THE LAST YEARS: 1540-1543
Holbein’s work at Whitehall—His residence in the parish of
St. Andrew Undershaft—In high favour at court—Payments of
his salary—Possible visit to Basel—Portraits and miniatures
of Catherine Howard—Portraits of the Duke of Norfolk—The
Earl of Surrey—Unknown men at Berlin and Vienna—Unknown
Englishman at the Hague—Earl of Southampton—Unknown man,
aged 54, at Berlin—Unknown English lady at Vienna—Simon
George—Dr. John Chamber—Sir William and Lady Butts—Unknown
Englishman at Basel—Young English lady in the collection of
Count Lanckoronski—Lady Rich—Holbein’s self-portraits—A
newly-discovered one at Basel—Portraits, now lost, etched by
Hollar—The Duke of Buckingham’s Collection.
Though there is no actual evidence in support of the statement of the
older writers that Holbein, after he entered the royal service, had the
use of a permanent studio in Whitehall Palace, granted to him by the
King, there is every possibility that such was the case. “One of the
earliest of the famous non-royal residents in Whitehall Palace,” says
Dr. Edgar Sheppard, “was the artist Holbein. He had been presented to
Henry VIII by Sir Thomas More, and the King assigned him a permanent
suite of apartments in Whitehall, and commissioned him to paint the
interior of the new Palace, for which work he received two hundred
florins per annum.”[396] While the great wall-painting in the Privy
Chamber was in progress, it would be necessary for him to have a room
for his own use within the building, for the storage of the materials
required for the work, and it is not impossible that he was permitted to
retain the room as his own, perhaps one of those over the so-called
“Holbein’s Gate,” for the short remainder of his life, more particularly
as his practice was almost entirely confined to the court, so that a
studio in Whitehall would best suit the convenience both of the painter
and his sitters.[397] That he had a “permanent suite of apartments”
there, as Dr. Sheppard states, is much less probable. This would
indicate residence, whereas it is known that during his last years he
occupied a house in the east of London.
Footnote 396:
_The Old Royal Palace of Whitehall_, 1901, p. 266.
Footnote 397:
See Appendix (M).
It is doubtful, too, whether Holbein carried out any important
decorative work in the Palace beyond the famous wall-painting already
described.[398] According to a curious entry in Pepys’ _Diary_, under
the date August 28, 1668, which is not easy to understand, the room
known as the Matted Gallery had a painted ceiling of Holbein’s
handiwork. The passage runs as follows: “With much difficulty, by
candle-light, walked over the matted gallery, as it is now with the mats
and boards all taken up, so that we walked over the rafters. But strange
to see how hard matter the plaister of Paris is, that is there taken up,
as hard as stone! And pity to see Holben’s work in the ceiling blotted
on, and only whited over!” The exact sense of the concluding words is
not very clear, but Pepys appears to mean that the ceiling had been
formerly painted by Holbein, and that, having become damaged in course
of time, it had recently been given a coat of whitewash. The ceiling was
probably decorated with coloured plaster-work in relief, and though
Holbein may have supplied the design, and may even have been responsible
for the painting, it is much more likely that the plaster-work itself
was done by some Italian, such as Nicolas Beilin of Modena, who had
carried out similar undertakings at Fontainebleau.
Footnote 398:
In 1576 Johann Fischart, quoted by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. xxxviii., in a
description of the Palace, speaks of several of the galleries as
decorated on both sides with fine emblematic histories, and actions
and stories in the style of Michelangelo and Holbein. Henry Peacham,
in his _Graphicè_ (1606), and again in _The Compleat Gentleman_
(1634), speaks of works by Holbein in Whitehall. He says: “He painted
the Chappell at White-Hall, and S. _James_, _Joseph of Arimathea_,
_Lazarus_ rising from the dead, &c., were his.” (See _The Compleat
Gentleman_, ed. G. S. Gordon, 1906, p. 128. Also Walpole, _Anecdotes_,
ed. Wornum, i. p. 82.) There is a drawing in the British Museum
representing Henry VIII seated at table under a lofty canopy, in a
large chamber, with a number of standing courtiers in attendance,
which appears to be a sixteenth-century copy of a preliminary study by
Holbein for a wall-decoration, possibly for one of the rooms in
Whitehall. It is inscribed “Holbein Inven^t.” Reproduced by Ganz,
_Holbein_, p. 183.
[Sidenote: “DANCE OF DEATH” AT WHITEHALL]
The legend that Holbein also painted a “Dance of Death,” composed of
life-size figures, upon the walls of one of the rooms in Whitehall, is
probably pure fiction, or, at least, there is much less to be said in
its favour than for Pepys’ attribution of the ceiling in the Matted
Gallery to the painter. The writer who first gave currency to the story
was Francis Douce, in his “Dance of Death,” published in 1833. According
to his statement, “very soon after the calamitous fire at Whitehall in
1697,[399] which consumed nearly the whole of that palace, a person,
calling himself T. Nieuhoff Piccard, probably belonging to the household
of William III, and a man who appears to have been an amateur
artist,”[400] made etchings after nineteen of the cuts in the Lyon
“Dance of Death.” Impressions of these etchings, accompanied with
manuscript dedications, are said to have been presented by this Piccard
to his friends and patrons, and among others to a Mynheer Heymans, and
to the “high, noble, and well-born Lord William Denting, Lord of Rhoon,
Pendreght,” &c. In these addresses Piccard speaks of a “wall-painting”
of the “Dance” by Holbein which he himself had seen in Whitehall. In the
dedication to Heymans he says:
Footnote 399:
Should be 1698.
Footnote 400:
_Holbein’s Dance of Death_, ed. 1858, p. 124.
“Sir,—The costly palace of Whitehall, erected by Cardinal
Wolsey, and the residence of King Henry VIII, contains, among
other performances of art, a _Dance of Death_, painted by
Holbein in its galleries, which, through an unfortunate
conflagration, has been reduced to ashes.”
In the dedication to “Lord William Benting” Piccard is more precise:
“Sir,—In the course of my constant love and pursuit of works of
art, it has been my good fortune to meet with that scarce little
work of Hans Holbein neatly engraved on wood, and which he
himself had painted as large as life in fresco on the walls of
Whitehall.”
* * * * *
As far as can be ascertained, there is not the slightest truth in this
legend. Nothing is known as to the identity of Heymans, but Lord William
Benting was evidently William Bentinck (1704-1774), of Rhoon and
Pendrecht in Holland, and Terrington St. Clements, Norfolk, third son of
Hans William Bentinck, first Earl of Portland, and a Count of the Holy
Roman Empire. Douce, who gave undeserved authority to this story, made
no attempt to trace the history of the manuscript “addresses” which
accompanied the etchings, and though he saw them, does not say to whom
they then belonged, or even in what language they were written. They may
be safely set down as forgeries, as far as any wall-paintings of the
“Dance of Death” by Holbein are concerned. Piccard, whoever he may have
been, is the sole authority for the existence of these mythical works,
which are not mentioned by Van Mander or Sandrart, or by any of the
foreign travellers who visited this country in their descriptions of
Whitehall, though the wall-painting of Henry VIII with his wife and
parents in the same palace is more than once spoken of in such records
in terms of high praise. Both Pepys and Evelyn are equally silent on the
subject, though the latter mentions the “Dance of Death” woodcuts, and
ascribes them to Holbein by name. “We have seen,” he says, “some few
things cut in wood by the incomparable Hans Holbein the Dane, but they
are rare and exceedingly difficult to come by; as his _Licentiousnesse
of the Friers and Nuns_; _Erasmus_; _Moriae Encomium_; _the Trial and
Crucifixion of Christ_; _The Daunce Macchabree_; the _Mortis Imago_,
which he painted in great in the Church at Basil, and afterwards graved
with no lesse art.”[401] What he says is by no means free from mistakes,
but as, in speaking of a visit paid to Whitehall in 1656, he describes
the condition of the large wall-painting of the two kings Henry VII and
Henry VIII, and their consorts, it is not probable that he would have
failed to mention any other important wall-paintings in the palace had
they existed. Douce thought he had discovered a corroboration of
Piccard’s story in an entry in Van der Doort’s catalogue of Charles I’s
collection, which runs: “A little piece, where Death with a green
garland about his head, stretching both his arms to apprehend a Pilate
in the habit of one of the spiritual Prince-Electors of Germany. Copied
by Isaac Oliver from Holbein”; but this, no doubt, was painted from the
woodcut of the Elector in the Lyon “Dance of Death,” and not from a
large wall-painting.
Footnote 401:
Evelyn, _Sculptura_, ed. 1769, p. 69.
As already stated, though Holbein may have had a workroom within the
precincts of Whitehall, his permanent home in London was elsewhere. The
public records show that in 1541 he was living in the parish of St.
Andrew Undershaft, in Aldgate Ward. How long he had been there is not
known, but possibly for the greater part of his second sojourn in
England. This information is contained in a subsidy roll for the City of
London, dated 24th October, 33 Hen. VIII (1541). Among the “straungers”
taxed were:
“Barnadyne xxx. _s._
Buttessey, xxx.
_li._
Hanns Holbene iij. _li._”
in fee, xxx.
_li._
Why Holbein was obliged to pay twice the amount charged to Buttessey on
an equal assessment of £30 a year is explained by the fact that in these
subsidies it was usual to tax “lands, fees, and annuities,” at double
the rate of goods. “In the royal accounts,” says Sir Augustus W. Franks,
“the payments to Holbein are sometimes noticed as wages, sometimes as an
annuity; while other payments of a similar kind, although fees or
annuities, are included under the general term “wages,” and evidently
looked upon as synonymous terms for the salaries paid by the King to
various members of his household. In any case, the salary of Holbein,
the painter, rendered him liable to be rated, as a foreigner, at the
high amount above-mentioned.”[402] There can be no doubt that this
Holbein of the subsidy roll was the artist. The amount of his fee, £30,
corresponds with the salary he received from the royal purse, while
Holbein’s will gives his place of residence as the parish of St. Andrew
Undershaft.
