HOLBEIN AS A MINIATURE PAINTER
Early references to Holbein as a miniature painter—Receives instruction
from Lucas Hornebolt—Rareness of genuine miniatures by him—Sir Thomas
More—Lord Abergavenny—Lady Audley—Henry and Charles Brandon—Drawing in
the British Museum of a lady and children on a bench—Miniature of Mrs.
Robert Pemberton—Unknown youth in the Queen of Holland’s
Collection—Miniature paintings of Holbein himself—Thomas Cromwell—Anne
of Cleves—Jane Seymour—Edward VI—Livina Teerlinc—Miniatures of the
Holbein school—Miniature of an unknown man, possibly the painter Harry
Maynert, at Munich.
The old tradition that Holbein did not practise miniature painting until
after he had settled in England is probably true. Van Mander says that
it was only at a late period, after he had entered the King’s service,
that he, who knew how to adapt himself almost to everything, took up the
art of miniature painting, in which he had before done nothing. At that
time he met at the Court a very famous master in this art, named Master
Lukas. “With Lukas he kept up mutual acquaintance and intercourse, and
learned from him the art of miniature painting, which, since then, he
pursued to such an extent, that in a short time he as far excelled Lukas
in drawing, arrangement, understanding, and execution, as the sun
surpasses the moon in brightness.”[482] Seventy years later Sandrart
repeated this statement, which he evidently took from Van Mander’s book.
The Master Lukas in question was undoubtedly Lucas Hornebolt, who was in
the employment of the King throughout the whole period of Holbein’s
residence in England. So far, the only pictures extant which have been
attributed with some certainty to the studio of Lucas and Gerard
Hornebolt are the portraits of Henry VIII, of the type of the Warwick
Castle portrait, when that monarch was drawing towards the end of his
life; but the sister, Susanna, wife of John Parker, Yeoman of the Robes,
and one of the King’s bowmen, was well known in her day as an excellent
miniaturist, while Guicciardini speaks of Lucas as not only a very great
painter, but as exceptionally good in the art of illuminating, so that
it is extremely probable that a number of the miniatures still in
existence, representing Henry, his wives, and members of his Court,
which though very excellent, have not the brilliance of execution and
the unfailing insight into character which mark the few genuine
miniatures by Holbein, were the work of the members of this family.
Guicciardini published his book only twenty-four years after Holbein’s
death, so that his account of the position they occupied at Henry’s
court, and the estimation in which they were held in England, borne out
as it is by the royal accounts, is evidently an accurate one.
Footnote 482:
Quoted by Woltmann from Van Mander, i. p. 407; English translation, p.
370.
Further confirmation of the fact that Holbein was famous for his skill
in miniature painting during his residence in England is to be found in
a manuscript “Treatise concerning the Arte of Limning,” which was
written, at the request of Richard Haydock, by Nicholas Hilliard, the
first and one of the finest of English native-born miniature painters,
who was born in all probability in 1537, and so was a boy of six when
Holbein died, and based his art on Holbein’s own practice. This
treatise, which was first published in its entirety by Dr. Philip Norman
in the first annual volume of the Walpole Society, 1911-12, from the
original manuscript in the Edinburgh University Library, was probably
written by Hilliard between 1598-1602. The manuscript, which is not in
the miniaturist’s own hand, is dated 18th March 1624. In it Hilliard
extols “King Henry the eight a Prince of exquisit jugment and Royall
bounty, soe that of cuning stranger even the best resorted unto him, and
removed from other courts to his. Amongst whom came the most excelent
Painter and limner Master Haunce Holbean the greatest Master Truly in
both thosse arts after the liffe that ever was, so Cuning in both
together and the neatest; and therewithall a good inventor, soe compleat
for all three, as I never heard of any better then hee. Yet had the King
in wages for limning Divers others, but Holbean’s maner of limning I
have ever imitated and howld it for the best, by Reason that of truth
all the rare Siences especially the arts of Carving, Painting,
Goudsmiths, Imbroderers, together with the most of all the liberall
Siences came first unto us from the strangers, and generally they are
the best and most in number. I heard Kinsard [Ronsard?] the great French
poet on a time say, that the Ilands indeed seldome bring forth any
Cunning man, but when they Doe it is in high perfection; so then I hope
there maie come out of this ower land such a one, this being the
greatest and most famous Iland of Europe.”[483]
Footnote 483:
Quoted by Holmes, _Burlington Magazine_, vol. viii., January 1906, p.
229. See also _Walpole Society_, vol. i., 1912, pp. 18-19.
[Sidenote: “MINIATURA, OR ART OF LIMNING”]
Still further proof of Holbein’s fame as a limner or miniature painter
is to be found in a manuscript written by Edward Norgate, called
“Miniatura or the Art of Limning,” now among the Rawlinson MSS. in the
Bodleian Library, dedicated to Henry Frederick, Earl of Arundel. Other
versions of this treatise on the “Art of Limning” are in the British
Museum (Harl. MSS., No. 6000); in the possession of the Royal Society,
which came from the Arundel Collection; and elsewhere. Norgate based a
considerable part of his treatise on the earlier one by Hilliard. “The
incomparable H. Holbein,” he says, “who, in all his different and
various methods of painting, either in oyle, distempre, lymning or
crayon, was, it seems, so general an artist as never to imitate any man,
nor ever was worthily imitated by any.”[484]
Footnote 484:
Quoted by Dallaway in his notes to Walpole, _Anecdotes_, &c., ed.
Wornum, vol. i. pp. 111-2. For a full account of Hilliard’s treatise,
and the various versions of Norgate’s work, see Dr. Philip Norman in
the Walpole Society’s publication, mentioned above; also Mr. Martin
Hardie in vol. ii. of Dr. G. C. Williamson’s _History of Portrait
Miniatures_, 1904.
Van Mander is, no doubt, correct in saying that Holbein received
instruction in the art of miniature painting from Lucas Hornebolt, and
that he had not practised it until he came to England; though Hornebolt
had nothing to teach him but the practical use of a medium in which, as
applied to portraiture, he had until then had very little experience.
There is no evidence to show that he produced true miniatures while in
Basel, though there is one attributed to him in the collection of the
late Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan, a portrait of a Baseler, a certain Arnold
Franz, described below, which affords possible proof that he did so.
Such an isolated example as this, however, may have been painted during
one of his later visits to Basel, or it may represent one of the members
of the German colony in London. Several of his small circular oil
paintings, almost the size of the true miniature, have been described in
earlier chapters,[485] so that he was already skilled in working on a
small scale, and within it of producing a life-like portrait, of the
utmost delicacy and truth to nature, while his extraordinary skill and
precision in rendering with most minute yet masterly touches of the
brush all the details of the sitter’s costume, jewellery, and
accessories, must have left him little to learn when he began to work in
the new medium. It is evident that he soon set up a standard of
excellence in this field which both his contemporaries and the
miniaturists who came after him did their best to reach.
Footnote 485:
See Vol. i. pp. 180, 184-5; Vol. ii. pp. 14, 20, 70-1.
His miniatures are now of the greatest rarity, though there are many in
various English collections which still wrongfully bear his name, given
to them in less critical days, when every portrait, great and small,
dating from Tudor times, was ascribed to him. In certain of these, very
possibly Holbein’s original handiwork has been buried beneath repairs
and repaints by later and less skilful hands. No doubt a number of
others have been lost, for so delicate and small an object of art as a
miniature is soon damaged or mislaid; though against this must be set
the fact that many of them were kept in specially-made ivory boxes, and
so would not easily suffer destruction. The number of them which, from
the perfection of their execution, can be said with some approach to
certainty to be from his brush, can be counted almost on the fingers of
one’s hands. These include the portraits of Mrs. Pemberton; the two sons
of the Duke of Suffolk, Henry and Charles Brandon; Lady Audley; Queen
Catherine Howard; Sir Thomas More; the portrait of an unknown youth in
the Queen of Holland’s collection; several of the painter himself, done
in the last year of his life, and two or three others. After these come
several which, though less perfect in draughtsmanship, have serious
claims to be considered as his work, and after these, again, there are
those fairly numerous examples which, though of good execution and of
real interest and value, have no pretensions to rank as works of the
great master. Some of these have been attributed tentatively to such
painters as the Hornebolts, Livina Teerlinc, Stretes, or Bettes, though
modern criticism has not succeeded as yet in disentangling the works of
these little masters the one from the other, so that the various
attributions are at present more or less mere guesswork.
