THE FIRST VISIT TO ENGLAND: OTHER PORTRAITS AND DECORATIVE WORK
Holbein’s work for the temporary Banqueting House at Greenwich—The “Plat
of Tirwan”—Portraits of Sir Henry and Lady Guldeford—William Warham,
Archbishop of Canterbury—John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester—Thomas and
John Godsalve—Niklaus Kratzer, the astronomer—Undated portraits—Sir
Bryan Tuke—Reskimer—Sir Henry Wyat—Sir Thomas and Lady Eliot—Drawing
of an unknown man at Chatsworth.
POSSIBLY one of the causes which prevented the immediate completion of
the large picture of the More family in the spring of 1527 was the
commission Holbein received at this time for decorative work of an
important nature, for which he obtained payment from the royal purse.
Early in 1527 negotiations were in progress between Henry VIII and
Francis I for an alliance, which was to be strengthened in the future by
the marriage of the Princess Mary, then eleven years of age, and
heir-presumptive to the English throne, with either Francis himself or
one of his sons. The ratification of this alliance was celebrated at
Greenwich on Sunday, the 5th of May 1527, by a series of festivities
with which Henry entertained the French ambassadors. A mass, at which
the King and ambassadors swore to observe the league, was followed by a
tournament, and, in the evening, a grand banquet, in a magnificent
building, specially erected for the occasion, in the decoration of which
there is every reason to believe that Holbein took a leading part.
Hall, in his _Triumphant Reigne of Kyng Henry the VIII_, published in
1548, gives a long description of this banqueting house, and its
contents, from which a short extract may be quoted here:—
“The Kyng against that night had caused a banket house to bee made on
the one syde of the tylt yarde at Grenewyche of an hundreth foote of
length and XXX foote bredth, the roofe was purple cloth full of roses
and Pomgarnettes, the wyndowes were al clere stories with currious
monneles strangely wrought, the Jawe peces and crestes were karved with
Vinettes and trails of savage worke, and richely gilted with gold and
Byse, thys woorke corbolying bare the candelstyckes of antyke woorke
whiche bare little torchettes of white waxe, these candelstickes were
polished lyke Aumbre: at the one syde was a haute place for herawldes
and minstrelles.” Then, after bestowing his admiration on the cupboards
of gold and silver plate, he continues his description of the building:
“At the nether ende were twoo broade arches upon thre Antike pillers all
of gold burnished swaged and graven full of Gargills and Serpentes,
supportying the edifices the Arches were vawted with Armorie, al of Bice
and golde, and above the Arches were made many sondri Antikes and
divises.”
“When supper was done,” he adds later, “the kyng, the quene and the
ambassadors ... rose and went out of the banket chambre bi the forsaied
Arches, and when they were betwene the uttermoste dore and the Arches
the kyng caused them to turne backe and loke on that syde of the Arches,
and there they sawe how Tyrwin was beseged, and the very maner of every
mans camp, very connyingly wrought, whiche woorke more pleased them then
the remembrying of the thyng in dede. From thens they passed by a long
galerie richely hanged into a chambre faire and large.” In this chamber,
after a Latin oration and other set recitations, some hours were spent
in masking and dancing, after which a return was made to the
banquet-house for a second supper. “And after that all was doen the kyng
and all other went to rest, for the night was spent, and the day even at
the breakyng.... These two houses ... the kyng commaunded should stand
still, for thre or foure daies, that al honest persones might see and
beholde the houses and riches, and thether came a great nombre of
people, to see and behold the riches and costely devices.”
[Sidenote: THE BANQUETING HOUSE]
This temporary building was apparently the most elaborate of its kind
erected in England during the reign of Henry VIII, and it may be taken
for certain that Holbein had much to do with it, both as regards work
from his own brush, and also in the supervision of a number of other
painters and decorators employed upon it. The accounts of the expenses
incurred in its building are still preserved in the Record Office, and
abstracts from them are published in the _Calendars of Letters and
Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII._ More detailed
abstracts are given by Mr. F. M. Nichols, F.S.A., who went through the
original documents most carefully, in a paper read before the Society of
Antiquaries, on March 31, 1898.[700]
Throughout these detailed accounts of the wages paid by Richard Gibson,
there is constant mention of one “Master Hans,” and however common such
a Christian name may have been in Germany, there is no record of any
other foreign artist in England at this period named Hans but Holbein,
who elsewhere is more than once referred to as Master Hans. Sir Henry
Guldeford, comptroller of the King’s household, an intimate friend of
More, and a correspondent of Erasmus, had official charge of the
erection of this banquet-house, and his portrait was painted by Holbein
in the same year, and possibly at about the same time, for Guldeford is
represented as wearing his chain as a Knight of the Garter, which honour
was bestowed upon him on April 24, 1527. He must thus have had full
knowledge of Holbein’s capabilities, and would naturally turn to him for
assistance on this occasion, when everything had to be done in a hurry,
and as many painters as possible pressed into the service. Then again,
Sir Henry Wyat, treasurer of the Chamber, whom Holbein also painted
during his first visit to England, was associated with Guldeford in the
building of this “banketing-house,” so that the painter would have a
second friend at court. It seems practically certain, therefore, that
Holbein was the “Master Hans” of the accounts.
Work was begun on the 15th January, 1527, and about a dozen painters
were employed for the next three weeks, at wages ranging from 6_d._ to
12_d._ a day. Only one of them, Robert Wrytheoke, received a shilling a
day. He was a maker of moulds and casts, and supplied the plaster
figures and ornamental pillars. On Friday, the 8th February, the
following entry appears for the first time:—
“Master Nycolas at the kyngs plessyer.
“Master Hans the day iiii._s._”[701]
This entry is repeated, with only four days’ interval, until Saturday
the 3rd of March. According to Mr. Nichols, the same distinction between
the terms of the two painters’ employment is kept up throughout all the
entries, the meaning of which appears to be that while Holbein’s payment
was fixed by agreement at 4_s._ a day, the remuneration of Master
Nycolas was left to be subsequently settled at the discretion of his
employers.
In the course of the work Holbein came in contact with many of the chief
English painters and a number of the foreign artists in Henry’s service,
and it is interesting to note, as some indication of the estimation in
which he was already held by certain of the court officials, that he was
more highly paid than any of his associates. Among those who assisted in
the work were John Browne, the King’s serjeant-painter, who supplied
much of the material; “Vincent Vulp and Ellys Carmyan, Italian
painters,” who received 20_s._ a week; John Demyans (Giovanni da Maiano)
and the “Italian painters and gilders, Nicholas Florentine, at 2_s._,
and Domyngo (Domenico), at 16_d._ day and night.” This Nicholas of
Florence was probably the same man as the Master Nycolas mentioned above
as associated with Holbein. Among the casters of lead employed were two
other Italians, Archangell and Raphael, while John Rastall supplied
“divers necessaries bought for the trimming of the Father of Heaven,
lions, dragons, and greyhounds holding candlesticks.” A number of other
names are included, chiefly English mercers, embroiderers, saddlers,
plumbers, hosiers, and other tradesmen.
Detailed accounts of the materials used are given, and frequent entries
occur of colours “spent by Master Hans and his company on the roof”—“Mr.
