THE FIRST VISIT TO ENGLAND: PORTRAITS OF THE MORE FAMILY
Holbein’s arrival in England and his reception by Sir Thomas More—The
More Family Group and the Basel study for it—The various copies of the
picture at Nostell Priory, East Hendred, Burford Priory, and
elsewhere—The Sotheby miniature—Studies for the heads in the Windsor
Collection—The portrait of Sir Thomas More—Miniature of More in the
late Mr. Pierpont Morgan’s Collection—Portrait of Lady More—Margaret
Roper—Drawing of unknown lady in the Salting Collection—Portrait at
Shere said to represent Margaret Roper.
THE date of Holbein’s arrival in England can be fixed with some
certainty. The letter of introduction he carried from Erasmus to Peter
Ægidius in Antwerp, as already pointed out, was dated 29th August 1526,
and it must have been written on the eve of the painter’s departure from
Basel. Travelling was slow in those days, and Holbein would not be in a
position to afford to make the whole journey on horseback. As he carried
letters from Erasmus, the latter may have helped him with his travelling
expenses, but no doubt the greater part of the journey would be made by
boat down the Rhine, and for the rest he would trudge on foot, the
materials of his craft on his back.
[Sidenote: HOLBEIN’S JOURNEY TO ENGLAND]
There is no evidence to show that he made a stay of any length in
Antwerp; nor any record of a meeting with Ægidius or Metsys, though such
meetings must almost certainly have taken place, for the former would be
likely to do everything in his power to oblige Erasmus. Woltmann
suggests that he stayed in Antwerp for at least some weeks, in order to
earn some money, while Mr. Davies thinks that he made a somewhat lengthy
sojourn in the Netherlands before coming to England.[648] “One may take
it almost for granted,” he says, “that a man of his sympathies, the
fountain of whose art had already flowed down to him by Flemish
channels, would not fail to use his opportunity for visiting the great
Flemish primitives, the Van Eycks, Memlinc, Van der Weyden, Gerard David
in their own homes. Ghent and Bruges lay at no great distance seaward,
and whether he took ship at Flushing, or chose the longer land route and
the shorter sea passage by Calais—an expensive method for one whose
pockets were as empty as Holbein’s—he would, one feels sure, have made
the pilgrimage to those two cities.”[649]
Dr. Waagen also believed that Holbein made a considerable delay in
Antwerp, for the purpose of painting the portrait of Ægidius, now in
Longford Castle, at that time considered to be from his hand; and he
also held the theory that the “Laïs Corinthiaca” and the “Venus” were
painted on the same occasion, seeing in them a Netherlandish influence.
Mr. Davies, in a second passage, to which reference has been made,[650]
asserts that Holbein “spent several months in or about Antwerp on his
way to England in 1526.” He admits, however, that he is dealing with
mere probabilities, and it is much more likely that Holbein would waste
as little time as possible in reaching the country in which he hoped to
improve his fortunes, and would tarry only a day or two in Antwerp, in
order to make the acquaintance of Metsys; and that he then either took
ship at that port, or, which is less probable, tramped on to Calais, the
customary point of embarkation for England. He may thus have reached
London easily by the beginning or middle of October 1526. It is, in any
case, quite certain that he did not spend “several months in or about
Antwerp.” This is proved both by a letter from Sir Thomas More to
Erasmus, dated 18th December, and by the fact that the preliminary
studies, or, at least, the general study for the grouping in the More
family portrait, now in the Basel Gallery, must have been finished
before the 7th February 1527.
Holbein, of course, would carry with him a letter of introduction from
Erasmus to More, and very possibly to Warham, Fisher, and other
correspondents of the philosopher then in England. There is no reason to
throw doubt on Carel van Mander’s statement that he was received as a
guest in Sir Thomas More’s hospitable house in Chelsea. Van Mander’s
biography contains numerous inaccuracies, although he wrote only some
sixty years after Holbein’s death; but in this instance he is probably
correct. More, who was noted for his hospitality, would welcome to his
home any friend sent to him by Erasmus, and would do all that he could
to help a foreigner, who can have had little or no knowledge of the
English language. Van Mander’s statement has been copied and amplified
by later writers until the legend runs that Holbein spent the greater
part of three years under More’s roof; but this is not at all likely to
have happened. During the painting of the great family picture, or, in
any case, while the preliminary studies were being made, and other
single portraits of members of More’s household taken, Holbein, no
doubt, remained as a guest at Chelsea, if only for the convenience of
the several sitters, but that he stayed throughout the whole of his
first English visit as More’s guest is doubtful. He would, naturally,
wish for a studio and lodging of his own, however humble, where he would
be free to do just as he liked. Whether he set up his easel in the
village hard by his patron’s house, or in London itself, where he would
find a number of compatriots, it is not now possible to say, though an
item in the royal accounts in connection with the festivities at
Greenwich in 1527[651] seems to indicate that he had settled in the
city; while, on the other hand, nearly all the portraits painted by him
at this time were of men who were among More’s most intimate personal
friends, whom Holbein would be more likely to meet in Chelsea than in
London.
More certainly did everything in his power to help the painter. He not
only gave him commissions for single portraits of himself and his wife,
and, possibly, of his favourite daughter, Margaret Roper, but also for
the large family group already mentioned. It is to be supposed that
Holbein had carried with him some specimens of his handiwork by which
Sir Thomas could judge of his ability, and he would almost certainly
have with him proofs of the “Dance of Death” woodcuts, in themselves
more than sufficient testimony to the brilliance of his artistic powers.
Sir Thomas must also have had earlier knowledge of his skill both as a
portrait-painter and a book-illustrator, in the likenesses of Erasmus
already sent to this country, and in the various books by Erasmus and
others, including his own _Utopia_, issued by Froben and other printers
of Basel, which Holbein had helped to decorate.
