ANNE OF CLEVES: 1539
Henry VIII’s fresh matrimonial negotiations with Protestant
Germany—Christopher Mont sent to the Court of the Duke of Saxony with
reference to a political alliance and the King’s marriage—Anne of
Cleves and her sister—Portraits of them by Lucas Cranach—Difficulties
in obtaining portraits of the ladies—Richard Beard and Holbein go over
to Düren for that purpose—The written descriptions of Anne—The legend
woven round Holbein’s portrait of her—Henry’s disappointment on Anne’s
arrival in England—Description of the portrait in the Louvre—Miniature
in the Salting Collection—Drawing at Windsor—Portrait in St. John’s
College, Oxford.
WITH the exception of works executed for his royal master, such as the
“Duchess of Milan” and the lost French portraits, the likeness of the
infant Prince Edward, and that of Anne of Cleves, there is nothing by
Holbein which can be ascribed with absolute certainty to the years 1538
and 1539.[366] It is possible that the portraits of Thomas Howard, Duke
of Norfolk, and his son, Henry, Earl of Surrey, were produced in the
latter year, but no dated likeness by him is known of any member of the
court circle, or, indeed, of any Englishman or German, painted during
these two years. It is true that more than one of his undated works may
be of this period, but there is no actual proof, beyond that of style,
in favour of such a contention. This may be accounted for to some extent
by his frequent absences from England on the King’s business, which
would leave him less time than usual for private practice, while there
is also the possibility that at least some of the works he produced
during these two years have been lost.
Footnote 366:
The portrait of Henry VIII in the National Gallery, Rome, now
attributed to Holbein, was painted, according to the King’s age
inscribed on the background, in 1539 or 1540. See above, p. 103.
By the beginning of 1539, when alarms of war were in the air, and the
alliance between Francis and the Emperor was growing closer every week,
Henry had abandoned all idea of a marriage in France or with the Duchess
of Milan, and was turning his thoughts towards Protestant Germany. The
project of this fresh matrimonial venture was not entirely a new one; it
was under consideration during the previous summer in the midst of the
more active negotiations elsewhere. There is a curious passage in one of
Eustace Chapuys’ letters to the Emperor, dated London, 17th June 1538,
in which he infers that Henry had grown less anxious for the Milan match
because the Germans were making him offers. “Indeed it is a fact,” he
says, “that about that time the King sent to Germany a painter (_ung
paintre_) and one gentleman of his chamber for the express purpose of
pourtraying the personages ‘au naturel’; for, although Cromwell at first
denied this, or at least dissembled, he afterwards owned to me (Chapuys)
that the report was true, that both from France and Germany several
marriages had been proposed.” These marriages, he adds, according to
report, were to be between the son of the Duke of Cleves and the
Princess Mary, and Henry and one of the Duke’s kinswomen.[367]
Footnote 367:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. i. 1198. _Spanish Calendar_, v. ii. 225.
This is the only reference in the State Papers to the despatch of one of
the King’s painters to Germany in the earlier part of 1538, but it is
interesting as containing a possible reference to Holbein and to some
journey of his of which we have no further knowledge. It is much more
likely, however, that Chapuys was misinformed, and that no such
expedition actually took place, though it may have been suggested but
afterwards abandoned.