Hans and the painters on the four cloths”—“Black collars for Mr. Hans,
3_s._ 4_d._”—and so on. These extracts seem to show that Holbein was
employed to direct all the painters and gilders engaged, and no doubt
the decorations were largely of his design. It has been impossible, so
far, to identify Master Nycolas, then in the King’s service, who worked
with him. He cannot have been Nicolas Bellin, who was occupied at
Fontainebleau at this period, and did not visit England until some ten
years later. The only other Italian named Nicolas mentioned in the State
Papers was Nicolas Lasora, who, in 1532, was employed on the decoration
of Westminster Palace.[702]
[Sidenote: “THE PLAT OF TIRWAN”]
Holbein and Nycolas were thus occupied at Greenwich for nineteen days,
with the interval of one Sunday’s rest, having been kept at work during
two other Sundays, when the ordinary workmen were taking holiday.
Holbein’s daily attendance at the Banqueting House appears to have
ceased on Sunday, the 3rd of March, though this was by no means the end
of his connection with the decoration of the building. For the next
month he was busily engaged either in London or at Chelsea in painting a
large composition for the decoration of the back of the triumphal
arch—the picture spoken of in such high terms by Hall, showing “how
Tyrwin was beseged.” This picture was so far advanced by the 11th March
that it and a number of other painted canvases were placed temporarily
in position for the inspection of the King. Holbein had completed his
particular share in the work by the 4th of April, when the picture was
fetched from London by Lewis Demoron, who received 16_d._, “for his
bote-hire to London for fetching of the plat of Tirwan.” The complete
decoration of the building was not finished till the 5th May, on the eve
of the festivities, and no doubt Holbein resumed his supervision, though
it is not mentioned in the accounts. For his large painting, which
occupied him for about three weeks, he received the payment of £4,
10_s._, which is equal to about £60 or £70 of modern money. The entry in
the accounts runs as follows: “Paid to Master Hans for the payneting of
the plat of Tirwan which standeth on the baksyde of the grete arche, in
grete iiij_l._ x_s._”—the words “in grete” meaning that he received a
sum down for the work, instead of a daily wage.
Mr. F. M. Nichols first called attention to this work of Holbein’s in
_The Hall of Lawford Hall_, published in 1891, and in the same year Mr.
Alfred Beaver, in his _Memorials of Old Chelsea_, referred to some of
the details in Dr. Brewer’s abstracts. Mr. Beaver was of opinion that
the old picture of the “Battle of Spurs” at Hampton Court, in earlier
days attributed to Holbein, was the very “plat of Tirwan” in question.
This, however, is not correct. “The Battle of Spurs” was certainly not
painted by Holbein, but by some much inferior artist. It has been
attributed to Vincent Volpe and other of the minor foreign artists then
in England, and probably was painted in commemoration of the victory
shortly after the battle itself, which took place in 1513. It is on
wood, and measures 4 ft. 4 in. high by 8 ft. 6 in. wide, whereas
Holbein’s picture was on canvas, and was evidently much larger, for we
learn from Richard Gibson’s accounts that it took twenty-four ells of
fine canvas “for the lyning of the baksyde of the grete Arche wheruppon
Tirwin is staynyd,” at a cost of 15 shillings. “It thus appears,” says
Mr. Nichols, “that about 90 feet of fine canvas (which we may suppose to
have been a yard or not much less in width) was required to cover the
back of the arch, and the main decoration of this widespread surface of
some 20 or 30 square yards appears to have been the picture in
question.”
The two pictures differed materially in subject. It is to be gathered
from Hall’s account that Holbein’s painting represented the actual siege
of Terouenne, whereas the Hampton Court panel shows the pursuit of the
French cavalry and their surrender to the English, though the town of
Terouenne, with its fortifications and houses, is shown plainly in the
middle distance. In any case the subject, the defeat of the French by
the English, seems to have been a singularly inappropriate one for the
particular occasion for which it was painted, the ratification of a
solemn treaty between England and France, and there was little delicacy
in Henry’s humour in pointing it out to his guests! Even Hall intimates
that they were more pleased with the painting of it than with the
remembrance of the incident. The subject may have been suggested by
Guldeford, who was Henry’s standard-bearer at Terouenne, and knighted
after Tournay. The picture itself has disappeared, like so many of
Holbein’s large decorative works; not even a study for it has been so
far discovered.
It is somewhat extraordinary, considering Henry’s evident appreciation
of this “plat,” and the interest he took in the general decoration of
the Banqueting House, that Holbein was not at once taken into the royal
service. His work at Greenwich must have afforded ample proof of his
powers as an artist, and the King was only too anxious to offer
inducements to the best foreign painters to settle in England. It has
been suggested that this lack of recognition was due to jealousy on the
part of certain other painters then employed about the Court, but this
does not appear a very plausible explanation, for Henry was by no means
a man to be influenced in this way. This lack of royal patronage is all
the more extraordinary when it is remembered that at the time Holbein
was at work as a portrait-painter for several of Henry’s favourite
servants, and that in all probability the portrait of More, if not
others, had been seen by the King, who is said to have been fond of
paying unexpected visits to the future Lord Chancellor at Chelsea.
Whatever the reason, however, the fact remains that Holbein’s name does
not appear in the royal accounts until much later, nor is there any
portrait of the King by him of this date, or of Queen Katherine, or any
other evidence to show that he held any official position at Court
during his first residence in England.
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF SIR HENRY GULDEFORD]
There are only three portraits by Holbein which bear the date 1527—those
of Sir Thomas More, Sir Henry Guldeford, and Archbishop Warham; and only
two of the date 1528—Niklaus Kratzer, the King’s German astronomer, and
the double portrait of Thomas Godsalve of Norwich, and his son John,
though several others, undated, may be ascribed to this period with some
certainty. The portrait of Guldeford (Pl. 80),[703] in the royal
collection at Windsor Castle, was probably begun shortly after Holbein’s
work at Greenwich was finished, and was painted to commemorate the
sitter’s advancement as a Knight of the Garter on April 24, a few days
before the festivities took place, as he is wearing the chain of the
order across his shoulders.
He is shown at half-length, the body turned slightly to the spectator’s
right, the light coming in from the left. He is clean shaven, with bushy
hair covering his ears, and wears a doublet of patterned cloth of gold,
cut square, above a white shirt. Over it is a dark gown with a wide
collar of brown fur and short sleeves, leaving the gold sleeves of his
doublet uncovered. The thumb of his left hand is thrust into his girdle,
and in his right hand he holds the white staff of his office as
Comptroller of the Household. On the brim of his flat black cap is a
circular medallion the design on which cannot now be deciphered. In the
Print Room of the British Museum, however, there is an etching of this
hat-badge, or “singular ornament on an escutcheon,” as a note upon the
print terms it, which apparently was made when the picture was at
Kensington Palace early in the eighteenth century, from which it appears
that it represented a clock, a pair of compasses, and other instruments.