[Sidenote: MORE’S LETTER TO ERASMUS]
In a long letter to Erasmus, mentioned above,[652] dated 18th December,
More gives a few words of praise and a promise of help to their common
friend and protegé: “Your painter, dearest Erasmus, is a wonderful
artist, but I fear he is not likely to find England so abundantly
fertile as he had hoped; although I will do what I can to prevent his
finding it quite barren.”[653] This letter, as already stated, is dated
1525 in the published letters of Erasmus, but the correct date is 1526,
as first pointed out by Mr. F. M. Nichols, F.S.A.[654] It has been
generally supposed that it was written after More had seen certain
portraits of Erasmus sent over from Basel about 1524, and that his
promise of help to the painter had reference to a projected visit to
England on the part of Holbein. Mr. Nichols, however, proves
conclusively that it was written after More had made his personal
acquaintance. “The true date,” he says, “is shown not only by the
allusion to Holbein, who was evidently in England at the time, but still
more certainly by the literary work of Erasmus mentioned in it. The
first part of the _Hyperaspistes_ (the answer of Erasmus to the _Servum
Arbitrium_ of Luther), printed in the spring of 1526, and the
_Institution of Christian Marriage_, printed in August of the same year,
are both mentioned as already published, and the second part of
_Hyperaspistes_ as expected. This last book was published at the close
of the same year, 1526, not much after the date of the letter as here
corrected.” More, therefore, wrote to Erasmus in praise of Holbein after
he had received practical proof, in the shape of his studies for the
Family Group, of what the latter was capable in the way of portraiture.
The earliest work undertaken by the artist was the painting of this
group of his host’s family, and the several individual portraits of
certain members of the Chelsea household, of which the first would be
undoubtedly that of his new patron.
The inscriptions on the study for the Family Group, now in the Basel
Gallery, prove conclusively that the beautiful sketch of the general
arrangement of the picture was finished, and possibly the picture itself
begun, before 7th February 1527, thus indicating that Holbein must have
started upon it with little delay. This fact is made clear through the
researches of Mr. Nichols, included in a second and earlier paper read
before the Society of Antiquaries in 1897,[655] dealing with the correct
birth-year of Sir Thomas More. It is impossible to give here even a
short summary of the evidence which he brings forward, evidence which
proves that More was born on 7th February 1477, a year earlier than the
date until then supposed to be the correct one. He then proceeds to show
the bearing of this new year-date upon the Basel sketch. The sketch has
the name and age of the persons represented in it written against each
figure, and it is important to observe that there is a strong
probability that these inscriptions were written or dictated by More
himself. They are correctly written in Latin, while the painter’s notes
on the same drawing are in German; and, as Mr. Nichols says, the
information, including on the one hand the age of More’s venerable
father, and on the other that of his domestic fool, could scarcely have
been furnished by any one but More himself. Woltmann recognises the
handwriting as undoubtedly that of More from its remarkable resemblance
to the address on the letter held in the hand of Peter Ægidius in the
Longford Castle portrait, which More declared was copied quite as
closely as he could have copied it himself.
[Sidenote: BASEL STUDY FOR THE FAMILY GROUP]
In the Basel sketch he has written above his own portrait, _Thomas Morus
anno 50_—that is, _anno quinquagesimo_, “in his fiftieth year”—and,
according to the corrected birth-date, Sir Thomas was in his fiftieth
year from 7th February 1526 to 7th February 1527, which proves that the
big picture had been completely planned out, and probably well advanced,
before the latter date. In support of this contention, it will be found
that not only the age of More himself, but that of other members of his
family where they can be verified, point to the same date. Thus,
Erasmus, who prided himself on his remarkable memory for the ages of his
friends, says that John More, Sir Thomas’s only son, was just about
thirteen in the summer of 1521, so that he would be in his nineteenth
year in the autumn and winter of 1526, which is the age attributed to
him on the sketch; while the dates of the birth and death of John More’s
wife, Anne Cresacre, are known, and tally with the “anno 15” on the same
drawing. More’s eldest child, Margaret Roper, is described as in her
twenty-second year, and though the precise date of her birth is not
known, the marriage of her parents took place in the twentieth year of
Henry VII (21st August 1504-21st August 1505), which is consistent with
her birth at any time between the summer of 1505 and the 7th February
1506, and therefore with her being in her twenty-second year at the date
attributed to the sketch. It appears, therefore, that the evidence of
all these inscriptions either confirms that date or is not inconsistent
with it.
This proves that the Family Group was the first work undertaken by
Holbein in England, and that in the intervals of painting the larger
picture he was engaged upon a single portrait of Sir Thomas More and
upon others of certain of the latter’s friends.
Unfortunately, the picture itself, if ever completed by Holbein, has
disappeared. “For nothing,” says Walpole, “has Holbein’s name been
oftener mentioned than for the picture of Sir Thomas More’s family. Yet
of six pieces extant on this subject, the two smaller are certainly
copies, the three larger probably not painted by Holbein, and the sixth,
though an original picture, most likely not of Sir Thomas and his
family.”[656]
The Basel sketch (No. 345)[657] (Pl. 74), upon which the various
pictures still in existence are based, affords the most faithful record
we possess of the great work itself, now lost, or buried under the
handiwork of some inferior painter. It represents a large apartment with
a group of ten persons, with two smaller figures seen through an open
door in a room at the back. Sir Thomas More is seated in the centre of
the group, dressed in long robes, his hands concealed in a muff. In
attire, attitude, and expression the sketch agrees very closely with the
portrait of More in the possession of Mr. Edward Huth. On his right
hand, to the spectator’s left, is seated his old father, Sir John More,
a judge of the King’s Bench (anno 76), looking straight out of the
picture. By Sir John’s right side stands Margaret Gigs (anno 22), a
relative of the family, afterwards married to Dr. John Clement. She has
a book in her left hand, to which she points with her right, as though
emphasizing a passage she is reading to the old man, towards whom she
stoops. In front of her, and still further to the spectator’s left, the
outside member of the group, stands Elizabeth Dancey (anno 21), More’s
second daughter, with a book under her arm, drawing on her glove.
