by whom it was painted, but as the lady was represented in gay
apparel, it must have been in marked contrast to Holbein’s study and the
full-length portrait he afterwards painted, representing her in her
Italian widow’s weeds. It is possible that this picture is still in
existence in England, and its discovery would be most interesting.
Hutton’s letter to Cromwell, describing all that took place on the
occasion, is a long one, but as it is one of the few important documents
still existing in which Holbein is mentioned by name, it cannot well be
omitted here. It is dated March 14, 1538, and runs as follows:
“My moste bounden duetie remembered unto Your good Lordshipe.
Pleasithe the same to be advertissid, that the 10th of this
present monethe in the evenyng arivid here your Lordshipis
sarvand Phillip Hobbie, acompenied with a sarvand of the Kynges
Majesties namyd Mr Haunce, by wiche Phillip I recevyd your
Lordshippis letter, beryng date at Saynct Jamys the second day
of this present. Theffect wherof apercevyd, havyng the day
beffore sent wone of my sarvandes towardes youre Lordshipe withe
a picture of the Duches of Myllain, I thought it very nessisarie
to stey the same, for that in my openion it was not soo
perffight as the cawsse requyrid, neyther as the said Mr Haunce
coold make it. Uppon wiche determination I dispached another of
my sarvandes, in post, to returne the same, wiche your Lordshipe
shall receve by this berrar. The next mornyng aftre the arivall
of your Lordshippis said sarvand, I did adresse my selff unto
the Lady Regent, declaryng unto Hir that the night past ther
arivid at my lodgyng a sarvand of your Lordshippis, withe wone
other of the Kynges Majesties; by wiche your Lordshippis sarvand
I had recevyd commiscion to sartiffie Hir Grace that thEmprors
Ambassadors, resident with the Kynges Majestie my master, had
made ernyst overture unto your Lordshipe for a marriage to be
treatid betwixt the Majestie of my said master, and the Duches
Grace of Millain. To the wiche albeit your Lordshipe was of no
les good inclination for the furtherance of the same, then the
said Ambassadors were, yet your Lordshipe thought it not
exspedient to be broken unto the Kynges Highnes, withowt havyng
some further occation mynistrid for the openyng of the same. And
for as myche as your Lordshipe had hard great commendation of
the furme, beawtie, wisdom, and other verteos qualiteis, the
wiche God had indewid the said Duches with, you cold perceve no
mean more meit for the advauncement of the same, than to procure
her perffight pictur; for wiche your Lordshipe had sent, in
compeny of your said sarvand, a man very excellent in makyng off
phisanymies; soo that your Lordshippis desire was that your said
sarvand myght in moste humbleist wisse salute the Duches Grace,
requyryng that hir pleisur might be to apoynt the tyme and
place, wher the said paynter might acomplische his charge. The
Regent, when I began to declare this forsaid purpos, stud uppon
hir feit; but, aftre She had a littill ynclyng to what effect
the same wold com, She did sit dowen, not movyng, till I had
fenisshid all that I had to say, and then answered as foloythe:
‘I thanke yow for your good newis. This is not the first report
that I have had of the good inclination that the Lord Crumwell
hathe to thEmprores afferris, for recompence wheroff I trust he
shall not fynd Us ingrat. And as to his desire in this behalff,
it shall gladly be accomplisshid.’ Then I said, ‘Madam, I have
yet further commiscion, wiche is to sartiffie the same unto the
Duches Grace.’ Hir answar was, that She wold goo to Councell,
and when the Duches cam to hir oratorie, I myght [have] very
good oportunitie to talke withe hir. Withe that the Regent
departid towardes the Councell Chamber, and I taried the Duches
commyng; who beying com to hir oratorie, wher as remenyd no moo
but two of hir ladeis, I sartiffied Hir Grace the woll effect of
your Lordshippis commission consarnyng Phelipe Hobbie, whom,
when Hir Grace wold give awdiens, wold more ample sartiffie your
Lordshippis pleisur. She made answar that, if ever it shuld ly
in hir powar, the good will of your Lordshipe shoid towardes
hir, wiche she in no part had desarvid, shuld not remeyn
unrecompencesid; and that as to your said request it was not to
be denyed, albeit that she, beying ther withe the Queyn hir
awnt, thought it not meit to make anny graunt therunto withowt
hir consent, wiche she wold move to obteyn at the first
convenient leisar, that she myght have with the Queyn consarnyng
the same. Commandyng to be called unto hir wone, naymd the Lord
Benedike Court, who next unto Monsur de Correra is cheiff about
hir; whoo beyng com, she said unto hym, ‘Goo withe thAmbassadour
and entarteyn a gentilman that is at his lodgyng, and knowe wher
you shall fynd hym at suche tyme as I shall send yow for hym.’