Guldeford wears a thin double gold chain round his neck, the lower part
of which is hidden by his doublet, and over his shoulders the Collar of
the Order of the Garter with the pendant George. The background is dark
green, with a dark green curtain on the spectator’s right, hanging by
rings on an iron rod, which extends right across the upper part of the
picture, and on the left a sprig of vine-tree foliage. In the upper
left-hand corner is painted a white label, on which is inscribed in
cursive letters: “ANNO D. MCCCCCXXVII. ETATIS SUÆ XL IX.” The age
painted on the cartel is somewhat perplexing, as it indicates that the
sitter was forty-nine in 1527, whereas during the proceedings relating
to the divorce of Queen Katherine,[704] Guldeford himself declared that
his age in 1529, two years later, was only forty. Mr. Law suggests as a
solution that at some time or other, in some process of restoration, the
figures have been tampered with, and the fact that the XL is separated
from the IX by a blank space of about a figure in width, adds some
probability to his suggestion, while the face seems scarcely to be that
of a man as old as forty-nine.[705]
The masterly original drawing for this portrait, in the Windsor
Collection,[706] is inscribed “Harry Guldeford Knight,” and this,
according to the same writer, may be the sole authority for the name
bestowed on the picture, the untrustworthiness of some of these
inscriptions being well known. Hollar’s engraving of the portrait,
however, which was made in 1647, is inscribed with the name of
Guldeford; and the fact that there is a companion engraving of his wife,
entitled “the Lady Guldeforde,” and inscribed “Holbein pinxit, W. Hollar
fecit, ex collectione Arundeliana A^o 1647, Ætatis 28, A^o 1527,”
confirms the claims of this picture to be an authentic portrait of Sir
Henry Guldeford. Both portraits were in the Arundel Collection, and are
entered in the 1655 inventory as “Ritratto del Cavaglier Guildford” and
“Ritratto della moglie sua.” They came to the Earl with other works by
Holbein from the Lumley Collection. In addition to these portraits, Lord
Arundel also possessed a miniature or small oil painting of
Guldeford—“Ritratto del Cavaglier Guiltfort in piccolo.” It is possible
that this small portrait is the one which Hollar copied, as his
engravings of Guldeford and his wife are both roundels.
VOL. I., PLATE 80.
[Illustration:
SIR HENRY GULDEFORD
1527
WINDSOR CASTLE
]
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF SIR HENRY GULDEFORD]
There is a miniature at Windsor, a portrait obviously of the same man,
in which the face is younger, and the collar of the Garter is absent,
which apparently was painted some years before Holbein came to England,
and may be the one formerly in the Arundel Collection.[707] A small copy
of the Windsor picture, inscribed “Ser. Harry Gylldford,” was lent to
the Tudor Exhibition, 1890 (No. 146), by the Hon. H. Tyrwhitt
Wilson.[708] Guldeford was the only son of Sir Richard Guldeford, K.G.,
by his second wife, Joan, sister of Sir Nicholas Vaux, afterwards Lord
Vaux of Harrowden. He was a great favourite of the King’s, and his
companion in all his sports and pastimes. He received many honours from
the royal hands, and became successively Squire of the Body, King’s
Standard-Bearer, Knight Banneret, Master of the Revels, Comptroller of
the Household, and Master of the Horse. He remained in high favour with
Henry, in spite of the enmity of Anne Boleyn, caused by his opposition
to the divorce except after a papal sentence. He died in 1533, shortly
after Holbein’s second arrival in England.
This portrait, which is one of the finest of Holbein’s works now in the
Royal Collection, is a dignified and lifelike representation, full of
character, while the details of the rich and elaborate dress, and the
sumptuous collar of the Garter, are painted with exquisite truth and
care. The face has a peculiar yellow tint, concerning which Woltmann
remarks: “It has been taken for granted that the head has been painted
over; but such is not the case—on the contrary, it is in a remarkably
good state of preservation. The colour must have been a peculiarity of
the person portrayed. This may be inferred from its being indicated in a
like manner in the drawing at Windsor Castle.”[709]
Little is known of the history of the panel. In 1590 it, or a replica of
it, was in the possession of Lord Lumley at Lumley Castle, together with
the companion panel of Lady Guldeford, and it is described in the
inventory as “Of Sir Henry Guilfourd, Coumptroller to K’. H’. 8, drawne
by Haunce Holbyn.” It reappears, as noted above, in the seventeenth
century in the Earl of Arundel’s Collection, while in the eighteenth
more than one reference to it in contemporary literature shows that it
was then in Kensington Palace.[710] It was engraved in a small circle in
Anstis’ _Order of the Garter_, 1724, in which his age is given as forty;
by Vertue in 1726 for Knight’s _Life of Erasmus_, and again in 1791 by
Schiavonetti, after a drawing by S. Harding, and described as “from an
original picture by Holbein in the possession of Sir William
Burrell”—that is, from the copy, possibly an almost contemporary
one,[711] which was destroyed in the Knepp Castle fire in January 1904,
together with one of Lady Guldeford, and other replicas of well-known
Holbein portraits.
VOL. I., PLATE 81.
[Illustration:
JOHN FISHER
Bishop of Rochester
_Drawing in black and coloured chalks_
WINDSOR CASTLE
]
[Illustration:
UNKNOWN ENGLISH LADY
_Drawing in black and coloured chalks_
BASEL GALLERY
]
VOL. I., PLATE 82.
[Illustration:
UNKNOWN ENGLISHMAN
Bishop of Rochester
_Drawing in black and coloured chalks_
BASIL GALLERY
]
[Illustration:
UNKNOWN ENGLISH LADY
_Drawing in black and coloured chalks_
BASEL GALLERY
]
The portrait of Lady Guldeford,[712] lent by Mr. Frewen to the National
Portrait Exhibition at South Kensington in 1868, and to the Royal
Academy Winter Exhibition, 1880 (No. 171), was at Lumley Castle in 1590,
and is entered in the inventory as “Of the La. Guilfourd, wife to Sir
Harry Guilfourd, Coumptroller, drawne by Haunce Holbyn”; and at a later
period was in the Duke of Buckingham’s Collection at Stowe. This once
fine portrait has been much rubbed, repaired, and over-varnished, but
according to Sir George Scharf and the late Mr. F. G. Stephens, its
genuineness as a work of Holbein is unquestionable. This is proved, says
the latter,[713] “by the vigorous expression of the penetrating eyes of
the lady, the still evident luminosity of the flesh, the imperiousness
of the delicately cut nostrils, the exquisite execution of the details,
and the energy imparted to the much injured hands. The fine painting of
the sleeve of gold illustrates the practice of Holbein and his school in
employing leaf gold to impart lustre to the fabric.... The best proof of
the genuineness of ‘Lady Guildford’ is the exquisite execution of the
branch of vine in the background, a feature which appears in several of
Holbein’s paintings.... The Guildford portraits are both distinguished
by the energy of the motives they exhibit, the precision, mastery, and
complete softness of the modelling; this is the unfailing test of the
genuineness of work ascribed to Holbein.... Another test is supplied by
the flossy silk-like character of the hair and beards of the sitters
whenever the works have, as in the ‘Reskimer,’ escaped restoration.”