[Sidenote: MINIATURES OF SIR THOMAS MORE]
The beautiful miniature of Sir Thomas More, rediscovered by Dr.
Williamson when in the Godolphin-Quicke Collection, and first published
by him in his _History of Portrait Miniatures_, which is in the late Mr.
J. Pierpont Morgan’s collection, has been already described when
speaking of the portraits of Sir Thomas.[486] A second miniature of
More, in the collection of the Duke of Buccleuch at Montagu House, was
first reproduced by Mr. Dudley Heath in _The Connoisseur_.”[487] This,
though based, like the Pierpont Morgan miniature, on the Huth portrait,
shows some differences from both. It is smaller than the other
miniature, and the sitter appears to be some years older. The eyes are
more downcast and the head slightly bent, while the scanty beard is
whiter. In other respects the dress, consisting of black cap and furred
gown, and collar of SS with the Tudor rose, is the same. Another
interesting point about it is that it is painted, not in water-colours,
but in oil on a gesso ground, upon a metal plaque which appears to be
silver. It has, unfortunately, suffered to some extent in the course of
time, and has been retouched here and there, but it is a fine example,
very possibly by Holbein, showing, according to Mr. Heath, “that vivid
realism, yet reserve of expression, that sensitive modulation of the
tones and contours, that insistent yet flexible drawing of the features,
which constitute the sign-manual of the great portrait painter.” Nothing
seems to be known of the history of this miniature, which was exhibited
at South Kensington in 1862 (No. 2061), in the Royal Academy Winter
Exhibition in 1879 (Case L, 4), and at the Burlington Fine Arts Club in
1909 (Case C, 17). These miniatures of More would seem to suggest that
Holbein’s earlier biographers were wrong in stating that he did not
begin to practise in this branch of art until after he had entered Henry
VIII’s service. It has been generally supposed that when he returned to
England a second time he saw little or nothing of the Chancellor, and if
that is so, these miniatures must have been painted between 1526 and
1528, when he was at work on the big group of his first English patron’s
family. At that time, however, Holbein had no official connection with
the court, and was possibly not yet on terms of intimacy with the
Hornebolts, so that it seems more probable that any miniatures of More
from his hand were done between 1532, the date of Holbein’s return to
London, and 1534, when the ex-Chancellor was imprisoned in the Tower.
Another possible solution is that they were painted after More’s death
for friends or relations who desired a memorial of him, and were done
from the oil painting or from the preliminary drawings still in the
painter’s possession.
Footnote 486:
See Vol. i. pp. 306-7.
Footnote 487:
_The Connoisseur_, vol. xviii. No. 71, July 1907, frontispiece (in
colour.) Also reproduced in _Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition
Catalogue_, Pl. xxxiii.
Another miniature from the Montagu House Collection was also reproduced
for the first time by Mr. Dudley Heath in the same article,[488] and was
lent by the Duke of Buccleuch to the Burlington Fine Arts Club
Exhibition (Case C, 22). It represents George Nevill, third Lord
Abergavenny, and, as already noted,[489] is founded on the fine drawing
in the collection of the Earl of Pembroke, for so long considered to be
a portrait of Thomas Cromwell. The face, which is that of an old man, is
turned three-quarters to the spectator’s right, and is clean-shaven. His
white hair is almost covered by the black cap, on which is a gold jewel
with three pendant pearls. He wears a black fur-lined gown over a black
doublet open at the throat, showing his white shirt. On the left-hand
side of the bright-blue background is inscribed “G. Abergaveny.” It is
painted, like nearly all miniatures of the period, on a playing card,
and is 1¾ in. in diameter. It was purchased by its present owner, with
some other miniatures, at the Earl of Westmorland’s sale at Apethorpe
Hall, Northamptonshire, in 1892. It is in a perfect state of
preservation, full of vitality, and excellent in modelling, and has
considerable claims to be regarded as an original. The pale, high tones
of the flesh colour are in marked contrast to the lower tones of the oil
miniature of Sir Thomas More in the same collection.
Footnote 488:
_The Connoisseur_, vol. xviii., July 1907, frontispiece (in colour).
Also reproduced in _Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition Catalogue_,
Pl. xxxiii.
Footnote 489:
See p. 62.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 31
MINIATURES
1. HENRY BRANDON
2. CHARLES BRANDON
3. LADY AUDLEY
4. QUEEN CATHERINE HOWARD
WINDSOR CASTLE
5. PORTRAIT OF AN UNKNOWN YOUTH
QUEEN OF HOLLAND’S COLLECTION
6. THOMAS CROMWELL
THE LATE MR. J. PIERPONT MORGAN’S COLLECTION
]
[Sidenote: MINIATURE OF LADY AUDLEY]
The two almost similar miniatures of Catherine Howard, at Windsor Castle
(Pl. 31 (4)) and Montagu House, have been already described;[490] both
are beautiful examples, and each one is almost certainly from Holbein’s
own hand, though the former has suffered from restoration. In the royal
collection at Windsor there are three other miniatures which also can be
given to him without any hesitation, all three being masterpieces of the
art of the limner; these are the portraits of Lady Audley and the two
Brandon boys. The miniature of Lady Audley (Pl. 31 (3)),[491] is of
extraordinary delicacy in handling and colour, and bears the stamp of
Holbein in every minute and unerring touch. As Mr. Law says, “there was
no other artist at the court of Henry VIII, or indeed in Northern
Europe, who could have produced so exquisite a work of art.”[492] She is
shown to the waist, turned to the right, with hands folded in front of
her. Her richly-brocaded dress is of pale crimson, with under-sleeves of
dark grey and white ruffles, and she wears a French hood trimmed with
pearls, and a black fall over her fair hair. Her double necklace is of
almost the same pattern as the one worn by Catherine Howard. There is no
inscription on the plain, deep blue background. It is 2½ in. in
diameter, and is painted on the back of the two of hearts. The identity
of the sitter is placed beyond doubt by the fine drawing, inscribed “The
Lady Audley,” in the Windsor Collection (Pl. 37 (1)),[493] in which the
position and features of the sitter, the costume and ornaments, are
almost exactly the same, while the colour of the dress in the miniature
agrees with the note in Holbein’s handwriting on the drawing—“damast
rot.” This drawing is one of the finest and most delicate among the
heads of women in the Windsor Collection—a long, handsome face, with
pointed chin and sharp nose, and very expressive eyes. Holbein has
carefully indicated the details of the ornaments she is wearing. Her
necklace is of elaborate workmanship, apparently a band of alternate
links of enamel and pearls arranged as flowers, with a large pendant
with inset facetted jewels and three hanging pearls. At her breast is a
large circular ornament of a somewhat similar design. The oil painting
for which the preliminary study was made, and from which the miniature
was possibly taken, is now lost. Elizabeth, Lady Audley, was the eldest
daughter of one who must have been in constant touch with Holbein—Sir
Bryan Tuke, the Treasurer of the Chamber, whose portrait by him has been
already described, and from whose hands he received his salary. She
married John Touchet, ninth Lord Audley.
Footnote 490:
See pp. 192-193.
Footnote 491:
Woltmann, 270. Reproduced by Law, Pl. vii.; Williamson, _History of
Portrait Miniatures_, Pl. ii. fig. 3; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 149 (3).
Painted at about the same time as the “Catherine Howard.”