This done, wee tooke ower leve of Hir Grace, and cam to my
lodgyng, wher the said Lord salutid Phillip Hobbie, communyng
together in the Italian tunge a sarten space, and then tooke his
leve to repaire agayn to the Court; wiche I percevyng, requyrid
hym to take the portion withe us at dynnar, wiche he promissid
to doo; but aftre beyng otherweis myndid, he sent us woord that
he cold not com, but wold see us aftre dynnar; wiche apoyntment
he kept. For at two of the cloke in the aftrenoon he cam for
Phillipe to com speke withe the Duches his mystres: who can make
relation to your Lordshipe more at large what passid at the
tyme. The next day foloyng, at wone of the cloke in the
aftrenoon, the said Lord Benedike cam for Mr. Haunce; who havyng
but thre owers space hathe shoid hym self to be master of that
siens, for it is very perffight; the other is but sloberid in
comparison to it, as by the sight of bothe your Lordshipe shall
well aperceve. The same night Phillipe tooke his leve of the
Duches. I inffurmyd the Lady Regent that the said Phillipe wold
gladly, accordyng to your Lordshippis commandment, have com to
have done his duetie unto Hir, to have knowen what further
sarvis Hir Grace wold commaund hym; but dowttyng he should be
notid, wherby myght be discoverid that wiche till then was kept
secret as coldbe. She answarid that it shuld not neid, reqwiring
me, that I wold make hir most effectios commendations, by my
letters, unto your Lordshipe, and that yow shuld here frome Hir
more at large by thEmprors Ambassadour resident with the Kynges
Majestie. To sartiffie your Lordship of hir sobreness, wisdom,
and other varteos qualities shulde be but superfluitie, for this
berrar can sartiffie your Lordshipe therof at length.”[262]
Footnote 262:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. i. 507. _St. P._, viii. 17.
[Sidenote: HUTTON’S ACCOUNT OF HOLBEIN’S VISIT]
The Queen Regent wrote to Eustace Chapuys in London, directly after
Hoby’s departure, saying that: “I deem it opportune to acquaint you with
a fact, of which you are not perhaps aware, namely, that Sieur Cromwell
has sent here expressly a man, besides a message by ambassador Hauton,
to the effect that the Emperor had proposed to the King, his master, the
marriage of my niece, the dowager duchess of Milan, with honourable and
advantageous conditions; that he (the Emperor) offers to help
efficiently towards it, and wishes it to take place before King Francis
becomes aware of it. Cromwell asks that the man be allowed to see and
talk with my said niece, and take her portrait in order to show it to
the King and give him greater desire to see her. This I have allowed,
and the man has actually returned to England with the portrait, well
satisfied with the personal appearance and manners of my said niece, who
has not failed on the occasion to thank Cromwell for his offers and show
of affection.”[263]
Footnote 263:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. i. 419. _Spanish Calendar_, vol. v. pt. ii.
217.
From Chapuys’ reply to her, dated March 23, we learn that Hoby and
Holbein reached London on March 18, and that the King was delighted with
the latter’s handiwork. He tells her:
“On the very same day, the 18th, the painter sent by this King
to Flanders came back with the Duchess’ likeness, which, I am
told, has singularly pleased the King, so much so, that since he
saw it he has been in much better humor than he ever was, making
musicians play on their instruments all day long. Two days after
he went to dine at a splendid house of his, where he had
collected all his musicians, and, after giving orders for the
erection of certain sumptuous buildings therein, returned home
by water, surrounded by musicians, and went straight to visit
the duchess of Suffocq, the mother-in-law of the duke of
Norfolk, and the wife of his brother, and ever since cannot be
one single moment without masks, which is a sign he purposes to
marry again, unless he does all that by way of dissimulation
whilst the bishop of Tarbes is here still.”[264]
Footnote 264:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. i. 583. _Spanish Calendar_, vol. v. pt. ii.
220.
* * * * *
For the cost of this journey Hoby received £23, 6_s._ 8_d._ from the
royal purse, which is noted in the book of the King’s household expenses
for March 1538. “Item paid to Philip Hoby by the kinges commandment
certifyed by my lord privy seal lettre for his coste and expences sent
in all possible diligence for the kinge affaires in the parties of
beyonde the See. xxiij _li._ vj_s._ viij_d._”[265]
Footnote 265:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. ii. 1280 (f. 6).
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF THE DUCHESS AT WINDSOR]
No doubt the portrait which so delighted the King was one of those
masterly studies in black chalk touched with colour, such as the “John
Godsalve” among the Windsor drawings, from which Holbein afterwards
painted the magnificent full-length now in the National Gallery. He
could not have done much more than this in the three hours which was the
whole time allowed him for the sitting. Sir Claude Phillips, however, is
of opinion that it must have been something more than a drawing, however
consummate—perhaps a finished sketch of the head only in oils. “It is
difficult to believe,” he says, “that a layman would express so
enthusiastic an approval of a drawing of modest dimensions, and (if it
followed the usual Windsor type) of modest aspect. Neither sketch,
however, nor drawing is known to exist.”[266]
Footnote 266:
_Daily Telegraph_, May 8, 1909.
