CHAPTER XV_Hans Holbein the Younger, Volume 1 (of 2)

THE RETURN TO BASEL (1528-1532)

Return to Basel and purchase of a house—Iconoclastic outbreaks in that

city—Destruction of sacred paintings and sculptures—Lack of work, and

death or absence of old patrons—Portrait of his wife and children—His

relationships with his wife—Completion of the wall-paintings in the

Council Chamber of the Town Hall—“Rehoboam rebuking the

Elders”—“Meeting of Samuel and Saul”—Portrait of Erasmus painted in

Freiburg—Book illustrations—Repainting the faces of the clock on the

Rhine Gate—Holbein’s return to England.

UNTIL the discovery in 1870, by Dr. Édouard His-Heusler,[775] that

Holbein purchased a house in Basel in August 1528, it was generally

supposed that the painter remained in England until the spring or summer

of 1529. In September of the latter year Erasmus wrote letters to Sir

Thomas More and Margaret Roper thanking them very heartily for the

drawing of the family picture which Holbein had brought to him. This was

the study now in the Basel Gallery. Erasmus was then living in Freiburg,

and it was supposed that the painter halted there on his way home on

purpose to deliver this sketch and letters which he was bearing from

Chelsea. This supposition has now to be abandoned.

[Sidenote: HOLBEIN’S PURCHASE OF TWO HOUSES]

There is no doubt that Holbein had received a two years’ leave of

absence from the Basel Town Council, and that his only reason for

leaving England, where he was busily and lucratively occupied, was the

fact that he was bound by the laws of his adopted city to return within

the stipulated period, or otherwise to run the risk of forfeiting his

rights of citizenship, and incurring other punishment, in addition to

possible trouble with his own particular guild. By an order of the

Council dated 1521, no one subject to the jurisdiction of Basel was

allowed to take service with, or receive pension money from, any foreign

prince or community; and this law may have been one of the reasons why

Holbein did not enter into Henry VIII’s service at this time, as it

would be necessary before doing so to obtain the Council’s special

permission, as he did later on in his career.

Holbein’s purchase of a house in Basel was made on August 29, 1528,

exactly two years after the date of Erasmus’ letter to Ægidius, given to

the painter on the eve of his departure for England. The record of the

sale is to be found in the “Fertigungsbuch,” and from the entry it

appears that both Holbein and his wife were present in person at the

completion of the transaction. It was bought from the clothweaver

Eucharius Rieher, and the price was 300 gulden or florins, which shows

that Holbein had brought home money in his purse, though only one-third

of the purchase price was paid, and the remainder secured by a mortgage.

It was a two-storeyed house, overlooking the Rhine, in the St. Johann

Vorstadt, next door to Froben’s bookstore, and its site is now occupied

by No. 22. Within living memory it was still standing, outwardly very

little changed since the days in which Holbein and his family lived in

it; as also the smaller cottage next door, which the painter purchased

some years later, on the 28th March 1531, for 70 gulden, from the

fisherman Uly von Rynach, on part of the site of which a factory has

since been erected.

[Sidenote: ERASMUS AND MORE FAMILY GROUP]

Here Holbein settled down to work again, but, if one may judge from the

few examples of his brush which can be ascribed to this period, he must

have found Basel a far less profitable field for his labours than

England. During his absence Switzerland had fallen on evil days. At

about the date of his return the religious differences had reached their

climax, and in Basel violent outbreaks of hostilities were taking place.

At Easter, 1528, the Council had been obliged to give way to the extent

of allowing divine worship according to the Reformed ritual in some of

the churches, and permitting the removal of all sacred pictures from

their walls. The Council, indeed, did their best to prevent sedition.