On the opposite side, on the spectator’s right, in the foreground, is a
group of three, which includes More’s second wife, Alice Middleton (anno
54), on the extreme right, kneeling on a prie-dieu, with a chained
monkey by her side jumping up against her dress; Margaret Roper (anno
22), More’s eldest and favourite daughter, seated on the ground on a low
stool in front of her stepmother, an open book held in her lap, gazing
in front of her, as though lost in thought over the volume she has been
reading; and Cecilia Heron (anno 20), the youngest girl, seated behind,
and partly concealed by her sister, with a book and rosary in her hand,
and her head turned as though speaking to Lady More. In the centre,
behind Sir Thomas, stand, on the right, his only son, John More (anno
19), looking down, absorbed in a book, and on the left, Anne Cresacre,
his betrothed, a girl in her fifteenth year. The group is completed by
the bluff figure of Henry Patenson, More’s jester, who stands to the
right of More’s son, with arms akimbo in the favourite fashion of Henry
VIII. Over his shoulder, through a doorway, with a kind of porch of open
woodwork which projects into the apartment, are seen the heads of the
two small figures mentioned above. The room in which the group is placed
is probably the dining-hall. On the left there is a sideboard reaching
to the ceiling, with a flower-vase, tankards, and silver plate. On the
sill of a window on the opposite side of the room there are a jug, a
candlestick, and some books. The wall at the back in the centre is
covered with a curtain, in front of which a clock with weights is
hanging, and a violin near it.
VOL. I., PLATE 74.
[Illustration:
STUDY FOR THE MORE FAMILY GROUP
_Drawing in Indian ink, with corrections and inscriptions in brown_
BASEL GALLERY
]
[Sidenote: THE NOSTELL PRIORY PICTURE]
The whole arrangement is of a somewhat formal and stately character, and
both in the attitudes and occupations of the figures indicates a house
of learning; even in the foreground books are scattered all over the
floor. This masterly sketch, small as it is, is full of character. Each
figure has marked individuality, and Holbein, with a few slight touches
of his pencil, has in every case given a most truthful likeness, as may
be proved by comparison with the larger studies of seven of the heads
now in the Windsor Collection. From this brilliant study it is quite
possible to gain a very adequate idea of how splendid the finished
picture must have been, if, indeed, Holbein ever completed it. Whether
the Basel drawing was merely Holbein’s first arrangement of the
grouping, hastily done, or a drawing made at More’s request from the
outlined design on the canvas for the purpose of sending it to Erasmus,
is uncertain; but, in any case, the portraiture of all the heads, which
are only sketched in a few lines, is complete and striking, and every
touch stamps it as the work of one who was a master before he had
reached his thirtieth year.
There are various copies of this great family picture in England, mostly
of late origin and showing numerous differences. The only one which has
any real claim to be considered the original work is the large canvas
belonging to Lord St. Oswald at Nostell Priory, near Wakefield, which
has been for many years in the possession of the Winn family (Pl.
75).[658] Most writers have identified it with the picture mentioned by
Carel van Mander, whose book was first published in 1604, as seen by him
in London in the possession of Andries de Loo, who had collected a
number of Holbein’s works. “This lover of art,” he says, “had a large
canvas, painted in water-colours, on which was depicted, as large as
life, from head to foot, the learned and famous Thomas Morus, with his
wife, sons, and daughters, all magnificently arrayed, a piece worthy to
be seen and highly extolled.” On De Loo’s death, he continues, it was
purchased by one of More’s grandsons, who was also named More. According
to the family history, however, the buyer was the son of Margaret Roper,
of Well Hall, Eltham, near Blackheath, where it still remained in 1731,
when it was carefully described by the Rev. J. Lewis. It eventually
passed by marriage to Sir Rowland Winn, of Nostell Priory, the ancestor
of the present owner. Van Mander, it will be noted, says that this
picture was in water-colours, or tempera, on canvas, which, if true,
seems to indicate that it was not the work now at Nostell Priory, though
repeated repairing and varnishing may have rendered the method of its
painting uncertain to decide. Van Mander’s account of Holbein’s career
is by no means free from inaccuracies, but the evidence seems to point
to the fact that his history of the picture is substantially
correct.[659]
There are considerable but, with two exceptions, not very important
differences between the Nostell Priory picture and the Basel sketch. The
latter is seen at once to be a first study for the grouping of the
former, to which the artist adhered closely in almost all points. In the
first place, it is interesting to note that the only two alterations
suggested on the sketch itself, in Holbein’s own handwriting—“Dise soll
sitzen” (she is to be sitting), placed against Lady More, and
“Klafikordi vnd ander Sithespill vf dem bank” (harpsichords and other
instruments on a shelf), to the left on the wall at the back, close by
the cupboard or sideboard, where only a violin is hanging in the
sketch—have both been carried out in the completed picture, though in
the end the painter put the instruments on the sideboard in place of the
silver plate, instead of on a shelf.
The two chief points in which the finished picture deviates from the
sketch are the change in the positions of Elizabeth Dancey and Margaret
Gigs, and the introduction of More’s “famulus,” John Heresius or Harris,
who stands in the doorway at the back, with a roll of parchment in his
hands, while beyond him, in the farther room, is a man standing at a
large bay-window, holding a book which he is reading. The positions of
Elizabeth Dancey and Margaret Gigs have been reversed. The former now
stands next to Sir John, while the latter has taken her place on the
extreme left, and, instead of stooping, stands upright, looking in front
of her, but with her right hand still pointing to the open book in her
left. Her head-dress is less elaborate than in the Basel sketch, and
follows closely the plain white hood she is shown as wearing in the
beautiful study at Windsor, erroneously inscribed “Mother Jak.” Two dogs
are also introduced—a “cur-dog” at the feet of Sir John, and a “Bologna
shock” at the feet of Sir Thomas, to quote from Mr. Lewis.[660] The
various accessories in the room have also been to some extent changed,
both on the sideboard and on the window-sill on the right. The titles of
the books are given in most cases. Thus Margaret Roper holds open
Seneca’s _Œdipus_ at the chorus in Act iv., Elizabeth Dancey has
Seneca’s _Epistles_ under her arm, while _Boetius de Consolatione
Philosophiæ_ is on the sideboard.