It was suggested by the late Sir George Scharf, F.S.A., that the small
oil panel, showing the Duchess to the waist, which is practically a
replica of the upper half of the National Gallery picture, is the
original study made by Holbein in Brussels. This portrait, then unnamed,
he discovered in 1863, in a small apartment in Windsor Castle, and it
was described by him in a paper read before the Society of Antiquaries,
and published in _Archæologia_, with a good lithograph of the picture by
T. H. Maguire.[267] It is on wood, 17 in. high by 13 in. wide.
Footnote 267:
“Remarks on a Portrait of the Duchess of Milan, recently discovered at
Windsor Castle, probably painted by Holbein at Brussels in the year
1538,” _Archæologia_, 1866, vol. xl. p. 106.
“The picture by Holbein,” says Sir George, “could only have been a
drawing or a painting on rather a small scale, inasmuch as it had at
once to be conveyed by a messenger to England, and one of the objects of
Hutton’s letter was to show the diligence with which the King’s commands
were executed and to announce the coming of the picture. The scale and
workmanship of the picture before us are exactly such as might have been
expected from a first-rate painter and tactician under such
circumstances. All essential points are observed with scrupulous
fidelity, and, certainly, as far as internal evidence extends, without
flattery. It is not to be supposed that Holbein did nothing to the
picture beyond the term of the three hours’ sitting afforded by the
Duchess. Having secured all the essential points of likeness, and given
the general colouring, he doubtless spent some time in further
finishings from memory. But time must have been given for the picture to
dry.”
Wornum, however, refuses to accept Sir George’s ascription. “The head is
vigorously painted,” he says, “and very natural; it shows, however, no
complete finish, which, if the picture referred to, is exactly what one
would expect; but it lacks also the mastery one would expect to find in
a free sketch by Holbein. The hands are inferior, but they appear to
have been partly repainted; the background has also been entirely
repainted.... In its present state, it looks much more like a clever
study from the Arundel picture, than its pattern; anyhow the distance
between them is immense, but this does not prove much, for a very
inferior master to Holbein could elaborate a magical effect from a mere
rough sketch, provided this possessed the real germs of truth in
it.”[268]
Footnote 268:
Wornum, p. 313.
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF THE DUCHESS AT WINDSOR]
Woltmann, too, was of opinion that this small panel was not an original
work by Holbein. “We cannot find in the picture at Windsor,” he says
“that freedom and bold masterly style which absolutely belong to a
sketch from life, and which alone could have excited such lively
admiration in John Hutton. The picture at Windsor is very pretty and
graceful, but has something almost sober in its treatment. It can indeed
be just as little a copy from the large painting. It exhibits some
differences in the costume, for instance, a somewhat larger fur collar,
and another position of the fingers, although the characteristic
attitude of the hands is essentially the same. Christina also wears
three rings instead of a single one; namely, a black widow’s ring on the
little finger of the right hand, and on the next finger a gold hoop with
a square black stone. We might, therefore, believe that this is a copy
by another hand of the sketch Holbein painted from life. In favour of
this opinion, we find the head, which the sketch naturally gave most
distinctly, by far the best part of the painting, while the rest, which
was only indicated in the sketch, appears far weaker.”[269]
Footnote 269:
Woltmann, 1st ed., English translation, pp. 426-7.
Sir George Scharf describes with care the many small differences between
the two works. In addition to the three rings instead of one, mentioned
by Woltmann, the fur of the dress in the smaller picture is much deeper
and has every appearance of being a wide fur collar separate from and
placed over the black dress. In the larger portrait the fur is much
narrower, and evidently forms the lining and collar of the outer robe, a
narrow edging of it being shown down the front. In the National Gallery
picture, too, this outer robe is open several inches in front, showing
the under-dress of black and the knotted ribbon at the waist, all of
which are missing in the Windsor panel. Again, though the hands holding
the gloves have the same general position in both, the position of the
fingers shows considerable variation. In the smaller portrait the two
last fingers of the right hand and the two middle ones of the left are
bent inwards; in the larger, the only bent fingers are the two last of
the left hand. There are some other minor differences which need not be
specified.
