THE WINDSOR DRAWINGS AND OTHER STUDIES
The history of the book of drawings by Holbein in the royal
collection at Windsor Castle—Early references to it—Sir John
Cheke—The book’s various changes of ownership—Charles I exchanges
it with the Earl of Pembroke for a Raphael—Afterwards in the
Arundel Collection—Discovery of the drawings in Kensington Palace
by Queen Charlotte—John Chamberlaine’s publication of them from
engravings by Bartolozzi—Methods of their execution—Their present
condition—Description of the more important of them—And of similar
portrait-drawings at Berlin and Basel—Holbein and the Clouets—The
“Queen of Sheba” miniature painting at Windsor—The “Death of
Virginia” at Dresden—Drawing of a ship at Frankfurt—Drawings of
animals.
IF, through some great misfortune, nothing remained of Holbein’s work
but the wonderful series of drawings of the heads of the men and women
of Henry VIII’s court, in the royal library at Windsor, this collection
alone would still afford irresistible proof of his right to the title of
one of the very greatest masters of portraiture. The history of these
drawings can be traced with some exactness, though there are certain
breaks in the continuity of the story. In whatever way they may have
been preserved by Holbein during his lifetime, they were, shortly after
his death, bound together in book form, and so remained until their
rediscovery in the eighteenth century. Although they are not included in
the elaborate inventory of the royal collection of works of art, dated
24th April 1542, or in the second inventory taken five years later, in
the first year of Edward VI’s reign, it may be conjectured that they
came into the possession of the Crown on Holbein’s death in 1543, or
very shortly afterwards. His death was so sudden, that they may have
been left behind in his painting-room at Whitehall, unknown to his
executors, and so remained in royal keeping, though this is not a very
likely surmise. It is certain, in any case, that the book containing
them was at one time in the possession of Edward VI. This is proved by
an entry in the Lumley inventory of 1590, to which reference has been
already made more than once. The entry is as follows: “A greate booke of
Pictures doone by Haunce Holbyn of certeyne Lordes, Ladyes, gentlemen
and gentlewomen in King Henry the 8: his tyme, their names subscribed by
S^r John Cheke Secretary to King Edward the 6 w^{ch} book was King
Edward the 6.”
There is no reason to doubt the statement that the names on many of the
drawings were supplied by Sir John Cheke, who, at one time professor of
Greek at Cambridge, became one of the tutors of the young Prince before
he ascended the throne, and died in 1557. He must thus have been
intimately acquainted with a certain number of Holbein’s sitters, though
not with all of them. This would account for the fact that although many
of the names he has written on the drawings are the right ones, certain
others are incorrect, while some fourteen of them are not named at all.
He made mistakes, for instance, over some of the earlier drawings, such
as several of the sitters in the More Family Group, with whom he was not
likely to have been acquainted, and in some doubtful cases he probably
indulged in guesswork. The late Sir Richard Holmes considered that he
merely made a list of the drawings, which has not survived, and that
from this list the names were inscribed on the sheets by some later
hand.[559] There is an entry in the accounts of Sir Thomas Carwarden,
Master of the Revels, preserved among the Loseley MSS., which very
probably refers to this very book of drawings. The document is undated,
but is considered to be of the reign of Edward VI. It is as follows:
“Item for a peynted booke of Mr. Hanse Holby making, 6 _li._” It is, of
course, quite possible that this “peynted booke” may have had nothing to
do with the Windsor drawings, but there is no other known work of
Holbein’s to which the description would so well apply. The supposition
that it was the very book, and that it was purchased by Sir Thomas for
Edward VI, fits in well with the fact, established by the Lumley
inventory, that the youthful monarch at one time possessed it. If this
be so, the suggestion that Henry VIII obtained it immediately after
Holbein’s death is, of course, incorrect.
Footnote 559:
Holmes in Introduction to Hanfstaengl’s _Portraits of Illustrious
Personages of the Court of Henry VIII._
[Sidenote: HISTORY OF THE BOOK OF DRAWINGS]
It would appear that the book came into the possession of Henry
Fitz-Alan, Earl of Arundel, after the death of Edward VI, either by gift
or purchase, and was preserved at Nonsuch, together with the various
portraits by Holbein, already mentioned, some of which were certainly at
one time in the royal possession; and on his death in 1580, passed to
his son-in-law, Lord Lumley. The palace and estate of Nonsuch reverted
to the Crown in 1591, by exchange for other property, but at what time
the numerous pictures by Holbein left the possession of the Lumley
family is not known. At Lord Lumley’s death in 1609 the greater number
of his books passed into the hands of Henry, Prince of Wales, elder
brother of Charles I, and it is very probable that the “greate booke of
Pictures doone by Haunce Holbyn” accompanied them, and once again formed
part of the royal collections.[560] It is usually stated, however, that
Charles I obtained them through the good offices of M. de Liancourt, the
French ambassador, this statement being based on a note in Abraham Van
der Doort’s catalogue of that monarch’s pictures, which, if correct,
indicates that at some time between the drawing up of the Lumley
inventory (1590) and the list of King Charles’ pictures (1639), the book
of drawings had been taken into France, and so cannot have belonged to
Henry, Prince of Wales. It seems certain, nevertheless, that this
supposed journey to France and back again never took place. Mr. Lionel
Cust’s suggestion is evidently correct, and the mistake has arisen
through a confusion between Holbein’s book of drawings and a very
similar book of drawings by a French hand, representing illustrious
personages of the French court, both of which were in the King’s
collection, and are separately described in Van der Doort’s catalogue.
It was the latter book, no doubt, which was procured through M. de
Liancourt, some such volume as that now at Knowsley, or the collection
formerly at Castle Howard, now at Chantilly,[561] or the numerous albums
of a similar kind scattered about France. Holbein’s book of drawings, on
the other hand, came to Charles I from his brother.
Footnote 560:
See Cust, _Burlington Magazine_, vol. xviii., February 1911, p. 269.
Footnote 561:
These were purchased by the fifth Earl of Carlisle in Flanders,
probably towards the close of the eighteenth century.
The King, however, did not retain the volume for long, but exchanged it
with the Earl of Pembroke for the beautiful little picture of “St.
George slaying the Dragon,” by Raphael, which is now in the Hermitage
Gallery, St. Petersburg. This latter is entered in Van der Doort’s
catalogue as “A little St. George, which the King had in exchange of My
Lord Chamberlain, Earl of Pembroke, for the book of Holbein’s drawings.”