VOL. I., PLATE 75.
[Illustration:
THE MORE FAMILY GROUP
Lord St. Oswald’s collection
NOSTELL PRIORY
]
[Sidenote: THE NOSTELL PRIORY PICTURE]
The critics are by no means agreed as to the merits of this picture. Dr.
Waagen came to the conclusion that it was nothing more than an old copy,
yet he dated it as about 1530 on technical grounds, due to the redness
of the flesh tints, which he regarded as a characteristic of Holbein’s
painting at that period—a strange conclusion to reach after giving it as
his opinion that it was only a copy. Passavant, Vertue, and Walpole
considered that it was made up by some inferior painter from Holbein’s
separate studies of the heads. “As the portraits of the family,” says
Walpole, “in separate pieces,[661] were already drawn by Holbein, the
injudicious journeyman stuck them in as he found them, and never varied
the lights, which were disposed, as it was indifferent in single heads,
some from the right, some from the left, but which make a ridiculous
contradiction when transported into one piece.”[662] Wornum’s opinion
was that “the picture is without question unequal in its parts, some
portions certainly being unworthy of Holbein; others, though much
better, still bear no trace of the great master’s hand; the want of
finish, too, is in parts apparent. The dogs are very bad, especially the
foremost one; notwithstanding all this, however, there may be a genuine
Holbein groundwork beneath.”[663] Woltmann, who saw it when it was in
the National Portrait Exhibition of 1866, agreed with Waagen that it was
only a good old copy. “Still this large picture is in a high degree
interesting. Though the hand that copied it betrays, indeed, an able but
in nowise clever painter, though the coldness of the execution is
apparent in the unattractive accessories, still it shows us, to a
certain extent, with what careful and delicate study the original
picture had been executed.”[664]
The late Mr. F. G. Stephens examined the picture very carefully in 1880,
and embodied the result of his study in one of his series of articles on
“The Private Collections of England,” published in the _Athenæum._[665]
He came to the conclusion that certain portions were undoubtedly from
the brush of Holbein, but that upon the greater part of the canvas he
had merely sketched or pounced in the design, which had then been
finished by some other painter not skilled enough to follow up with any
success the lines laid down by the greater master, who for some unknown
reason had abandoned the completion of the work. At the same time he was
of opinion that even the parts which he attributed to Holbein by no
means remained in the state in which he left them. His final conclusion
was that Holbein left the canvas with only one head, that of Sir Thomas
More, nearly finished; certain other heads—of Judge More, and the group
of three on the right, Margaret Roper, Cecilia Heron, and Lady More—far
advanced in execution, and one or two others in the background carried
only a little further than the designing stage. Beyond this Holbein did
not go; the remainder was left in outline, subject to correction to be
made as the work proceeded. The man engaged to complete the picture
covered the canvas as well as he could, but failed to retain any of the
beauty of Holbein’s original design, or to introduce the generalising
and systematic light and shade with which Holbein would have brought
each part into harmony, or even to transfer to the canvas the animated
portraiture and other high qualities of the cartoons which were
available for that purpose. Most of the figures are of extreme
disproportion, heads being too large for the bodies, and bodies too
large for the legs, while the actions are awkward, and many of the faces
lack animation and intelligence. The dogs are so bad that Mr. Stephens
was of opinion that they were added even later by a third and still less
skilful painter. On the other hand, he regarded the head of More as “a
marvellous rendering of insight into human character, reproducing with
extreme subtlety the utmost energy of thoughtfulness as marked on a
visage where a far-seeing, vigorous soul has, so to say, written itself
in every line and feature, and manifested itself in those penetrative
yet meditating eyes, those fine thin lips, and affected the fine reserve
of every lineament.”