Footnote 492:
Law, _Holbein’s Portraits at Windsor Castle_, p. 25.
Footnote 493:
Woltmann, 342; Wornum, ii. 31; Holmes, ii. 27. Reproduced by Davies,
p. 220; and elsewhere.
The portraits of the two young sons of the Duke of Suffolk, Henry and
Charles Brandon, are acknowledged on all sides to be among the very
finest of Holbein’s miniatures. Dr. Woltmann, indeed, considered the one
of the elder brother to be the best which ever came from his brush. It
is, he says, “the most beautiful miniature painting by Holbein that is
known to us, and exhibits more strikingly than any other his artistic
style and his spirited and perfect mode of execution, true in spite of
all its delicacy.”[494] This is certainly by no means too high praise,
for both miniatures are delightful renderings of childhood, drawn with
all Holbein’s keen perception, and faultless in their precision of line
and delightfulness of colouring. The elder boy, Henry (Pl. 31 (1)),[495]
aged five, is shown to the waist, full-face, leaning with his left arm
on a table at his side, his head slightly bent in the same direction. He
is wearing a black velvet dress with green under-sleeves, and a black
hat with a white feather. His fair hair is cut straight across his
forehead, and there is a rather sad look in his eyes. On the ledge of
the table is inscribed, “ETATIS SVE 5 6 SEPDEM,” and below, on the
table-leg, “ANNO” and the date, which has been variously read by
different writers. The younger brother, Charles (Pl. 31 (2)),[496] aged
three, is also seen to the waist and full-face. His dress is a bluish
grey braided in red, and with black cuffs. His flat black cap has no
feather; his hair, like his brother’s, is very fair, and his blue eyes
look straight at the spectator. There is a strong likeness between the
two. He holds in front of him a paper with the inscription “ANN 1541
ETATIS SVÆ 3 10 MARCI.” Both miniatures are painted on a playing card, 2
in. in diameter, and in each the background is the usual bright blue.
Their pedigree in the royal collection can be traced back as far as
Charles I, in whose catalogue they appear as: “Done by Hans Holbein.
Given to the King by Sir H. Vane. No. 64. _Item._ Done upon the wrong
light. Upon a round card, one of the Duke of Brandon’s children, being
in a purple habit laced with red velvet lace, with both his hands before
him. 2 inches.” “No. 65. _Item._ Another fellow piece of the same Duke
of Brandon’s children, in a black cap and habit with green sleeves,
leaning with his left arm upon the table, bending his breast towards his
left shoulder, on the table written his age, and the year of our Lord,
done upon the wrong light.” They appear again in James H’s catalogue,
No. 646, as: “Two heads in one frame, in limning, being the sons of
Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk. By Holbein.”
Footnote 494:
Woltmann, English translation, p. 371.
Footnote 495:
Woltmann, 268. Reproduced by Law, Pl. vii.; Knackfuss, fig. 124;
Williamson, Pl. ii. fig. 5; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 149 (2).
Footnote 496:
Woltmann, 269. Reproduced by Law, Pl. vii.; Knackfuss, fig. 135;
Williamson, Pl. ii. fig. 7; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 149 (1).
[Sidenote: HENRY AND CHARLES BRANDON]
The boys were the sons of Charles Brandon, first Duke of Suffolk, who
became brother-in-law of the King by his secret marriage in Paris on May
13, 1515, with the young Queen Dowager of France, widow of Louis XII;
and their mother, Suffolk’s fourth wife, was Catherine, only daughter
and heiress of William, tenth Lord Willoughby de Eresby. The year date
on the elder boy’s portrait has been usually read as 1535. It is so
given by Wornum and Woltmann, and other writers have followed them, but
if the portrait represents Henry Brandon, the date is quite impossible.
Mary Tudor, the “French Queen,” the Duke of Suffolk’s third wife, died
on June 25, 1533, and in September of the same year Brandon married
Catherine Willoughby, the mother of these two boys. In Burke, on the
other hand, it is stated that the marriage took place in 1535; but this
appears to be incorrect. The _Dictionary of National Biography_ gives
the date of the elder boy’s birth as September 18, 1535, which date is
fixed by the _inquisitio post mortem_ held after his father’s death in
1545; so that it is quite impossible that the lad could have been five
years old in 1535. Mr. Ernest Law reads the date on the miniature as
possibly 1539; to the writer, however, who has not had the privilege of
examining the original, it appears, from careful examination of the
excellent reproduction in Mr. Law’s book, to be either 1543 or 1545, the
third figure being plainly a 4. Neither of these dates, however, can be
correct, and it is quite possible that at some time the inscription,
growing illegible, has been repainted, and that in so doing the restorer
has made a mistake. The lettering on both miniatures lacks the precision
of an original inscription by Holbein. It is generally assumed that the
two dates, “6 Sep” and “10 Marci,” refer to the boys’ birthdays, and
there is no difficulty with regard to the second boy, Charles, who was
born in March 1538, two and a half years after his brother. The two
miniatures have every appearance of having been painted at about the
same time, and it is to be expected that the elder of the two would be
painted first. The writer suggests, therefore, that the correct date of
the portrait of Henry is September 1540, and that of Charles, March
1541.
The two boys were very carefully brought up in the Protestant faith by
their mother. Martin Bucer, the German reformer, was appointed their
tutor, and they were afterwards in the charge of Thomas Wilson, who
became Secretary of State to Queen Elizabeth. At a later period Henry
was sent to Sir John Cheke, and was educated with Prince Edward, and
finally entered St. John’s College, Cambridge, where his brother
afterwards followed him. While there the two boys contracted that
scourge of the sixteenth century, the sweating sickness. On the occasion
of the outbreak they were hastily removed for safety to the Bishop of
Lincoln’s palace at Brickdon, in Huntingdonshire, but too late, for both
developed the disease, and died together in one bed, on the same day,
July 11, 1551, the younger within less than an hour of the elder. Their
death at so early an age made an extraordinary impression at the time,
and a pamphlet on the subject was published by their tutor, Dr. Walter
Haddon. Peter Martyr said of Henry that, with the exception of Edward
VI, he was the most promising youth of his day.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 32
STUDY FOR A FAMILY PORTRAIT GROUP
_Indian-ink wash drawing with brush outline_
BRITISH MUSEUM
]
[Sidenote: DRAWING OF A FAMILY GROUP]
There is a very beautiful drawing of the boys’ mother in the Windsor
Collection,[497] a head turned three-quarters to the left, wearing the
English angular head-dress with a band of pearls, and a second
ornamented band of which part of the pattern has been drawn in detail by
Holbein. The collar is elaborately braided with black velvet, and a
medallion is indicated at the breast. The brown eyes and the hair have
been put in with water-colour. The portrait for which it was the
original study has not been traced. There is a replica of this head in
the British Museum (No. 10),[498] which was formerly in the Robinson and
Malcolm collections. In this connection, too, a second drawing in the
British Museum may be cited, which represents a woman and children
sitting on a bench (No. 8) (Pl. 32).[499] It is in Indian-ink on paper,
5¼ in. × 4¼ in., and comes from the Cosway and Utterson collections. It
has been reproduced by the Vasari Society,[500] with a note by Mr.