This picture was sold by the Commonwealth for £150, and after passing
through the La Noue, De Sourdis, and Crozat collections, found a final
resting-place in the Hermitage. In 1627, while still in the Earl of
Pembroke’s possession, it was engraved by Lucas Vorsterman, so that the
exchange with the King may have taken place in 1628 or thereabouts. Lord
Pembroke, in his turn, did not keep the drawings, but almost at once
passed them on to the great collector, Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel,
who, according to Sir Edward Walker, who wrote his life, had “more of
that exquisite master, Hans Holbein, than are in the world besides.”
Whether Lord Pembroke gave the drawings to him, or in his turn carried
out a second exchange, is not known.
Their presence in the Arundel Collection is proved by a contemporary
reference in the manuscript among the Harleian MSS.[562] in the British
Museum entitled, “An exact & Compendious Discours concerning the Art of
Miniatura or Limning,” on the fly-leaf of which is written, in an
eighteenth-century hand, “of Limning by Hilliard,” to which attention
has been already called.[563] As the Holbein drawings were still in the
possession of Charles I in 1627, the paragraph in the “discours” which
speaks of them as in the Arundel Collection cannot have been penned by
Nicholas Hilliard himself, who died in 1619. The compiler was almost
certainly Edward Norgate, who held Holbein in the highest estimation.
Speaking of the painting of shadows, he says:—
Footnote 562:
No. 6000.
Footnote 563:
See p. 219.
“The black must be deepened with ivory black, and if in working
in the heightenings and light-reflections, you will mingle with
your ordinary black a little lake and indigo, or rather a little
litmus instead of indigo, you will find your black to render a
rare and admirable reflection like to that of the well-dyed
satin, especially if your lights be strong and hard; the manner
whereof if you please to see inimitably expressed, you will find
abundantly for your content in the gallery of my most noble Lord
the Earl of Arundell, Earl Marshal of England, and done by the
incomparable pencil of that rare master, Hans Holbein, who in
all his different and various manners of painting, either in
oil, distemper, limning, or crayon, it seems was so general and
absolute an artist, as never to imitate any man, or ever was
worthily imitated by any.”[564]
Footnote 564:
Quoted by Wornum, pp. 397-8. Also by Dallaway with slight differences
(see p. 219 above).
[Sidenote: NORGATE’S REFERENCES]
The reference to the Windsor drawings occurs in the chapter dealing with
crayon-painting. “I shall not need,” the writer says, “to insist upon
the particulars of this manner of working; it shall suffice, if you
please, to view of a book of pictures by the life, by the incomparable
Hans Holbein, servant to King Henry the Eighth. They are the pictures of
most of the English lords and ladies then living, and were the patterns
whereby that excellent painter made his pictures in oil by; they are all
done in this latter manner of crayons I speak of, and though many of
them be miserably spoiled by the injury of time, and the ignorance of
some who formerly have had the keeping of the book, yet you will find in
those ruinous remains an admirable hand, and a rare manner of working in
few lines and no labour in expressing of the life and likeness, many
times equal to his own, and ever excelling other men’s oil pictures. The
book hath been long a wanderer; but is now happily fallen into the hands
of my noble lord the Earl Marshal.”[565]
Footnote 565:
Quoted by Wornum, p. 398. Dallaway, in his notes to Walpole, vol. i.
p. 84, quotes this passage with slight differences, and adds after
“Earl Marshal”—“a most eminent patron to all painters who understood
the arte; and who therefore preserved this book with his life, till
both were lost together”—which is not consistent with the words
preceding it.
A second contemporary reference to the drawings occurs in the Bodleian
Library manuscript, _Miniatura or the Art of Limning, etc._, also by
Edward Norgate, to which reference has been already made.[566] Norgate,
when dealing with crayon drawings, says: “A better way was used by
Holbein, by priming a large paper with a carnation or complexion of
flesh-colour, whereby he made pictures by the life, of many great lords
and ladies of his time, with black and red chalke, with other flesh
colours, made up hard and dry, like small pencil sticks. Of this kind
was an excellent booke, while it remained in the hands of the most noble
Earl of Arundel and Surrey. But I heare it has been a great traveller,
and wherever now, he hath got his errata, or (which is as good) hath met
with an index expurgatorius, and is made worse with mending.”[567] That
the book was described as a “great traveller” is, no doubt, due to the
fact that from 1642 until his death, four years later, the Earl was
living on the Continent, and that he took all his works of art with him.
“After her husband’s death,” says Mr. Cust,[568] “the Countess of
Arundel continued to reside at various places on the Continent,
accompanied by her collections, until her own death at Amsterdam in
1654. Litigation then ensued between her sons as to the disposal of her
property. A good part of the valuable Arundel Collection was disposed of
in Holland by the Countess’s younger son, Lord Stafford, but a
considerable part eventually returned to the family of the Duke of
Norfolk in England.” There is every reason to suppose that among the
latter the Holbein book was included.
Footnote 566:
See p. 219. This manuscript is Norgate’s final version of the
“discours,” written some twenty years or so later than the British
Museum manuscript, which was his first compilation.
Footnote 567:
Quoted by Dallaway, in his notes to Walpole’s _Anecdotes_, vol. i. p.
84; and by Wornum, p. 398.
Footnote 568:
See Cust, _Burlington Magazine_, vol. xviii., February 1911, p. 269.
[Sidenote: LATER HISTORY OF THE DRAWINGS]
It should be noted that, according to Charles I’s catalogue, the number
of drawings was only fifty-four. Van der Doort may have made a mistake
in the entry, putting a 5 instead of an 8, otherwise it must be supposed
that Lord Arundel already possessed some thirty of these “heads,” which
he added to the book after Lord Pembroke had given it to him. The
collection as it now exists does not contain the whole of the
portrait-drawings of Holbein’s English period. The fine head of Lord
Abergavenny at Wilton appears to have been kept back, or to have been
accidentally retained, by Lord Pembroke when he parted with the
remainder of the collection, and there are several others in continental
museums and elsewhere, some of which are known to have once formed part
of the Arundel Collection. At Basel there are Sir Nicholas Carew, an
unknown English lady, and a second English lady and her husband; at
Dresden the Count Moretta; at Munich the head of Henry VIII; at Berlin a
fine head of an unknown Englishman; in the Salting Collection the
magnificent study of a lady already described;[569] and the two heads in
the Duke of Devonshire’s Collection at Chatsworth.[570] If, therefore,
Van der Doort is correct in stating that there were only fifty-four
drawings in the book when it was in his keeping, the one person in
England most likely to have added so considerably to their number was
the Earl of Arundel, who was unceasing in his search for original works
from Holbein’s hand. There is no record to show at what time the book
returned to the royal collections, though the tradition noted by
Dallaway, in his edition of Walpole’s _Anecdotes_, that they were
purchased for James II at the sale of the possessions of Henry, Duke of
Norfolk, in 1686, is no doubt the correct one.[571] A list of the
drawings was included in James II’s catalogue, which was published by
Bathoe in 1758. After this the drawings themselves were laid aside and
forgotten, and it was not until early in the reign of George II that
they were rediscovered by Queen Caroline hidden away in a folio in an
old bureau in Kensington Palace, together with a volume of equal
importance containing the drawings of Leonardo da Vinci, which now form
so valuable a part of the royal collection at Windsor. Queen Caroline
had them framed and glazed, and for many years they decorated her own
apartments, first at Richmond, and afterwards in Kensington Palace.