[Sidenote: THE PICTURE LEFT INCOMPLETE]
This solution is possibly the correct one. All the other versions of the
picture in existence are based on the Nostell Priory example. The Basel
sketch was not available for the purpose, having been sent to Erasmus,
and it is far from likely that all these works were copied or adapted
from some original painting by Holbein now lost. At the death of Sir
Thomas More much of his property was seized by the Crown, but even if
such a picture were taken from the family, it does not follow that it
would be destroyed. Thus there is every probability that the version
seen by Van Mander in the collection of De Loo was the original picture,
and that it was the one now in Nostell Priory. The most natural
supposition is that Holbein was unable to finish it through want of
time. He was back in Basel not later than the summer of 1528, as on the
29th August of that year, exactly two years from the date of Erasmus’
letter to Ægidius, he purchased a house in that city. As a citizen of
Basel he must have obtained leave of absence before starting for
England, and such leave would probably be for two years only, with
penalties attached to it if he failed to return in time. His stay in
England cannot have lasted much more than eighteen months, and during
that period he was very busily occupied. As already shown, the Basel
sketch for the big picture must have been made before 7th February 1527,
on which day More was fifty years old. Curiously enough, on the day
following, 8th February, Holbein started upon an important work of
decoration, described below,[666] which occupied his entire time from
that date until early in April, and for which he received payment from
the royal purse. During the remainder of his first English visit he was
engaged upon a number of portraits, including those of Sir Thomas More,
Lady More, Archbishop Warham, Sir Henry Guldeford and his wife, the
Godsalves, Kratzer, and possibly one or two others, such as Fisher,
Reskimer, and Bryan Tuke, while in the intervals between these
commissions he was, no doubt, busily at work upon the heads of the
Family Group. His recall to Basel may have been peremptory, and so have
forced him to leave in a hurry. In any case, he must have parted on good
terms with More, for he was entrusted with the Basel sketch for delivery
to Erasmus as a present from the author of the _Utopia._ Very possibly
he promised to come back in order to finish the picture, but when a year
or two had passed by without sign of his return, Sir Thomas, having
given up all hope of seeing him again, may have decided to get it
finished by some other painter. When the Nostell Priory picture was
carefully cleaned some thirty-five years ago, it was found to be dated
1530, a date which well agrees with this theory. The same date, 1530, is
on the Basel sketch, but it is below the drawing and by a later hand,
and may have been added by some one who had knowledge of the date on one
or other of the versions of the picture in England, or from the
supposition that More was fifty in that year. The sketch was badly
engraved by Nicolas Cochin in the _Tabellæ Selectæ_ of Caroline Patin,
published in 1691, and on this engraving no date is given. Von Mechel
engraved it in 1794 in his _œuvres de Jean Holbein_, with the date 1530,
so that it was added to the drawing between these two dates. Von Mechel
gives both a facsimile of the original sketch and an engraving which he
inscribes “Ex tabula Joh. Holbenii in Anglia adservata”; but none of the
alterations which Holbein, according to his written notes on the sketch,
proposed to carry out in the finished picture, are shown in this
engraving, which proves that it was not copied from any original
painting. Dr. Woltmann discovered Mechel’s model in a sepia drawing in
the Gothic House at Wörlitz, which is evidently a copy of the original
Basel design, executed long after Holbein’s time, and bearing some
written notices in Lavater’s hand.[667]
A careful description is given by Mr. Wornum[668] of the various
versions of the picture still in existence, all of which are based on
the Nostell Priory example. Two of them were originally of the same size
as the latter, which is 8 ft. 4 in. high by 11 ft. 8 in. wide. One of
these in Walpole’s time was at Barnborough in Yorkshire, the seat of the
Cresacres, and in 1867 in the possession of Mr. Charles John Eyston of
East Hendred, Berkshire; and the other, a similar work, was formerly at
Heron in Essex, the seat of Sir John Tyrrell, and afterwards in the
collection of Lord Petre at Thorndon, near Brentford.
[Sidenote: THE BURFORD PRIORY VERSION]
The East Hendred version measures 7 ft. 8 in. high by 9 ft. 9½ in. wide.
At some time or other it had suffered from damage or decay on the
right-hand side, and has been cut down to fit a panel, so that the
figure of Lady More and her monkey and the more advanced of the two
dogs, together with the window and the vase of flowers, have
disappeared. With the exception of these changes and a few other
unskilful repairs, this picture is in the main identical with the one at
Nostell Priory, though very inferior to it. The Thorndon picture is also
on canvas, and is 8 ft. 3 in. high by 11 ft. 2 in. wide. It is in a
better state than the East Hendred example, and is copied from the same
source, with slight changes. There is only one dog, Lady More is seated
in a large scarlet arm-chair, and there are slight differences in the
minor details, while Sir Thomas is shown with a moustache. Both these
pictures are coarsely painted, and have little but an historical
interest.[669] Wornum also describes a picture on canvas, 4 ft. 7 in. by
3 ft. 9 in., of Sir Thomas and his father, the latter in his scarlet
robes, at Hutton Hall,[670] which was lent to the Tudor Exhibition, 1890
(No. 150), by Sir Henry Vane, Bt., and is apparently copied from the
central portion of the Nostell Priory canvas, with the addition of a
coat of arms, and two original inscriptions over the heads, and the date
1530. Sir Thomas’s age is given as 50 (Ætatis 50), but Sir John’s as 77,
instead of “Anno 76” as in the sketch. Otherwise, in all these pictures,
the ages of the sitters agree with the sketch, though the latter was
done in 1527 and the former in 1530. This may be perhaps explained by
the fact that Sir Thomas wished the ages to be kept as they were at the
time when the studies were made, rather than when the picture was
completed by another hand.
One other version of importance was in Walpole’s day at Burford Priory,
Oxfordshire, the seat of William Lenthall, the Speaker (Pl. 76 ),[671]
who purchased the estate from Viscount Falkland, together with the
pictures in the house. This version of the Group, before the Speaker
owned it, had been in the possession of the Mores, at Gubbins, in
Hertfordshire. By what means it passed into the hands of Lenthall, says
Walpole, is uncertain. He is said to have purchased a number of pictures
from the royal collections at Whitehall and Hampton Court, but the More
Family Group did not come from that source, nor was it acquired from
Viscount Falkland, for, according to Dallaway (note to Walpole, vol. i.