Both pictures at one time belonged to Henry VIII, and are included in
the inventory of that King’s “money, jewels, plate, utensils, apparel,
wardrobe stuffs, goods and chattels, consigned to the care of Sir
Anthony Denny at Westminster.” The volume, now in the Record Office, is
dated April 24, 1542. They appear again in a similar inventory, made
after Henry’s death, taken “by vertue of a Commission under the greate
seale of England, bearing date at Westminster the viij day of September,
in the first year of our Sovereyne Lord Edwarde the Sixte” (1547). In
these, the smaller panel is described as “Item, a Table with a Picture
of the Duchesse of Myllayne.”
Woltmann’s conjecture that it is a contemporary copy made from Holbein’s
original sketch appears to be the true one, though for whom made it is
now impossible to say. There seems to be no reason why Henry, having the
full-length panel in his possession, should have commissioned this
smaller and inferior one. If ordered by Thomas Cromwell, which is not
very likely, it may have reached the King in the form of plunder after
the former’s execution; if done in order to be sent to the Duchess
herself, it is strange that it should have remained in England. In any
case, it cannot have been the “slobbered” work which Hutton, in his
eagerness to serve his royal master, had hurriedly despatched on its way
to London on the eve of Holbein’s arrival in Brussels. All the evidence
points to the latter as being the portrait of the Duchess “out of her
mourning apparel” which was to be given to the Lady Marquess, who had
promised to show it to Hutton when finished, as his letter tells us.
Hutton, pleading urgency, and knowing that the latter lady was in favour
of the match, in all probability borrowed it, or begged it as a gift.
This portrait of the Duchess of Milan,[270] 70 in. by 32 in. (Pl. 21),
is incomparably the greatest work from Holbein’s brush now remaining in
England; it is, indeed, in many respects his masterpiece. It is of
additional interest and value, too, as being the only full-length,
life-size portrait of a lady painted by him. She is represented
standing, facing and looking towards the spectator, her hands in front
of her holding her gloves. She is dressed in mourning apparel as the
widow of Sforza, a gown of plain black satin tied round the waist with a
black cord, and a long black cloak reaching to her feet, lined with
yellow sable, with a collar of the same fur, open in the front
sufficiently to allow a part of her dress to be seen. At her neck and
wrists are white frills with a narrow black edging, and on her head a
closely-fitting black cap, which covers all her hair, and a part of her
forehead. The gloves are pale buff, and her only ornament is a gold ring
with a red stone, probably a cornelian, on the third finger of her left
hand. The floor on which she stands is of pale yellow-brown colour,
though no floor-boards are indicated, and the background is a plain one
of deep blue, now almost black, only broken by the white cartellino over
the sitter’s left shoulder, which is affixed to the wall with four dabs
of red sealing-wax.
Footnote 270:
Woltmann, 2. Reproduced by Pollard, _Henry VIII_, p. 250; Davies, p.
172; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 121; and elsewhere.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 21
THE DUCHESS OF MILAN
1538
NATIONAL GALLERY, LONDON
]
Holbein made the choice of a true artist in thus depicting her in her
widow’s weeds instead of in all the bravery of the court dress which she
was again beginning to assume. The effect of fine rich colour produced
by this wonderful rendering of a plain black costume is masterly, but in
no way detracts the attention of the spectator from the grace of the
slender form and the vitality and subtle expression of the face, as more
elaborate accessories might have done. The whole panel is painted with
the utmost simplicity and directness, and yet is stamped with real
grandeur of style in every delicate stroke of the brush. The modelling
of the flesh is rendered with extraordinary delicacy, while the tints
are unusually transparent, and a faint rosy glow of health just flushes
her cheeks. Her dark-brown eyes, from under fair eyebrows, look out upon
the world with an intensity of expression which is surpassed in few, if
any, portraits by the greatest masters; the red lips are full of
character, but not more so than the hands, which are exquisitely
painted. In the painting of hands Holbein was always a master, but he
never accomplished anything finer in this direction than those of the
young Duchess. The portrait, indeed, bears the stamp of truth in every
line. The painter, who never exaggerated, has made no attempt to add to
the lady’s beauty; such as she was he painted her. The draperies are
admirably arranged, and the painting of fur and satin as good as
anything Holbein ever did, even in such portraits as that of Gisze. The
restrained but stately attitude of the young girl, still only on the
threshold of womanhood, the refined, reserved, and dignified character
in the fresh young face, which, though gentle, is in no way lacking in
strength, and the sense of humour lurking in the lips, combine to
produce an effect which is fascinating in the highest degree; indeed, in
the simplicity of its methods, the strength, refinement, and elegance of
its conception, and in its extraordinary vitality, it must always remain
not only Holbein’s masterpiece in the portraiture of women, but one of
the greatest portraits in the world.
[Sidenote: NATIONAL GALLERY PORTRAIT]
There is no doubt that Holbein painted the portrait immediately after
his return from Brussels, although some writers have suggested that it
is a year or so later in date than 1538. This conclusion is based
largely on the supposition that Holbein’s visit to High Burgundy later
in the same year was for the purpose of obtaining further sittings from
the Duchess; but this is an error, as will be shown in the next chapter.