[Sidenote: SEARCH FOR A BRIDE IN GERMANY]
About the middle of January 1539, Christopher Mont, or Mount, a German
in Henry’s service, was sent abroad with letters of credence to the Duke
of Saxony and the Landgrave. The ostensible purpose of his mission was
to promote the attempted agreement between the English and German
divines which had been the subject of numerous conferences in the
previous year; but the real object was to find out to what extent Henry
might rely upon the German Protestant princes in any trouble which might
arise between England and the Pope or Emperor. At the same time, Mont,
who was accompanied by Thomas Paynell, took with him private
instructions from Cromwell, which included a secret message to Francis
Burgartus,[368] the Duke of Saxony’s vice-chancellor, with respect to a
marriage between the young Duke of Cleves and the Princess Mary, which
he and Cromwell had discussed in London in the previous year. If, the
instructions ran, Burgartus desire “the picture of her face,” Mont is to
remind him that she is a King’s daughter, and that it was not the custom
to send the picture of persons of such degree abroad. Burgartus, too,
had seen her, and could testify of her proportion, countenance, and
beauty. But there was a matter of still greater importance about which
Mont was to sound the vice-chancellor, whose master, the Duke of Saxony,
had married the eldest daughter of the Duke of Cleves, and was one of
the most interested parties in any alliance proposed between England and
Germany. Mont was to inquire diligently of the beauty and qualities of
the elder of the two unmarried daughters of the Duke of Cleves, her
shape, stature, and complexion, and, if he heard she was such “as might
be likened unto his Majesty,” he was to throw out suggestions as to a
marriage between her and the King. The proposal, however, must come from
the side of Cleves, as the overtures made to his Grace in France and
Flanders had not been finally refused. Mont, in short, was not to speak
as if demanding her, “but rather to give them a prick to offer her;” but
first of all, “it is expedient that they should send her picture
hither.”[369] In this way the Princess Anne of Cleves first appears on
the scene, and the Duchess of Milan, and the ladies of Guise and other
royal French houses finally vanish from it.
Footnote 368:
Or Burgratus (Burchardt).
Footnote 369:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiv. pt. i. 103.
Shortly afterwards other diplomatists were sent abroad for the same
purpose. Dr. Barnes went over to Frankfurt to attend the diet of the
Evangelic League, while Dr. Edward Carne and Dr. Nicholas Wootton,
together with Richard Byrd, Bird, or Beard, one of the gentlemen of the
King’s Chamber, were despatched to Düren, to the court of the young Duke
of Cleves, whose father had recently died. Their instructions were very
similar to those given to Mont. They were to offer an offensive and
defensive league and an English bride to the Duke, but were merely to
throw out hints with regard to Anne. Here again they were to demand a
picture of the lady before the match could be considered, for Henry was
always most anxious to see what his proposed bride was like before
committing himself too far.[370] If she were ill-favoured he would have
none of her, however useful for political reasons such an alliance might
prove to be. A portrait was always asked for, but was by no means always
considered sufficient. The King feared that such pictures might flatter
the subject, and so it became his habit, in order to avoid such
possibilities, to send over one of his own painters to procure an
independent likeness. Holbein, in particular, he knew to be capable of
bringing back a true portrait, more valuable in all ways than the
efforts of some unknown foreign painter, or the written opinions of his
ambassadors, whose taste might not always agree with his own.
Footnote 370:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiv. pt. i. 489, 490.
Mont, after an interview with the Duke of Saxony, wrote to Cromwell to
say that he seemed favourable to the proposed marriage, and that he
promised to send a portrait as soon as possible, but said that “his
painter Lucas was sick at home.” “Everyone,” he added, “praises the
lady’s beauty, both of face and body. One said she excelled the Duchess
(of Milan) as the golden sun did the silver moon.”[371] The Lucas
referred to in this letter was Lucas Cranach the elder, and if it had
not been for his illness Holbein might not have been sent over, for
Cranach, no doubt, would have painted a portrait which would have
satisfied the King. Towards the end of April, Cromwell wrote to Beard
and Wootton, again urging them to get a portrait of the lady, which the
former was to bring to London as quickly as possible.[372] In their
reply, dated May 3—the letter, unfortunately, is badly mutilated—they
describe a recent interview with Dr. Henry Olisleger, the