p. 91), it was described by Aubrey in 1670 when in Lenthall’s earlier
home at Besselsleigh, Berks, who says that it had an inscription in
golden letters of about sixty lines. It was bought in at the Lenthall
sale at Christie’s in 1808 for one thousand guineas. It reappeared in
the saleroom in 1833, when it fetched only one hundred guineas, and came
into the possession of the Strickland family of Cokethorpe Park,
Ducklington, Oxfordshire, and, later on, passed from them by marriage to
the Cottrell-Dormer family. A few years ago it was under consideration
by the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery, but was not purchased,
and, finally, it made a third appearance at Christie’s on 26th February
1910, when it was acquired by Sir Hugh P. Lane for nine hundred and
fifty guineas. It measures 7 ft. 6 in. high by 11 ft. wide, and is dated
1593.[672] It contains eleven figures, and is made up from the original
composition and portraits of later members of the family. Seven of the
figures of Holbein’s group have been pushed to the spectator’s left, the
ones omitted being Lady More, Margaret Gigs, Patenson, and the
secretary, Harris. Elizabeth Dancey has been moved to the centre, behind
and between her two seated sisters. The right side of the picture
contains a group of four people of a later generation, the Chancellor’s
grandson, Thomas More, and his wife, Maria Scrope, and their two sons,
the elder of whom was the Thomas More who wrote the life of his
great-grandfather. In the background there is a sideboard on the left,
as in the Basel sketch, with two vases of flowers, and musical
instruments, and the hanging clock is shown in its original position in
the centre; but on the left the framed portrait of a lady has been
introduced. In addition, coats of arms have been painted above seven of
the heads without regard to the background itself. In an account of the
Priory and its contents, communicated to the _Gentleman’s Magazine_ for
August 1799 (vol. lxix. pt. 2, p. 644), by an anonymous correspondent,
who describes the big picture in some detail, the portrait hanging on
the wall is said to represent the wife of Sir John More. There is a
large miniature painting of the picture, which was in the Tudor
Exhibition, 1890 (No. 1087),[673] lent by Major-General F. E. Sotheby,
and attributed to Peter Oliver, as it was by Walpole, who says: “The
painter of this exquisite little piece is unknown, but probably was
Peter Oliver.”[674] The picture and the miniature do not agree, however,
in all the details. The latter includes twelve figures, for Patenson is
introduced in the background peeping through a curtain in the centre.
Only two coats of arms are shown, over the heads of Sir Thomas More and
his father, and on the right-hand side, behind the later group of
portraits, in place of the wall with the lady’s portrait there is an
open archway through which is seen the Mores’ walled garden at Chelsea
and a distant view of London. According to the _Dictionary of National
Biography_, the large picture was the work of Rowland Lockey, who was
working about 1590-1610. He was a pupil of Nicholas Hilliard, and was
extolled by Richard Haydock (1598) and Francis Meres (1598) as among the
eminent artists then living in England. It is stated in Nichol’s
_History of Leicestershire_[675] that he painted “a neat piece in oil,
containing in one table the picture of Sir John More, a judge of the
King’s Bench, _temp._ Henry VIII, and of his wife, and of Sir Thomas
More, lord chancellor, his son and his wife, and of all the lineal heirs
male descended from them, together with each man’s wife unto that
present year.” The expression “neat,” however, would apply more aptly to
the large miniature group, and it is very possible that he was the
author of it.
VOL. I., PLATE 76.
[Illustration:
THE MORE FAMILY GROUP
The Version formerly at Burford Priory. Now in the possession of
Messrs. Parkenthorpe.
]
[Sidenote: THE PORTRAIT OF SIR THOMAS MORE]
There are separate studies for the heads of seven of the sitters in the
family picture among the Holbein drawings in Windsor Castle. Sir John
More,[676] Sir Thomas, his son John,[677] his daughters Elizabeth[678]
and Cecilia (Pl. 77),[679] Anne Cresacre,[680] and Margaret
Clement.[681] These are all larger than the majority of the sketches in
the collection, and on white unprimed paper. There are two drawings of
Sir Thomas (Pl. 78),[682] which, although the face is taken from the
same point of view, are not replicas, but distinctly separate studies;
the pose is slightly different, and the hair quite unlike, and it may
perhaps be conjectured that one of them is the study made for the Group,
and the other a later study made shortly before the artist left England.
In addition to the family picture, Holbein painted separate portraits of
Sir Thomas, Lady More, and, possibly, Margaret Roper. The portrait of
More is the well-known one belonging to Mr. Edward Huth,[683] which has
been frequently exhibited, most recently at the Burlington Fine Arts
Club in 1909 (No. 53). Before it came into the possession of the Huth
family it was in the collection of an Irish nobleman, from whom it was
acquired—in payment for a picture-cleaning bill, so it is said—by
Farrer, the picture-dealer, who sold it to Mr. Henry Huth for £1200. It
was probably the first work painted by Holbein after his arrival in
England, and finished early in 1527. It is based on the head in the
Windsor Collection, and the position corresponds with the figure in the
Basel sketch. It is a half-length, seated, three-quarters to the
spectator’s right, with dark hair, and clean-shaven, but the grey of the
moustache and beard indicated. He is dressed in black cap, black gown
lined with brown fur, with deep fur collar, and a golden collar of SS.
with portcullis clasps and Tudor rose pendant. His right elbow rests on
a table to the left, and he holds a folded paper in both hands. The
background consists of a green curtain with a gold fringe, looped back
by a gold cord. The date “MDXXVII” is inscribed on the edge of the
table.
This noble representation of a noble man is one of the finest portraits
painted by Holbein in this country. It has suffered somewhat in the
course of time, but still remains a wonderful study of character,
penetrating in its insight. The nobility of More’s nature, the strength
of his will, the gentleness of his disposition when not roused to just
anger, the firmness of the finely-cut lips, and the penetrating glance
of his bright eyes, have been mirrored by Holbein as though in a glass.
Both the statesman and the scholar stand revealed with that searching
power of seizing the essentials of a man’s nature which is one of the
greatest qualities of Holbein’s art.
VOL. I., PLATE 77.
[Illustration:
CECILIA HERON
_Drawing in black and coloured chalks_
WINDSOR CASTLE
]
VOL. I., PLATE 78.
[Illustration:
SIR THOMAS MORE
_Drawing in black and coloured chalks_
WINDSOR CASTLE
]
A portrait of Sir Thomas was in the Orleans Gallery in 1727, and a
second was in the possession of Lord Lumley in 1590, and was sold from
Lumley Castle in 1785, to Mr. Hay, of Savile Row.[684] The latter was
probably the one now belonging to Mr. Huth, and is the original from
which so many copies have been made.[685] The panel on which it is
painted measures 29 in. by 23½ in. There are also a variety of portraits
scattered about the European museums to which the name of Sir Thomas
More has been attached erroneously. The small portrait by Holbein of Sir
Henry Wyat, father of Sir Thomas Wyat, in the Louvre, was long regarded
as a likeness of More, and is still so described in the official
catalogue.[686] There is another small panel, in the Brussels Museum
(No. 641), to which the names of Holbein and More were attached on the
frame-label until quite recently, although both ascriptions are absurd.