The portrait was painted for Henry, and would naturally be done at once,
before the negotiations for the marriage were broken off, and it
remained in his collection throughout his life. Holbein was out of
England more often and for a longer period in 1538 than has been
generally supposed. In addition to at least one other continental
journey on the King’s service, he was absent from about the middle of
August until nearly Christmas, and thus everything indicates that this
important panel was painted in April or May.
Another argument, advanced by Sir George Scharf in favour of the
contention that it was painted some time after 1538, is that the name
and titles of the lady written on the fictitious piece of paper attached
to the dark background near to her left shoulder, by four dabs of
sealing-wax, designate her “Duchess of Lorraine.” This inscription Sir
George reads as: “Christine, Daughter to Christierne K. of Deñarke, and
Dutchess of Lotragne and heretofore (?) Dutches of Milan.” The writing,
however, is much rubbed, and is by no means easy to decipher; thus the
word which Sir George read as “heretofore,” Mr. Wornum considered to be
“hered” (hereditary). “This,” Sir George goes on to say, “would, if the
writing be contemporary with the picture, bring the date to 1541, the
year of her second marriage to Francis, Duke of Lorraine and Barr. The
style of writing on the paper may perhaps raise some question, and may
possibly be found to belong to the period of James I, when through his
Queen and the occasional presence of Christian IV in England, a
considerable interest was felt in matters connected with Denmark.”[271]
Footnote 271:
_Archæologia_, xl. p. 109. The date of her marriage to Lorraine
appears to have been 1540.
The inscription as it now is was probably painted over an earlier one
from Holbein’s brush, for it is too badly done to be original; but there
is no need to place it as late as Sir George suggests, for the Lumley
inventory speaks of her as the Duchess of Lorraine, so that the
alteration may have been due to Lord Lumley or his father-in-law. It is
even possible that Holbein may have placed no title of any kind on the
picture, but that the whole label was added by some other painter
employed for the purpose by the owner of Nonsuch.
In spite of Henry’s admiration for the picture, the proposed match came
to nothing, though for some time Hutton continued to write letters in
her praises. Thus, on the 1st April 1538, he wrote to the King:
[Sidenote: FAILURE OF MARRIAGE NEGOTIATIONS]
“Pleasithe Your Majestie to be advertissid that synns the
departyng frome hence of Phillipe Hobbie, I have for the most
part byne dayly in the Queyns chambre, by cawse I myght withe
the more commoditie aperceve, whether the great modestiosnes,
that is in the Duches of Myllayn, proceid of a symple
yngnorance, or of a naturall inclination acompenid withe wisdom;
to that intent I myght the better sartiffie Your Highnes of the
same. Wherunto I have inployid my selff withe all celeritie,
havyng bothe seyn and hard hir, aswell in matters off weight, as
playing at the cardes and other pastymys, not apercevyng in hir
anny liklihod that ther is want off wit, but rather to be
estemyd, emonge the nombre of wise, the wissist. Hir sobre and
gentill demenewre is myche lawdid by all them that knowe hir.
Soo that I take it to be above the compas off a womans wit to
dissemble longe withe that is graven in the hart to the
contrary, but I noot that in all hir acttes she uttrithe such a
myldnes, the wiche maniffestithe to be wroght in hir by nature,
and presarvid withe grace and wisdom.”[272]
Footnote 272:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. i. 656. _St. P._, viii. 21.
In the following month (May 17) he informed Wriothesley that “the Lady
Regent, acompenyd with the Duches Grace of Myllayn have byne dayly a
huntyng, wiche is the exarsis, that the bothe moste desyre, and have
greatest delit in; and by cawsse I have thought it my bounden duetie to
repayre wher the Duches Grace was, procuryng occation many tymis to
talke withe Hyr Grace, whom I fynd of myche wisdom, and of as great
modestiosnes, as ever I knewe anny woman. Sithe the tyme that Phelip
Hobbie departid frome theis parteis, Hir Grace hathe, bothe by woordes
and countenance, ussid towardes me myche benyngnitie.”[273]
Footnote 273:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. i. 1018. _St. P._, viii. 29.
He added that he had presented the Regent with four couple of young
hounds and an ambling gelding, and had promised the same to the Duchess,
“wiche offre she gently acceptyd.”
Early in June an obstacle to the match was suggested which proved that
the Emperor and his sister were only using the Duchess as a pawn on the
political chess-board, and that there was no real intention of giving
her to Henry. This obstacle was the fact that the Duchess was a near
kinswoman of the late Queen Katherine, Henry’s first wife, and that the
Pope’s dispensation was therefore necessary. The negotiations dragged on
throughout the year, Hutton suddenly dying in the middle of them, on
September 5, just when the King his master was sending over two
commissioners, Thomas Wriothesley, one of his secretaries, and Stephen
Vaughan, to treat personally with the Regent. There is no need to record
their adventures, or the manner in which that lady continually put them
off with plausible excuses. They followed her about the country on her
journey to Compiègne to meet the King and Queen of France. On neither
side was there any real sincerity, but the Englishmen, although Dr.