vice-chancellor of Cleves, the young Duke being away at the Diet. “He
said also he would cause the portraits of both the Duke’s younger
sisters to be delivered to us in fourteen days. They were made, he said,
half a year before. We said there was no occasion to declare the King’s
goodwill to the Duke, which was manifest.... And as for the ij pictures,
we wer verye w[ell] contentyd to receyve theym, and specyallye the
imaige of my l[ady Anne] ... that yf eny of bothe shulde lyke his Grace
... yet wolde we gladdelye receyve and sende bothe. [And for a]s muche
as we hadde not seene the ij ladyes, we shulde [not be] able to
advertise his Majestye whether theyr imaiges were [l]yke to theyr
persones, and so shulde his Majestye be never the nerre by the syht of
the pictures.” Dr. Olisleger, however, assured them that the portraits
were faithful likenesses, but the ambassadors were not satisfied. “We
sayde, we hadde not seene theym, for to see but a parte of theyr faces,
and that under such a monstruouse habyte and apparell, was no syght,
neither of theyr faces nor of theyr persones. Why, quod he, wolde yow
see theym nakydde?” What they said in answer to this last remark is lost
through the mutilation of the letter, but they evidently did not approve
of the court costume of Cleves. They concluded by saying: “A Moneday,
God willing, we wylle departe to Duisseldorpe, and, excepte the Duke
have enye bysynesse with us, we wyll thence to Coleyn, where we ar
apoyntyd to receyve the said ij pictures, the which we wille send ynto
England as soone as we canne convenyently.”[373]
Footnote 371:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiv. pt. i. 552. _St. P._, i. 604.
Footnote 372:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiv. pt. i. 834. _St. P._, i. 613.
Footnote 373:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiv. pt. i. 920.
[Sidenote: HOLBEIN AND BEARD GO TO DÜREN]
In spite of these constant demands for portraits, the ambassadors do not
appear to have received them at the time promised. Early in July Dr.
William Petre, one of the Clerks of Chancery, was sent to Cleves with
further messages and instructions to Dr. Wootton. The new ambassador and
the old were to make a further demand to see the ladies, and if Beard
had not already started with the portraits, they were to send them “if
they may be possible gotten,” with their opinion of them as
likenesses.[374]
Footnote 374:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiv. pt. i. 1193.
Beard was back in London for a short time in July, but whether he came
empty-handed or not there is no record to show. It is possible that he
brought with him the two portraits promised by Olisleger, which were to
be handed to him at Cologne. There is a portrait of Anne in England,
described below, which may be one of the two in question, but in any
case it cannot have satisfied Henry, for Beard was sent back almost
immediately to Düren, taking Holbein with him, in order that he might
paint the two sisters. They were allowed £40 for travelling expenses,
while Holbein received a further sum of £13, 6_s._ 8_d._ for his own
personal outlay in connection with his craft.
The following is the entry in the Treasurer’s accounts:
“July, A^o xxxi—Item, to Mr. Richard Bearde, one of the gromes
of the Kingis privi-chambre, and Hans Holbyn, paynter, by like
lettre sent into the parties of High Almayne upon certain his
gracis affaires, for the costes and chardgis of them both, xl.
_li._ And to Hans Holben, for the preparation of such thingis as
he is appoynted to carie with him, xiij. _li._ vi._s._
viii_d._—in alle the some of liij _li._ vi._s._ viii_d._”[375]
Footnote 375:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiv. pt. ii. 781 (f. 85).
According to Dr. Woltmann, the extra fee of £13, 6_s._ 8_d._ paid to
Holbein for “the preparation of such things as he is appointed to carry
with him,” was, “without doubt a portrait of the King, perhaps a
miniature in a costly frame, which he had to paint and to present to the
Princess as a gift from his monarch.”[376] This explanation, however, is
not at all likely to be the correct one. As already pointed out, Henry
never sent portraits of himself to the lady he was preparing to honour
with his hand until he had first of all seen what she herself was like.
He was too cautious a lover to commit himself so far. In all these
transactions he was the one who was to be sought, and the first offer
must come from the lady’s side. The simplest explanation is that the
money was for the provision of the necessary painting materials, and the
cost of their carriage. The sum was, no doubt, a large one if for such a
purpose alone, but Holbein was then high in the King’s favour, and well
paid for all that he did, while his absence from England on the royal
business put an end for the time to his general practice, and this might
have been considered in fixing the amount of his allowance.