This portrait is now in the collection of Mr. W. C. Vanderbilt, New
York; and there is a good early miniature copy of it in the possession
of Mrs. Joseph,[714] which in earlier days was said to represent
Katherine of Aragon. That it is a portrait of Lady Guldeford, however,
is proved by Hollar’s engraving,[715] with which it is in close
agreement. There is a fine drawing of an English lady, in black and
coloured chalks, in the Basel Collection (Pl. 81 (2)),[716] which
appears to be a study for this portrait, though, if so, Holbein made
several slight alterations when he came to paint the picture. It shows
the six gold bands or chains which are looped across the lady’s breast
and carried over the shoulders, and the head-dress is the same. There is
a second study of a lady of Henry VIII’s Court at Basel (Pl. 82
(2)),[717] also in black and coloured chalks, which has considerable
facial likeness to Lady Guldeford, though there are slight differences
in the ornamentation of the angular head-dress and bodice. Two links of
a heavy chain are drawn in detail on the breast. In the same collection
there is a portrait drawing of this lady’s husband (Pl. 82 (1)),[718]
which in turn bears a considerable resemblance to the Windsor head of
Guldeford, while the dress, cap, and bushy hair over the ears are the
same. It is possible that these two drawings represent Sir Henry and his
wife.
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF WILLIAM WARHAM]
One of the finest of the earlier drawings in the Windsor Collection is
the magnificent head of William Warham, Archbishop of Canterbury,[719]
which, though badly rubbed and damaged, remains a wonderful example of
the truth and vividness of Holbein’s portraiture. It is on unprimed
paper, 17 in. high by 12 in. wide. It was natural that the painter
should turn to Warham for employment, not only through his close
friendship with Sir Thomas More, but as the friend also and generous
patron of Erasmus; and, no doubt, the artist carried with him from Basel
a letter of recommendation from the latter, who also some little time
before had sent his own portrait by Holbein as a gift to the Archbishop.
Warham was seventy years old when Holbein painted him, and had long
since retired from all active political life, having relinquished his
post as Lord Chancellor to Wolsey in 1515. He still, however, retained
his high ecclesiastical office, in spite of more than one indignity put
upon him by the Cardinal. He was a leading representative of the older
age then passing away, and his last days were far from happy ones.
There are two versions of Holbein’s portrait of him, almost identical,
and both based upon the Windsor drawing, one in Lambeth Palace[720] and
the other in the Louvre (Pl. 83).[721] He is represented at half-length,
seated, turned towards the left, his hands resting on a cushion covered
with gold brocade. He is dressed in his episcopal robes, with a deep fur
collar, and a black, closely-fitting cap. On the spectator’s right, on
the table, is an open service book, and farther back on a shelf, behind
the sitter’s left shoulder, are other books and his jewelled mitre; and
to the left a magnificent crucifix of gold and jewels. The background
consists of a curtain, which is yellowish brown in the Lambeth picture,
and green in the Louvre version. The latter is the more brilliant and
harmonious in colouring, and painted in a thicker impasto, the Lambeth
example being greyer in tone and more dryly executed, and, perhaps, more
carefully modelled. Both have suffered somewhat from the passage of
time, more particularly in the face, but both are evidently from
Holbein’s own hand, and are masterly studies of character, representing
the wrinkled old man, saddened by adversities, and by the modern
movements which he had not strength to stem, but always kindly and
generous to all scholars and others who needed his help, and a sincere
lover of learning. Both pictures have a cartel in the top right-hand
corner with the inscription “Anno Dm̅̅. MDxxvij. Etatis sue LXX.,” and
round the base of the crucifix the words “AVXILIVM MEVM A DEO” (My help
is from God). In the execution of the numerous details of the ornaments,
the jewels decorating the mitre, the patterns of the embroideries, the
lettering, and particularly in the figure of Christ on the crucifix, the
mastery of Holbein’s brush is everywhere in evidence. They are drawn
with the utmost delicacy and truth, and while adding to the
sumptuousness of the picture in no way detract the attention from the
nobility and dignity of the portrait itself.
VOL. I., PLATE 83.
[Illustration:
WILLIAM WARHAM, ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY
1527
LOUVRE, PARIS
]
[Sidenote: PORTRAITS OF WARHAM AND FISHER]
The Lambeth version is said to have been presented to Warham by Sir
Thomas More or by Holbein himself, though there is no reason to suppose
that it was not paid for in the usual way by the sitter. “It was lost
during the civil wars, but was recovered again, as was supposed, by Sir
William Dugdale, who restored it to Lambeth in the time of Archbishop
Sancroft.”[722] Walpole states that “Archbishop Parker entailed this,
and another of Erasmus, on his successors; they were stolen in the civil
war, but Juxon repurchased the former.”[723] The “Erasmus,” which did
not return to its original resting-place, was, no doubt, the one by
Holbein sent over by the sitter as a present to Warham. The same writer
says that the “Warham” was at one time in De Loo’s collection, and was
afterwards in the possession of Sir Walter Cope, who had several works
by Holbein, which passed by marriage to the Earl of Holland. The history
of the Louvre portrait is not known, but it belonged at one time to the
Newton family, and later on to Louis XIV. It is possible that it was
painted for Erasmus, and that it is the version which belonged to the
Earl of Arundel, which is entered in the 1655 inventory as “Warramus
Vescovo de Canterbury.” The Louvre picture, which is the larger of the
two, is considered by some critics to be the original painting, the
Lambeth version being a replica from Holbein’s brush; others hold that
the latter is the original and the better work of the two, but the point
is not easy of solution unless the two pictures could be exhibited side
by side. There are two other versions of the portrait at Lambeth Palace,
but both are inferior copies. A panel of far higher qualities was lent
by Viscount Dillon to the Tudor Exhibition, 1890 (No. 107),[724] and to
the Oxford Exhibition, 1904 (No. 21).[725] This picture, which is an
almost exact replica of the Louvre and Lambeth examples, has
considerable claims to be considered an original work which has
suffered, more particularly in the face and hands, from repainting. It
has a beautifully rich golden tone, and certain of the details, more
particularly the little gilded figure of Christ on the crucifix, are
drawn with too great a mastery to be from the hand of any copyist. The
writing on the cartellino in the background is also fine and full of
character, very unlike the work of an imitator. Some lack of strength in
the handling and characterisation of face and hands may, however, point
to a good, contemporary worker. Evelyn, in his _Diary_, 1664, mentions
this portrait at Ditchley as a head of a Pope.
Another high ecclesiastic, and friend of Erasmus and More, John Fisher,
Bishop of Rochester, was painted by Holbein during his first visit to
England, probably at about the same time as Warham. Unfortunately the
picture itself is missing, but three preliminary drawings for it are in
existence, one at Windsor (Pl. 81 (1)), a second in the British Museum,
and the third until recently in the possession of Mr. J. P. Heseltine.
The first,[726] in black and coloured chalks, is, perhaps, the finest,
the somewhat hard, ascetic character of the face being rendered with
extraordinary expression with a few bold and forceful touches. The lines
of the body and dress are merely indicated in outline. He is wearing the
close-fitting black doctor’s cap, and the face, almost in full, is
turned slightly to the spectator’s left. At the bottom of the study is
the inscription, “Il Epyscop^o de resester fo tagliato il Cap^o l’an^o
1535” (The Bishop of Rochester beheaded in 1535), which seems to
indicate that the drawing was once in the possession of some Italian.