Early in the succeeding reign they were removed to the Queen’s House,
now Buckingham Palace, where they were taken from the frames and bound
up in two volumes, forming a part of the large collection of drawings,
similarly bound, got together by George III. The suggestion that they
should be engraved originated with Dalton, the keeper of the King’s
drawings, but the work was so badly done that it was abandoned in 1774
after ten plates only had been issued. The engraver was George Vertue,
who, according to Walpole, was the originator of the project. “It is a
great pity,” he says, “that they have not been engraved; not only that
such frail performances of so great a genius might be preserved, but
that the resemblances of so many illustrious persons, nowhere else
existing, might be saved from destruction. Vertue had undertaken this
noble work; and after spending part of three years on it, broke off, I
do not know why, after having traced off, on oil paper, but about five
and thirty. These I bought at his sale; and they are so exactly taken as
to be little inferior to the originals.”[572] This tracing was done by
Vertue and Müntz when the drawings were hanging in Queen Caroline’s room
at Kensington. There were thirty-four of them, and they were framed and
hung in what Walpole called his Holbein Chamber at Strawberry Hill.
Somewhat later the projected publication was taken up again more
successfully, on the suggestion, according to Dallaway, of Horace
Walpole, under the direction of John Chamberlaine, who succeeded Dalton
as keeper of the drawings. The engravings were published between 1792
and 1800 in fourteen numbers, containing eighty-two portraits, forming
two large folio volumes, under the title of _Imitations of Original
Drawings by Hans Holbein, in the Collection of His Majesty, for the
Portraits of Illustrious Persons of the Court of Henry VIII, with
Biographical Tracts_. The historical notices were written by Edmund
Lodge, Lancaster Herald, and the plates, with the exception of eight,
were engraved by F. Bartolozzi, R.A. F. C. Lewis was also engaged to
take part in the work, but his plate of “Cecilia Heron” was in all ways
so much finer than Bartolozzi’s efforts that Chamberlaine had the plate
destroyed, fearing that if it were published side by side with the
others, the latter would suffer so severely from the contrast that the
success of the publication would be endangered. As transcripts of
Holbein’s drawings, Bartolozzi’s engravings have very little artistic
merit. Many of them, indeed, have small likeness to the originals, and
all of them lack the strength and character and the searching truth of
line which make the drawings themselves such masterpieces of art. In
more recent years the drawings have been frequently photographed and
published, the most important series being that issued by Mr. F.
Hanfstaengl in two volumes, with an introduction and descriptive notes
by the late Sir Richard Holmes, F.S.A. It should be added that under
Queen Victoria the two volumes were broken up, and the drawings properly
mounted and arranged. They are now kept in four portfolios.
Footnote 569:
See Vol. i. p. 309.
Footnote 570:
See Vol. i. pp. 336-7.
Footnote 571:
Walpole, _Anecdotes_, ed. Wornum, vol. i. p. 84 _note_.
Footnote 572:
_Ibid._, pp. 85-86.
In Walpole’s day the collection consisted of eighty-nine sketches, but
in more recent times two have been withdrawn, as the work of Jacob
Binck. One of the two heads of Sir Thomas Wyat is only a good, careful
copy of the other, in which the hair of the beard is drawn with great
elaboration, from the hand of some follower or imitator of Holbein, and
in one or two other cases the drawings are, perhaps, only copies of lost
originals, or even original drawings by some other hand, such as the
so-called “Melanchthon,” with its faltering line, which lacks much of
Holbein’s customary strength and certitude.
[Sidenote: THE METHOD OF THEIR EXECUTION]
The drawings were executed in almost all cases in black and coloured
chalks. During his first visit to England Holbein used, as a rule, white
paper, the outlines being drawn in black and the features modelled in
red chalk. The series of heads of members of Sir Thomas More’s family,
and contemporary drawings such as the Warham and Guldeford, are done in
this manner. Later on it was his custom to use a paper covered entirely
with a ground of flesh or salmon colour, upon which the features were
modelled in black chalk, and slight touches of red, after which the
outlines were strengthened and the details of the hair, dress, and
ornaments put in with pen or brush and Indian-ink. In some cases the
whole face was completely modelled with the greatest delicacy, and as a
rule the eyes, hair, and beard were drawn in with water-colour or
coloured crayons in their natural hues. Upon a number of the drawings
the colour and material of the costume worn by the sitter are indicated
by notes in Holbein’s own handwriting, and in some of them details of
the ornaments or embroideries have been drawn on the margin of the sheet
with the brush with the sure and rapid hand of a master. In one
instance—the portrait of John Godsalve—the drawing is entirely finished
in water-colours, and the figure is shown against a blue background; and
in one of the two heads of Sir Thomas More the holes with which it was
pricked for tracing on the panel can still be seen. The earlier drawings
are usually the largest, the one last-named being about 16 in. high by
12 in. wide. The Warham is 17 in. by 12 in., the Guldeford 15 in. by 11
in., and the Godsalve the same size. One of the largest of all is the
Jane Seymour, which is 20½ in. by 11 in.