Footnote 376:
Woltmann, i. p. 463.
The travellers reached the castle of Düren, where the ladies were
living, early in August, and Holbein at once set to work. He had
finished portraits of both Anne and her sister Amelia before the 11th of
the month, as we learn from a letter of that date from Dr. Wootton to
Henry VIII. In the course of it he says: “Your Grace’s servant Hanze
Albein hathe taken th’effigies of my ladye Anne and the ladye Amelye and
hath expressyd theyr imaiges verye lyvelye.”[377]
Footnote 377:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiv. pt. ii. 33.
It seems probable that in this instance Holbein did more than make mere
studies in crayons such as he had done in the case of the Duchess of
Milan and the French ladies; and the fact that the portrait of Anne of
Cleves, now in the Louvre, is on parchment fastened down on a wood panel
affords some proof of this. The portrait would be painted on the
parchment directly from the sitter, and afterwards mounted and the
finishing touches given to it. Owing to the haste required, and the
safer conveyance of the portrait, the latter process was probably not
carried out until the artist was back in London.
[Sidenote: GOSSIP ABOUT THE KING’S MARRIAGE]
No time appears to have been wasted. Henry not only demanded but
obtained speed from his servants on their numerous journeys. Travelling
post, the journey to and from Düren, which was usually made via Antwerp,
took about eleven days. Holbein was in England again before the end of
August, as we learn from Marillac, the new French ambassador, who, on
September 1, writing from Grafton, where he had followed the King fifty
miles from London, informed Francis I that he “has learnt that an
excellent painter whom this King sent to Germany to bring the portrait
of the sister of the Duke of Cleves, recently arrived in Court, and,
immediately afterwards, a courier, bringing, among other news which is
still kept secret, news that the said Duke’s ambassadors have started to
come hither to treat and conclude the marriage of this King and the said
lady.”[378]
Footnote 378:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiv. pt. ii. 117. Kaulek, 124.
The proposed marriage afforded opportunity for much speculation on the
part of the King’s subjects, as more than one of his earlier matrimonial
projects had done. An excellent idea of the kind of gossip which
prevailed can be gathered from the evidence taken in the case of a
certain George Constantyne, who talked so much that he got himself
charged with treason. It occurs in the report of a conversation between
Constantyne and the Dean of Westbury during a journey they made together
to South Wales, and in the course of it Holbein’s visit to Cleves is
mentioned. “The Dean asked also if Constantyne had any news of the
King’s marriage. Replied, he could not tell; he was sorry to see the
King so long without a queen, when he might yet have many fair children:
his own father was ninety-two years old, and yet, last summer, rode
thirty-two miles one day before two o’clock, and said he was not weary;
the duchess of Milan and that of Cleif were both spoken of, as the Dean
knew. Asked, ‘How call ye the little doctor that is gone to Cleif?’ The
Dean said, it was Dr. Woten, and that he that was with him of the Privy
Chamber, whom Woten sent home lately, was Berde; adding that this Berde
was sent thither again with the King’s painter, and that there was good
hope of the marriage, for the duke of Cleif favoured God’s word and was
a mighty prince now, having possession of Gelderland against the
Emperor’s will.... Said also that the matter of the duchess of Milan was
really broken off, for she would have the King accept the bishop of
Rome’s dispensation and give pledges. ‘Why pledges?’ asked the Dean.
‘Marry,’ said Constantyne, ‘she sayeth that the King’s Majesty was in so
little space rid of the Queens, that she dare not trust his Council,
though she durst trust his Majesty; for her Council suspecteth that her
great aunt was poisoned, that the second was innocently put to death,
and the third lost for lack of keeping her in childbed.’ Added, that he
was not sure whether this was her answer or that of Cleif, but that he
heard a muttering of it before Whitsuntide.”[379] It will be seen from
this gossip that the legend respecting the Duchess of Milan’s refusal to
accept Henry because she had fear for the safety of her head was
commonly believed at the time.