Campbell Dodgson, and by Dr. Paul Ganz.[501] Mr. Dodgson suggests that
the scene represented is the interior of a church. An effect of warm
sunshine is skilfully suggested by the light which falls from a window,
not seen, on the right. The mother or nurse is seated in the centre of
the group, on a high-backed bench with panelling of the Tudor “linen”
pattern, a baby in long clothes held on her lap. On her right a boy with
a flat cap and feather, and puffed sleeves, is seated, his left elbow
resting on the arm of the bench. A little girl stands in front of her,
looking up, and on the left a younger boy, dressed like his brother, is
standing, the whole making a group of the greatest charm. It is
described in the British Museum Catalogue as an admirable example of
Holbein’s earlier Basel period, but it is evidently of later date, and
the costumes are undoubtedly English. It has been recently suggested by
Mr. Peartree that the woman is “Mother Jack,” nurse to Prince
Edward.[502] In features and costume she bears considerable likeness to
the unnamed drawing in the Windsor Collection,[503] which is supposed to
be a portrait of that nurse. If this supposition be correct, the baby
would be the Prince of Wales, and the date of the drawing about 1537;
but this fails to account for the three other children. Dr. Ganz
considers it to be a group of members of the Brandon family,[504] and as
far as the two boys are concerned, this suggestion has something in its
favour. The lad on the right is by no means unlike Henry Brandon. The
position of the head and the left arm are exactly the same as in the
miniature, and the dress has many points of resemblance. The second boy,
too, has some likeness to Charles, though he does not wear the
velvet-braided costume of the miniature. Again, however, there is a
stumbling-block to this theory in the presence of the two younger
children, for the Duke’s family by his fourth wife consisted of the two
boys only. By his second marriage with Anne, daughter of Sir Anthony
Browne, he had two daughters, Anne, afterwards Lady Powys, and Mary,
afterwards Lady Monteagle, and by his third wife, the King’s sister, he
had two other daughters, Frances, afterwards Countess of Dorset, and
Eleanor, afterwards Countess of Cumberland, but these ladies were all
too old for one of them to have been the little girl represented in the
drawing. Owing, no doubt, to the wrong date on the miniature of Henry
Brandon, Dr. Ganz ascribes this drawing to the year 1535, and sees signs
in the elder boy’s face of approaching illness, although no such illness
is recorded until the sudden one in 1551, when he was nearly sixteen.
Both explanations are ingenious, but neither is entirely satisfactory.
On the margin of the drawing, in a later hand, is written—“exaltate
Cedrus. H. Holbein,” which, apparently, is a reference to Ecclesiasticus
xxiv. 17, “Quasi cedrus exaltata sum in Libano.”
Footnote 497:
Woltmann, 334; Wornum, ii. 21; Holmes, i. 26. Reproduced by Knackfuss,
fig. 140; and Ganz, _Hdz. von H. H. dem Jüng._, Pl. 34.
Footnote 498:
Woltmann, 210.
Footnote 499:
Woltmann, 189.
Footnote 500:
1905-6, No. 18.
Footnote 501:
_Hdz. von H. H. dem Jüng._, Pl. 35.
Footnote 502:
Vasari Society, Pt. i. No. 18 (1905-6), note by Mr. Campbell Dodgson.
Footnote 503:
Woltmann, 353; Wornum, ii. 14; Holmes, i. 10. Reproduced in _Drawings
by Hans Holbein_ (Newnes), Pl. xxvi.
Footnote 504:
Ganz, _Hdz. von H. H. dem Jüng._, p. 56.
The utmost perfection in miniature painting is to be found in the
portrait of Mrs. Robert Pemberton (#Pl. 33 (1)pl-33#),[505] in the late
Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan’s collection (No. iv.), which bears in every
touch the unapproachable skill and rare individuality of the artist. It
was formerly in the collection of Mr. C. Heywood Hawkins, and at his
sale on May 15, 1904, realised £2750, afterwards passing into the
possession of Mr. Morgan, by whose courtesy it is reproduced in this
book. In the Hawkins Sale-Catalogue it was described as the portrait of
Frances Howard, Duchess of Norfolk, but without authority, for there was
no Duchess of Norfolk of that name in Holbein’s time. When exhibited by
Mr. Hawkins at South Kensington in 1865, it was described in the
catalogue as merely—“Portrait of a Lady, Anno Aetatis Suae 23. Her coat
of arms is affixed to the case.” This coat, described by Sir Richard
Holmes in the _Burlington Magazine_,[506] in a note accompanying a
reproduction of the portrait, is dated MDLVI, and in style and painting
is about a century later than the miniature. These arms, as Sir Richard
first pointed out, are those of the Pemberton family. Further
researches, undertaken by Dr. Williamson, and embodied in his catalogue
of Mr. Pierpont Morgan’s Miniatures, prove, almost without doubt, that
the lady represented was Mrs. Robert Pemberton. He says: “The arms of
the wyverns’ heads which are quartered with those of Pemberton belong to
the family of Jago di Lago, gentleman, of Newcastle-under-Lyme,
Staffordshire; and Robert Pemberton, of Rushden, Northants, M.P. for
Northampton in 1478, married Alice, daughter and co-heir of this Jago di
Lago.... Major-General R. C. B. Pemberton, to whom I am indebted for
these interesting references, is of opinion that the lady in the
miniature is Margaret, daughter of Richard Throgmorton, of Higham Park,
co. Northants, who was buried at Rushden, 27th October 1576. She married
Robert Pemberton, of Pemberton, co. Lancs., and of Rushden, eldest son
of William Pemberton, of the same places, and he died in September 1594.
The arms would be those of this Robert Pemberton, whose grandfather
certainly bore them.”[507]
Footnote 505:
Reproduced in Mr. Morgan’s Catalogue, Pl. iv., No. 2, and in colour in
_édition de luxe_, No. 4; _Burlington Magazine_, vol. v., July 1904,
frontispiece; _Portrait Miniatures_ (_Studio_ Spring No.), 1910, Pl.
i.; _Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition Catalogue_, 1909, Pl.
xxxii.; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 148 (3); _Connoisseur_, Dec. 1906.
Footnote 506:
_Burlington Magazine_, vol. v., July 1904, p. 337.
Footnote 507:
Williamson, Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan’s Catalogue, p. 9.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 33
MINIATURES
MRS. PEMBERTON
THE LATE MR. J. PIERPONT MORGAN’S COLLECTION
PORTRAIT OF HOLBEIN BY HIMSELF
WALLACE COLLECTION
]
[Sidenote: MINIATURE OF AN UNKNOWN YOUTH]
In this very beautiful little masterpiece the lady is shown
three-quarters face to the right, wearing a black velvet bodice and
small white linen cape, and a lawn collar and cuffs, embroidered with a
geometrical design in black. She has a red carnation fastened in her
dress, and round her neck a thin black cord with gold filigree ends, and
holds a single green leaf in her crossed hands. Her hair, which is
parted in the centre, is almost concealed beneath her white linen cap.
The background is, as usual, blue, and across it, in gold letters, runs
the inscription, “ANNO ETATIS SVÆ 23.” It is painted on the back of a
playing card, and is still in its original frame, decorated with white
and black enamel and three pearls.
The miniature in the Queen of Holland’s collection (Pl. 31 (5)) equals,
if it does not surpass, in the brilliance and delicacy of its execution
and in the subtlety of its characterisation, the portrait of Mrs.
Pemberton; in some ways, indeed, it is the most perfect example of
Holbein’s mastery of this branch of art which remains. Its discovery was
due to Sir Richard Holmes, who, in 1903, first attributed it to Holbein,
in a communication to the _Burlington Magazine_,[508] accompanied by a
reproduction of the miniature. It forms one of a collection of some four
hundred, of which about fifty are of English origin, in the royal
collections of Holland at the Hague. It represents a youth of about
fifteen or sixteen, who so far has not been identified. The head and
shoulders only are shown, turned three-quarters to the spectator’s
right, the eyes cast down. The hair is cut close, and the dress is a
brown doublet trimmed with black, with a small open, falling collar with
white strings attached. There is no inscription on the background. With
the exception of slight discoloration of the collar through the
oxidization of the pigment, this miniature is in faultless condition.
“Its extraordinary power and beauty,” says Sir Richard, “were manifest
at first sight, and a close examination has convinced me that it can be
attributed only to Holbein, of whose work in this branch of portraiture
I have long been a student, as well as of his crayon drawings. It has
all the restraint of power so characteristic of him, and the exquisite
delicacy of line combined with firmness and precision, which never
united in the same degree in any master with whose work I am
acquainted.”[509] The same writer suggested that it is possibly the
portrait of a member of the family of one of the German merchants of the
Steelyard. The facial characteristics, however, appear to be more
English than German, and it most probably represents the son of some
personage about Henry’s court. It was exhibited at the Exhibition of
Miniatures in Rotterdam in 1910, and again at Brussels in 1912 (No.