It represents a bearded man with one hand thrust within the folds of his
cloak, and a small book held open with the fingers of the other, and a
small dog on the table in front of him. It was recognised as the work of
some second-rate French artist more than fifty years ago, and bears not
the slightest resemblance to Holbein’s style.[687] M. A. J. Wauters
suggests that it is the work of Nicolas Denisot (1515-1559), a French
poet and painter of modest capacities, who was in England for three
years as French tutor to the three daughters of the Protector Somerset.
Under his guidance these young ladies wrote Latin elegies to Margaret of
Navarre, which were published under his editorship. A portrait of
Margaret, dated 1544, is attributed by M. Bouchot to Denisot. More
recently this work has been attributed to Corneille de Lyon, and is said
to be a portrait of Henry Patenson. There is certainly a slight likeness
between it and the head of Patenson in the Basel study for the More
Family Group.
[Sidenote: LEGEND ABOUT A PORTRAIT OF MORE]
A curious legend with regard to a portrait of More which Henry VIII is
said to have possessed, was contributed to the _Athenæum_ by Dr.
Augustus Jessop.[688] He found it among the papers of the Hon. Roger
North, in a somewhat elaborate “Register of Pictures” at one time in
North’s custody. In giving an account of a portrait of Pope Gregory XIV,
which his brother Montague had bought at Marseilles in 1693, he adds:
“This picture is judged to be by Pomerantius, painter to Gregory XIV,
who was in England _tempore_ Henry VIII, concerning whom the following
story is told. _The picture of Sir T. More done by Holbein_ was in
Whitehall when the news was brought to Henry VIII that Sir Thomas More
was beheaded. And the King fell into a passion upon the news, and
running to the picture, _tore it down and threw it out of the window.
And the picture in the fall broke in three pieces_; but Pomerantius,
then coming by, took it up, carried it home, and so put it together and
mended the colours that it is not to be discovered that it was ever
broke.”
However much or however little truth there may be in this story, which
was apparently current in the seventeenth century, it is certain, in any
case, that “Pomerantius” can have had nothing to do with its rescue.
Niccolo Circignano (Il Pomarancio) was born in 1519, and would be a lad
of sixteen at the time when More was executed; nor is there any evidence
to show that he was ever in England. He appears to have spent the
greater part of his life in Rome. The account errs, also, in saying that
he was painter to Gregory XIV, for he died in 1590, aged seventy-two, in
which year Gregory XIV became Pope. North’s story is very similar to the
one told by Baldinucci.[689] The latter, who describes the picture as a
stupendous portrait, says that Henry kept it in an apartment together
with those of some other eminent men. “It happened that on the very day
of the ex-chancellor’s death (after the king had reproached her), the
wicked Queen Anne Boleyn cast her eyes upon it, and seeing the
expressive face of her enemy looking at her as if he were still
living—she never forgave his refusal to be present at her wedding—she
was seized with a feeling of either horror or remorse, and unable to
endure the steady gaze and the reproaches of her own conscience, she
threw open the window of the palace, and exclaiming, ‘Oh me! the man
seems to be still alive,’ flung the picture into the street: a passer-by
picked it up and carried it away, and eventually it found a
resting-place in Rome, where in Baldinucci’s time it was still preserved
in the Palazzo de’ Crescenzi.”[690] If this story has any foundation in
fact, it is possible that Circignano may have put the picture in order
after it reached Rome; but it can hardly have been the one belonging to
Mr. Huth, as Dr. Jessop suggested. Wornum was of opinion that this
legendary work might possibly be identified with an unnamed portrait by
Holbein mentioned by an earlier Italian writer than Baldinucci,
Francesco Scannelli, who, in an account of “an ultramontane painter
named Olbeno,”[691] after praising the portrait of Morette, then in the
gallery of the Duke of Modena, for its exact imitation of nature, says:
“A similar excellence is shown in the small portrait by the same master,
now at Rome in the possession of Monsignor Campori.” Mr. Wornum also
suggested that this small work praised by Scannelli might be identical
with the portrait of Sir Henry Wyat in the Louvre, which at the time he
was writing (1867) was generally regarded as a portrait of More.
[Sidenote: MINIATURE OF SIR THOMAS MORE]
Holbein’s work as a miniature painter is dealt with in a later chapter,
but while speaking of the portraits of More, it is impossible to omit
reference to the exceedingly fine miniature painting of him to which
attention was first called by Dr. Williamson.[692] It was then in the
possession of the Quicke family, of Newton St. Cyres, Devon; but in July
1905, it was sold at Messrs. Christie’s by the order of the trustees of
the late Mr. John Quicke, and passed into the collection of the late Mr.
J. Pierpont Morgan. In position, dress, and accessories it bears a close
resemblance to Mr. Huth’s picture, upon which it may have been
based.[693] It is circular, 2⅜ in. in diameter, painted on thin paper,
mounted on a playing card, and is contained in a metal and enamel frame.
On the back of the card, in a hand very little later than the date of
the portrait, is written the one word “Holben,” while on the reverse of
the frame is inscribed “THOMAS MORUS CANCELLARIVS HOLBEIN PINX.” The
background is bright blue. For close upon one hundred years it had been
in the house in Devonshire, and had attached to its frame a small scrap
of paper, on which was written, in a script of the early Stuart period,
the information as to whom it represented, and by whom it was painted.
The Ropers were connected with the Quickes by marriage, and as the
connection dates from a period soon after the death of Sir Thomas More,
the family tradition which states that the portrait has been handed down
from the time when the great statesman perished on the scaffold has
every likelihood of being true.