Footnote 379:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiv. pt. ii. 400. _Archæologia_, xxiii. 56.
The written descriptions of Anne which Henry received from his
representatives and agents were all favourable, but not enthusiastic.
Wootton in the letter referring to Holbein, already quoted, says of her:
“She has been brought up with the lady Duchess her mother (as the lady
Sybille also was till she was married and the lady Amelye has been and
is) and in manner never from her elbow, the lady Duchess being a wise
lady and one that very straitly looketh to her children. All report her
to be of very lowly and gentle conditions, by the which she hath so much
won her mother’s favour that she is very loth to suffer her to depart
from her. ‘She occupieth her time most with the needle, wherewithall
she.... She canne reede and wryte her ... Frenche, Latyn, or other
langaige she [hathe no] ne, nor yet she canne not synge nor playe [upon]
enye instrument, for they take it heere in Germanye for a rebuke and an
occasion of lightenesse that great ladyes shold be lernyd or have enye
knowledge of musike.’ Her wit is good and she will no doubt learn
English soon when she puts her mind to it. ‘I could never hear that she
is inclined to the good cheer of this country and marvel it were if she
should, seeing that her brother, to whom yet it were somewhat more
tolerable, doth so well abstain from it.’”[380]
Footnote 380:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiv. pt. ii. 33.
Sir Michael Mercator, the German factor of musical instruments, knighted
by Henry, wrote to Cromwell later in the year, giving praise to God “for
this alliance with the most illustrious, beautiful, and noble lady Anna
de Clefves, who has a great gift from God, both of sense and wit. It
would be difficult to describe her good manners and grace, and how
Gueldres, Cleves, and all the country of the Duke, rejoice at the
alliance.”[381]
Footnote 381:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiv. pt. ii. 500.
[Sidenote: THE “FLANDERS MARE” LEGEND]
Around Holbein’s portrait of Anne there has been woven a legend which
upon examination is found to have no foundation in fact. The story is to
be traced back to Bishop Burnet, who, in his _History of the
Reformation_, says:[382] “Hans Holbin having taken her picture, sent it
over to the king. But in that he bestowed the common compliment of his
art somewhat too liberally on a lady that was in a fair way to be queen
the king liked the picture better than the original, when he had the
occasion afterwards to compare them.” Instead of the promised beauty,
continues the bishop, they brought him over a “Flanders mare.”
Footnote 382:
Vol. i. pt. i. p. 543.
Walpole, following Burnet, elaborates this: “Holbein was next despatched
by Cromwell to draw the lady Anne of Cleve, and by practising the common
flattery of his profession, was the immediate cause of the destruction
of that great subject, and of the disgrace that fell on the princess
herself. He drew so favourable a likeness, that Henry was content to wed
her; but when he found her so inferior to the miniature, the storm which
really should have been directed at the painter, burst on the minister;
and Cromwell lost his head, because Anne was _a Flanders mare_, not a
Venus, as Holbein had represented her.”[383]
Footnote 383:
Walpole, _Anecdotes_, ed. Wornum, i. p. 72.
There is no truth at all in this story. The leading characteristic of
Holbein’s portraiture is its complete truth; he was not in the habit of
flattering his sitters, and the portrait of Anne affords one of the most
striking testimonies of this. He certainly did not paint her as a Venus,
nor was Cromwell’s fall owing to the picture. He was, indeed, made Earl
of Essex after the lady’s marriage to the King. Letters in the State
Papers show very clearly that Henry complained only of the spoken and
written words of his ambassadors, and made no mention of portraits.
Russell, the Lord High Admiral, in his deposition in connection with the
divorce, quoted Henry as saying to him: “How like you this woman? do you
think her so fair and of such beauty as report hath been made unto me of
her? I pray you tell me the truth.” Whereupon the said Lord Admiral
answered, that he took her not for fair, but to be of a brown
complexion. And the king’s highness said, “Alas! whom should men trust?