846). Another fine miniature in the Queen of Holland’s collection, the
portrait of an unknown man in black (Brussels Exhibition, No. 847), was
first pointed out by Dr. Williamson in his _History of Portrait
Miniatures_ as very probably the work of Holbein; and since its
exhibition at Brussels in 1912 the attribution has been accepted by some
of the leading Dutch critics.[510]
Footnote 508:
_Burlington Magazine_, vol. i., April 1903, p. 218, and frontispiece;
Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 147 (2).
Footnote 509:
_Burlington Magazine_, vol. i., April 1903, p. 218.
Footnote 510:
See _Hist. Portrait Miniatures_, vol. i. p. 11, and Pl. iii. 1.
[Sidenote: HOLBEIN’S MINIATURES OF HIMSELF]
A fine miniature portrait of the artist himself, painted in the last
year of his life, is in the possession of the Duke of Buccleuch,[511]
and was exhibited at the Royal Academy Winter Exhibition, 1879 (Case F,
25), and at the Burlington Fine Arts Club in 1909 (Case C, 23). It is a
bust portrait, turned three-quarters to the left, the head facing the
spectator. He is represented in the act of painting, the left hand
supporting the right, and is dressed in a plain black costume with white
pleated collar and cuffs, and a round black skull-cap. He has dark hair
and a closely-cut beard. Across the blue background is inscribed, “H.H.
AN. 1543. ÆTATIS SVÆ 45.” It was formerly in the collection of Horace
Walpole, and at the Strawberry Hill sale in 1842 was purchased by Mr. W.
Blamire, and when the latter’s collection was disposed of in 1863 it
passed into the possession of the Duke of Buccleuch. It is one of the
best of several similar miniatures, and is very fine in execution, and
has been usually ascribed to Holbein himself. The best of all is in the
Wallace Collection (Case B, 93) (Pl. 33 (2)),[512] and appears to be
from the painter’s own hand. A number of copies are to be found in
various collections; one of them, in the Mayer van den Bergh Collection,
Antwerp, is reproduced by Dr. Ganz.[513] Woltmann considered that the
Montagu House portrait was “scarcely the original, but an old and
contemporaneous copy,”[514] but it is too excellent in execution to be
the work of a mere copyist. There is a second and larger version in the
Buccleuch Collection, with the same date, 1543, also attributed to
Holbein. The first-named example may possibly be the small round
mentioned by Van Mander as being in Amsterdam in his day. Lucas
Vorsterman’s circular engraving was evidently based on this miniature or
the somewhat larger portrait now lost,[515] of which the exceedingly
poor likeness of the painter in the Uffizi Gallery gives but a feeble
echo. The print follows the miniature closely, but is reversed, so that
Holbein is represented as painting with his left hand. Hollar’s
engraving, dated 1647, in which the painter’s left hand is omitted, was
taken, according to the inscription, from an original in the collection
of the Earl of Arundel, though Wornum was of opinion that it was based
upon Vorsterman’s version. Both are described in an earlier
chapter.[516] The inscription across the background in Hollar’s
print—“HH. Æ 45. AN^O 1543”—agrees with the second miniature in the
Buccleuch Collection. Van Mander states that Holbein painted with his
left hand, and in this Sandrart and Patin follow him, but that this was
a legend is proved by the original miniature in which the artist has
represented himself holding his brush. Vorsterman’s engraving, which
appears to bear out Van Mander’s statement, through his failure to
reverse his drawing on the wood block, if not the original source of the
error, may have helped to spread it. Sir George Scharf, however,
suggested another cause as the source of this tradition. “Most of the
portraits of Henry VIII,” he says, “more especially those attributed to
Holbein, have the light coming in from the spectator’s right, a
circumstance which may have tended, in some degree, to establish the
tradition that Holbein was left-handed. These are specified by Van der
Dort as done upon the wrong light.”[517]
Footnote 511:
Woltmann, 371 (9). Reproduced in _Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition
Catalogue_, Pl. xxxiii.; Williamson, _Hist. Portrait Miniatures_, Pl.
ii. 4.
Footnote 512:
Reproduced by A. F. Pollard, _Henry VIII_, p. 125; Ganz, _Holbein_, p.
150 (2); Williamson, _Hist. Portrait Miniatures_, Pl. iii. 3.
According to the new edition of the Catalogue of the Wallace
Collection there is engraved on the back of the case, “Hans
Holbens—given to Me by Lord Bolingbroke, 1757.”
Footnote 513:
_Holbein_, p. 227 (4).
Footnote 514:
Woltmann, i. p. 477. English translation, p. 450.
Footnote 515:
See Vol. i. pp. 27-8, and Vol. ii. p. 213.
Footnote 516:
See Vol. i. pp. 27-8.
Footnote 517:
_Old London_, 1867, p. 320.
The discovery of another miniature by Holbein was made by Dr. G. C.
Williamson in 1911,[518] and is one of exceptional interest, as it is an
undoubted likeness of Thomas Cromwell, Earl of Essex, K.G. (Pl. 31 (6)).
It came from a private source, and is now in the late Mr. Pierpont
Morgan’s collection. It was fully described, and compared with other
portraits of Cromwell, by Mr. Lionel Cust in the _Burlington
Magazine_.[519] He is represented in a black cloak with fur collar,
black cloth cap, and wearing the chain of the Garter with the pendant
George. The background is blue. It is about two inches in diameter,
painted on vellum or chicken-skin, pasted on card. “It is encased,” says
Mr. Cust, “in an ivory box, carved on the back with a rose and other
ornaments, similar to, though in no way so fine or so rich as, the ivory
box which contains the miniature portrait of Anne of Cleves, lately
bequeathed to the nation by Mr. George Salting, and now in the Victoria
and Albert Museum. In the case, however, of Mr. Morgan’s portrait of
Cromwell, the lower half of the box has been separated from the lid, cut
down, and set in a gold frame, which is ornamented by a series of small
deformed pearls. This gold framework is the work of a highly-efficient
goldsmith, but hardly seems to date from the days of Henry VIII.” As
Cromwell is shown wearing the Garter chain and badge, of which order he
was made a knight in August 1537, the miniature was no doubt painted at
some date between August and December in that year, to commemorate his
election. In this connection it is of interest to note that in
Cromwell’s accounts, preserved in the Record Office, there is an entry
under 4th January 1538: “Hanns the painter, 40_s._”[520] This payment
would suggest that, in all probability, Holbein presented him with this
miniature as a New Year’s gift, and that in return he received the forty
shillings from his old patron as an acknowledgment.[521] The miniature
is thus some three or four years later in date than the portrait at
Tyttenhanger, painted not later than the spring of 1534, when he was
Master of the Jewel House.[522]
Footnote 518:
Communicated by him to _The Times_, 25th May 1911.
Footnote 519:
“A Newly-discovered Miniature of Thomas Cromwell,” vol. xx., October
1911, pp. 5, 6. The miniature reproduced p. 7 (1). Since the date of
this article Dr. Williamson has traced back the history of this
miniature to a member of the Cromwell family who settled and died near
Munich.
Footnote 520:
_C.L.P._, vol. xiv., pt. ii., 782 (f. 117).
Footnote 521:
See _Burlington Magazine_, vol. xx., December 1911, p. 175.
Footnote 522:
See pp. 58-60.
[Sidenote: MINIATURES OF HENRY VIII]
Unfortunately this miniature has suffered severely during its past
career, and has been so rubbed down that little of the details of the
dress or ornaments can now be distinguished beyond the mere outlines.