It has usually been asserted that the portrait of Sir Thomas More is the
only independent portrait of a member of the More family painted by
Holbein, with the possible exception of the panel at Knole, which by
some is regarded as a likeness of Margaret Roper. There was, however, a
small panel portrait, 14 in. by 10 in., exhibited at the Royal Academy
Winter Exhibition, 1910 (No. 106), as by Holbein, lent by General Lord
Methuen, which is undoubtedly a portrait of Lady More. It was catalogued
under the erroneous title of “Mrs. Anne Roper,” with a note which stated
that it “has also been thought to be a portrait by Mabuse, of Margaret,
Countess of Richmond and Derby, mother of Henry VIII.” There was no Mrs.
Anne Roper in Holbein’s day; and the “Anne” is probably a mistake for
“Margaret” on the part of the person who first misnamed the picture. The
portrait really represents Margaret Roper’s stepmother, as a comparison
with the head of Lady More in the Basel sketch conclusively proves.
There is a strong likeness between the two, and the position of the
figure, with the head slightly bent down, and an open book held in both
hands on her lap, is the same in both. It is a half-length figure,
seated to the left, with a dark dress trimmed with fur and red
under-sleeves, black angular head-dress with black fall, and a white cap
underneath. She wears a triple gold chain round her neck, with crucifix
attached, and a medallion brooch with three pendant pearls. The
background is a dark blue-green. The brushwork is weak and hesitating,
but it is possibly a much-damaged and repainted original panel by
Holbein, though practically nothing of the master’s own handiwork is now
visible. If not a badly-damaged original, it must be a nearly
contemporary copy from a lost picture by him, rather than one taken from
the figure in the Nostell Priory version. Curiously enough, the use of
the name “Anne” in conjunction with Roper—Lady More’s name was
“Alice”—is also to be found on the back of a miniature after Holbein in
the Royal Collection, which at one time, before the inscription was
uncovered, was said to represent Queen Katherine of Aragon. It is
inscribed in two lines—“Anna Roper Thomæ Mori Filia. W. Hollar pinxit
post Holbeinium, 1652.” Here the “Anne” is evidently a mistake for
“Margaret” or “Mar.,” perhaps made by Hollar himself when copying the
original; or, possibly, the original may have been a portrait of Lady
More, a companion miniature to the one already described of Sir Thomas,
to which an erroneous title had become attached before Hollar was
employed to copy it.[694]
The portrait of Margaret Roper at Knole, which for many years has been
generally known as Queen Katherine of Aragon, was exhibited by Lord
Sackville at the Burlington Fine Arts Club in 1909 (No. 44).[695] The
same portrait was lent, as “Queen Katherine,” to the National Portrait
Exhibition in 1866 (No. 78), by the Countess Delawarr. It is probably a
nearly contemporary copy of a lost original by Holbein, and corresponds
closely, excepting for slight differences in the hands, with the figure
in the Basel sketch. It is a three-quarters length, on panel, 25½ in. by
19½ in., the figure turned three-quarters to the left, with
diamond-shaped hood embroidered with gold, a square-cut black and white
dress, edged with jewels, over a transparent chemisette, and cloth of
gold sleeves. A string of black beads and a fine gold chain are round
her neck, and a cinquefoil jewel at her breast. She holds a book open
with both hands, on a table in front of her. The inscription, “Queen
Cathrine,” is in an eighteenth-century hand.
[Sidenote: DRAWING OF AN ENGLISH LADY]
There is a brilliant drawing of an English lady by Holbein in the
collection bequeathed by Mr. George Salting to the nation (Pl. 79),
which was included in the same exhibition at the Burlington Fine Arts
Club (No. 72), a study in black and red chalks, heightened with white,
and reinforced with Indian ink, upon pale pink-tinted paper.[696] The
sheet has been cut round the outline by some vandal, but the drawing
itself is entirely free from the retouching which disfigures certain of
the Windsor heads. The high lights on the cheek, nose, and eyes are put
in with white, and red chalk is used sparingly on the lips and
elsewhere. The band of hair which shows beneath the coif is washed with
yellowish brown. It has been suggested by more than one critic that it
is a portrait of Margaret Roper, but as Mr. Campbell Dodgson, who
contributed a note upon it for the Vasari Society, points out, so far as
the evidence of the Basel drawing goes, the identification appears
possible, but not convincing. It is not one of the preliminary studies
for the picture itself, which were done on white paper, and if it
represents Margaret Roper, she must have sat again to Holbein after his
return to England in 1532. According to the same authority, it is
probably the “Portrait of a Lady,” lot 48 in the Jonathan Richardson
sale, 1746, in which case it was bought by Knapton, whose drawings were
sold in 1804. Later on it was in the collections of the Marquis of
Stafford and Lord Ronald Sutherland Gower. It is certainly one of the
very finest Holbein drawings in existence. “No portrait-study of a
woman,” says Sir Claude Phillips, “even in the great Windsor series,
equals this in the spiritual beauty which illumines and transforms—or
rather interprets—a presentment of quiet and unforced realism. But
rarely the great portraitist allows himself thus to lay bare for the
beholder the inner workings of the soul; as a rule he contents himself
with a supreme truth which is not infrequently as difficult to unravel
as Nature herself.”[697]
Finally, there is a picture belonging to the Bray family of Shere,
which, from an old inscription on the frame, is said to be a portrait of
Margaret, whose daughter was one of the four wives of Sir Edward
Bray.[698] The likeness to the Basel sketch, however, is not very
evident, and the picture has no pretence to be by Holbein. The sitter
wears a close-fitting white cap with long ends falling on her breast,
and holds a rosary attached to a large circular ornament which forms
part of her girdle. The background is a landscape, with a view of the
bend of a wide river running between high cliffs.[699]
VOL. I., PLATE 79.
[Illustration:
PORTRAIT OF AN ENGLISH LADY
_Drawing in black and red chalk, and Indian ink_
SALTING BEQUEST, BRITISH MUSEUM
]
------------------------------------------------------------------------