I promise you,” said he, “I see no such thing in her as hath been showed
me of her, and am ashamed that men hath praised her as they have done,
and I like her not.” Stow, in quoting this, adds without authority the
words: “either by pictures or report,” after “I see no such thing in her
as hath been showed me of her.”
Stow, apparently drawing upon his own imagination, makes exaggerated
references to the part portraits played in the negotiations for the
marriage. “Some went over by the king, some by the Lord Cromwell, and
some went voluntary, to view the Lady Anne of Cleave, and to negotiate
her marriage with the king. All which, either by letters, speech, or
both, made very large and liberal reports in praise of her singular
feature, matchless beauty, and princely perfections, and for proof
thereof presented the king with sundry of her pictures, which the
bringers ever affirmed to have been truly made, without flattery.”[384]
Footnote 384:
Stow, _Annales_, ed. Howes, p. 576.
Henry, however, in his own declaration, never refers to a portrait. He
entered into the marriage, he said, “because I heard so much both of her
excellent beauty and virtuous conditions.” In addition, he told Sir
Anthony Browne, “I see nothing in this woman as men report of her, and I
mervail that wise men would make such report as they have done.” He also
told Cromwell, in reply to his question as to how he liked the lady,
“Nothing so well as she was spoken of; if I had known as much before as
I know now, she should never have come into the realm. But what remedy?”
After all, however, the praises of her sent home by Henry’s ambassadors
were not very hearty ones. In Hutton’s letter from Brussels, already
quoted,[385] written shortly after Jane Seymour’s death, in answer to a
request that he would search for a possible bride for the King at the
Court of the Regent, he reported, among other princesses, that “the
Dewke of Clevis hathe a daughter, but I here no great preas neyther of
hir personage nor beawtie.” Wootton’s account, given above, is a
remarkably cautious one, and lays most stress on Anne’s domestic
virtues. He had also complained that he had found it impossible to judge
of the personal appearance of the two ladies on account of the ugly
head-dresses they wore.
Footnote 385:
See p. 116.
Had the fault been Holbein’s, he would, no doubt, have fallen under the
King’s displeasure. At the least his appointment would have been taken
from him, even if he had not been forced to leave England; but the
contrary was the case. In September, after his return from Cleves, he
received, for a second time, a whole year’s salary in advance. This was,
of course, before the King had seen the original of the portrait; but,
strangely enough, if the accounts are to be believed, in addition to
this year’s advance, Holbein continued to receive his salary every
quarter day for the next year, so that he was paid twice over.[386] It
is thus very evident that the painter suffered no disgrace or lack of
employment or patronage, so that the legend must be abandoned.
Footnote 386:
See p. 190.
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF ANNE OF CLEVES]
The fine portrait of Anne of Cleves now in the Louvre (Pl. 24) is in all
probability the picture which Holbein painted in Düren.[387] It is
almost three-quarter length, less than life-size. She is shown standing,
facing the spectator, her hands folded in front of her, and dressed in a
very elaborate costume. Her sumptuous gown of red velvet with wide
hanging sleeves has heavy bands of gold embroidered with pearls. The
bodice is cut square, and is edged with a band of ornament decorated
with jewels, and a similar one round the neck with a pendant jewelled
cross. She also wears two gold chains, and several rings on her fingers.
The open front of the dress is filled in with fine white linen with
bands of embroidery. Her hair is covered with an almost transparent
head-dress worked with an elaborate pattern and the motto “A BON FINE,”
over which is a cap wrought all over with gold, pearls, and other
jewels. Her lace cuffs are also gold-embroidered. The background is
blue-green, without inscription. Her brown eyes look straight at the
spectator. More than one writer, influenced no doubt by these stories of
her lack of beauty, has described this portrait as the likeness of a
heavy, expressionless, ill-favoured woman; but this is far from being
the case. Without any pretensions to extraordinary good looks, the face
is a pleasant one, and by no means as plain as it has been described;
indeed, in many ways it compares favourably with that of Queen Jane
Seymour. That it is a truthful representation is certain, for Holbein
never failed in this respect. Nothing is known of the history of the
picture, or how it came to find a home in France, except that it was at
one time in the Earl of Arundel’s possession,[388] and afterwards in the
collection of Louis XIV.