“The face,” says Mr. Cust, “is faded and also rubbed, but here the
skilful drawing of the features reveals a master-hand which could be no
other but Holbein’s. Very subtle, however, and recognizable are the
distinctive features of Thomas Cromwell, the vulgar nose, with its
sunken bridge, the cunning eyes with the puckered skin at their
corners.”[523]
Footnote 523:
_Burlington Magazine_, vol. xx., October 1911, p. 5.
The scope of this book does not permit any detailed description of the
very numerous miniatures of Henry VIII and the members of his family
which are to be found in various collections in England, the more
important of which have been publicly exhibited from time to time. In
the royal collection in Windsor Castle there are four of the King
himself, but none of them can be given to Holbein. Three of them appear
to have been painted immediately before Holbein’s first visit to
England, and the fourth shortly after his death. Two, in which Henry is
beardless, and of youthful appearance, were in Charles I’s collection,
and are entered in his catalogue as being among “the limned pictures
which my Lord of Suffolk gave to the King.” One of them is inscribed, in
two lines, “H.R. VIII. AN^O ETATIS XXXV^O,” which gives the date as
1525-6; the other, which it resembles closely, has no date, but merely
“REX HENRICUS. OCTAVVS.”[524] The third Windsor miniature is inscribed
“H.R. VIII. AN^O XXXV.” In the spandrils four golden angels, on a bright
red ground, are holding the letters H and K in golden cords, and linked
with true-lovers’ knots. Sir George Scharf considered these initials to
refer to the King’s last marriage, on July 12, 1543, with Catherine
Parr, and the “XXXV^O” as referring, not to Henry’s age, but to his
regnal year. “The face,” he says, “at first sight looks youthful, but it
is fat, and, on careful inspection, has a worn and very artificial
appearance, as if means had been employed to conceal age.”[525] Mr.
Wornum, on the other hand, considered the numerals to refer to the
King’s actual age, and not to his reign, and the initial K to Katherine
of Aragon.[526] It is only possible to say of the earlier of these
miniatures that they are not the work of Holbein. As to the real author
of them, the name of one or other member of the Hornebolt family can
only be tentatively given, without any real proof in support of it,
beyond the fact that the Hornebolts were settled in this country before
1526, the name appearing in the accounts of the expenses of the royal
household in that year, and that there appears to have been no other
foreign artist of like importance living in London at that date. Mr.
Lionel Cust, in the Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition Catalogue,
suggests the name of Jehan Perréal, or Jehan de Paris, as the possible
author of some of the early portraits in miniature of the King, painted
before Holbein’s arrival in England. Perréal was over here at the time
of the marriage of Louis XII, whose official painter he was, with
Princess Mary Tudor, for the purpose of designing the new Queen’s
dresses. His visit, however, could have been but a short one, and does
not account for miniatures of the year 1526.
Footnote 524:
Both reproduced by Law, _Holbein’s Pictures at Windsor Castle_, Pl.
vii.
Footnote 525:
“Remarks on Some Portraits from Windsor Castle, Hampton Court, and
Wilton House,” _Archæologia_, vol. xxxix., 1863, p. 252.
Footnote 526:
Wornum, p. 281.
The fourth miniature of the King at Windsor is in oils on oak, 2¾ in. in
diameter, in which he is wearing a thin beard and whiskers. It is
inscribed, “HENR. 8 REX. ANGL. ÆTA. S: 57.” Its date, therefore, must
refer to the last year of the King’s reign, 1546, though there is a
mistake in the age, as he never entered his fifty-seventh year.
According to Charles I’s catalogue, it was “supposed to be done by
Holben, and given to the King by my Lord Suffolk.” In type it
corresponds very closely to the portrait of Henry in St. Bartholomew’s
Hospital, London. There is yet another miniature of the King at Windsor,
by Nicholas Hilliard, which appears to have been copied from some lost
original by Holbein or by Hornebolt. It is one of the customary
full-face versions, with beard, and is one of the four fine miniatures
which were appended to an elaborate jewel which Hilliard executed in
enamels and gold, possibly for Edward VI, representing the Battle of
Bosworth Field, which was bought by Charles I from Laurence Hilliard,
the painter’s son. The three other miniatures represent Henry VII, Jane
Seymour, evidently copied from the well-known portrait by Holbein, and
Edward VI, which recalls more than one of the portraits of the young
King usually attributed to Guillim Stretes. The one of Henry VIII is
inscribed in gold: “1536. ÆTATIS SVÆ 46.”
[Sidenote: MINIATURES OF HENRY VIII]
No less than five miniatures of the King were lent to the Burlington
Fine Arts Club Exhibition by the Duke of Buccleuch, two of which are
attributed to Holbein. One is a reduced copy of Holbein’s portrait of
Henry belonging to Earl Spencer (Case C, 6). A second[527] is inscribed
“H.R. VIII. AN^O XXXV,” and appears to be the original from which the
Windsor miniature, described above, was copied (Case C, 7). It was
formerly in the Magniac Collection. The catalogue suggests that it is
possibly the work of an illuminator of the French school. A third (Case
C, 25), with a very similar inscription, is evidently a second copy of
the same miniature. The fourth (Case C, 8 (D)), forms one of a series of
eight in an ebony frame, which were formerly in the collection of
Charles I. It is a full-face, with grey beard, and, according to the
royal catalogue, was “done by Hans Holbein, given to the King by my Lord
Suffolk.”[528] The companion miniatures represent Henry VII, Elizabeth
of York (“copied by Hoskins after an ancient ould coloured piece”),
Katherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn (also copied by John Hoskins “after an
ould colured piece”), Queen Mary (“done by Ant. More”), Edward VI, and
Queen Elizabeth (“done by Old Hilliard”). The “Henry VIII” is fine, and
in the Burlington catalogue is attributed to Holbein, but it is more
probably another copy from “an ould coloured piece” by the master. It
has considerable resemblance to the fifth miniature from Montagu
House[529] (Case C, 2), also ascribed to Holbein, but not by him.
Footnote 527:
Reproduced in the _Burlington Fine Arts Club Catalogue_, Pl. xxxiii.
Footnote 528:
Reproduced by Williamson, _Hist. Portrait Miniatures_, Pl. ii. 6.
Footnote 529:
Reproduced in the _Burlington Fine Arts Club Catalogue_, Pl. xxxiii.
The very fine miniature portrait of the King in the Pierpont Morgan
Collection was included in the same exhibition (Case B, 1).[530] Old
tradition says that this portrait was presented by the King himself to
Anne of Cleves. Tradition in this case may be correct, though this Queen
is the least likely of all to have been the recipient of such a gift.
The correspondence with reference to the suggested marriages with the
Duchess of Longueville, the Duchess of Milan, and Anne herself, shows
that Henry always refused to send a portrait of himself while such
negotiations were in progress. His anxiety was to see a portrait of the
lady first, and, if possible, the lady herself, before making his final
decision, and to send one of himself before such final decision had been
made would have been too compromising. It is not likely, therefore, that
he sent one to Anne in Düren, and as he took the strongest aversion to
her directly he saw her, it is still less probable that she received a
gift of so personal a nature after she arrived in England. Dr.
Williamson, in his catalogue of Mr. Morgan’s miniatures, gives a very
interesting account of the history of this fine little portrait,[531]
and the companion one of Anne of Cleves, both at one time in the
possession of the Barrett family, of Lee Priory, Kent, and later in that
of the Meyricks, of Goodrich Court, to which reference has been made in
an earlier chapter.[532] Some years before the death of General Meyrick,
who had succeeded to the Goodrich Court Collection, the miniature of
Henry VIII disappeared, and was supposed to have been stolen. It is said
to have travelled as far as Vienna, but four years or so after General
Meyrick’s death it reappeared in England, and was repurchased for the
family, from whom, in 1906, it was acquired by Mr. Morgan.
Footnote 530:
Woltmann, 157. Reproduced in Mr. Morgan’s Catalogue, Pl. ii., and in
colour in the _édition de luxe_, No. 2; _Burlington Fine Arts Club
Catalogue_, Pl. xxxii.; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 227 (3).