Edward Carne[274] was sent over to help them, could not score a point in
the game. They had several personal interviews with the Duchess, after
one of which they reported that “she is a godly personage, of stature
hiegher thenne eyther of us, a very good womans face, and competently
faire, but very wel favored, a lytle browne.”[275]
Footnote 274:
Knighted by the Emperor some years later.
Footnote 275:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. ii. 550. _St. P._, viii. p. 59.
After another interview Wriothesley wrote to the King, on February 1,
1539:
“A blinde man shuld judge no colours, but surely, Sir, after my
poure entendement, for that lyttel experyence that I have, she
is mervelous wise, very gentel, and as shamfast as ever I sawe
soo wittye a woman. I thinke her wisdome no lesse thenne the
Quenes, which in my pouer opinion is notable for a woman. Her
gentlenes excedeth. Asferre as I canne judge or here for this
lytel tyme that I have been here, I am deceyved, if she prove
not a good wief, if God send her a wise husbande; and sumwhat
the better I lyke her, for that I have been enformed that of all
the hole stock of them, her mother (Isabella, sister of Charles
V) was of best opinion in religion, and shewed it soo farre,
that bothe thEmperour and al the pack of them were sore greved
with Her, and seamed in thende to have Her in contempte. I wolde
hope no lesse of the doughter, if she might be so happye as to
nestle in Englande. Very pure, faire of colour she is not, but a
mervelous good brownishe face she bathe, with faire redd lippes,
and ruddy chekes; and oneles I be deceyved in my judgement,
which in all thinges, but specially in this kynde of judgement,
is very basse, she was yet never soo wel paynted, but her lyvely
visage dothe muche excel her poincture.”
* * * * *
Later on in the same interview Wriothesley pressed her as to her own
desire in the matter, and sang his master’s praises:
“At this she blusshed excedingly, and said: ‘Asfor myn
inclination,’ quod she, ‘what shuld I saye? You knowe that I am
at thEmperrurs commaundement,’ and again, ‘You knowe I am
thEmperours poore servaunt, and must followe his pleasour.’ Your
Majesties wisedom shall easly judge uppon this, of what
inclination the women be, and specially the Duchesse, whose
honest countenaunce, with the fewe woordes that she wisely
spake, together with that which I knowe by the meane of her most
secrete chamberers and servauntes, maketh me to thinke there
canne be no doubt in her.”[276]
Footnote 276:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiv. pt. i. 194. _St. P._, viii. 137.
[Sidenote: HISTORY OF THE PICTURE]
This letter seems to indicate that there is no truth in the well-known
story told by Sandrart, and repeated by Walpole, that the Duchess
herself was not anxious to become Queen of England, telling Henry’s
ambassadors that “she had but one head; if she had two, one of them
should be at his Majesty’s service.” On the contrary, Carne and his
fellow-commissioners frequently mentioned that she seemed bent on the
alliance, and could not bear to hear of any other marriage proposals.
Among the frequenters of the English court it was common gossip that she
was very likely to be the next queen. Thus, Robert Warner, of the Earl
of Sussex’s household, writing to Lord Fitzwater on November 21, 1538,
tells him that “there is small speaking of any queen; merely a report
that it should be the duchess of Milan. In any case it will be an
outlandish woman and will not happen till the spring.”[277] There was
also a report that the King had sent her a diamond worth 16,000 ducats.
Footnote 277:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. ii. 884. _Ellis_, 1st series, ii. 96.
Early in 1539 Francis and Charles V were in full accord, and Henry was
making every possible preparation for war. The Regent and the Emperor no
longer attempted to keep up the farce of a possible matrimonial alliance
with England, though even then Wriothesley was writing for Henry’s
“phisnamy,” which he thought would make the Duchess leave Emperor and
all rather than be frustrated of so great a match. In the end the three
ambassadors departed for home on March 19, though not without some
trouble, as war appeared imminent; and thus Holbein’s famous portrait
remained as the only record in Henry’s possession of these long and
futile negotiations.