[Sidenote: THE METHOD OF THEIR EXECUTION]
“Some have been rubbed,” says Walpole, “and others traced over with a
pen on the outlines by some unskilful hand.”[573] In a few instances, it
is true, these strengthening touches appear to be by some other hand
than Holbein’s, but in most of the drawings they are just as certainly
his. The studies have suffered considerable damage during the passage of
time. They are stained, and many of them badly rubbed, so that the more
delicate modelling and colouring carried out in crayons has almost
vanished. In consequence the brush-work, which has better withstood
rough usage, at first sight appears to be a little hard, and in some
instances even coarse, thus slightly marring that perfect harmony of
effect which characterised the drawings when fresh from the artist’s
hand. The finer details have been worn away, leaving certain lines more
prominent than Holbein intended. A closer study, however, as Sir Richard
Holmes points out, shows that it is to the wonderful strength and
delicacy combined of these touches that the portraits owe the vivid and
life-like quality which they so pre-eminently possess. “On some of the
heads these touches occur only on the eyes, nostrils, and lips, where
the marvellous accuracy of modelling, particularly in the corners of the
mouth, is not to be excelled in the work of any other master.”[574] It
must be remembered, too, that these studies were, in almost all cases,
working drawings, done for transference or for copying on the panel, and
are in that sense not finished works, some parts and details being
emphasised more strongly than others. In certain of the drawings the
beard and the hair have been put in with the brush with that careful and
elaborate detail with which such features were usually carried out by
Holbein in his finished portraits; for instance, in the long beard of
Sir Thomas Wyat or the close-cut hair of Simon George. In other drawings
the unshaven stubble on a man’s chin or upper lip is put in with a few
masterly strokes. Here and there high lights have been indicated with a
touch of white, as in the heads of Lord and Lady Vaux. It may be taken,
then, that in the greater number of cases, the only hand which can be
traced in these drawings is that of Holbein himself, dimmed here and
there by the passing of the years, or rough or careless usage at some
time or other during their earlier wanderings. Certain critics, however,
consider that in many of them, some later hand has attempted to revivify
the fading lines, with results quite contrary to those intended. Mr.
Campbell Dodgson, speaking of the lovely head of an Englishwoman in the
Salting Collection, describes it as being “entirely free from the
retouching which disfigures many of the Windsor heads.”[575] Mr. Gerald
Davies is also among those who consider that the drawings have been
retouched by some other hand than Holbein’s. “I am quite persuaded,” he
says, “that the strengthening of the outlines, either by chalk lines or
in many cases by Indian-ink, is not due to the hand of Holbein himself.
Among the drawings are a few which have never been so touched. The lines
of these are of great delicacy and of the most expressive quality—an
artistic dream which has almost faded from the paper. These are the
select few which, having suffered most from rubbing, and having the
faintest indications to guide the hand of the reinforcer, have been left
in their ghostly beauty. Others have been revived by the application of
a bolder chalk line of the proper colour in parts where the outline
seemed most to need it. It has been done on the whole well, if such a
thing can ever be said to have been well done at all. But these same
lines will be found to be hard and wiry, and somewhat unfeeling as
compared to the subtly sympathetic outline of the master himself. There
remains yet the further manner of reinforcement by a strong outlining,
often accompanied by a slight thickening in parts by means of a wash, in
what appears to be Indian-ink. The ink has toned now, and has lost much
of the offence of its once strong contrast with the rest of the delicate
modelling. But remembering what that contrast would have been when the
ink was fresh, I find it impossible to believe that it was added by the
hand of Holbein.”[576] Mr. Davies suggests that this Indian-ink
strengthening took place when the drawings came into the hands of
Charles I, and that possibly Wenceslaus Hollar was employed for the
purpose. It is difficult to follow him in this suggestion of Hollar’s
retouching, nor can the writer agree with him in his opinion that a more
or less wholesale retouching of the drawings has ever been undertaken by
any hand than that of Holbein himself. A more credible suggestion is
that of Mr. Lionel Cust, who says: “It is very probable that the
drawings were refreshed by outlines very soon after Holbein’s death, if
not by the painter himself. Since that date the most likely time for
them to have suffered any alteration would have been after their
rediscovery at Kensington, when they were for a time in the hands of
George Vertue, an expert crayon-artist himself as well as
engraver.”[577]
Footnote 573:
Walpole, _Anecdotes_, ed. Wornum, i. p. 85 _note_.
Footnote 574:
Holmes in Introduction to Hanfstaengl’s _Portraits of Illustrious
Personages_, &c.
Footnote 575:
Vasari Society, Pt. ii. (1905-6), No. 31.
Footnote 576:
Davies, _Holbein_, p. 122.
Footnote 577:
_Burlington Magazine_, vol. xviii., February 1911, p. 270.
Some part of the damage done to them may have been due to wear and tear
in the artist’s own studio, for it is possible that he employed an
assistant or two; though if that had been the case, it is strange that
there is no record among the State papers of a licence granting him
leave to employ journeymen, such as was necessary under the Act dealing
with foreign residents. It is possible, too, though far from probable,
that he may have had one or two pupils—though here again there is no
record of them—who would copy his drawings, and might be entrusted
occasionally with the tracing of the drawings upon the panel, or even in
painting parts of the replicas of portraits which must sometimes have
been ordered. It is evident that these drawings were made solely for the
artist’s own purposes, both in order to avoid a too frequent attendance
of his sitters at his studio, and also because it was the method of
working which best suited him. They remained, therefore, in his own
possession, and were never handed over to his patrons. The fashion of
collecting portraits of celebrities which was in vogue in France
throughout the sixteenth century was only imitated in a very minor
degree in England. In France, as M. Dimier points out, “the result of
this rage for portraits was that people were not content with the
necessarily limited number of originals. The works of the masters of the
time were copied and recopied a hundred times, often by unskilful and
sometimes by absolutely clumsy hands. This was the case not only with
the portraits of kings and queens, which have been multiplied thus in
all ages, but with those of any one at court—a feature which is peculiar
to the period under consideration. Not even the number of painted
portraits and painted copies was enough; there was a demand for quicker
and cheaper satisfaction. The original chalk-drawings were copied, in
the same medium, an infinite number of times, far oftener, indeed, than
the paintings; and these drawings were commonly bound into albums and
preserved as family treasures. A vast number of these albums must have
perished, but a vast number still exist.”[578] Nothing of this kind
occurred on this side of the Channel. Holbein’s original drawings, after
his death, were preserved in a volume in this fashion, but they formed
an unique example. Though copies or duplicates of one or two of them
exist, such as the John Fisher and the Duchess of Suffolk in the British
Museum, the Guldeford, Fisher and Poyntz formerly in the Heseltine
Collection, and the head called Sir Charles Wingfield in the collection
of Sir John Leslie, Bart., recently published by Mr. Lionel Cust,[579]
the collection as a whole was never copied in this way, as it would have
been in France. It is doubtful if most of these duplicates, fine as they
are, are actually from Holbein’s own hand.