The drawing in the British Museum[727] is more carefully finished, and
was probably made from the Windsor sketch. It was once in the Richardson
Collection, and was bequeathed to the Museum by the Rev. C. M.
Cracherode. It has no inscription. The powerful drawing which formed
part of the Heseltine collection, dispersed in 1912, is on a reddish
ground.
In this drawing Holbein has accomplished, with the simplest means, one
of his finest and most subtle studies of character. The pale face, and
thin, determined lips, with a faint, scornful smile upon them, and the
brightness of the eyes, still undimmed in spite of his age, fully
express the character of one who was ever ready to do battle for his
opinions, and to die rather than betray his convictions. Mingled with
this obstinacy the painter has expressed that kindliness towards all who
came in contact with him, which Erasmus extolled so highly, and that
personal purity of life which, together with his profound learning,
formed one of his most striking characteristics. Froude says of him:
“Fisher was the only one of the prelates for whom it is possible to feel
esteem. He was weak, superstitious, pedantic, and even cruel towards the
Protestants. But he was a sincere man, living in honest fear of evil, so
far as he understood what evil was, and he could rise above the menaces
of temporal suffering under which his brethren of the episcopal bench
sank so rapidly into humility and subjection.”[728]
As stated above, the portrait which Holbein must evidently have painted
from this preliminary study has disappeared. The picture in St. John’s
College, Cambridge, which was lent to the Tudor Exhibition in 1890 (No.
138), was ascribed to Holbein in the catalogue, but is not by him,
though it may be a copy of the lost original. He is shown with a staff
in one hand and a glove in the other, and it is inscribed “A^o Ætatis
74,” which, as Fisher was born in 1456, would date the panel 1528.
Dallaway, in his annotations to Walpole, notes another version at
Didlington, Norfolk.[729] There was a second portrait of Fisher in the
Tudor Exhibition (No. 61), lent by the Hon. H. Tyrwhitt Wilson, a
half-length, holding a prayer book in both hands.
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF THE GODSALVES]
Only two paintings by Holbein are known with the date 1528—the double
portrait in the Dresden Gallery and the “Kratzer” in the Louvre. The
former,[730] a small square panel (Pl. 84), represents Thomas Godsalve,
of Norwich, and his son John, afterwards knighted. The figures,
considerably less than life-size, are shown to the waist, seated at a
table, turned slightly to the spectator’s right. The father, a
ruddy-faced old man, dressed in the usual black cap and dark overcoat or
robe with a heavy fur collar, holds a quill pen, with both hands resting
on a sheet of paper in front of him, on which he has just written:
“Thomas Godsalve de Norwico Etatis sue anno quadragesimo septo.” The
son, dressed in a similar costume, is seated on the spectator’s left, a
little behind his father. He wears no cap upon his dark hair, which,
like the older man’s, is long, hiding the ears, and cut straight across
the forehead. In his left hand, partly concealed in the folds of his
cloak, he holds a paper. Both men are clean shaven, and wear white
shirts, that of the son being decorated round the neck with black
Spanish work. An inkpot is on the table, and in the left upper corner,
above Sir John’s head, a cartellino is affixed to the plain background
bearing the date—“Anno Dm. M. D. xxviij.” The picture is a fine example
of Holbein’s work at this period, and is in an excellent state of
preservation.[731] There is no drawing of Thomas Godsalve among the
Windsor studies, but of the son there is an exceptionally fine one (Pl.
85).[732] It is carried out in body-colours, and is much further
advanced than the other drawings in the collection, and, though somewhat
rubbed, is a most masterly example of Holbein’s veracity of portraiture.
It cannot be regarded, however, with certainty, as a preliminary study
for the Dresden picture for two reasons. In the first place, the sitter
appears to be several years older than in that picture, and although the
figure is seated and the position of the body is much the same, the
poise of the head is different, and the face is turned more directly
towards the spectator, while the hands, holding a sheet of paper, rest
on a table or rail in front of him; and in the second place, it is
practically a finished drawing, and is perhaps an example of Holbein’s
occasional practice of preparing his portraits on paper or parchment,
which he afterwards fastened to the panel before giving them the final
touches. He wears a coat of violet open in front and showing the white
shirt, and over it a black gown trimmed with yellow sable, and a black
cap with a circular badge, of which the design is not indicated. The
hair and eyebrows are finished with a hair pencil. The background is a
plain one of azure blue. He has a thin face, a large and sharp nose, and
blue eyes, with a scanty growth of beard on his shaven chin. He gazes at
the spectator with a serious, thoughtful expression; in which Woltmann
saw something puritanical, no doubt because Godsalve, as he notes,
presented the King with a New Testament as a New Year’s gift in
1539.[733] In the following year he gave a perfumed box. Blomefield[734]
mentions this drawing as being in his time in the Closet at Kensington
Palace. There is a miniature of Godsalve in the Bodleian Library.
VOL. I., PLATE 84.
[Illustration:
THOMAS AND JOHN GODSALVE
1528
ROYAL PICTURE GALLERY, DRESDEN
]
VOL. I., PLATE 85.
[Illustration:
SIR JOHN GODSALVE
Drawing in black and coloured chalks and water-colour.
Reproduced by gracious permission of H.M. the King.
_Windsor Castle_
]
The father, Thomas Godsalve, who died in 1542, was registrar of the
consistory court at Norwich, and the owner of landed property in
Norfolk. He was an intimate friend of Thomas Cromwell. In a letter to
the latter, dated Norwich, November 6, 1531, after thanking Cromwell for
kindnesses shown to his son, he says: “I send you half a dozen swans of
my wife’s feeding”;[735] and a year or two later he sends “six swans and
a maund with pears of my own grafting.”[736] The son, John Godsalve, who
died in 1556, became Clerk of the Signet to Henry VIII, and was present
at the siege of Boulogne. He was knighted at the coronation of Edward
VI, and a year or two later was made Comptroller of the Mint. Various
letters from him are included in the Calendars of State Papers. In one
of them (1533), addressed to Eustace, clerk of the works at Hampton
Court, he appears in the character of a “snapper-up of unconsidered
trifles.” “Send me,” he writes, “as many golden balls as you can
conveniently procure, and such fanes (vanes?) and other things at your
pleasure. Help the bearer into the spicery to have an antique which I
left there; of which he has the key. Send me also the head under the
stair, and whatsoever other things your gentle heart can lovingly depart
from.”[737] John Godsalve had some connection with the Steelyard, a
number of whose merchants were painted by Holbein, for in November 1532,
he and one William Blakenhall received a grant in survivorship of the
office of common meter of all cloths of gold and silver tissue,
“tynsett,” satin, damask, and other cloths and canvas of aliens and
others called “foreyns,” _alias_ “le Stilliarde,” in the city of London,
with the usual fees, &c.[738] He also obtained a small share of the
plunder from the monasteries, and, in July 1534, an annuity of £8 “to
him and his heirs for ever out of the issues of the manor of Stokesly,
in Rydham, Norfolk, in the King’s hands by the attainder of Thomas,
cardinal of York.”[739] In 1535 he received the offices of Constable and
Keeper of the Castle and Gaol of Norwich, succeeding Sir Henry Wyat and
Sir Thomas Boleyn in the posts.[740]
The portrait of Niklaus Kratzer,[741] of Munich, Henry’s German
astronomer, in the Louvre (Pl. 86), is a half-length figure placed
behind a table, which is covered with the instruments of his profession.