Footnote 402:
_Archæologia_, vol. xxxix. p. 17.
[Sidenote: HOLBEIN’S RESIDENCE IN LONDON]
According to a story told by Walpole, Holbein once resided in a house on
London Bridge. He says: “The father of Lord Treasurer Oxford passing
over London Bridge, was caught in a shower, and stepping into a
goldsmith’s shop for shelter, he found there a picture of Holbein (who
had lived in that house) and his family. He offered the goldsmith
100_l._ for it, who consented to let him have it, but desired first to
show it to some persons. Immediately after happened the fire of London,
and the picture was destroyed.”[403] This story is apparently a mere
legend, and there is no evidence to support it; nor is it very probable
that an important painting by Holbein would have remained in the same
small house for more than one hundred and twenty years. Dallaway, in his
notes to Walpole, includes in a supplementary list of works by Holbein
in England a small picture of Holbein, his wife, four boys, and a girl,
at Mereworth Castle, Kent, which he suggests may be either a repetition
or the original picture of the London Bridge story; but in the first
place, Holbein never had a family of four sons, and, secondly, the
picture bears no traces of Holbein’s manner. He quotes Gilpin’s
description of it: “As a whole, it has no effect; but the heads are
excellent. They are not painted in the common flat style of Holbein, but
with a round, firm, glowing pencil, and yet exact imitation of nature is
preserved—the boys are very innocent, beautiful characters.” If some
such “family” picture existed in London at that time, it is much more
likely to have been a copy or a replica of the genuine family group in
the Basel Gallery.
Footnote 403:
Walpole, _Anecdotes_, ed. Wornum, i. p. 86, note.
The favour with which Holbein was now regarded at court is shown by the
frequency with which he received a year’s or half a year’s salary in
advance, a mark of royal condescension which was most unusual. Thus
under “September A^o xxxi” (1539) is the following entry: “Item paide by
the Kingis highnesse commaundement certefied by my lorde privyseales
lettres to Hans Holbenne, paynter, in the advauncement of his hole yeres
wagis beforehande, aftre the rate of xxx _li._ by yere, which yeres
advauncement is to be accompted from this present Michaelmas, and shall
ende ultimo Septembris next commynge, the somme of xxx _li._”[404]
Notwithstanding this payment in advance, it appears, as already pointed
out,[405] from the four following quarterly entries in the accounts
having reference to Holbein, from Michaelmas 1539 to Midsummer 1540,
that he continued to receive his salary of £7, 10_s._ each quarter as
usual.[406] If these entries are to be depended upon, he clearly
received his money twice over, either by accident, owing to carelessness
in the keeping of the King’s accounts, or of set purpose as a further
reward for his services.
Footnote 404:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiv. pt. ii. p. 313, _The King’s Payments_, f. 90 _b_;
and _Archæologia_, vol. xxxix. p. 9.
Footnote 405:
See p. 180.
Footnote 406:
The first of these was due to him, and not covered by the year’s
advance.
[Sidenote: HIS WORK ABOUT THE COURT]
In September 1540 he received an advance of half a year: “September, A^o
xxxii—Item paide to Hans Holbyn, the Kingis paynter, in advauncement of
his wagis for one half yere beforehande, the same half yere accompted
and reconned fromme Michaelmas last paste, the somme of xv _li._” This
time, however, he did not receive his salary twice over, for in the two
following entries, at Michaelmas and Christmas, 1540, the accounts
merely state: “Item, for Hans Holbyn, paynter, wages, nihil, quia prius
per warrantum.” In the following March 1541 he again obtained a
half-year’s advance: “March, A^o xxxii: Item paied to Hans Holben, the
Kingis painter, in advauncement of his half yeres wages before hande,
after the rate of xxx _li._ by yere, which half yere is accompted to
beginne primo Aprilis A^o xxxij. domini Regis nunc, and shall ende
ultimo Septembris then next ensuynge, the somme of xv _li._” The two
remaining entries of which we have record, at Lady Day and Midsummer
following, are as follows: “Item for Hans Holben, paynter, wages, nil,
quia praemanibus”; and “Item for Hans Holbyn, paynter, nihil, quia
prius.” The volume of accounts closes with the payments for this
quarter, and no details of the royal expenditure during the next two
years and a half exist, so that there is no record of the salary Holbein
received for the remaining years of his life. In a later volume of
Tuke’s accounts, as treasurer of the household, extending from October,
35 Hen. VIII (1543) to November, 36 Hen. VIII (1544), the first
quarterly payments are for Christmas 1543, and Holbein’s name does not
occur in them, as he had then been dead for about two months. It is
rather strange, however, that it does not appear among the Christmas
payments with “Nihil quia mortuus” after it, as this was the usual
procedure in case of death. This omission, however, may have been due to
the fact that he had once again received his salary beforehand.
The remaining years of Holbein’s life must have been busy ones, judging
from the number of preliminary studies for portraits of the men and
women of Henry’s court which exist in the Windsor Collection and in many
of the great European museums. These drawings are all undated, and cover
the whole period of his English career, but there are so many of them
that his time must have been always fully occupied. It is strange,
therefore, that so few of his finished portraits can be ascribed with
any certainty to the year 1540. Although it was by no means his
invariable custom to put the date on his paintings, yet this was his
more usual practice, and there is no known picture by him which is
inscribed 1540, though there are a few dated 1541 and 1542. Several
portraits of the Howard family can be given with some certainty to the
earlier year, but beyond this nothing has been so far discovered. It may
be suggested, as some explanation of this, that Holbein paid another
visit to Basel during the last quarter of 1540, as the two years’ leave
of absence granted him by the Town Council came to an end in the middle
of October. The Council, who had been paying his wife the promised
yearly pension of forty gulden, expected him to make Basel his permanent
residence on the completion of this further extension of leave. The
terms of their agreement with him were fairly generous, and it is not to
be supposed that the painter would risk losing his rights of citizenship
and the stoppage of the pension to his wife through a total disregard of
the Council’s wish. It seems possible, therefore, that he went over to
Switzerland in order to make personal application for a further and
longer leave of absence in England than the agreement of 1538 permitted.
Unlike many of the foreign artists and artificers then resident in this
country, he never became a naturalised British subject, and this, no
doubt, was due to the fact that he was determined to end his days as a
citizen of Basel, and regarded his residence here as merely a temporary
one, and England as a profitable field which, as time passed, would
become worked out. He could not, of course, foresee that he was to be
suddenly cut down when a comparatively young man and still in the full
maturity of his powers. At Michaelmas in the year in question he
received half a year’s salary in advance, so that it was impossible for
him to leave England permanently for some time to come.
In the summer of 1540 Holbein lost another of his English patrons. Henry
formally divorced Anne of Cleves on the 12th of July, and on the 28th of
the same month Thomas Cromwell, then Earl of Essex, who had been a good
friend to the painter, was beheaded for high treason, after a period of
eight years during which his influence with both King and Parliament had
been paramount. During the same month Henry privately married Catherine,
daughter of Lord Edmund Howard, a cousin of Anne Boleyn, and niece of
Thomas, third Duke of Norfolk. By this marriage the Howards, and through
them the Catholic party, regained that ascendancy in the councils of the
King which had received a severe check at the fall of Anne Boleyn; and
at least three members of this family were painted by Holbein. The new
Queen was publicly acknowledged on August 8 at Hampton Court Palace.
[Sidenote: MINIATURES OF CATHERINE HOWARD]
Although it was to be supposed that Henry would employ Holbein to paint
the portrait of his new queen, until quite recently the only known
likeness of her from his brush was the miniature portrait in the royal
collection at Windsor Castle, and the replica of it belonging to the
Duke of Buccleuch. In 1909, however, the discovery was made by Mr.
Lionel Cust of a genuine and very beautiful portrait of this Queen. In
the Windsor miniature (Pl. 31 (4)),[407] which shows her in a similar
position to the one in the newly-discovered picture, she is represented
nearly to the waist, turned to the left, her hands folded in front of
her, the left over the right. Her hair and eyes are brown, and she wears
a circular hood of the then fashionable French pattern, with a fall of
black velvet. Her square-cut bodice is of dark cloth of gold, with
sleeves of grey-green silk embroidered with gold, and white ruffles with
black embroidery. Round her neck, over the white cambric filling of the
dress, falls an elaborate necklace of pearls, rubies, and sapphires. The
background, which is bright blue, has no inscription. It is painted on
the back of a playing card, the eight of diamonds, and is 2⅓ inches in
diameter. The hands, and the lower part of the arms, are badly painted,
and appear to be a later addition.
Footnote 407:
Woltmann, 271. Reproduced by Law, Pl. vii.; Knackfuss, fig. 132;
Williamson, _History of Portrait Miniatures_, Pl. ii. No. 2; Pollard,
_Henry VIII_, p. 245; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 149 (4), and Cust,
_Burlington Magazine_, July 1910, p. 195.