Footnote 387:
Woltmann, 228. Reproduced by Davies, p. 174; Knackfuss, fig. 131; A.
F. Pollard, _Henry VIII_, p. 260; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 124.
Footnote 388:
Entered in the 1655 inventory as “ritratto d’Anne de Cleves.”
Walpole speaks of the portrait done by Holbein in Düren as a miniature.
He was inclined to believe that the beautiful miniature of Anne, now in
the Salting Collection at South Kensington, which in his days belonged
to the Barretts of Lee Priory, was the very miniature painted by Holbein
on this occasion. “This very picture,” he says, “as is supposed, was in
the possession of Mr. Barrett, of Kent.... The print among the
illustrious heads is taken from it: and so far justifies the king, that
he certainly was not nice, if from that picture he concluded her
handsome enough. It has so little beauty, that I should doubt of its
being the very portrait in question—it rather seems to have been drawn
after Holbein saw a little with the king’s eyes. I have seen that
picture in the cabinet of the present Mr. Barrett, of Lee, and think it
the most exquisitely perfect of all Holbein’s works as well as in the
highest preservation. The print gives a very inadequate idea of it, and
none of her Flemish fairness. It is preserved in the ivory box in which
it came over, and which represents a rose, so delicately carved as to be
worthy of the jewel it contains.”[389]
Footnote 389:
Walpole, _Anecdotes_, ed. Wornum, i. p. 72, note.
It is not known in what way this miniature,[390] together with the
companion portrait of Henry VIII,[391] in a similar ivory box, in the
late Mr. Pierpont Morgan’s collection, came into the possession of the
Barrett family. They were offered for sale by auction in 1757, but
bought in; and subsequently sold by Mr. T. B. Barrett in 1826 to a
dealer named Tuck, who resold them for fifty guineas to Francis Douce,
by whom they were bequeathed, in 1834, to Sir Samuel Rush Meyrick, of
Goodrich Court. At a later date the miniature of Anne of Cleves was
bequeathed by General Meyrick to Miss Davies, from whom it was acquired
by the late Mr. George Salting. This miniature follows very closely the
portrait in the Louvre, though there are slight differences in the
details and colour of the dress. The background is blue, without
inscription. It is in water-colours, and is 1¾ in. in diameter. It was
from this miniature, which is regarded as an undoubted work by Holbein,
that Houbraken engraved, in 1739, the portrait of Anne for his
“Illustrious Heads.”
Footnote 390:
Woltmann, 158. Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 148 (2); and in
_Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition Catalogue_, Pl. xxxii.
Footnote 391:
Woltmann, 157. See p. 235.
When the Louvre picture was in the Arundel Collection it was etched by
Hollar, but reversed. This print is 9¼ in. by 7 in., and is dated 1648
and inscribed—“Anna Clivensis, Henrici VIII Regis Angliæ Uxor IIIIta. H
Holbein pinxit. Wenceslaus Hollar fecit aqua forti, ex Collectione
Arundeliana, A. 1648.”[392]
Footnote 392:
Parthey, 1343. There is a second print by Hollar, of the same year,
taken from a picture or drawing in the Arundel Collection, of a lady
in profile to the right, wearing a flat black cap, which, it has been
suggested, also represents Anne of Cleves (Parthey, 1545). The
likeness is not very apparent, nor does the original appear to have
been by Holbein, as Hollar states. It is reproduced by Dr. Ganz,
_Holbein_, p. 198 (2).