Footnote 531:
See Mr. Pierpont Morgan’s Catalogue, pp. 4-7.
Footnote 532:
See pp. 181-182.
It represents the head and shoulders only, full-face, with grey beard
and moustache. Henry wears a black cap trimmed with jewels, loops of
pearls, and a white feather, a brown fur coat over a grey doublet
embroidered with black, a narrow white collar, and a gold chain round
his neck. There is no inscription on the blue background. It is 1¼ in.
in diameter, and is still preserved within its original turned ivory
box, ornamented at top and bottom with the Tudor rose, and covered with
a piece of rock crystal. There is some resemblance between it and the
crayon drawing of the King at Munich, and, in the details of the
costume, to the large cartoon at Chatsworth and the full-face portrait
in Windsor Castle, which has been considered by some critics to be a
copy of a lost picture by Holbein, and by others as an original portrait
by some such court painter as Lucas Hornebolt. The differences in the
costume are slight, and the dress is in its main features the same. Fine
as this miniature is, it is difficult to ascribe it to Holbein himself;
it is more probably only an excellent old copy of a lost original, or
the work of some capable miniaturist adapted from one of Holbein’s
paintings.
The miniature of Anne of Cleves, which is slightly larger than the one
of Henry VIII, and is enclosed within a similar turned ivory box
delicately carved to represent a Tudor rose, has been already
described.[533] It is of the finest workmanship, and may be given to
Holbein with little hesitation. It was included in the Burlington Club
Exhibition, 1909 (Case B, 4), and the catalogue states that in all
probability it was painted in July 1539, at Düren. Holbein’s visit to
that place was of longer duration than was usual when he was sent to
take likenesses of the ladies who were candidates for Henry’s hand.[534]
As a rule, he only remained just long enough to make a study in coloured
crayons, but he stayed at Düren for a week or two, and so may have had
time to paint both the large portrait and the miniature, though it must
be remembered that he also painted or drew the lady’s sister, the
Princess Amelia. It is much more probable that the miniature was taken
from the larger portrait, or that both were done from some lost crayon
study, than that the Louvre picture should have been painted from the
miniature.
Footnote 533:
See pp. 181-182.
Footnote 534:
See p. 176.
[Sidenote: MINIATURES OF JANE SEYMOUR]
There are several miniatures of Queen Jane Seymour in existence, in most
cases attributed to Holbein, all, with one exception, closely following
the portrait of that Queen in the Vienna Gallery, upon which they are
evidently based. Among the best are two which were in the Burlington
Fine Arts Club Exhibition, lent by Mr. Vernon Watney and by the Duke of
Buccleuch. The former (Case B, 2),[535] inscribed merely “A^ON XXV,” is
said to have belonged originally to the Seymour family, and to have been
given by Charles, Duke of Somerset, to his granddaughter, Elizabeth
Wyndham, wife of the Right Hon. George Grenville, from whom it passed
into the possession of the Duke of Buckingham. It was afterwards in the
Sackville Bale and Lumsden Propert collections. Sir George Scharf
considered this miniature to be a portrait of Anne Boleyn, and regarded
the “XXV” as the King’s regnal date, and not as that of the lady’s
age;[536] but the likeness to Jane Seymour is stronger, though not very
marked. Mr. C. F. Bell points out[537] that the likeness of the sitter
to Lady Hemingham or Heveningham (“Henegham”), as she is represented in
the fine drawing at Windsor,[538] is much more pronounced, and he
suggests that the miniature was painted from the portrait of that lady,
taken from the drawing, which has now disappeared. Mr. Watney’s
miniature, however, closely resembles the one belonging to the Duke of
Buccleuch (Case C, 5),[539] though the latter has no inscription and the
pendant jewel set with large pearls is absent. This last portrait
belonged to Horace Walpole, and by him was regarded as representing
Katherine of Aragon, and under that name it passed from the Strawberry
Hill sale into the hands of Mr. Blamire, and afterwards into its present
ownership. It appears to be, however, an undoubted portrait of Henry’s
third queen. Another miniature of Jane Seymour was lent to the same
exhibition by Mr. H. Dent-Brocklehurst (Case B, 6),[540] attributed like
the others to Holbein, which was also formerly in the possession of
Horace Walpole. The portrait of this queen is also among the four
miniatures attached to the enamelled jewel, of Nicholas Hilliard’s
workmanship, in the royal collection at Windsor, mentioned above. It is
inscribed “ANŌ DNĪ 1536 ÆTATIS SVÆ 27,” which no doubt appeared on the
original miniature by Holbein, now lost, from which all these others are
also derived.
Footnote 535:
Reproduced in the _Burlington Fine Arts Club Catalogue_, Pl. xxxii.;
Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 148 (1).
Footnote 536:
_Archæologia_, vol. xl., 1866, p. 81.
Footnote 537:
In a communication to Dr. Ganz. See _Holbein_, p. 245.
Footnote 538:
Woltmann, 333; Wornum, ii. 25; Holmes, ii. 12.
Footnote 539:
Reproduced in the _Burlington Fine Arts Club Catalogue_, Pl. xxxii.
Footnote 540:
Reproduced in the _Burlington Fine Arts Club Catalogue_, Pl. xxxii.
The miniatures of Catherine Howard have been already described.[541] It
is doubtful whether Holbein painted Queen Catherine Parr, for the King
did not marry her until July 12, 1543, only a month or two before the
artist died. A miniature in the possession of Mr. H. Dent-Brocklehurst,
lent by him to the Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition (Case B, 7), is
said to represent this Queen and to be by Holbein, but both attributions
are probably incorrect. It is inscribed “ANO XXXII,” and if this is to
be read as the regnal year, it must have been painted between April 1540
and April 1541, and, if it represents this Queen, more than two years
before her marriage. She wears a scarlet, black, and white circular
French hood with black fall, and cloth of gold dress. Sir George Scharf
considered it to be a portrait of Catherine Howard.[542]
Footnote 541:
See pp. 192-193.
Footnote 542:
_Archæologia_, vol. xl., 1866, p. 84.
Several miniatures of Edward VI exist—there are three in the Buccleuch
Collection—though not one has been so far discovered from the hand of
Holbein himself. Most of them represent the boy at a period after
Holbein’s death, and the name of Guillim Stretes has been suggested as
their author.[543] The beautiful little circular drawing of the Prince,
at a very early age, in the Basel Gallery,[544] is apparently Holbein’s
first study for a miniature which has now disappeared, and may have been
the “portrait of the Prince’s Grace” which the artist presented to Henry
VIII on New Year’s Day, 1539.[545]
Footnote 543:
See pp. 168-189.
Footnote 544:
Woltmann, 110 (82).
Footnote 545:
See p. 164.
[Sidenote: LIVINA TEERLINC]
Certain of these miniatures, and others not described here, some of them
apparently copies after Holbein, while others are original works, were
no doubt produced by Susanna Hornebolt, Livina[546] Teerlinc, and
Stretes, all three of whom were in turn much employed about the court,
and enjoyed royal pay. It has been impossible, so far, to separate the
works of these artists, or to find any starting-point in the shape of a
signed miniature from which any judgment of their particular methods and
style can be formed. What little is known of Susanna Hornebolt has been
given in an early chapter. Livina Teerlinc, eldest daughter of the
miniaturist, Simon Binnink of Bruges, married George Teerlinc of
Blankenberghe, near Bruges, and after the death of her husband’s father,
in 1545, they came to England.[547] She is mentioned by Vasari in a
short passage as “Levina, daughter of the above-named Master Simon of
Bruges, who was nobly married in England by Henry VIII, was held in
great esteem by Queen Mary, and is now in much favour with Queen
Elizabeth,” an account which Guicciardini copies and slightly
elaborates.[548] Her name does not occur in the royal accounts, however,
until Midsummer, 1547, under Edward VI, when, as “maistris Levyn Terling
paintrix,” she received a quarter’s wages of £10. She held the same
appointment under Mary and Elizabeth and at the same salary, £40 a year.