Nothing is known of its history, or as to the date of its acquisition,
but it did not belong to the Crown in Tudor or Stuart days. Dr. Ganz
describes it as badly over-painted, and possibly only a copy. Doubts
have been thrown from time to time on its right to be called a portrait
of Catherine Howard. Mr. Ernest Law considers the attribution to be
“very problematical indeed,” and states that it “does not at all accord
with the Holbein drawing inscribed as ‘Queen Katherine Howard.’”[408] In
this he follows earlier writers. Nichols says that though the position
and head-dress of the drawing agree with the miniature, “the features do
not appear to correspond.”[409] It is difficult, however, to agree with
them in this, for a careful comparison of the two makes it quite evident
that they represent the same lady. The version belonging to the Duke of
Buccleuch is almost identical with the Windsor miniature, but is a
better work and slightly smaller, being only two inches in diameter. It
was last publicly exhibited at the Burlington Fine Arts Club, in
1909.[410] It was formerly in the collection of the Earl of Arundel, and
when there was etched by Hollar in 1646. It was afterwards owned by
Jonathan Richardson the younger (1694-1771), and subsequently by Horace
Walpole. Walpole describes it as: “Catherine Howard, a miniature,
damaged, it was Richardson’s, who bought it out of the Arundelian
collection. It is engraved among the Illustrious Heads [of Houbraken];
and by Hollar, who called it Mary, Queen of France, wife of Charles
Brandon, Duke of Suffolk.”[411] In this he is wrong, for no name is
attached to it in Hollar’s etching, and it was first identified as
Catherine Howard by Mr. Cust. In his _Description of Strawberry Hill_,
however, Walpole calls it merely “a lady painted by Holbein,” and says
that it is “probably Mary Tudor, Queen of France, sister of Henry VIII,
but among the Illustrious Heads called Catherine Howard.” According to
Granger, it was Vertue who first named it Mary, Queen of France. The
Duke of Buccleuch also possesses a small oil painting on panel, 5⅜ in. ×
4½ in., which was likewise at the Burlington Fine Arts Club (Case C,
24). It is inscribed, by a hand later than that of the painter of the
portrait, “Catherine Howard Henry VIII.” According to Scharf, this is
“apparently a French work, and, indeed, thoroughly so in personal
characteristics.”[412] It is in the style of Clouet, and the compilers
of the Burlington Fine Arts Club catalogue suggest that it may represent
Anne de Pisseleu, Duchesse d’Estampes.
Footnote 408:
Law, _Holbein’s Pictures_, &c., p. 24. This was before Mr. Cust’s
discovery of the larger portrait.
Footnote 409:
_Archæologia_, vol. xl. p. 78.
Footnote 410:
Case C, 4. Reproduced in _Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition
Catalogue_, Pl. xxxiii.; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 148 (4); and Cust,
_Burlington Magazine_, July 1910, p. 195. Only a part of one hand is
shown.
Footnote 411:
Walpole, _Anecdotes_, ed. Wornum, i. pp. 94-5. Hollar’s etching
(Parthey, 1546) is reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 198 (3); and by
Cust, _Burlington Magazine_, July 1910, p. 195.
Footnote 412:
_Archæologia_, vol. xl. p. 87. Reproduced in _Burlington Fine Arts
Club Catalogue_, Pl. xxxiv.
The Windsor drawing[413] bears no inscription, and the sitter is turned
to the right, as in Hollar’s engraving, instead of to the left, but
otherwise it shows the same type of features, smooth auburn hair, and
French cap or hood, as in the miniature. The dress, however, in
Holbein’s usual fashion, is merely indicated with a few lines, showing a
plain bodice cut square, filled in with white cambric, with a
diamond-shaped opening revealing neck and bosom. It agrees in the same
way with the newly-discovered portrait, of which, though reversed, it is
evidently one of the preliminary studies. The identity with Catherine
Howard is further proved, as Mr. Lionel Cust points out, by the family
resemblance, plainly visible, in certain of the features, such as the
over-accentuated lower jaw, to the portraits of her uncle, the Duke of
Norfolk, and of his son, the ill-fated Earl of Surrey.
Footnote 413:
Woltmann, 329; Wornum, ii. 9; Holmes, i. 42. Reproduced in _Burlington
Magazine_, vol. xvii., July 1910, p. 195, together with the two
miniatures and Hollar’s etching.
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF CATHERINE HOWARD]
In 1898 the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery acquired a
portrait of Catherine Howard[414] at the sale of the Cholmondeley
pictures at Condover Hall, Shropshire, which closely follows the Windsor
drawing, although in the reverse position. The excellence of the
painting of the hands, and of the details of the dress and jewels, led
at first to the supposition that it might be a genuine work by Holbein
which had undergone some damage and restoration, but closer examination
proved that it was merely a careful contemporary school copy, or
repetition of some lost original. It is inscribed “ETATIS SVÆ 21,” which
corresponds with the known facts of Catherine Howard’s life. In the
summer of 1909 the original picture of which it is a copy was submitted
to Mr. Cust, who recognised it at once as not only a portrait of
Catherine Howard, but as most possibly a genuine work of the great
master, which proved to be the case on the removal of much dirty varnish
and some repaints.[415] It came from a private collection in the west of
England, where it had formed part of a series of historical portraits
which had been in the possession of the same family for several
generations, and had been regarded at one time as a portrait of Eleanor
Brandon, Countess of Cumberland, and at another as Princess Mary Tudor.
It is now in Canada, in the collection of Mr. James H. Dunn.
Footnote 414:
No. 1119. Reproduced by Pollard, _Henry VIII_, p. 268; and in the
Illustrated Catalogue, National Portrait Gallery, vol. i. p. 25.
Footnote 415:
See Cust, _Burlington Magazine_, vol. xvii., July 1910, pp. 193-9,
reproduced, frontispiece; and by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 126.
Henry’s fifth Queen is shown seated, at a little more than half length,
turned to the left. The hands are in the same position as in the
miniature, though the fingers are more closely interlaced. Her hair is
auburn, parted in the middle, and the eyes are blue-grey. She wears,
too, a costume of a similar fashion, though of different materials. The
circular French hood, with its heavy band of gold ornament and black
fall, appears to be the same, but the dress is of black satin, with a
square black velvet yoke across the bosom, open at the neck and turned
back to show the white lining. A band or piping of gold ornament
elaborately pierced, with pairs of gold tags at intervals, runs along
the outer seam of the sleeves from shoulder to wrist, and the white
ruffles are embroidered all over with a floral design in black. The
ornaments she wears are of exceptional interest, as they afford actual
evidence that Holbein not only painted portraits of royal ladies, but
also designed their jewellery. Round her neck is a small necklace, set
with pearls and diamonds, less heavy and elaborate than the one
represented in the miniatures, and of greater beauty and delicacy of
design, to which a large pendant jewel is attached. At her breast is a
brooch from which hangs a circular jewel or medallion of chased gold
work, with a large oblong diamond in the centre, on which is represented
the story of Lot’s wife and the flight from Sodom. This jewel was
designed for Catherine by Holbein. It corresponds exactly, as Mr. Cust
points out, with a most characteristic study, a small roundel placed
within an octagon, among the wonderful series of Holbein’s original
drawings for jewellery in the Print Room of the British Museum,[416] and
thus gives particular interest to a portrait which in all ways forms a
very important addition to the master’s work, both on account of the
brilliance of its execution and of its value as an historical document.
Suspended from a chain round her waist hangs a still larger circular
jewel, only the upper part of which is seen. That portion of the subject
which is visible represents two angels with hands raised in adoration on
either side of a crowned and bearded figure, most possibly the Almighty.
The background of the portrait is a plain one, of Holbein’s favourite
blue, across which is inscribed, as in the National Portrait Gallery
copy, “ETATIS SVÆ 21,” on either side of the head. It is on an oak panel
29 inches high by 20 inches wide. It must have been painted between
August 1540, the date of her marriage, and November 1541, when she was
deprived of her dignity as Queen, and forbidden to wear jewels; most
probably in the latter year, according to Mr. Cust, which would
correspond with her accepted age at the time of her marriage. Its
importance and its genuineness have been accepted by such leading
authorities as Dr. Bode, Dr. Friedländer, Dr. Paul Ganz, and Sir Sidney
Colvin.
Footnote 416:
British Museum Catalogue, 35(E) Vol. ii. p. 339. Reproduced in
_Burlington Magazine_, vol. xvii., July 1910, p. 195. See p. 283 and
Pl. 50 (2).
Catherine Howard’s reign as Queen of England was a short one. There is
no need to describe her tragic fate in detail. Before the close of the
year 1541 it was discovered that not only had she had two lovers, one of
them her cousin Francis Dereham, before her marriage, but that she had
also been unfaithful to the King almost from the beginning of her
married life, her paramour being one of her gentlemen, Thomas Culpeper.
The Queen and her accomplice, Lady Rochford, were confined in Syon
House, pending a parliamentary inquiry. Dereham and Culpeper were tried
at Guildhall in December, pleaded guilty, and were hanged at Tyburn
twelve days afterwards; and in February 1542, Catherine and Lady
Rochford were condemned to death, and were beheaded on the 13th of the
month, on the same spot on which the Queen’s cousin, Anne Boleyn, had
suffered the same penalty for the same crime.
This fresh tragedy in his life greatly aged the King, as can be seen in
the portraits of him painted about this period, usually attributed to
Lucas Hornebolt. A month after the execution, Marillac wrote to Francis
I, on March 17, 1542, that Henry was “already very stout and daily
growing heavier, much resembling his maternal grandfather, King Edward,
being about his age, in loving rest and fleeing trouble. He seems very
old and grey since the mishap (_malheur_) of this last queen, and will
not yet hear of taking another, although he is ordinarily in company of
ladies, and his ministers beg and urge him to marry again.”[417]
Footnote 417:
_C.L.P._, vol. xvii. 178.