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 24
ANNE OF CLEVES
1539
LOUVRE, PARIS
]
[Sidenote: OTHER PORTRAITS OF ANNE OF CLEVES]
There are several other portraits in existence which are said, with
little authority, to represent Anne of Cleves; among them a drawing in
the Windsor Collection,[393] which appears at one time to have become
separated from the others. It came into the possession of Dr. Meade, and
at his sale in 1755 was bought by Mr. Chetwynd. After the latter’s death
it was restored by his executors to the royal collection. It bears
little or no resemblance to the Louvre portrait, and is almost certainly
a likeness of some English lady. She is shown full-face, with a
close-fitting cap covering the ears, and a hat over it. The drawing has
been damaged by having been cut out round the outline. The face is a
refined one. There are notes in German as to the material and colours of
the dress, and the pattern of the Spanish work on the collar is drawn in
detail on the margin. It has no inscription. In the National Portrait
Exhibition at South Kensington in 1865, a small head of “Anne of Cleves”
was exhibited by the Earl of Derby. It was in oil on panel, oval, about
3 in. by 2½ in., and signed “H. H.” It had been injured, and was then in
a somewhat dirty condition; the face had considerable likeness to the
Louvre picture.[394]
Footnote 393:
Woltmann, 357; Wornum, not included; Holmes, ii. 2.
Footnote 394:
Wornum, p. 330, note.
There is, however, one other portrait in addition to the Louvre panel
which is a contemporary likeness of Anne of Cleves, though not by
Holbein. This is the small picture in St. John’s College, Oxford, a fine
work by some unknown painter of the Flemish School. It is a half-length,
standing three-quarters to the left, behind a parapet upon which lie an
orange and a pair of jewelled gloves. The head-dress is of cloth of gold
and white gauze, the latter worked with the motto, “A BON FINE,” as in
the Louvre picture. She is wearing a low-cut dress of striped gold and
black, filled in with white with embroidered bands, gold and jewelled
necklaces, and a pendant cross, and several rings on her fingers. Her
left hand is placed against her waistbelt, and in her right she holds
three carnations. The background is dark, with a small canopy or curtain
over her head. It is on panel with arched top, 19¾ in. by 14¼ in. The
costume is of the same style and period as the Louvre portrait, though
it differs in numerous small details, more particularly in the colours
of the materials, the shape of the sleeves, and the jewelled bands of
the head-dress. The general tone of colour is golden, and there is
excellent painting in all the details of the elaborate costume. It was
included in the Oxford Exhibition of Historical Portraits in 1904 (No.
30), and was one of the most interesting pictures in the
collection.[395] As a likeness it bears a strong resemblance to
Holbein’s portrait, and if not of Anne may well be of her sister. The
suggestion may be hazarded that it is one of the two portraits, painted
six months before Holbein and Beard were in Düren, which Olisleger had
promised to procure for Henry VIII’s ambassadors, portraits which Beard,
apparently, took with him to London early in July 1539.
Footnote 395:
Reproduced in the Oxford Catalogue, p. 24; _Burlington Magazine_, vol.
v., May 1904, p. 214. A very similar picture was lent by Dr. Wickham
Flower to the New Gallery Winter Exhibition, 1899-1900, No. 44, as a
work of the Early Flemish School. It was described in the catalogue
as: “Half-length, turned towards left, habited in a rich Flemish
costume of gold tissue covered with jewellery; head-dress ornamented
with pearls, and inscribed with the motto ‘A bon fine’; in her right
hand she holds a red carnation; flat green background. Painted on
vellum and strained on fine canvas, 15 in. × 14 in. This portrait is
supposed to have been executed by a Flemish painter a year or two
previous to Anne’s marriage in 1540.”
There is no need even to touch upon the concluding stages of this
miserable story, with which Holbein had nothing to do. Henry married
Anne at Greenwich on January 6, 1540, and finally divorced her on July
12 in the same year. She settled at Richmond in the enjoyment of the
rank of a princess and a pension of £3000 a year, and survived the King
by ten years, dying in 1557.
------------------------------------------------------------------------