Footnote 578:
Dimier, _French Painting in the Sixteenth Century_, p. 29.
Footnote 579:
_Burlington Magazine_, vol. xviii., February 1911, p. 271.
[Sidenote: STUDIES FOR LOST PORTRAITS]
It may be taken for granted that portraits were painted from nearly all
these Windsor studies, more than eighty in number, though possibly a
few, drawn during the last months of his life, were not carried out in
this way. It is, therefore, a little extraordinary that less than thirty
of such finished oil portraits have so far been traced, the remainder
having disappeared; and of these latter only about one half are original
paintings by Holbein, the remainder being copies of lost originals.
Among the first-named we have Jane Seymour, Catherine Howard, the Prince
of Wales, Sir Thomas More, Warham, Guldeford, Southwell, John Godsalve,
Reskimer, Simon George, Lady Vaux, Lady Rich, Lady Butts, Lady Audley
(miniature only), and one or two others; in the second class the More
Family Group is the most important, there being no less than seven
studies for this great work at Windsor, including the one of Sir Thomas
himself.
There still remain more than fifty drawings in England alone of which no
paintings are known. It seems impossible that the whole of these
pictures should have perished. Some of them, it is to be hoped, may yet
be discovered, hidden away in some remote country house, perhaps
obscured by dirt and disfigured by repaintings, so that hitherto they
have remained unrecognised. It is not very likely that drawings of this
size were made as preliminary studies for miniatures, or otherwise this
might account for some of the missing portraits, as such small works
would be much more easily lost than panel paintings. It is true that in
a few instances, such as the portraits of Lady Audley and the Earl of
Abergavenny, we have miniatures closely following the drawings, but no
large portraits; but it does not follow that the latter were not
painted.
On the other hand, there are a considerable number of Holbein’s
portraits—between thirty and forty—for which no preliminary studies
remain, and these range over every period of his career. This, however,
is not so extraordinary, for drawings disappear more easily than
pictures. In some instances, too, their absence may be explained by the
artist’s method of work. It was his occasional habit, more particularly
in the earlier half of his career, to fasten down the preliminary study
upon the panel, and use it as the ground-work of his painting, so that
the drawing naturally was lost. The portrait of his wife and children at
Basel has been carried out in this way, and the Anne of Cleves in the
Louvre is painted on vellum or parchment, afterwards mounted on canvas.
This, however, was not his more regular practice, which was to transfer
the study to the panel by tracing or pricking. Not a single study exists
for any one of the portraits of the German merchants of the Steelyard,
or for such portraits as the Duchess of Milan, Jean de Dinteville and
the Bishop of Lavaur, Kratzer, Thomas Godsalve, Sir Henry Wyat,
Cromwell, Tuke, the Duke of Norfolk, Cheseman, Dr. Chamber, and the
painted portraits of various unknown men at Berlin, Vienna, Basel, and
elsewhere. For the portraits of Erasmus there is only a study for the
hands, while there is no drawing for the Amerbach or Froben. On the
other hand, among a number of fine drawings in continental museums there
are, in addition to the two earlier and three later ones of the members
of the Meyer family, only two—the Morette in Dresden and the Sir
Nicholas Carew in Basel—of which the finished paintings still exist.
There is no doubt that Holbein’s practice as a portrait painter during
his second and longer residence in England was almost entirely confined
to the court and to those who were in the King’s employment. The Windsor
drawings, a number of which have been described in previous chapters of
this book, make this sufficiently clear. Included among the heads which
have not been described are John Russell, Earl of Bedford; Sir William
Parr, afterwards Marquis of Northampton; Thomas Boleyn, Earl of
Wiltshire and Ormonde; Edward Stanley, Earl of Derby; George Brooke,
Lord Cobham; Thomas, Lord Vaux; Sir Thomas Parry; Sir William
Sherrington; Sir Thomas Wentworth; Edward, Lord Clinton; Sir Thomas le
Strange; Sir George Carew; Lord Chancellor Rich, and others; and among
the ladies, Lady Parker, Lady Ratcliffe, Mary Zouch, Lady Rich, Lady
Henegham, the Marchioness of Dorset, Lady Mewtas, Lady Monteagle, and
Lady Borough.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 34A
UNKNOWN ENGLISHMAN
_Drawing in black and coloured chalks_
WINDSOR CASTLE
]
* * * * *
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 34B
WILLIAM PARR
Marquis of Northampton
_Drawing in black and coloured chalks_
WINDSOR CASTLE
]
[Sidenote: DESCRIPTIONS OF SOME OF THE HEADS]
The study of William Parr, Marquis of Northampton (Pl. 34 (2)),[580] is
one of the few in which the hands are shown. The head, with
close-cropped hair and short, round beard, has suffered from rubbing,
but remains a fine and strongly individualised study of character. The
dress and jewellery are indicated with some elaboration, to which are
added notes in Holbein’s handwriting, and detailed sketches of his hat
ornaments and other jewellery are drawn in the margin. The medallion he
wears appears to be of open-work with a figure of St. George, and one of
the links of his chain is inscribed with the word “MORS.” In the Thomas
Boleyn,[581] also, the right hand is shown, and the dress is drawn with
much more detail than in most of the companion drawings, while the face
is one of the most carefully elaborated in the whole series, the
individual hairs of the beard and moustache being indicated with minute
precision. Equally careful drawing of the hair is to be seen in the head
of Lord Stanley,[582] with its expressive face and fine eyes. Another
very powerful drawing is the full-face portrait of Lord Cobham,[583]
with open doublet showing his bare chest, a head of most striking
individuality. One of the most beautiful among the more finished studies
is that of Lord Vaux (Pl. 35),[584] in which the hair, cut straight
across the forehead, and the beard and moustache are put in with almost
microscopic detail, as well as the design upon the white collar with its
strings of black and white cord. There is a second study of Lord
Vaux[585] in the collection. It is, of course, impossible to give even a
short description of the whole of the drawings, but among the numerous
studies of “unknown men” two in particular cannot be overlooked. The one
is the head of a handsome young man with a long, sharp nose,[586] thin
whiskers, and a small beard, the head turned slightly to the right, and
both eyes shown (Pl. 34 (1)). He wears large ostrich feathers in his
black hat, which has a medallion, the design not indicated, and gold
tags. The dress, very roughly sketched in, is badly rubbed. The drawing
is one of great beauty, very delicate and refined in its treatment and
feeling. The second, to which reference has been already made, is the
very striking likeness of a man with a flat, broad nose, bushy, curly
beard, and hair falling over the ears, his eyes cast slightly downwards,
one of the most powerful drawings in the Windsor Collection, which Miss
Hervey suggests is possibly a study for a second portrait of Jean de
Dinteville (Pl. 36# (1)).[587] Dr. Paul Ganz considers the sitter to be
a man of pronounced southern French type, and probably a member of the
French embassy which was in London in 1533.[588] It is just as probable,
however, that this unknown nobleman was English, for the type, though
unusual, is to be met with occasionally.