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF THOMAS HOWARD]
The portrait of Thomas Howard, third Duke of Norfolk, uncle by marriage
to Henry VIII, was painted at about the same time as that of Catherine
Howard. The inscriptions on the fine original version by Holbein in
Windsor Castle (Pl. 25),[418] and the excellent contemporary copy in
Arundel Castle, both state that it was taken in his sixty-sixth year,
and as he is said to have been born in 1473, this gives the date of the
picture as 1539 or early in 1540. He is shown standing, at half-length,
slightly turned to the left. He is wearing a doublet of dusky red silk,
edged with brown fur, and a white collar embroidered with black silk.
His outer robe of dark velvet has a deep collar and border of ermine,
and on his head is a plain, flat black hat, without a badge, over a
black skull-cap which covers the ears. In his left hand he holds the
long white wand of his office of Lord High Treasurer, and in his right
the shorter gold baton, tipped with black, which he carried as
hereditary Earl Marshal of England. Across the shoulders hangs the
magnificent and richly-jewelled collar of the Order of the Garter with
the pendant George, which is painted with all Holbein’s wonderful
mastery in the clear rendering of minute ornament. The face,
clean-shaven, and of a brown complexion, displays remarkable subtlety in
the delineation of a proud and cruel nature. The cold, unflinching eyes,
the thin, compressed lips with their faint, ironic smile, and the bony
hands clasping the staves, reveal the sitter’s true character as it has
come down to us in the pages of history, pride of race, cruelty almost
remorseless in its pursuit of power, and inflexibility of purpose both
in personal aggrandisement and in the service of his royal master.
Footnote 418:
Woltmann, 267. Reproduced by Law, Pl. vi.; Davies, p. 179; Knackfuss,
fig. 133; Pollard, _Henry VIII_, p. 188; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 123.
The background is green, and across the top of the panel runs the
inscription: “THOMAS · DVKE · OFF · NORFOLK · MARSHALL · AND TRESVRER
OFF · INGLONDE THE · LXVI YERE · OF · HIS · AGE.” It is now almost
illegible, through the passage of time and over-painting, but can be
deciphered by the aid of the exactly similar inscription on the Arundel
picture. This, as already stated, gives the date of the portrait as
about 1540. The inscription, however, is not contemporary, but was
probably added some hundred years later, in the reign of Charles I, when
the picture was in the collection of the Earl of Arundel. It was finely
etched by Vorsterman when in the Earl’s possession, in 1630, though
without the inscription, but beneath the plate is engraved: “Hans
Holbein pinxit. Visitur in Ædibus Arondelianis Londini.” This does not
necessarily prove that the inscription on the panel did not exist at
that date, as Vorsterman may have omitted it as disfiguring. That it was
certainly there fifteen years later is proved by a coloured drawing on
vellum by Philip Fruytiers, the Antwerp painter, dated 1645, a copy of a
study by Van Dyck representing a large group of Thomas Howard, Earl of
Arundel, his wife, and family. On the wall in the background Van Dyck
had inserted, and Fruytiers has copied, on the one side, this very
portrait of the Duke of Norfolk by Holbein, in which the inscription
across the top of it in gold letters can be plainly seen, and on the
other side the portrait of his son, the Earl of Surrey, also evidently a
work by Holbein, though the original painting is now lost, which is
inscribed: “HENRY HOWARD ERLE OF SUHRY ANNO ÆTATIS SVÆ 25.” This
water-colour drawing, which is signed “An. Vandyke inv. Ph. Fruytiers
fecit 1645,” is in the collection of the Duke of Sutherland, and there
is a small copy of it in oils on copper at Norfolk House, which also
shows the inscription. It was engraved by Vertue in 1743. The original
sketch or composition by Van Dyck has been lost.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 25
THOMAS HOWARD, DUKE OF NORFOLK
WINDSOR CASTLE
]
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF THOMAS HOWARD]
It is supposed that the Windsor version is the one which was in the
Arundel Collection, but its subsequent history is uncertain. That
collection was divided in 1686, and the share which fell to the Duke of
Norfolk may possibly have contained this portrait of his ancestor.[419]
The Duke’s pictures were sold in 1692, and nothing further is to be
heard of this portrait until it is mentioned by Walpole as being then
(1762) in Leicester House, at that time the dower-house of the Dowager
Princess of Wales, widow of Frederick, Prince of Wales.[420] “There can
be no doubt,” says Mr. Ernest Law, “that the picture passed, on the
death of the Princess in 1772, into the possession of the Crown with the
rest of the collection which had been formed by Prince Frederick.”[421]
It is not known from whom that Prince acquired it, but many of his
pictures were purchased for him on the Continent by his agent, Bagnols,
and it is not unlikely that Woltmann’s surmise is correct, and that it
is to be identified with the portrait of the Duke which appeared in the
catalogue of an anonymous sale of pictures at Amsterdam on April 23,
1732, as “Een zeer konstig uitmuntent stuk door Hans Holbeen, zynde de
Hartog van Nortfolk nooit zoo goet gezien,” which must have been a fine
work, as it fetched the relatively high price of 1120 florins.[422] It
is quite possible, therefore, that the portrait was one of those sold by
Lord Stafford in Amsterdam in 1654, immediately after the death of the
Countess of Arundel, and that it was never in the possession of the Duke
of Norfolk, but remained in that town until 1732.
Footnote 419:
The only portrait of the Duke mentioned in the Arundel inventory of
1655 has no artist’s name placed against it, but it comes next to the
portrait of the Earl of Surrey, which is given to Holbein. It is
entered as “Ritratto de Tomaso Howard, Ducha de Nordfolk.”
Footnote 420:
Walpole, _Anecdotes_, &c., ed. Wornum, i. p. 83.
Footnote 421:
Law, _Holbein’s Pictures_, &c., p. 19.
Footnote 422:
Woltmann, ii. pp. 57 and 156.
The copy at Arundel Castle, about which still less is known, is so good
that it is only when it is placed side by side with the Windsor version,
as it was in the Tudor Exhibition in 1890, that the latter is seen to be
by far the finer work of the two. The Arundel picture is slightly the
smaller, and was last exhibited at the Burlington Fine Arts Club in 1909
(No. 49). There is a second version of this portrait in the Norfolk
collection, at Norfolk House, in which various alterations have been
made in the position and the dress, and a more elaborate background has
been added. It is a work of comparatively little merit, and appears to
have been painted during the seventeenth century by some inferior
artist.
At the time he sat to Holbein the Duke was at the height of his power.
He had been the bitter enemy of both Wolsey and Cromwell, and had
assisted to bring about the downfall of both, and had arrested the
latter with his own hands. After Cromwell’s execution he became the most
powerful of Henry’s subjects, and reached his highest summit of
greatness. His influence over the King, however, waned after the fall of
his niece, Catherine Howard, when he was supplanted by his enemies, the
Earl of Hertford and the Seymours. In 1546 he was attainted, together
with his son, the Earl of Surrey, for high treason, and only escaped the
latter’s fate by the death of the King on the day the warrant for his
execution was made out. He remained in the Tower throughout the reign of
Edward VI, but was released on the accession of Queen Mary in 1553, and
his titles and estates were restored to him, but he only lived to enjoy
them for a year.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 26
HENRY HOWARD, EARL OF SURREY
Wrongly inscribed “Thomas Howard”
_Drawing in black and coloured chalks_
WINDSOR CASTLE
]
[Sidenote: PORTRAITS OF HENRY HOWARD]
That Holbein painted his son, Henry, Earl of Surrey, is proved by the
small portrait on the wall in Fruytiers’ version of Van Dyck’s picture
of the Arundel family. The inscription on this miniature copy gives his
age as twenty-five; and as he was born about 1517, Holbein must have
painted him about 1541. He is represented with reddish hair and beard,
and brown eyes, the head slightly turned to the right, and wears a black
cap with a feather, and a black mantle from the folds of which the right
hand appears. There is a small drawing in the Windsor Collection wrongly
inscribed “Tho. Howard E. of Surrey,”[423] which bears some likeness to
the Earl in the Fruytiers drawing, and is supposed to represent Henry
Howard. It is badly rubbed, and has suffered from retouching and certain
coarse alterations, and has the slightly-wavering touch which marks the
so-called “Melanchthon” in the same collection. It is apparently the
original study for the portrait which was engraved by Hollar when it was
in the Arundel Collection.[424] There are two other heads at Windsor
also named Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey, but the attribution cannot be
correct, as Surrey’s son, Thomas, was a small boy of only six or seven
at the time of Holbein’s death. Whether the drawings represent the poet
himself is also doubtful. One of them, inscribed “Thomas Earl of Surry”
(Pl. 26),[425] in which he is shown full-face, clean-shaven, with hair
cut straight across the forehead and partly covering the ears, and
wearing a black cap with scalloped edges and an ostrich feather, is one
of the finest drawings in the whole collection, conspicuous for the
delicacy of the modelling and the freedom and expressiveness of the
draughtsmanship. The face is one of considerable charm, which is not to
be seen in the third drawing,[426] inscribed “Tho. Earle of Surry,”
perhaps a little later in date, in which the head is turned slightly to
the left, and the hair entirely covered with the black skull-cap he
wears beneath the feathered bonnet. The dress is only slightly
indicated, and is rubbed, and a circular medallion suspended from a
broad ribbon hangs on his breast. A portrait of his wife is also to be
found among the Windsor heads,[427] full-face, wearing the angular
English head-dress with black fall, and a round jewelled ornament
hanging from a chain round her neck, and a second medallion on her
breast. The dress which, like the ornaments, is badly rubbed, was of
rose-coloured velvet, according to a note in Holbein’s handwriting. The
portrait for which this drawing was the study, like that of her husband,
cannot now be traced. The two full-length portraits of Henry Howard,
dated 1546, at Arundel Castle and at Knole respectively, are usually
ascribed to the Netherlandish painter Guillim or Gillam Stretes, on
account of Strype’s statement, already quoted,[428] that in 1551 the
Privy Council ordered a picture “of the late Earl of Surrey, attainted,”
to be fetched away from “the said Guillim’s house.” The Duke of
Norfolk’s version of the portrait[429] has a very elaborate
architectural setting, coarsely painted in stone colour, and apparently
of a somewhat later date than the rest of the picture, while the one
belonging to Lord Sackville at Knole shows the figure only, and is
looked upon by some authorities as the original. The attribution of
these two pictures to Stretes is extremely doubtful. The Arundel
portrait, in particular, suggests the hand of an Italian, and the name
of Nicolas Beilin of Modena may be tentatively suggested. One of them
was in the collection of Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, where it was
attributed to Holbein. It is described in the inventory of 1655 as “il
ritratto del Conte de Surry grande del naturale.”