On New Year’s Day, 1556, she presented Queen Mary with a small picture
of the Trinity, and two years later her New Year’s gift to Queen
Elizabeth was a portrait of her Majesty “finely painted upon a card,”
for which she received in return a silver-gilt casting-bottle weighing
2¾ oz. In 1561, on a like occasion, there was given to the same Queen,
“By Mrs. Levina Terling, the Queenes personne and other personnages in a
box fynely painted,” which so pleased Elizabeth that she retained it in
her own keeping, and gave “Maistris Levyn Terling” in return a
silver-gilt covered salt-cellar weighing 5½ oz.[549] George Teerlinc
returned to Bruges, and died there before 25th August 1580; and Mr.
Weale conjectures that his wife died before him, probably in England,
but there is no documentary evidence of this. In any case, Vasari, and
Guicciardini after him, were wrong in stating that while at the English
court she was “nobly married.”
Footnote 546:
Also spelt Levina.
Footnote 547:
See Weale, _Burlington Magazine_, vol. viii., February 1906, p. 356.
Footnote 548:
The latter says: “Levina, figliuola di maestro Simone di Bruggia già
mentionato, la quale nel miniare come il padre è tanto felice et
eccellente, che il prefato Henrice Re d’Inghilterra la volle con ogni
premio haver’ a ogni modo alla sua corte, ove fu poi maritata
nobilmente, fu molto amata dalla Regina Maria, et hora è amatissima
dalla Regina Elisabetta.”
Footnote 549:
See J. Gough Nichols, _Archæologia_, xxxix. pp. 39-40.
In the case of Livina, as with Susanna Hornebolt, it is impossible to
point with certainty to any work as being indubitably from her hand. The
two beautiful miniatures in the Salting Collection representing two
little girls, sisters, aged five and four respectively, which were
formerly in the collection of Mr. C. H. T. Hawkins, were attributed by
both these owners to Livina Teerlinc, and were so described in the
catalogue of the Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition (Case B, 5).[550]
The richness of the costume indicates that they were the children of
some important personage about the court. Each one is dated “ANO DNI
1590,” and they are enclosed in a contemporary turned ivory case. Dr.
Williamson states that at one time they had attached to them “a strip of
parchment on which was recorded, in handwriting undoubtedly
contemporary, that the two little portraits were ‘fynely’ painted by
Lavina Teerlinc in 1590 at Greenwich.”[551] It is impossible however,
that miniatures painted in 1590 can be her work if Mr. Weale’s
conjecture[552] that she died before 1580 is correct; but Dr.
Williamson, who has been good enough to re-examine his notes, made when
the miniatures were in the Hawkins collection, is now of opinion that
the date on the parchment is not 1590, but 1570. The third figure is
indistinct, but appears to be 7. If this is so, the attribution of these
charming little works to Livina is very probably a true one, and the
artist may still have predeceased her husband, as Mr. Weale surmises.
There is an interesting miniature in Earl Spencer’s collection, signed
with an “L,” and dated 1526, a double portrait, said to represent Sir
John Boling and his mother, though the couple appear to be man and wife,
which has been ascribed by some writers to Lucas d’Heere, though the
date, of course, makes such authorship impossible. Mr. J. J. Foster[553]
states that when he examined it he thought he could discern a “T”
following the “L,” and suggests that it was the work of Livina Teerlinc;
but this is equally impossible, for, according to Mr. Weale’s
researches, she and her husband did not reach England until about 1545,
while in 1526 she must have been a mere child.
Footnote 550:
Reproduced in _Burlington Fine Arts Club Catalogue_, Pl. xxxii.
Footnote 551:
Williamson, _History of Portrait Miniatures_, vol. i., Addendum, p.
xx.
Footnote 552:
_Burlington Magazine_, vol. viii., February 1906, p. 356, and vol.
ix., July 1906, p. 278.
Footnote 553:
_British Miniature Painters_, 1898, p. 14 and Pl. v.
[Sidenote: MINIATURE OF KRATZER]
There are several very interesting miniatures in the Pierpont Morgan
Collection which, although they cannot be given to Holbein himself, are
certainly of his school and period. One of the finest represents a
Baseler named Arnold Franz, a man with a brown beard and moustache,
dressed in black.[554] It is in a richly-enamelled gold frame with
pendant pearls, and the sitter’s age, “AET. 32,” enamelled on the front,
and on the reverse, “Arnold Franz, Holbein Pinx.” It was procured at the
sale of a collection in Basel, and was stated to have been in the
possession of the descendants of the sitter ever since it was painted.
There was also an unbroken family tradition that Holbein himself had
painted it, and that Franz, said to have been a printer and a friend of
Froben’s, was intimately acquainted with the artist. The Franz family,
now extinct, are also said to have possessed for many years a letter
from Holbein to his friend, in which the miniature is mentioned, but the
document has been lost.[555] A second miniature in Mr. Morgan’s
collection is a portrait of Niklaus Kratzer, and is evidently by the
same hand as the one of Arnold Franz. It is not a reduced version of the
Louvre picture, which was painted in 1528, but appears, in Dr.
Williamson’s opinion, to have been painted some years earlier than that
date, though, if that be the case, it is not very likely that Holbein
was its author. The face is nearly in profile, to the left, and the
astronomer is wearing the customary fur-lined black coat and black cap,
and a gold chain round his neck. In his hand he holds a brass armillary
sphere. A third miniature, in the same possession, which has
considerable affinity in style to the two just mentioned, represents
Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk. It was formerly in the possession of
the royal house of Holland, and afterwards in the Propert and Tomkinson
collections. Dr. Williamson suggests that some of the Holbeinesque
miniatures, such as these, which exist in considerable numbers, may have
been the work of Hans Mielich (1515-1572), of Munich, who painted
portraits and miniatures of some merit, and was for a time court painter
to the Duke Albrecht V of Bavaria. There is no record, however, of any
visit paid by him to England. Others may be possibly the work of such
painters as Thomas and John Bettes and Guillim Stretes, who are dealt
with in a succeeding chapter.[556]
Footnote 554:
Pierpont Morgan Catalogue, No. 3, and Pl. iii., No. 1, and colour
plate, _édition de luxe_, No. 3.
Footnote 555:
Williamson, _History of Portrait Miniatures_, vol. i., Addendum, p.
xx.
Footnote 556:
_Burlington Magazine_, vol. viii., February 1906, p. 356, and vol.
ix., July 1906, p. 278.
There remains one other miniature to be noted, which until recently was
regarded as the work of Hans Mielich, but is now, with apparent justice,
given to Holbein. It is in the Bavarian National Museum, Munich, and
represents a young man, turned slightly to the right, with a fair
pointed beard and moustache, and wearing a black dress and cap. It is
inscribed upon the blue background, on either side of the sitter’s head,
“H.M. ÆTATIS SVÆ 27.”[557] It was once thought to be a portrait of
Melanchthon, and afterwards, on account of the initials it bears, it was
regarded as a portrait of Mielich by himself. Its attribution to Holbein
was due to Dr. Hans Buchheit, the director of the National Museum, who
published it in 1911 as a work of the painter’s later time. The initials
upon it are undoubtedly those of the sitter, and not of the artist, and
it has been suggested that it represents the painter, Harry Maynert, one
of the witnesses to Holbein’s will.[558] Whether this is so or not, the
miniature itself is a fine one, and, judging from a photograph alone,
its attribution to Holbein by Dr. Buchheit must be accepted as the
correct one.
Footnote 557:
_British Miniature Painters_, 1898, p. 14 and Pl. v.
Footnote 558:
Pierpont Morgan Catalogue, No. 3, and Pl. iii., No. 1, and colour
plate, _édition de luxe_, No. 3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------