The picture has never left England since the day it was painted. It was
in the possession of Henry VIII at the time of his death, and is
described in the inventory already mentioned, in which it is the twelfth
entry, as—“Item, a greate table with the picture of the Duchyes of
Myllayne, beinge her whole stature.” According to Mr. Lionel Cust,[278]
it passed from King Henry’s collection to that of the King’s cousin,
Henry Fitz-Alan, Earl of Arundel, after whose death it belonged to his
son-in-law, John, Lord Lumley, husband of the Earl’s eldest daughter and
co-heiress, Lady Joan Fitz-Alan. It is included in the manuscript
inventory of pictures and other objects of art belonging to Lord Lumley
in the reign of Queen Elizabeth already mentioned more than once. This
inventory is entitled “A Certyficate from Mr. John Lampton, Stewarde of
Howseholde to John, Lord Lumley, of all his Lo: Monumentes of Marbles,
Pictures and tables in Paynture, with other his Lordshippes Howseholde
stuffe, and Regester of Bookes. Anno 1590.” The picture is described as
“The statuary of the Duchess of Myllayne, afterwards Duches of Lorreyn
daughter to Christierne King of Denmarke doone by Haunce Holbyn,” the
word “statuary” being used for a standing whole-length figure.
Footnote 278:
Letter to _The Times_, May 5, 1909.
Against the contention that the picture passed directly from Henry’s
collection into the possession of the Earl of Arundel must be placed
Carel van Mander’s statement that in 1574 Zuccaro saw it in the Earl of
Pembroke’s house in London. “The said Zucchero,” he says, “was also
delighted with the portrait of a certain Countess, dressed in black
satin, life-size, a full-length figure, unusually pretty and well
painted by Holbein, and kept in Lord Pembroke’s house, where he saw it
in company with some painters and lovers of art, and took such great
delight in it, that he declared he had not seen its like in art and
delicacy even in Rome; therefore went away filled with admiration.”[279]
Footnote 279:
See Woltmann, English translation, p. 426.
Van Mander’s book was not published until 1604, thirty years later than
this incident, and it is, of course, quite possible that either he or
Zuccaro made a mistake as to the ownership of the picture and the place
where it had been seen; but the statement is very definite, and must be
taken into consideration in tracing the portrait’s history. In any case,
there is no doubt that Lord Lumley owned it in 1590, and that he was a
lover of Holbein’s works, of which he possessed a considerable number,
most of which have been referred to individually in preceding pages,
among them the great cartoon of Henry VII and Henry VIII belonging to
the Duke of Devonshire, and portraits of Erasmus, Sir Thomas More, and
Sir Henry and Lady Guideford, and the book of the Windsor drawings, all
of which are entered in the inventory as “drawne” or “doone” by “Haunce
Holbyn.” In Lord Lumley’s collection were also portraits of Sir Nicholas
Carew, Sir Thomas Lovell, the elder and the younger Sir Thomas Wyat, and
Sir Thomas Hennege, some of which also may well have been by Holbein,
though no artist’s name is placed against them in the list.
[Sidenote: HISTORY OF THE PICTURE]
For many years Lord Lumley resided at Nonsuch. The erection of this
palace was begun by Henry VIII in the year in which the Duchess was
painted. The house, of which Toto was probably the chief architect or
decorator,[280] was unfinished at the King’s death, and remained so
during the reign of Edward VI; but in that of Mary it was completed by
the Earl of Arundel, who had become possessed of it, “after the first
intent and meaning of the said King his old maister.” Here Lord Lumley
resided with his wife and father-in-law until the Earl’s death in 1580,
when he became its owner. He added the front quadrangle, and entertained
Queen Elizabeth there on more than one occasion. From his hands it
reverted to the Crown in 1591 in exchange for other property. No doubt
Lord Lumley’s collection of pictures remained at Nonsuch until that
year, and very possibly the inventory, dated 1590, was drawn up in
preparation for the removal of the works of art when this transfer of
estates took place.[281]
Footnote 280:
See Vol. i. pp. 276-7.
Footnote 281:
See Cust, _Burlington Magazine_, vol. xiv., March 1909, pp. 366-8, and
_The Times_, May 5, 1909; A. W. Franks, _Archæologia_, vol. xxxix. p.
35.
Upon the death of Lord Lumley without issue, it is evident that the
picture passed, with other portraits of the Fitz-Alan family, into the
possession of Philip Howard, Earl of Arundel, son of Thomas, fourth Duke
of Norfolk, and Lady Mary Fitz-Alan, younger daughter and co-heiress of
Henry, Earl of Arundel. Philip Howard was father of Thomas Howard, Earl
of Arundel, probably the greatest art-collector the world has ever
known. When in the latter’s possession it was seen by Sandrart, in 1627,
who mentions it as the portrait of the King’s “incomparable beloved one,
a princess of Lorraine” (unvergleichlicher Liebstin, einer Prinzessin
von Lothringen). It was entered in the Arundel inventory of 1655 as
“Duchessa de Lorena grande del naturale.”