Footnote 423:
Woltmann, 312; Wornum, ii. 8; Holmes, ii. 19.
Footnote 424:
Parthey, 1509. Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 197 (2). The portrait
itself is described in the Arundel inventory of 1655 as “Ritratto de
Henrico Howard, Conte de Surrey.”
Footnote 425:
Woltmann, 314; Wornum, ii. 6; Holmes, i. 20. Reproduced by Davies, p.
180, and elsewhere.
Footnote 426:
Woltmann, 313; Wornum, i. 35; Holmes, i. 21.
Footnote 427:
Woltmann, 330; Wornum, ii. 24; Holmes, i. 22.
Footnote 428:
See p. 168.
Footnote 429:
Exhib. Burlington Fine Arts Club, 1909, No. 54. Reproduced Arundel
Club, 1907, No. 3; Pollard, _Henry VIII_, p. 284.
Only three dated works of the year 1541 remain; the two fine portraits
of men in the Berlin and Vienna Galleries, and the miniature of Charles
Brandon, the younger son of the Duke of Suffolk. The Berlin panel,[430]
(No. 586 C), is inscribed at the top, in gold, on either side of the
cap, “ANNO 1541,” and lower down, in smaller letters, level with the
sitter’s ears: “ETATIS : SVÆ : 37.” The coat of arms, enamelled in red
and white, on the gold ring on his left hand, indicates that in all
probability this young man was a member of the Dutch family of Vos van
Steenwijk, though the writer has failed to trace the name, or any
indication of a sojourn in or visit to England on the part of its
bearer, in the Calendars of the English State Papers. It is a
half-length portrait, considerably less than life-size, head and body
turned to the right, but both eyes shown. The eyes are grey, and the
finely painted beard and moustache are a reddish brown. In his clasped
hands he holds a pair of brown gloves. He wears a black silk under-dress
and a surcoat of black or very dark brown, with the collar turned over
to show the lining of black watered silk, and his flat cap of the same
colour has a turned-down brim. He is gazing to the spectator’s right
with a far-away and slightly melancholy look in his eyes, which are
wonderfully painted, as is the beautiful and expressive left hand. It
comes from the Von Sybel, Elberfeld, Merlo of Cologne, and Suermondt
collections, having been purchased from the last-named owner in 1874.
Footnote 430:
Woltmann, 117. Reproduced by Knackfuss, fig. 134; Ganz, _Holbein_, p.
128.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 27
PORTRAIT OF AN UNKNOWN YOUNG MAN
1541
IMPERIAL GALLERY, VIENNA
]
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF A MAN WITH A FALCON.]
The picture of an unknown man, aged twenty-eight, at Vienna[431] (No.
1479) (Pl. 27), is still finer in expression, and, indeed, is one of the
most brilliant portraits of Holbein’s later years. It is one of his
customary half-length figures, less than life-size, seated at a table,
the body turned to the right, and the face looking out at the spectator.
His doublet is of purple-brown silk, and over it he wears the usual
black cloak with a deep collar and lining of brown fur, and black cap
with a brim. The collar of his white shirt is beautifully embroidered
with black Spanish work and tied with black laces. His grey gloves are
held in his left hand, and his right rests on the olive-green cloth of
the table, the forefinger being thrust within the pages of a gilt-edged
book, near which is placed an inkstand with a red cord. On one of his
rings is an intaglio. The clean-shaven face, showing blue on chin and
upper lip, is of a ruddy brown complexion, and the hair, which does not
cover the ears, is almost concealed by the hat. The unknown sitter, who
appears to be an Englishman, is comely in features, and the eyes have a
far-seeing, visionary expression, which Holbein has rendered with
extraordinary vividness and subtlety of drawing. The upper part of the
background consists of a blue-grey wall, with wooden panelling, or the
back of a long wooden seat, below, and the panel is inscribed on either
side of the head: “ANNO · DNI · 1541 · ETATIS · SVÆ · 28.” It was in the
collection of the Archduke Leopold William in the seventeenth century.
There is an old copy of this picture in the Palermo Gallery (Woltmann,
223).
Footnote 431:
Woltmann, 254. Reproduced in the Vienna Catalogue, p. 343; Knackfuss,
fig. 136; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 127.
To the year 1542 belongs the small portrait of an unknown Englishman in
the Hague Gallery (No. 277) (Pl. 28),[432] which, again, is brilliant in
execution, the details painted with the minutest care, but with a touch
both delicate and free from all hardness, and unusual richness of
colour. The head is full-face, the body turned slightly to the left. His
closely cropped hair is chestnut in colour, turning to red at the ends
of his moustache and short pointed beard. It is almost the only portrait
by Holbein in which the sitter is shown without a hat. He wears a dress
of black velvet and watered silk with a pattern, slashed with red silk
at the shoulder and wrist. On his left hand, which is gloved, stands his
falcon, a large bell on its claw. His right hand, in which he holds the
bird’s hood, is ungloved, with a gold ring set with a stone on the
little finger. The light falls from the right, and the shadow on the
left side of the face is more strongly marked than in most of Holbein’s
portraits. The modelling is fine, the face full of strong character,
and, as usual, the hands are most expressively painted, the whole
presentment being most vivid and life-like. The background is a plain
blue-grey, of much the same tone as that in the portrait of 1541 at
Vienna. Across the panel is inscribed, on either side of the head, the
date 1542, and lower down “ANNO · ETATIS · SVÆ · XXVIII.” Little is
known about the history of this picture, except that it was at one time
in the royal collections of England, and that it was taken to Holland by
William III, and was included in the list of works of art reclaimed by
Queen Anne after that King’s death.[433] Like the portrait of Cheseman,
however, it remained abroad. It is inscribed on the back “The manner of
Holbein,” and in old catalogues was absurdly described as a portrait of
Sir Thomas More.
Footnote 432:
Woltmann, 160. Reproduced by Mantz, p. 171; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 129.
Footnote 433:
No. 21. “A man’s head with a hawk by Holbein.”
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 28
PORTRAIT OF AN UNKNOWN MAN WITH A FALCON
1542
ROYAL PICTURE GALLERY, MAURITSHUIS, THE HAGUE
]
[Sidenote: UNDATED PORTRAITS OF LAST YEARS]
It is probable that during this year Holbein painted Sir William
Fitzwilliam, created Earl of Southampton in 1538, who died at Newcastle
in 1543. There is a fine drawing of the head in the Windsor
Collection,[434] turned three-quarters to the right, wearing a black cap
with a medallion, and ear-flaps, or a coif, tied under the chin; slight
whiskers are indicated on the cheek-bones. It is a face of strong
individuality, with a big nose, finely and boldly drawn, the dress only
roughly indicated. There is a full-length portrait of the Earl, 6 ft. ×
3 ft. 3 in., in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (No. ii. 164),[435]
which is described in the catalogue as probably a copy of the original
picture by Holbein which, in 1793, was destroyed by fire at Cowdray
House, the estate purchased by the Earl in 1528. He is represented
standing to the right, and wearing a black cap tied under the chin as in
the Windsor drawing, a long black cloak with fur collar reaching to the
knees, dark hose and shoes, and the collar and jewel of the Garter round
his neck. He grasps a gold-headed staff in both hands, and stands on a
terrace with a low parapet and a pavement of black and red tiles,
overlooking a distant landscape consisting of wooded country and a
land-locked harbour or estuary of a river with ships. His coat of arms
is in the top left-hand corner, and in the right an inscription giving
his titles and offices, as Lord Privy Seal and Chancellor of the Duchy
of Lancaster, and the date 1542. The supposition that this picture is a
copy after a lost original by Holbein is probably correct; it is quite
in his manner, though in workmanship it in no way reaches to his
mastery, the landscape background in particular showing an indecisive
touch quite unlike his firm handling. A copy of the head, evidently
taken from this picture, a small panel, 13⅛ in. × 9¾ in., was lent to
the Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition, 1909 (No. 34),[436] by the
Duke of Devonshire, which is inscribed across the brown background, in
an eighteenth-century hand, “SIR THOMAS MOORE.” The compilers of the
Burlington Club catalogue do not accept the Cambridge portrait on which
it is based as a copy after Holbein, but as an original work, and
clearly by the same hand as the Earl of Surrey at Knole, the full-length
of a young man in Hampton Court Palace, and the Sir Thomas Gresham in
Mercers’ Hall, with which the name of Guillim Stretes has been
connected, though on somewhat flimsy foundations.[437] The Windsor head,
however, is in such close accord with the Fitzwilliam Museum picture
that it seems reasonable to suppose that the latter was based on it, or,
rather, upon some painting of Holbein’s for which it formed the
preliminary study. There were two portraits of the Earl in the Arundel
Collection, both attributed to Holbein.[438]
Footnote 434:
Woltmann, 291; Wornum, i. 5; Holmes, i. 17. Reproduced in _Drawings of
Hans Holbein_ (Newnes), Pl. xl.