Footnote 580:
Woltmann, 316; Wornum, ii. 5; Holmes, i. 15.
Footnote 581:
Woltmann, 288; Wornum, i. 21; Holmes, i. 16.
Footnote 582:
Woltmann, 310; Wornum, i. 16; Holmes, i. 18.
Footnote 583:
Woltmann, 315; Wornum, i. 44; Holmes, i. 19.
Footnote 584:
Woltmann, 320; Wornum, i. 26; Holmes, i. 23.
Footnote 585:
Woltmann, 322; Wornum, i. 41; Holmes, i. 31.
Footnote 586:
Woltmann, 346; Wornum, i. 25; Holmes, i. 51.
Footnote 587:
Woltmann, 345; Wornum, i. 12; Holmes, i. 52. See p. 44.
Footnote 588:
_Hdz. von H. H. dem Jüng._, p. 54.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 35
THOMAS, LORD VAUX
_Drawing in black and coloured chalks_
WINDSOR CASTLE
]
* * * * *
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 36A
UNKNOWN MAN
(said to be Jean de Dinteville)
_Drawing in black and coloured chalks_
WINDSOR CASTLE
]
* * * * *
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 36B
MARY ZOUCH
_Drawning in black and coloured chalks_
WINDSOR CASTLE
]
* * * * *
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 37A
LADY AUDLEY
_Drawing in black and coloured chalks_
WINDSOR CASTLE
]
* * * * *
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 37B
LADY MEWTAS
_Drawing in black and coloured chalks_
WINDSOR CASTLE
]
* * * * *
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 38
“THE LADY HENEGHAM”
(Possibly Margaret Roper)
_Drawing in black and coloured chalks_
WINDSOR CASTLE
]
Among the portraits of ladies it is unfortunate that several of the
finest have suffered from bad rubbing. Such an one is the head of Mary,
daughter of the Duke of Norfolk, and wife of the King’s natural son,
Henry, Duke of Richmond, which has been already described.[589] The fine
head of Lady Mewtas (Pl. 37# (2)),[590] the face a strong one, is very
delicately modelled, and unspoilt by the presence of too forcible
outlines. Her jewelled ornaments include a circular pendant with five
dark table stones and three hanging pearls, suspended from a thin chain,
with beads round the neck, a circular medallion at the breast with a
figure subject now almost obliterated, and across the top of the bodice
a band of pearls set in groups of five like flowers. The
incorrectly-named “Lady Mary, after Queen,”[591] whom it certainly does
not represent, is another fine drawing which has suffered considerable
damage. It has been gone over with the tracing point for transference to
panel, but no painting after it is now known to exist. The same is the
case with the head of the Marchioness of Dorset,[592] the daughter of
Charles Brandon and the King’s sister, Mary, which also shows
indications of tracing. This is a good example of a drawing in which the
fine modelling of the face has now almost disappeared, so that the
darker lines stand out too insistently. There is most brilliant and
subtle drawing of the eyes, nose, and mouth in the very expressive and
beautiful head of the so-called Lady Henegham (Pl. 38),[593] wife of Sir
Anthony Hemingham or Heveningham, of Ketteringham in Norfolk, which
remains in very excellent condition. She wears a small pendant ornament
with one hanging pearl at her neck, and on the breast an upright oval
medallion with a figure within a Renaissance framework. It has been
suggested that this fine head really represents Margaret Roper, and the
features are not unlike those of several members of the More family; but
against this attribution must be placed the fact that the drawing,
unlike all the other studies for the family picture, is not on white
paper. Among the best of the other heads of women are Lady Parker,[594]
Lady Lister,[595] Lady Rich,[596] Lady Elyot,[597] Lady Audley, already
described (Pl. 37 (1)), an unknown lady, wearing a white cap or bonnet
covering the hair and ears and reaching to the chin[598]—a large drawing
on white paper, something of the type of the More family, but rather
more freely drawn—and Mary Zouch (Pl. 36 (2)).[599] The last-named is
one of the most attractive of the whole series. The face, seen in full,
is modelled with extreme delicacy and expression. She wears a French
circular hood with bands of ornament over her smooth, yellow hair,
parted in the middle and covering the ears. Her dress is of black
velvet, as noted in Holbein’s handwriting, and the medallion at her
breast, surrounded with a Renaissance framework, has an almost
obliterated subject, apparently a female figure with flying draperies
seated on a rock, possibly Perseus and Andromeda. This drawing is
inscribed “M. Souch,” and Sir Richard Holmes, following Wornum, suggests
that the drawing represents Joan, wife of Richard Zouch, son of Lord
Zouch of Haringworth. It is, however, more probably Mary Zouch, a member
of the same family, who was a maid of honour to Jane Seymour, and, after
the Queen’s death, received an annuity of £10 on April 6th, 1542, in
recognition of her services, which was to be continued until she “was
married or otherwise provided for.”[600]
Footnote 589:
Woltmann, 324; Wornum, ii. 17; Holmes, ii. 23. See pp. 110-111.
Footnote 590:
Woltmann, 339; Wornum, ii. 20; Holmes, ii. 16.
Footnote 591:
Woltmann, 331; Wornum, ii. 39; Holmes, ii. 15. Etched by Hollar
(Parthey, 1465); the etching reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 199
(3).
Footnote 592:
Woltmann, 332; Wornum, ii. 16; Holmes, ii. 14.
Footnote 593:
Woltmann, 333; Wornum, ii. 25; Holmes, ii. 12.
Footnote 594:
Woltmann, 338; Wornum, ii. 28; Holmes, i. 27.
Footnote 595:
Woltmann, 336; Wornum, ii. 26; Holmes, i. 28.
Footnote 596:
Woltmann, 319; Wornum, ii. 37; Holmes, ii. 10.