He wears the usual flat black cap, and a black coat or doublet open at
the neck, showing a glimpse of a red under-garment and white shirt, and
over all the prevailing dark overcoat or gown with fur collar. In his
right hand he holds a pair of compasses or dividers, and in his left a
decagonal sundial, like the one shown in the “Ambassadors” picture.
Behind him on the right various mathematical and astronomical
instruments are hanging on the wall, and others, including a cylindrical
sundial and an astrolabe, are placed on a shelf on the left. Among the
numerous objects on the table are scales and rulers, scissors, and his
seal, together with a sheet of paper with a Latin inscription giving his
name, his age, forty-one, and the date 1528. Part of this inscription is
confused and injured, and Holbein’s Latin was not of the best. The
Louvre catalogue gives the reading as: “Imago ad vivam effigiem expressa
Nicolai Kratzeri monacenssis q. (qui) bauarg. (bavarus) erat
quadragessimū ... annū tpr̃e (tempore) ilio gplebat (complebat) 1528.”
The illegible word after “quadragessimū” is given as “primo” in the
replica mentioned below. The light falls from the right on his face,
which, though rather heavy in features, is an interesting one, with an
indication of humour about the eyes and mouth, which is in accord with a
contemporary description of him in one of the letters of Nicolas
Bourbon, the poet, another of Holbein’s friends. The numerous
instruments and accessories are depicted with all the truth and loving
care in which Holbein delighted. Carel van Mander, who saw the picture
in London when in the possession of Andries de Loo, and speaks of it as
“een feer goedt Conterfeytsel en meesterlijck ghedan,” calls particular
attention to the beauty with which the instruments are delineated.
Kratzer was the hero of the story told by the same writer. When asked by
King Henry why he spoke English so badly, he replied, “Pardon, your
Majesty, but how can a man learn English in thirty years?”
Little is known about the history of the picture, which has suffered
somewhat severely from the passage of time. As noted, it was once in the
possession of De Loo, together with the Warham, the Thomas Cromwell, one
of the versions of Erasmus, and the More family group.[742] According to
Wornum,[743] it was formerly at Holland House;[744] and Walpole states,
erroneously, that there is a drawing for it among the Windsor
heads.[745] A replica or good contemporary copy was lent by Viscount
Galway to the Tudor Exhibition, 1890 (No. 129), in which the inscription
and date tally with the Louvre example. A miniature of Kratzer, in the
late Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan’s collection, is described in Chapter XXV.
VOL. I., PLATE 86.
[Illustration:
NIKLAUS KRATZER
1528
LOUVRE, PARIS
]
Kratzer, born in Munich, was educated at Cologne and Wittemberg. He came
to England as a young man, and in 1517 was admitted a fellow of Fox’s
new College of Corpus Christi, Oxford. Later on Wolsey gave him the post
of lecturer on astronomy and mathematics at Oxford, and Henry VIII
appointed him his astronomer, with a salary of £20 per annum. While at
Oxford he designed two sun-dials, one in Corpus Christi garden, and the
other on a pillar in St. Mary’s Church, the latter remaining in position
until 1744. He died about 1550, and many of his works fell into the
hands of the notorious Dr. Lee. Albrecht Dürer, during his visit to the
Netherlands in 1520, made a drawing of Kratzer, as well as one of
Erasmus. He notes in his diary: “In Antwerp I took the portrait of
Master Nicolas, an astronomer, who resides with the King in England; he
was very useful to me; he is a German, a native of Munich.”
[Sidenote: NIKLAUS KRATZER AND HOLBEIN]
Kratzer and Holbein appear to have become close acquaintances, as was
only natural with two men of the same nationality in a foreign country.
One of the few contemporary letters in which the painter is mentioned by
name is one from Kratzer to Thomas Cromwell, referred to more
particularly in a later chapter,[746] in which the astronomer announces
that he has sent the Lord Privy Seal by Holbein’s hands a book just
received from Germany. Like the Steelyard merchants, Kratzer was in the
habit of serving the King as a forwarder and translator of letters and
papers from abroad, and was sent on occasional journeys to the Continent
on royal service. On one of these occasions, in October 1520, Tunstall,
who was in the Netherlands for political purposes, wrote to Henry VIII
saying that in Antwerp he had met “Nicholas Craczer, an Almayn, deviser
of the King’s horologes, who said the King had given him leave to be
absent for a time.” Tunstall asked him to stay till he had ascertained
if the King would allow him to remain until the coronation and the
assembly of the Electors were over. “Being born in High Almayn, and
having acquaintance of many of the princes, he might be able to find out
the mind of the Electors touching the affairs of the Empire.”[747] Like
Holbein and some of the other foreigners in England, Kratzer was not
averse from an occasional commercial speculation. Thus, in October 1527,
he received licence to import from Bordeaux and other parts of France
and Brittany 300 tons of Toulouse woad and Gascon wine.[748] His name,
spelt in a variety of fashions, frequently appears in the royal
accounts, but as a rule only in connection with the payment of his
quarter’s salary. On April 29, 1531, however, there is an entry: “To
Nicholas the Astronomer for mending of a clock, 6_s._”[749] Some of the
mathematical and astronomical instruments in the “Ambassadors” picture
may possibly have been of Kratzer’s making.
Several undated portraits may be ascribed to this period with some
certainty; and some others with perhaps less confidence. As a general
rule, though it is not without exceptions, Holbein’s portraits of his
first English period may be distinguished from those of his second by
the fashion in which the sitters wear their hair. In 1526-8 the
prevailing custom in England was to wear it cropped straight across the
forehead, while it was allowed to hang down lower than the ears all
round the rest of the head, the face being clean shaven. A very distinct
change of fashion took place in the spring of 1535, when Henry VIII
began to grow a beard, and ordered his own household to cut their hair.
Stow, in his _Annales_,[750] says: “The 8th of May the King commanded
all about his court to poll their heads, and to give them example, he
caused his own head to bee polled, and from thenceforth his beard to bee
notted and no more shaven.” This marked change in the dressing of the
hair was, of course, not followed by everyone, but it became so general
that it is of great assistance in helping to give approximate dates to a
number of pictures and drawings. Of the two, the cut of the hair is a
better indication of date than the beard or moustache, which were worn
more at pleasure. Occasionally long hair is found in conjunction with
the beard, and in other cases some men remained faithful to the earlier
fashion. Thus Sir Richard Southwell (1536) and the Duke of Norfolk
(1540) are examples of long hair and a shaven face after 1535. Some of
the German merchants resident in London conformed to the English
fashion, but certain of them will be found with beards before 1535,
while others again, painted several years later, are clean shaven. It
must not be forgotten, however, that Holbein had returned to England
nearly three years before the King’s edict of 1535, so that certain
portraits which have been usually ascribed to his first English period
on account of the cut of the sitter’s hair, may very possibly have been
painted five or six years later.