Footnote 435:
Reproduced in F. R. Earp’s Catalogue of the collection, 1902, p. 96;
and in _Principal Pictures of the Fitzwilliam Museum_, Gowan & Grey,
Ltd., p. 85.
Footnote 436:
Reproduced in the Catalogue, Pl. v.
Footnote 437:
See _Burlington Catalogue_, p. 86. In one of his articles on the
Arundel Collection (see _Burlington Magazine_, vol. xxi., August 1912,
p. 257), Mr. Lionel Cust speaks of this head of the Earl, at Hardwick
Hall, as “perhaps by Holbein himself,” and states that, according to
Vertue, in the sale of the Earl of Oxford’s pictures, 1741, there was
sold “Lord Fitzwilliams,” a head by Holbein, for fifteen guineas.
Footnote 438:
“Ritratto de ffitzwilliams Conte de Southampton,” and “Conte de
Southampton Fitzwilliams.”
In 1542 John Leland’s “Naeniae” on the death of Sir Thomas Wyat was
published, with the small circular woodcut of the poet after a drawing
by Holbein, which has been already described;[439] but otherwise the
only dated portrait of this year is the one of the young man with the
falcon at the Hague, though there are several which must have been
painted shortly before his death. Those of Dr. John Chamber and Sir
William Butts and his wife must have been produced in 1542 or the
earlier half of 1543, while others, such as the “Elderly Man” at Berlin,
the small portrait of an English lady at Vienna, and the Simon George at
Frankfurt, may be attributed with some certainty to the last seven or
eight years of Holbein’s life. It is probable, too, that he painted at
about this time another portrait of the Prince of Wales. No such
painting now exists, but the full-faced head with a cap in the Windsor
Collection[440] represents Edward as a boy of about five or six years of
age, and certainly older than in the Hanover picture, while in the
profile head with cap and feather in the same collection of
drawings,[441] which forms the basis of numerous portraits in the
National Portrait Gallery and elsewhere, the boy seems even older,
though he was only six at the time of Holbein’s death.
Footnote 439:
See p. 80.
Footnote 440:
Woltmann, 327; Wornum, ii. 2; Holmes, not included. See above, p. 167.
Footnote 441:
Woltmann, 328; Wornum, ii. 3; Holmes, ii. 1. See above, p. 167.
The portrait of an Unknown Man, aged fifty-four, in the Berlin Gallery
(No. 586 I) (Pl. 29 (1)),[442] is another work of great power in its
suggestion of life-like portraiture, and of high technical excellence.
He is shown to the waist, slightly turned to the right. The face is a
dignified one, with a long nose, and a slight droop in the right eyelid,
and a look of melancholy absorption about his dark grey eyes. The hair
and long beard are black, the latter with numerous grey hairs finely
indicated with all Holbein’s customary minute care. The hands are thrust
out of sight within the sleeves. His doublet, of which only the lower
part of the sleeves is visible, is of ruby-red silk or satin, over which
is a black or dark-brown coat with bands of black velvet, and lined with
a patterned watered silk. The black cap has gold tags. The plain
background is a greyish-blue, and on either side of the head is
inscribed in gold lettering, “ÆTATIS · SVÆ · 54.” On the back of the
panel are the letters “W.E.P.L.C.,” apparently in a sixteenth-century
hand, probably the mark of some early English collector. The same
letters appear on the back of the portrait of Robert Cheseman at the
Hague, and on the portrait of a young man by Joos van Cleve in Berlin
(No. 633 A), which was formerly in the Marlborough Collection, where it
was at one time attributed to Holbein. Nothing of the early history of
the portrait under discussion is known. It belonged at one time to Sir
J. E. Millais, and was lent by him to the Holbein Exhibition in Dresden
in 1871, where it was acknowledged by the leading German critics to be a
splendid example of the master’s later English period. It was purchased
at the Millais sale, in 1897, for 3000 guineas for the Kaiser Friedrich
Museum. There is a poor and lifeless copy of the head of this portrait
in the collection of Mr. John G. Johnson, of Philadelphia.[443] The
panel is a pastiche, for the copyist has attached the head of the
Millais portrait to the body of the Unknown Young Man aged twenty-eight
in the Vienna Gallery. In the copy of the head the hat is without the
gold tags, the beard is slightly shorter, and the sitter appears to be
somewhat younger. In that of the body the dress, hands, the rings,
gloves, and book follow the Vienna picture closely, but the copyist has
removed the two rings on the little finger of the right hand to the more
usual ring-finger. Mr. C. Ricketts regards it as “almost certainly
modern. In draughtsmanship it is without subtlety, the nostril is
preposterous, the under lip like a muffin.”[444] Mr. F. J. Mather
considers it to be old, and of fair quality.
Footnote 442:
Woltmann, 211. Reproduced in the Berlin Catalogue, p. 178; Ganz,
_Holbein_, p. 142; and in colour in _Early German Painters_, folio vi.
Footnote 443:
Reproduced in the _Burlington Magazine_, vol. ix., August 1906, p.
357; and Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 228. It has no inscription.
Footnote 444:
_Burlington Magazine_, vol. ix., September 1906, p. 426.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 29A
PORTRAIT OF AN UNKNOWN ELDERLY MAN
KAISER FRIEDRICH MUSEUM, BERLIN
]
* * * * *
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 29B
PORTRAIT OF AN UNKNOWN ENGLISH LADY
IMPERIAL GALLERY, VIENNA
]
“It is pretty surely of Holbein’s century, and of better quality than
the reproduction indicates.”[445]
Footnote 445:
_Burlington Magazine_, vol. x., November 1906, p. 138.
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF SIMON GEORGE]
The portrait of an unknown English lady in the Imperial Gallery, Vienna
(No. 1483) (Pl. 29 (2)),[446] is almost miniature in size, and is
characterised by the most delicate brush-work and great charm and
richness of colour. She is shown to the waist, full-face, the body
turned slightly to the left, and her hands clasped in front of her. The
dress is of dark brown or puce, with the yoke and central hanging part
of the sleeves of black velvet. The sleeves from the elbow are of red
velvet slashed with white at the wrists. She wears a French head-dress
of white and gold, with black fall, closely resembling the one in the
portrait of Catherine Howard. The hair is a dark reddish brown. At her
breast is suspended a circular gold ornament upon which is represented
figures sacrificing at an altar, possibly of Holbein’s designing. The
background is a deep grey-blue, surrounded by a frame imitating
stonework. It has no inscription.
Footnote 446:
Woltmann, 253. Reproduced in Vienna Catalogue, p. 346; Knackfuss, fig.
138; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 140; and in colour in _Early German
Painters_, folio iii.
Another small work of much beauty and delicacy of workmanship, and charm
of expression, is the portrait of Simon George, of Quocote, in Cornwall,
in the Städel Institut in Frankfurt (No. 71),[447] a profile portrait to
the left, showing the head and shoulders only, and the right hand, in
which the sitter holds a carnation. He has dark, closely-cropped hair
and pointed beard, with a black cap over the right ear, elaborately
ornamented with a white feather, many gold tags, an oval medallion with
a representation of Leda and the Swan, and a small bunch of enamelled
pansies. His dress is a rich one, and the open collar of the shirt is
covered with black embroidery of a floral pattern of conventional
design. The background is of greenish blue, and some letters of a
two-lined inscription, of later date than the painting, mutilated by the
reduction of the panel, which appears to have been originally round, can
still be traced, including the letters NOB and part of the painter’s
signature, “IOHA : H.” It was acquired in 1870 from the
Brentano-Birckenstock sale. The original study for the head is in the
Windsor Collection,[448] and shows the same slight frown wrinkling the
forehead as in the picture. The hairs of the moustache are very
carefully drawn, but the beard only shows a few days’ growth. It is
inscribed at the bottom, in cursive writing, “S. George of Cornwall.”
Footnote 447:
Woltmann, 151. Reproduced by Knackfuss, fig. 137; Ganz, _Holbein_, p.
139; and in colour in _Early German Painters_, folio vi.
Footnote 448:
Woltmann, 309; Wornum, i. 15; Holmes, i. 49. Reproduced in _Drawings
of Hans Holbein_, Pl. xviii.