Footnote 597:
Woltmann, 285; Wornum, ii. 19; Holmes, i. 39.
Footnote 598:
Woltmann, 350; Wornum, ii. 13; Holmes, ii. 11.
Footnote 599:
Woltmann, 344; Wornum, ii. 27; Holmes, i. 30.
Footnote 600:
_C.L.P._, vol. xvii. 283 (28). (April 6, 1542.)
[Sidenote: STUDIES IN BERLIN AND BASEL]
The Berlin Print Room possesses a remarkably fine portrait-drawing of an
unknown Englishman,[601] with deep blue eyes, straight brown hair, a
scanty beard, and a thoughtful, expressive face, slightly turned to the
left. He wears a small flat cap, unornamented, and the usual gown with
heavy fur collar. Only slight touches of colour have been used on the
eyes, hair, and lips, and the paper has been covered with a pale red
wash.
Footnote 601:
Woltmann, 120. Reproduced by Ganz, _Hdz. von H. H. dem Jüng._, Pl. 36;
Davies, p. 224.
Among the portrait-drawings in the Basel Gallery, some fourteen in all,
most of which have been already described, the finest is perhaps that of
an unknown young man in a large, broad-brimmed black hat,[602] which is
certainly one of the most beautiful of his drawings now existing (Pl.
39). The sitter, a handsome and dignified man, with a large, straight
nose, and refined features—evidently a man of culture of the type of
Bonifacius Amerbach—is turned to the left, the face seen almost in
profile, though both eyes are shown. The lips of the mobile mouth are
slightly parted, and the expressive eyes gaze into the distance, as
though he were lost in thought. The brown, bushy hair, which covers the
ears and falls over the forehead, is drawn with rapid, masterly touches,
and the profile of the face stands out with great effect against the
dark background formed by the underside of his large hat. The flesh
tints are suggested with simple but subtle touches of the chalk. The
dress is merely sketched in with a few lines, though the brown fur
collar of his coat is sufficiently indicated just where it comes under
the beardless chin. This superb drawing, in which the artist has seized
upon and set down with unerring insight the finest traits of the
sitter’s character, is in black and coloured chalks. The type of face,
in the opinion of Woltmann and Dr. Ganz, is distinctly German. From its
technique, which, on the one hand, has much in common with the later
studies of the Meyer family made for the Darmstadt “Madonna,” and on the
other with the drawings for the More Family Group, it may be surmised
that this study was made in Basel shortly before Holbein left for his
first visit to England. It has much in common, too, with the coloured
drawing in Basel of Holbein himself, and it may be noted, as a small
point, that the hat the unknown youth is wearing is similar to the one
the artist wears, though rather larger, and is of a different fashion
from the black head-gear worn by Holbein’s English sitters.
Footnote 602:
Woltmann, 38. Reproduced by Ganz, _Hdz. Schwz. Mstr._, i. 54, and
_Holbein_, p. xxxi.; Knackfuss, fig. 106.
Among the other portraits of unknown personages at Basel are two heads
of an Englishman and his wife,[603] and a third, still finer, of a lady
wearing the angular English head-dress and black fall, who was evidently
a member of the court circle.[604] This drawing, which is also in black
and coloured chalks, must be placed among the best of Holbein’s studies
of women. It has been conjectured that it represents Lady Carew, and
also Lady Guldeford. The equally beautiful drawing of Sir Nicholas
Carew[605] has been described already. All the drawings just mentioned
form part of the Amerbach Collection, and it may be suggested, though
the suggestion is not a very plausible one, that at least those of them
which represent English people were taken to Basel by Holbein himself,
on one or other of his visits home, and were left behind when he
returned to England, together with the sketch-book, also in the Amerbach
Collection, which is undoubtedly of the English period; or, on the other
hand, they may have been sent over from London to his widow with his
personal belongings by his executors after his death.
Footnote 603:
Woltmann, 36, 37. The lady reproduced by Ganz, _Hdz. Schwz. Mstr._, i.
11. Already described. See Vol. i. p. 321, and Plate 82, Vol. i.
Footnote 604:
Woltmann, 32. Reproduced by Davies, p. 224; Knackfuss, fig. 105.
Already described. See Vol. i. p. 321, and Plate 81 (2), Vol. i.
Footnote 605:
Woltmann, 31. Reproduced by Ganz, _Hdz. Schwz. Mstr._, iii. 40; and in
_Holbein_, p. xxxiii.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 39
PORTRAIT OF AN UNKNOWN YOUNG MAN
_Drawing in black and coloured chalks_
BASEL GALLERY
]
[Sidenote: HOLBEIN AND THE CLOUETS]
Altogether apart from their artistic merits, these drawings of Holbein’s
are of the utmost historical value, both on account of their number,
including as they do so many of the leading characters who played a part
in the making of England in Tudor days, and also because of the
perfection of their draughtsmanship and the corresponding life-likeness
of their portraiture, so that they form true documents in every sense of
the word. Holbein’s genius shows us Henry’s ministers and the lords and
ladies who surrounded him, just as they were in life, without any
attempt at flattery, but with every feature set down with unfaltering
truth, and, above all, with a grasp of character which the portrait
drawings of no other great master of his period show in the same degree.
He has left behind, as a mine of wealth for the use of the student of
history, in drawings alone, without taking into account his numerous
painted portraits for which no drawings now exist, a series of more than
one hundred representations of Tudor men and women. In only one other
instance can we turn to a similar series of contemporary portraits—the
chalk drawings of French men and women of the same century by the two
Clouets, Jean and François, father and son. These, though of the utmost
value as historical portraiture, and also of great beauty and even
fascination as works of art, fall short of the greatness which stamps
Holbein’s work of a like nature. The elder Clouet had not his mastery of
drawing; his knowledge was more limited and his means more restricted.