From that time until 1909 it remained in the possession of the Howard
family. Walpole adds to his _Anecdotes_ a note to the effect that
“Vertue saw a whole length of this princess at Mr. Howard’s, in Soho
Square.”[282] It was afterwards at Worksop Manor, then belonging to the
Duke of Norfolk, and later on was removed to Arundel Castle, where it
was described in the catalogue as “a very curious portrait of a Duchess
of Milan.” It was included in the exhibition of Old Masters at
Burlington House in 1880, and the Duke of Norfolk then lent it to the
National Gallery, where it remained on loan for nearly thirty years.
About 1908 the Duke informed the Trustees that he was receiving large
offers for the picture, which he felt bound to consider, but that he was
most anxious that, if possible, it should be secured for the nation; and
he, therefore, gave an undertaking that before closing with any
purchaser he would first offer it to the Gallery at the same price.
Footnote 282:
Walpole, _Anecdotes_, ed. Wornum, p. 72.
On April 22, 1909, his Grace told the authorities that he had been
offered a sum of £61,000, which he had accepted, subject to the option
granted to the National Gallery of purchasing at the same price, and
that the purchasers had consented to wait until May 1 for the completion
of the transaction. As the Trustees were unable to find so great a sum
in so short a time, the Duke sold the picture to Messrs. P. & D.
Colnaghi & Co. for £61,000 on the latter date. The purchasers then in
turn offered it first of all to the nation, at the enhanced price of
£72,000, giving the Trustees a month in which to raise the necessary
fund. A determined effort to secure the picture was then made by the
chairman, Lord Balcarres, and committee of the National Art-Collections
Fund, but in spite of strenuous endeavours, the amount subscribed up to
within a few days of the expiration of the time-limit fell far short of
the great sum required. Most happily, however, at the last moment a
munificent anonymous donor came forward with a gift of £40,000, which,
with £10,000 from the Government, and other subscriptions, including one
from the vendors, enabled the Fund to complete the purchase, and thus
this great picture, undoubtedly the finest portrait Holbein ever
painted, for which more than one millionaire collector was prepared to
give an even greater price for its possession, was saved for the English
nation, and has at last found a permanent home in the National Gallery.
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF THE DUCHESS AS A CHILD]
It is interesting to note that this Duchess of Milan is identical with
the little dark-eyed girl wearing a peculiar hood in the well-known
picture of the three children of the King of Denmark by Mabuse, in the
English Royal Collection, now in Hampton Court. This picture was
engraved by Vertue in 1748, and was removed at that date from Kensington
Palace to Windsor. It was thought at that time—possibly the mistake was
Vertue’s—to represent the three children of Henry VII, Prince Arthur,
Prince Henry, and Princess Margaret, though in Henry VIII’s catalogue
they were correctly named as the “three children of the Kynge of
Denmarke.” The whole matter was cleared up by Sir George Scharf in a
paper read before the Society of Antiquaries in 1860, and printed in
_Archæologia_.[283] The original picture appears to have been painted in
the spring of 1526 at Malines, where Mabuse was then engaged, amid other
work, in restoring pictures for the Lady Regent. From a letter from Sir
Robert Wingfield to Wolsey, written from that city on the 14th March
1526, we learn that the young Prince of Denmark and his two sisters were
then on a visit to their aunt, “which be right goodly and fair children,
specially the daughters.”[284] A letter from the Emperor to the Archduke
Ferdinand, of about the same date, also mentions this visit. “I am sorry
to hear of the death of the Queen of Denmark. Her children are with my
aunt in Flanders.”[285]
Footnote 283:
Vol. xxxix. p. 245.
Footnote 284:
_C.L.P._, vol. iv. pt. i. 2025.
Footnote 285:
_C.L.P._, vol. iv. pt. i. No. 2051.
In Charles I’s catalogue this picture was attributed to Janet (“a
Whitehall piece thought to be of Jennet”); and the earliest instance of
its rightful ascription to Mabuse is in the Commonwealth inventory,
among the pictures at St. James’s, where it is entered as: “Three
children in one piece by Mabuse, sold to Mr. Grinder for £10, 23rd Oct.
1651.”
Sir George Scharf, comparing this juvenile likeness with the one painted
by Holbein some thirteen years later, says: “The same features and
expression of countenance, notwithstanding the difference of years, may
be traced in both. The look of the eyes is quite the same, and I would
also invite attention to the form of the upper eyelids which, especially
in the Arundel picture, become remarkably broad on the side away from
the nose.”[286] There are five or six replicas of the Mabuse picture in
this country, at Wilton, Sudeley Castle, Longford Castle, Corsham House,
and elsewhere. Other likenesses of the Duchess are to be found on
existing medals both of Sforza and Lorraine, and in the fine engraving
or etching of her by Agostino Carracci, published in Campo’s _History of
Cremona_.
Footnote 286:
_Archæologia_, vol. xl. p. 140.
------------------------------------------------------------------------