The portrait of Dr. John Chamber or Chambre in the Imperial Gallery,
Vienna (No. 1480) (Pl. 30),[449] is one of Holbein’s most powerful
portraits of old men, the deeply-lined, clean-shaven face being full of
individuality. He is shown to the waist, turned three-quarters to the
right, in a plain black doctor’s cap, which covers the hair and hides
all but the lobe of the ears, and a black gown with brown fur collar;
and he holds a pair of grey gloves in his hands. The background is a
very dark blue, and is inscribed, on either side of the head, “ÆTATIS
SVE 88.” The date of John Chamber’s birth has not been traced, but the
portrait was probably painted in 1541 or 1542, when Holbein was engaged
upon the big “Barber-Surgeons” picture, in which Chamber is introduced
in much the same position as in the Vienna portrait. He died at an
advanced age, well over ninety, in 1549. He was one of the King’s
physicians, and his name was the first on the roll of six doctors who in
1518 received letters patent from the Crown giving them the privilege of
admitting other physicians to practise medicine in London, which was the
original foundation of the Royal College of Physicians. Chamber was
joint author with Dr. Butts and two others of a manuscript
“Pharmacopœia” for the use of Henry VIII. As Court physician he attended
Anne Boleyn at Greenwich Palace at the birth of the Princess Elizabeth,
and it was he who reported to the Privy Council the critical condition
of Jane Seymour when Edward VI was born. He married Joan Wardell in
1545, when he was nearly ninety, and their son was christened in the
following year, both he and his wife dying within a few weeks of one
another in 1549. His career, however, was more remarkable for the many
religious preferments he gained, than for his medical skill. Born in
Northumberland, he became a priest in early life, and was a Fellow, and
afterwards Warden, of Merton College, Oxford. In 1502 he went to Italy
and graduated in physic in Padua. On his return to England he succeeded
Linacre as the King’s chief physician. In 1522 he was Canon of Windsor,
in 1536 Dean of the Collegiate Church of St. Stephen, and later on
Archdeacon of Meath. A very excellent copy of this portrait is in the
possession of Merton College, Oxford, and was included in the Oxford
Exhibition of Historical Portraits in 1904 (No. 27). It is inscribed on
the back: “Dr. Chamber, phisician of King Henry VIII, copied from Hanns
Holbein’s original by H. Reinhart. The original, once belonging to the
collection of King Charles I, was, together with several other pictures
of the same master, after the execution of this Monarch, sold and became
the property of Archduke Leopold, Stadtholder of the Low Countries, from
whence by legacy it passed into the Gallery of the Emperors of Austria
(Ob. 1549).” The original portrait, however, does not appear at any time
to have been included in the collection of Charles I, but it formed part
of the wonderful series of works by Holbein got together by Thomas
Howard, Earl of Arundel. In the _Dictionary of National Biography_ the
date of his birth is given as 1470, while the Oxford catalogue suggests
the date 1469, but neither can be correct, or otherwise the date of the
Vienna picture would be 1557 or 1558, fourteen years or so after
Holbein’s death. If the age of the sitter, eighty-eight, as given on the
panel, is correct, and it is accepted that the portrait was painted
about 1542, Chamber must have been born about 1454. The Merton College
copy was exhibited at the Royal Academy Winter Exhibition, 1901-2 (No.
155), as a work of the school of Holbein. In 1894 the Royal College of
Physicians became possessed of a miniature portrait of Chamber, painted
on the back of the ten of clubs, and said to be by Isaac Oliver. This is
a careful copy of the Vienna picture, and has a long Latin inscription,
giving Chamber’s titles, and the date of his death, round the frame. The
original, when in the Arundel Collection, was engraved by Hollar
(Parthey, 1372), with the inscription “D. Chambers Anno Ætatis Svæ 88.
Holbein pinxit.” In the Arundel inventory it is described as “Doctore
John Chambers.” It is possibly one of the pictures which remained on the
Continent after the death of the Countess of Arundel in 1654.
Footnote 449:
Woltmann, 255. Reproduced in Vienna Catalogue, p. 344; Knackfuss, fig.
147; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 131.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 30
DR. JOHN CHAMBER
IMPERIAL GALLERY, VIENNA
]
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF DR. JOHN CHAMBER]
The portraits of Sir William and Lady Butts,[450] which have suffered,
more particularly the former, from coarse repainting, are probably of
about the same date as the Dr. Chamber, for Butts is also one of the
prominent figures in the “Barber-Surgeons” group. The portrait of the
husband has an inscription which has been repainted by an ignorant
copyist, and now reads “ANNO ATATS SVE LIX.” Unfortunately, as in the
case of Chamber, the year of Butts’ birth is not known, so that the
exact date of the portrait cannot be proved. It is given in the National
Portrait Gallery Catalogue as 1485 (?). His tombstone at Fulham bears
only the date of his death, 1545. The portraits show the heads and
shoulders only. Sir William is represented in profile to the right, in
black cap and furred gown, and a heavy gold chain upon his shoulders.
His face is clean-shaven, and his grey hair almost covers the ears. Lady
Butts is painted almost full-face, but turned slightly to the left. She
wears the angular English head-dress with black fall, a plain dress with
fur-trimmed mantle, and a large enamelled rose at her breast. Above her
head is inscribed “ANNO ÆTATIS SVE LVII.” Both portraits were in the
National Portrait Exhibition, 1866, lent by Mr. W. H. Pole-Carew, and
are now in the collection of Mrs. John Gardner, Fenway Court, Boston,
U.S.A. They are about 18 in. × 14 in., and the green backgrounds and
inscriptions of both pictures have been badly repainted. There is a good
copy or replica of Sir William in the National Portrait Gallery[451]
(No. 210), and copies of both husband and wife, apparently
seventeenth-century work, in the collection of Mr. F. A.
Newdegate-Newdigate, at Arbury, Warwickshire. There is no head of Butts
among the Windsor drawings, but that collection contains a masterly one
of his wife,[452] in which the lines of the face are very strongly
marked. She was a daughter of John Bacon of Cambridgeshire. The portrait
of their third son, Edmund Butts, of Thornham, Norfolk, who died at the
age of thirty in 1549, is in the National Gallery (No. 1496), and is
regarded as a work of that little-known English painter John Bettes.
This portrait is dated 1545, and the age of the sitter is given as
twenty-six, and on a card on the back is the inscription “_faict par
Johan Bettes Anglois_.”[453]
Footnote 450:
Woltmann, 204, 205. Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, pp. 132-3; and in
Gowan, _Masterpieces of Holbein_, pp. 41, 42. The portrait of Lady
Butts engraved by Hollar, 1649.
Footnote 451:
Reproduced in the illustrated edition of the National Portrait Gallery
Catalogue, vol. i. p. 21.
Footnote 452:
Woltmann, 343; Wornum, ii. 36; Holmes, ii. 13. Reproduced by Davies,
p. 220, and elsewhere.
Footnote 453:
For some account of Bettes, see pp. 308-9.
In the exhibition held at the Burlington Fine Arts Club in 1909, Prince
Frederick Duleep Singh lent a portrait (No. 30), also dated 1545, said
to represent Edmund Butts, and attributed by the owner to Bettes. The
armorial bearings on this picture indicate a member of the Butts family,
but the person represented is certainly not the same as in the National
Gallery portrait, nor do the two appear to be the work of the same
painter.
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF SIR WILLIAM BUTTS]
Dr. Butts was in receipt of a salary of £100 a year from the King, and
was the favourite physician about the Court. He was a native of Norfolk,
and educated at Cambridge. Many prescriptions in his handwriting are
preserved in the British Museum. He appears as one of the characters in
Shakespeare’s _Henry VIII_ (Act v. sc. 2), and his name occurs in a
number of contemporary letters. Thus, in 1537, the Earl of Shrewsbury
wrote thanking Cromwell “for asking the King to licence Dr. Buttes to
come to him”;[454] and on October 6, 1542, the Earl of Southampton wrote
to Wriothesley from York, when upon the expedition against Scotland:
“Recommend me to Butts, and thank him for his pills. I would not have
foregone them at this time for all the good I have.”[455] In spite of
the pills, however, the Earl died at Newcastle nine days later.
Footnote 454:
_C.L.P._, vol. xii. pt. i. 328.
Footnote 455:
_C.L.P._, vol. xvii. 912.
A small half-length portrait of an Unknown Man in the Basel Collection
(No. 327),[456] belongs to the later period of Holbein’s English
residence. He is turned three-quarters to the left, and wears the
customary dark fur-lined surcoat and black cap, and dark purple sleeves,
and holds his gloves and a paper, upon which the inscription is now
illegible, in his clasped hands. The beard, moustache, and hair are
dark. This picture, which was purchased in Basel in 1862, has been more
than once restored, so that Holbein’s handiwork has suffered
considerably. Another small picture which is also now in a damaged state
is the portrait of a young English lady in the collection of Count
Lanckoronski in Vienna,[457] which was regarded by Woltmann as probably
by Holbein, but when exhibited in the Dresden Exhibition of 1871 was
declared by the critics to be a genuine work. It is similar in style to
the small portrait of a Lady in the Vienna Gallery, and of about the
same date. She is shown at half-length, turned a little to the
spectator’s right, with clasped hands, and wearing a dark dress with red
puffings and gold tags from shoulder to wrist, and a French hood with
bands of gold ornaments and a black fall. Round her neck is a gold chain
with a pendant with seven flat stones, a second gold chain, and a large
brooch fastened at her breast with a cameo of a double head, a young
man’s shown full-face, attached to one of a lady in profile. Across the
plain green background, on either side of her head, is inscribed “ANNO
ETATIS SVÆ XVII.” In appearance she is stolid and unattractive, but this
may be partly due to the present state of the picture.
Footnote 456:
Woltmann, 22. Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 141.
Footnote 457:
Woltmann, 260. Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 144.
There remains one other portrait of a lady of about this date—that of
Lady Rich,[458] which until 1912 had been for many years in the
possession of the Moseley family at Buildwas Park, Shropshire. The
sitter is represented to the waist, slightly turned to the right, and
wears the English diamond-shaped hood with black fall, and a black dress
with a gold medallion decorated with the figures of a man and woman by a
corpse, which, according to Wornum, are “exquisitely put in.”[459]
According to the same writer, it is “a fine expressive portrait, with a
thin rich carnation.” It is painted on wood, 17 in. by 13 in., and has
suffered some retouching. The face is a most determined one, as can be
seen from the fine preliminary drawing in the Windsor Castle
Collection.[460] Lady Rich was the daughter and heiress of William Jenks
or Gynkes, a rich London grocer, and she married, in 1535, Lord
Chancellor Rich, of notorious memory, who helped to ruin many of the
prominent men of his day, such as More and Fisher. In the seventeenth
century the portrait became the property of the Rev. Herbert Croft,
Bishop of Hereford, whose granddaughter, Elizabeth Croft, married Acton
Moseley, of Staffordshire. In 1792 the portrait, with some other
pictures, was bequeathed by Sir Archer Croft to his cousin, Mr. Walter
Michael Moseley. The latter’s descendant, Captain H. R. Moseley, parted
with the picture in 1912, and it is now in an American collection.[461]
It was last exhibited at the National Portrait Exhibition at South
Kensington in 1866 as a portrait of “Queen Katherine of Arragon.” There
is also a drawing of her husband, Richard Rich,[462] at Windsor, and
Holbein must almost certainly have painted his portrait, but all traces
of it have been lost. A version of it was among the pictures destroyed
by fire at Knepp Castle in 1904.