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF SIR BRYAN TUKE]
The portrait of Sir Bryan Tuke, of which several versions exist, the
best known being the one in the Munich Gallery (Pl. 87),[751] is
ascribed by some writers to Holbein’s later English period, though the
shaven face and the way in which the hair is worn indicate the earlier
date of the first London visit. This test is not, of course, infallible,
but it seems probable, nevertheless, that Tuke was painted in 1527 or
1528. The date of his birth is not known, but he received his first
public appointment, as king’s bailiff at Sandwich, in 1508, and became
Clerk to the Signet in the following year. On more than one of the
replicas of the portrait his age is given as fifty-seven.
Tuke was a scholar, and one of the More circle, secretary to Cardinal
Wolsey, and French secretary to Henry VIII, and as Treasurer of the
Household was responsible for the payments to Holbein for his share in
the work of the Greenwich Banqueting House, and, later on, of his
salary. He was also Clerk of the Parliament and Master of the Posts. He
is represented in the Munich version at half-length, three-quarters to
the left, with clean-shaven face and long hair, wearing a black cap with
ear-pieces, a gown of black silk, lined with brown fur, and a fur
collar, over a black doublet also fur-lined and fastened with a gold
button, and sleeves of fine chequered black and gold stuff. A gold
jewelled cross, on which the pierced hands and feet of Christ are
represented in enamel, is suspended round his neck by a gold chain. With
the forefinger of his left hand, which holds his gloves, he indicates a
paper in front of him, inscribed “NVNQVID NON PAVCITAS DIERVM MEORVM
FINIETVR BREVI,” and, in smaller letters, “JOB cap. 10.” An hour-glass
rests on the table behind the paper, in front of his right hand. In the
background the figure of Death is seen against a green curtain, holding
his scythe in his left hand and with the first finger of the right
pointing to the hour-glass. It is signed “IO. HOLPAIN” in the old
Augsburg orthography. From overcleaning and other causes the hands and
face have lost much of the delicacy of their modelling, and the flesh
tints remain unpleasantly red, and the face has a hardness and sharpness
which, no doubt, it did not originally possess. Mr. Wornum, who,
however, only saw the picture when it was hung too high for proper
examination, considered it to be “painted in the taste and manner of Von
Melem.” “This picture,” he says, “is not a bad one, but the signature is
suspicious, as that of our painter; and the style does not proclaim it
to be the work of Holbein.”[752] Woltmann, on the other hand, says that
it “declares itself as strikingly as possible to be the work of Holbein,
and it is one of the two genuine paintings among the eight portraits
ascribed to him in the Pinakothek,” and adds that though so greatly
damaged, “yet still from its truth and lifelike feeling, as well as from
its masterly execution, it is an excellent portrait.” The picture,
however, is now regarded merely as a good workshop replica of the
original painting, and is so described in the latest edition of the
Munich catalogue. It appears to have been in the Wittelsbach Collection
in 1597, and in the description of it in the inventory of that date, the
figure of Death is not mentioned, and was probably added later.[753]
VOL. I., PLATE 87.
[Illustration:
SIR BRYAN TUKE
ALTE PINAKOTHEK, MUNICH
]
The best version of this picture is the one which at one time was in the
possession of the Methuen family at Corsham Court, Wilts, and afterwards
belonged to Mr. R. Sanderson, at whose sale at Christie’s in 1848 it was
purchased for the Marquis of Westminster.[754] It was bequeathed by the
Marchioness of Westminster to her daughter, Lady Theodora Guest, and now
belongs to the latter’s daughter, Miss Guest, of Inwood. It was in the
National Portrait Exhibition, 1868 (No. 625), in the Royal Academy
Winter Exhibition, 1880 (No. 188), and in the Burlington Fine Arts Club
Exhibition, 1909 (No. 43), lent by Miss Guest.[755] This version is
almost identical with the one in Munich, but the skeleton and hour-glass
are missing, and on the green-brown background is inscribed “BRIANVS
TVKE, MILES. AN^O ETATIS SVÆ LVII,” with his motto, “Droit et Avant,”
below. It is in all ways a finer work than the Munich example, and
undoubtedly by Holbein, and, in all probability, the original upon which
all the others were based. At least three other versions exist, all
without the skeleton. One of them, on canvas, was in the possession of
Mr. William M. Tuke, of Saffron Walden, in 1869, who purchased it in
Yorkshire in 1845, it having been formerly in the collection of a Mr.
Winstanley. Another is, or was, in the possession of Mr. John Leslie
Toke of Godington Park, Kent, which is said to have been in expression
and features more of the type of Sir Thomas More; while a third
belonged, in 1870, to Mr. J. R. Haig.[756] One or other of these
versions was owned in the seventeenth century by Lord Lisle, son of the
Earl of Leicester, as noted by Evelyn in his _Diary_ under the date 27th
August 1678.
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF RESKIMER]
The portrait of the Cornishman, Reskimer,[757] at Hampton Court, has
been ascribed by most critics to Holbein’s first English period, and so
is included in this chapter, although the exceptionally long beard,
which reaches almost to his waist, and the hair, which, though not
polled, is short enough to show the ears, would indicate a date after
1535. It has suffered somewhat in the course of time, but in its
technique it resembles Holbein’s work at the beginning of his second
English period, and so was probably painted at about that time. There is
a fine drawing for it in the Windsor Collection,[758] which is
inscribed, “Reskemeer a Cornish Gent.,” in which the hair and beard are
carefully wrought. This study appears to be among the earlier drawings
in the collection.
“The portrait,” says Mr. Law, “represents a youngish man, not more than
twenty-eight, we should say, seen in a nearly complete profile, turned
to the left, the light coming in from the right. He is dressed in a
plain, dark-coloured coat or mantle; with the small white collar of his
shirt showing, the two strings of which hang down untied. His two hands,
which are drawn and painted with all Holbein’s strength and precision,
are both seen, the knuckles of the left being turned frontwards to the
spectator, and the palm of the right upwards, with the fingers just
touching the end of his beard. He wears a flat black cap slantwise over
the right side of his head. His hair is red, as is also his long peaked
beard. The background is a bluish green, with a sprig of vine.” Some
such branch of vine or fig frequently appears in the backgrounds of
Holbein’s earlier portraits. It is on wood, or, possibly, according to
Mr. Wornum,[759] on paper or parchment attached to oak, 1 ft. 6½ in.
high by 1 ft. 1½ in. wide. The brand of Charles I—“C.R.” crowned—is on
the back of the panel.
Nothing of its history is known, except that it was in Charles I’s
collection, and is described in his catalogue, page 8, as follows: “A
side-faced gentleman out of Cornwall, in his black cap, painted with a
long peaked beard, holding both his hands before him; some parts of a
landskip. Being less than life, upon a defaced cracked board, painted
upon the wrong light. Done by Holbein, given to the King by the deceased
Sir Rob. Killigrew, Vice-Chamberlain to the Queen’s Majesty.” Mr. Law
suggests, no doubt correctly, that it was said to be “a gentleman out of
Cornwall” in the catalogue on the authority of the inscription on the
Windsor drawing.