His drawings have “a stiffness and dryness which are very far from the
flowing and supple handling of the Basle master.”[606] His son had
considerably more science. “His drawing in reality is extremely
profound, and as exactly calculated as any known. In tracing the human
face and all the parts presented by the model, he has the ability of a
specialist, whose long practice of an art that is deep rather than wide
has enabled him to accumulate a mass of information and experience. He
reaches perfection in the proportion of the features, in the exact
placing of all the fine fugitive, mobile parts of the face, in the
careful study of the extremely subtle relations from which the mass of
form draws its solidity, and in skill in constructing the unity of
impression of a face and of a type.”[607] He has little or nothing,
however, of Holbein’s beauty of style. Holbein’s drawings are matchless
in the delicacy of their modelling, every little depression or
prominence in the contours of the face being indicated with an
exactitude and a simplicity of means unrivalled in work of such nature;
and also for the way in which this delicacy of touch in handling the
crayon, and subtlety and precision of the strengthening lines with brush
or pencil, are combined with the wonderful vigour and sense of life with
which each individual drawing is filled. Added to their truthfulness in
portraiture there is that remarkable insight into the true nature and
feelings of the sitter which is one of the greatest qualities of
Holbein’s art. It is owing to the knowledge and mastery which are the
basis of these Portrait-Studies—studies usually made with rapidity, but
in which nothing essential has been missed by the penetrating eye and
unerring hand of the artist—that so perfect a result is obtained with
means apparently so slight. Delicacy and strength meet in them in
exquisite combination; the flexibility and refinement of his line are
always kept well under control, and there is no over-elaboration of
detail to the detriment of character. Each drawing bears upon it the
stamp of a style, and of a great style, which was Holbein’s own
individual possession, in which freedom and truth are tempered and
perfected by self-restraint.
Footnote 606:
Dimier, _French Painting in the Sixteenth Century_, p. 44.
Footnote 607:
Dimier, p. 205.
[Illustration:
VOL. II., PLATE 40
THE QUEEN OF SHEBA’S VISIT TO KING SOLOMON
_Silver-point drawing washed with colour_
WINDSOR CASTLE
]
[Sidenote: “THE QUEEN OF SHEBA”]
To attempt even a list of Holbein’s more important drawings other than
his portrait-studies would be quite beyond the scope of this book, in
the course of which, however, many of them have been touched upon; but
there still remain several which cannot be passed over in silence. Chief
among them is the small drawing on parchment, highly finished like a
miniature, in the Library, Windsor Castle, which represents the “Queen
of Sheba’s visit to King Solomon” (Pl. 40).[608] It is a composition
containing no less than thirty-four small figures, and so, after the
wall-paintings in the Basel Town Hall and the “Triumphs” of the London
Steelyard, is one of the most considerable arrangements of grouping ever
attempted by him. King Solomon is seated on a throne on a high daïs
approached by a number of steps within a large chamber, the roof of
which is supported by slender columns of Renaissance architecture.
Behind the throne is suspended a large curtain, and on the steps on
either side are placed groups of the elders and long-bearded wise men of
Solomon’s kingdom. In the centre the Queen mounts the steps, her hands
outstretched as though in wonder and admiration of the great king. In
the foreground a procession of her ten ladies, walking two and two,
passes towards the left, and on the right are a group of her attendants
bearing rich presents, some of them kneeling with uplifted baskets. The
drawing is in silver-point, slightly washed with grey and brown, and
touched here and there with water-colour; the fruits in one of the
baskets are red and green, and some of the draperies and details are
touched with dead gold. The background between the pillars is blue
powdered with gold stars. The Renaissance architecture of the setting is
purer and less florid in style than is the case with many of Holbein’s
earlier studies for glass paintings. The figures of the women are
gracefully conceived and grouped, and the heads of the men have
character and expression. In its general arrangement the upper half of
this miniature drawing recalls the “Rehoboam” wall-painting in the Basel
Town Hall, though the setting is more richly treated; while in the
general gracefulness of its design it is Italian in feeling, and has
close affinity to the “Triumph of Riches” drawing for the decoration of
the Steelyard. It was probably done at about the same date as the
latter, perhaps as a present for the King, the subject having been
chosen as conveying a subtle and flattering suggestion that Henry and
Solomon were alike in their possession of great wisdom. It is finished
with such minute care that it does not seem likely that it is merely the
preparatory sketch for some larger picture or wall-painting. There is no
record of any wall-decoration of this subject, either in the Steelyard
or at Whitehall, though Holbein may have had some idea when at work upon
it that it might serve for such a purpose afterwards if it met with the
King’s approval; or, on the other hand, it may be a miniature copy from
one of his frescoes in grisaille, which has disappeared, made by Holbein
himself as a gift for his royal master. It was at one time in the
Arundel Collection, and while there was engraved by Hollar. In the
inventory of that collection it is entered as “Regina de Saba in
miniatura chiaroscuro.” There is a picture in the Dresden Gallery
representing the “Death of Virginia,” which appears to be an early copy
of another of Holbein’s lost frescoes in grisaille, which has many
points in common with the “Queen of Sheba” miniature painting, and is
carried out in a similar scheme of colouring. Both were, no doubt, the
work of his second English residence.[609]
Footnote 608:
Woltmann, 272. Reproduced in Ganz, _Hdz. von H. H. dem Jüng._, Pl. 32,
and in _Holbein_, p. 182; Knackfuss, fig. 145.
Footnote 609:
See Woltmann, ii. p. 124. Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 174.
Another important drawing, of an earlier date, in the Städel Institut at
Frankfurt, represents a transport ship about to put out to sea.[610] It
is a three-masted vessel, with high poop, crowded with small figures,
among them a troop of landsknechte, one of whom stands in the stern, a
fine figure, holding aloft a banner which flaps in the wind. Others play
drum and trumpets, some hold pikes, and one of them embraces a girl. The
anchor has been hauled up, and most of the sailors are at work in the
rigging unfurling the sails; but several of them are taking parting
drinks from large jars, even at the masthead, and one of the number is
already overcome with sea-sickness. Below, on the left, a boat with two
rowers is pulling vigorously towards the ship, either to put on board a
late comer or to fetch off those for the shore. The exact date of this
drawing is uncertain. It is possible that Holbein saw some such vessel
during his visit to Amerbach in the south of France, or that he made it
a year or two later at Antwerp on his way to England for the first time.
Footnote 610:
Woltmann, 152. Reproduced by Knackfuss, fig. 70. Water-colour has been
used for the faces, dresses, and other parts of the drawing.
His skill in the representation of animals is shown in a number of
drawings. There are some fine horses in the “Triumph of Riches” study,
and also in the “Samuel and Saul” and the “Sapor and Valerian” drawings
for the Basel Town Hall paintings, as well as in the woodcut of “The
Ploughman” in the “Dance of Death” series and in others of his woodcut
illustrations; the latter also showing good studies of sheep, dogs, and
other animals. The early drawings of a lamb and a bat have been
described on a previous page.[611]
Footnote 611:
See Vol. i. p. 161.
------------------------------------------------------------------------