Footnote 458:
Woltmann, 128.
Footnote 459:
Wornum, p. 296.
Footnote 460:
Woltmann, 319; Wornum, ii. 37; Holmes, ii. 10.
Footnote 461:
For a fuller history of the picture, see an article in _The Morning
Post_, May 23rd, 1912.
Footnote 462:
Woltmann, 318; Wornum, i. 8; Holmes, ii. 9.
[Sidenote: HOLBEIN’S SELF-PORTRAITS]
Among the very last works from Holbein’s hand must have been the various
miniature portraits of himself, dated 1543, described in the next
chapter.[463] The self-portrait in the Uffizi Gallery, Florence,[464]
which is evidently founded on one of them, or on one of the small
oil-paintings, now lost, has few pretensions, in the writer’s opinion,
to be regarded as an original work, though it is, of course, possible
that beneath the brush-work of some later and inferior painter there may
be an original work by Holbein now practically obliterated. It is only
right, however, to point out that Dr. Ganz considers it to be an
original though damaged drawing, and other writers are in agreement with
him. It is in coloured crayons on a gold ground, and the comparatively
modern inscription with the date 1543 has been painted over an earlier
one, which can be still traced below. Dr. Ganz suggests that it is
probably one of the two portraits which Van Mander saw in Amsterdam in
1604.
Footnote 463:
See pp. 230-231. Also Vol. i. pp. 27-8.
Footnote 464:
Woltmann, 150. Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 134, and elsewhere.
Of far greater interest is the recently-discovered portrait, first
published in 1912 by Dr. Ganz,[465] which he considers to be a genuine
self-portrait by Holbein, hitherto unknown. The likeness both to the
numerous miniatures and to the Uffizi portrait is so great that the
attribution is most certainly the correct one. It is in all ways much
more attractive than the last-named work, and has far greater vitality
and a more subtle expression of character. It is a drawing of the head
and shoulders only, turned slightly to the spectator’s right, and the
painter is wearing a dark fur-lined cloak and black cap. Part of the
left hand only is shown. It is a coloured-crayon drawing touched with
water-colour, on white paper which has been covered with a
flesh-coloured ground. The paper has a Zürich water-mark, and was only
manufactured between 1536-1540, so that the date of the drawing can be
fixed with some accuracy, and was very probably done in Basel during
Holbein’s short visit home in the autumn of 1538. It has, unfortunately,
suffered considerable damage, and here and there has been touched up
with Indian-ink. On the top right-hand comer of the blue background is
inscribed, in a later hand, “H. H. 15 ...” It was purchased in England
in the summer of 1910, and is now in Basel in the collection of Dr.
Rudolph Geigy-Schlumberger.[466]
Footnote 465:
Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 138.
Footnote 466:
See Ganz, _Holbein_, pp. xxxix. and 244. He suggests that this drawing
is perhaps the “ritratto d’homo aquazzo” of the Arundel inventory.
Several portraits by Holbein, which so far have not been traced, were
etched by Hollar when they were in the Arundel Collection, and these
prints, in the absence of the originals, form invaluable records for the
use of students. Some few of them, however, though Hollar has placed
Holbein’s name on them, cannot have been painted by him, as, for
instance, the portrait of Thomas Chaloner,[467] which is dated 1548. All
the more important of them are reproduced by Dr. Ganz in his _Holbein_
(1912),[468] and several have been already described in these pages.
Among those remaining there is one of an unknown bearded man in a black
cap,[469] and two of unnamed boys.[470] The second of these boys, whose
head is turned three-quarters to the left, appears, from the details of
the dress he is wearing, to be a Swiss. Holbein’s original silver-point
study for the portrait from which the etching was taken is in the
Louvre, and is dated 1520. The connection between the two was first
pointed out by Dr. Ganz.[471] The circular portrait of Sir Anthony Denny
is inscribed “ANNO 1541 ÆTATIS SVÆ 29.”[472] The original painting, a
small roundel, descended, according to Mr. W. Barclay Squire, to the
Howards of Greystoke Castle, and is now in the collection of Mr. J.
Pierpont Morgan, junr. There is an old copy of it at Longford
Castle.[473] The large print of an elderly, grey-bearded man, with fur
coat, and cap with a feather,[474] is usually said to represent Charles
Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, but though it bears considerable likeness to
the authentic portraits of him, the attribution is doubtful. There are
several portraits of English ladies among Hollar’s work. Of one, in
which the sitter is turned to the right, and is wearing a round
head-dress surmounted by a flat black cap with a large feather,[475]
there is no study known, but for two others, which Hollar has reproduced
as small roundels, the preliminary drawings are to be found in the
Windsor Collection, one of them of an unknown lady, full-face, wearing
the angular head-dress,[476] and the other the drawing inscribed “The
Lady Mary after Queen.”[477] The profile portrait of a lady, which has
been considered by some writers to represent Anne of Cleves,[478] does
not appear to be after an original by Holbein, though Hollar has placed
his name on it. It is possible, though not very probable, that some of
these circular etchings were based on the drawings, and not on finished
pictures.
Footnote 467:
Parthey, 1371.
Footnote 468:
pp. 196-200.
Footnote 469:
Parthey, 1544.
Footnote 470:
Parthey, 1551 and 1543.
Footnote 471:
See _Holbein_, p. 250. The drawing reproduced by Ganz, _Hdz. von H. H.
dem Jüng._, Pl. 9; and by Mantz, p. 34.
Footnote 472:
Parthey, 1387.
Footnote 473:
Reproduced in _Magazine of Art_, May 1897, p. 42; and in the catalogue
of the collection of the Earl of Radnor, W. Barclay Squire, 1909, No.
144. It is 4 in. in diameter, and is given to Holbein in the
catalogue. Engraved by C. Picart, 1817.
Footnote 474:
Parthey, 1554.
Footnote 475:
Parthey, 1550.
Footnote 476:
Parthey, 1549. Woltmann, 350; Wornum, ii. 38; Holmes, ii. 24.
Footnote 477:
Parthey, 1465. For the drawing, see p. 258.
Footnote 478:
Parthey, 1545. See p. 182, note 4.
[Sidenote: DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM’S COLLECTION]
Holbein’s practice during his last English period seems to have been
devoted almost entirely to portraiture, so that an entry in an inventory
of the Duke of Buckingham’s pictures at York House, made in 1635,[479]
is of exceptional interest, as it shows that he did occasionally paint
subjects other than portraits. It runs as follows: “Hans Holbin.—Jupiter
and Jo in Water Coulers.” This picture, of which all traces are lost,
was hanging in the Vaulted Room. The Duke possessed a number of other
works by or attributed to Holbein, but unfortunately the entries in the
inventory are so tantalisingly vague that it is impossible to gather
much information about them, though two of them seem to have been
portraits of Steelyard merchants. They included “Erasmus Rotterodamm
after Holbin”; “A Dutchman Sealing a Letter” (possibly the John of
Antwerp now at Windsor);[480] “A Rare piece, being a Dutchman”; “A
Queen”; “An other Lady”; “A little picture in Linnen”; and “A little
picture of Holbin himself,” which was probably one of the miniatures.
With the exception of the last-named, all are described as by “Holbin”
or “Hans Holbin.”
Footnote 479:
See Randall Davies, _Burlington Magazine_, vol. x., March 1907, pp.
376-82. Also Walpole, _Anecdotes_, ed. Wornum, vol. i. p. 94.
Footnote 480:
See pp. 9-14.
[Sidenote: THE “DANCING PICTURE”]
Another subject-picture by Holbein is mentioned by Evelyn in his
_Diary_, but so vaguely that it is impossible to guess what it could
have been. He says, under the date May 8, 1654: “I also call’d at Mr.
Ducie’s, who has indeede a rare collection of the best masters, and one
of the largest stories of H. Holbein.” This, however, may have been some
picture similar to “The Battle of Spurs” at Hampton Court, attributed to
Holbein in Evelyn’s day, and not a genuine work of the master. His
judgment was not always infallible, as he speaks of the well-known
“Dancing Picture,”[481] which he saw at the Duke of Norfolk’s at
Weybridge (23rd August 1678) as “that incomparable painting of
Holbein’s.”
Footnote 481:
This picture was traditionally said to have been begun in France by
Janet (Clouet), and Vertue thought it might have been retouched by
Holbein, “as it was probably painted for his patron, the Duke of
Norfolk, from whom it descended immediately to the Earl of Arundel,
out of whose collection the father of the present possessor (Colonel
Sotheby) purchased it.” (See Walpole, _Anecdotes_, ed. Wornum, i. p.
95.) It was lent to the Tudor Exhibition, 1890, by Major-Gen. F. E.
Sotheby, No. 145. The only entry in the Arundel inventory which it is
just possible might refer to this picture is “Un quadretto con diverse
figure Jocatori, etc.,” which is given to Holbein.
------------------------------------------------------------------------