The name is spelt in many ways in the records—Reskemeer, Reskimear,
Rekymar, Reshemer, Reskemyr, Reskimer, and so on. The portrait is
usually considered to represent John Reskimer, of Marthyn or Murthyn,
though there is no authority for this except the fact that a John
Reskimer was living at about this time. Among the various references to
men of this family in the State Papers, Reskimers of more than one
Christian name appear. A Mr. Reskemar is mentioned in 1527 as belonging
to Wolsey’s household, and in 1532 the name of John Reskymer, son and
heir of John Reskymer, occurs in connection with a grant of land in
Cornwall.[760]
The John Reskemeer or Reskimer whose portrait this is said to be was the
son of William Reskemeer, fourteenth in descent from the first of that
name who settled in Cornwall, and Elizabeth, daughter of Sir John
Arundel of Telverne. By his wife Catherine, daughter of John Trethurff,
he had several children, his son William succeeding him;[761] though,
according to a pencil note in the copy in the British Museum of John
Chamberlaine’s “Imitations of Holbein’s Drawings,” he married Jane, one
of the daughters of Robert, natural son of Henry, Lord Holland, the last
Duke of Exeter. He was High Sheriff of Cornwall in 1557, and his seat,
Marthyn, was one of the eight parks in that county in 1602.
There is a fine portrait in the Prado, Madrid, representing an elderly
Englishman of extremely plain features and with an exceptionally large
nose,[762] which Woltmann, who first drew attention to it, regarded as a
genuine work of Holbein’s first English period. His clean-shaven face
with its many heavy wrinkles is of a very ruddy brown colour. His small
black cap has long ear-pieces, and he wears the customary dark cloak or
overcoat, with a collar of black embroidered or watered silk, open at
the top, and looped together with a cord, showing the white shirt below,
cut straight without a collar of any kind. It is a half-length, almost
full face, the head and eyes turned slightly to the left. He holds a
rolled-up paper in his left hand. It bears the stamp of truth in every
line of the rugged countenance. Modern criticism, however, refuses to
accept it as a work from Holbein’s brush. Dr. Bode and other German
writers consider it to be by the Master of the “Death of Mary.”
[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF SIR HENRY WYAT]
A small portrait of undoubted genuineness, although badly over-painted,
and belonging to the first English period, is the likeness of Sir Henry
Wyat in the Louvre (Pl. 88),[763] which for many years was known as a
portrait of Sir Thomas More. According to Mr. Lionel Cust,[764] this
panel is in all probability the same as the portrait of “Cavaglier
Wyat,” painted in 1527, by Holbein, which was in the possession of
Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, and among those pictures which, after
his widow’s death at Amsterdam in 1654, were disposed of by her son,
Viscount Stafford, to M. Jabach of Cologne, from whom they were
purchased by Colbert for the collection of Louis XIV, and so came into
the Louvre. Several copies of it exist. There is an excellent replica in
the National Gallery of Ireland[765] (No. 370), which was acquired at
the sale of the Magniac Collection in 1892; while a copy of it belongs
to Constance, Countess of Romney, with which goes a picture of Wyat’s
famous cat, which picture, according to Sir Martin Conway,[766] may
likewise represent an original by Holbein. A somewhat later, probably
seventeenth-century, picture belonging to Lady Romney, is made up out of
a combination of the two—master and cat—with a background of prison wall
and window.
In the Louvre picture Sir Henry is represented at half-length, slightly
turned to the right, wearing a black skull-cap over his long hair, and
the customary overcoat with deep fur collar, and green under-sleeves;
from his shoulders hangs a large heavy gold chain, to which a gold cross
is attached, which he grasps with his right hand, and holds a folded
paper in his left. He is clean-shaven, and has a large rounded nose. The
wrinkled face, the small tremulous mouth, and the tired eyes with the
sadness of their expression, produce a very lifelike effect of old age.
The chain is put on with real gold, in a way which Holbein practised
from time to time in England. Although it has suffered severely, it
seems to be an undoubted example of the first English period. It is
about 15½ in. high by 12 in. wide. Woltmann saw a copy of it in London
in the Robinson Collection, probably the one now in Dublin, and he
speaks both of it and of the one belonging to Lady Romney as of high
artistic merit.[767] Sir Henry Wyat, of Allington Castle, Kent, who had
served Henry VII, was appointed as a member of the Privy Council by
Henry VIII on his accession to the throne. He died in 1537. Holbein
probably became acquainted with him when at work on the Greenwich
Banqueting House.
VOL. I., PLATE 88.
[Illustration:
SIR HENRY WYAT
LOUVRE, PARIS
]
VOL. I., PLATE 89.
[Illustration:
SIR THOMAS ELYOT
_Drawing in black and coloured chalks_
WINDSOR CASTLE
]
[Sidenote: HIS EARLIER ENGLISH PORTRAITS]
In addition to these undated portraits, there are several studies for
paintings now lost which it is the custom, both from the style of
drawing and the fashion of hair and dress, to attribute to this earlier
period. The truly magnificent head of an unknown man at Chatsworth, and
the almost equally fine drawing of Sir Thomas Elyot (Pl. 89),[768]
author of the “Boke called the Governour,” and friend of More, and that
of his wife, Lady Elyot,[769] among the Windsor heads, have thus been
ascribed to 1527-8; but in these three cases the draughtsmanship is so
extraordinarily true and delicate, and at the same time so strong and so
full of character in every touch, that one is inclined to place them
some six or seven years later as work of the first years of Holbein’s
second English period. The Chatsworth drawing[770] is outlined in black
with the point of the brush on flesh-coloured paper, with a spot of red
here and there. “It would be useless to dilate upon the qualities of
this masterpiece,” says Mr. S. Arthur Strong, “in which Holbein seems to
touch the highest point attainable by human faculty within the chosen
limits. By the side of such work as this, Leonardo da Vinci himself
would appear conventional, almost effeminate.”[771] This praise is by no
means excessive, as the drawing is wonderful in its truth, its
combination of delicacy and strength, and its beauty. There is a second
head of an unknown man by Holbein at Chatsworth,[772] of a later date,
and in no ways as fine as the earlier one. It is in black chalk with a
wash of red, and it has been dashed in with rapid, vigorous strokes,
though with little of the subtlety of the first.
With the exception of several doubtful examples, such as the Dr. John
Stokesley, Bishop of London,[773] in Windsor Castle, which, though a
work of high quality, has characteristic features in the painting which
preclude its attribution to Holbein, the above-mentioned pictures
constitute the tale of the painter’s achievement in England during his
first visit, which lasted only some twenty months or so. During that
time, however, he not only spent a couple of months or more over the
decoration of the Greenwich Banqueting House, and made numerous studies
for the big More Family Group, and carried that picture itself some way
towards completion, but also painted portraits of Sir Thomas and Lady
More, Archbishop Warham, Sir Henry and Lady Guldeford, Thomas and John
Godsalve, Niklaus Kratzer, Sir Henry Wyat, and Sir Bryan Tuke, so that
his output was a considerable one.
In addition to these, there is the portrait of Reskimer, and possibly
others of Margaret Roper, Sir Thomas and Lady Elyot, and Sir Nicholas
Carew,[774] while it is almost certain that he also painted one of
Bishop Fisher, although the drawing for it is now the only record which
remains. This list, which includes fourteen or more portraits, shows
that Holbein, in spite of lack of official recognition from the King,
received sufficient patronage from the More circle and the Court to keep
him very busily and remuneratively occupied.
------------------------------------------------------------------------