Their recommendation that “no man should call another papist or

lutheran, heretic, adherent of the new faith or the old, but each should

be left unharassed and unscorned in his own belief,” fell on unheeding

ears.[776] Such prudent advice was ill-suited to the passions which had

been aroused. In the following year all the Catholic members of the

Council were forcibly removed by a mob of armed citizens, and this

action was followed by a number of excesses. On Shrove Tuesday, 1529, a

furious outburst of iconoclasm occurred. The Cathedral was attacked by a

crowd of some hundreds of reformers, who broke open the doors, and

pulled down and dashed to pieces all the pictures and altars. The

Council issued orders and edicts which were powerless to stay the

fanaticism of the rioters, who visited in turn the other churches and

monasteries in the city, destroying everything that was not hastily

hidden from them. On the following day, Ash Wednesday, the destruction

continued. Four hundred men, headed by the public executioner, paid a

second visit to the Cathedral, broke up everything that still remained,

and of the fragments made five large bonfires. Pictures and wooden

images were burnt, wall-paintings were whitewashed over; and however

beautiful such works of art might be, their merits were insufficient to

save them. The reformers’ hearts were hot against what they considered

the gross idolatry of their opponents, and nothing was spared from the

fire upon which they could lay their furious hands. Here and there a

picture or relic was saved, among them at least one work of Holbein’s,

the early “Last Supper,” already described, though it appears to have

been badly damaged at the time, and restored later on.[777] No doubt

more than one of his pictures perished, together with others by such

Basel painters as Urs Graf, Niklaus Manuel Deutsch, and Hans Herbster.

His beautiful shutters for the Cathedral organ happily escaped; it may

be that they were hung too high to be easily reached, and were thus

protected from the first outbreak, and afterwards, when the edict was

issued forbidding all sacred pictures in the churches, they would be

allowed to remain on the walls under the order which permitted the use

of all paintings of a character to which no adoration could be

shown.[778] Erasmus, in a letter to Pirkheimer, gives a graphic

description of what took place on these two days of fanatical

destruction. “There was no one,” he says, “who did not fear for himself,

when these dregs of the people covered the whole market-place with arms

and cannons. Such a mockery was made of the images of the saints, and

even of the Crucifixion, that one would have thought that some miracle

must have happened. Nothing was left of the sculptures, either in the

churches or in the cloisters, in the portals or in the monasteries.

Whatever painted pictures remained were daubed over with whitewash,

whatever was inflammable was thrown upon the pile, whatever was not was

broken to pieces. Neither pecuniary nor artistic value could save

anything.”

This tumultuous state of affairs proved too much for Erasmus, who had a

detestation of all forms of violence, and only wished for peaceful

surroundings in which to pursue his work. More than one of his noble

patrons, from whom he received pensions, objected to his continued

residence in a city in which the Protestant party were dominant. He had,

too, some fear for his own life; for though he was an adherent of

neither side, his opinions were not popular with the reformers. So he

now turned his back upon the city which he had made his permanent home

since 1521, and in which, old and sickly as he was, he had hoped to end

his days, and removed to the neighbouring city of Freiburg, where the

Catholic party were in the ascendancy. Thither Bonifacius Amerbach

accompanied him, and remained with him for some time.

As Holbein found Erasmus still in Basel when he returned there in August

1528, he must have presented Sir Thomas More’s gift to him on his

arrival. There could be no reason for delay unless he had in some way

mislaid the sketch. Nor is it likely that Erasmus would have waited for

thirteen months before writing to More to thank him; if he had done so,

he would at least have made some apology for his remissness. Yet in his

published works his letter of thanks is dated Freiburg, 5th September

1529, so that the matter is not easy of explanation, unless this again

is another mistake in dating on the part of the editor of the letters.

If the correct date of the letters to More and his daughter is 1528, not

1529, then Erasmus wasted little time before writing to More to thank

him for the drawing. It seems certain that the scholar, highly delighted

with the picture of his friends, and the letters from them which

accompanied it, would not let many days go past without acknowledging

them.

In his letter to Sir Thomas he says: “Oh that it were once more granted

me in life to see such dear friends face to face whom I contemplate with

the utmost joy imaginable in the picture, which Holbein (Olpeius) has

brought me!”[779] On the next day, September 6th, he wrote to Margaret

Roper: “I can scarcely express in words, Margaret Roper, thou ornament

of thine England, what hearty delight I experienced when the painter

Holbein (Olpeinus) presented to my view your whole family in such a

successful delineation, that I could scarcely have seen you better had I

been myself near you. Constantly do I desire that once more, before my

goal is reached, it may be granted me to see this dear family circle, to

whom I owe the best part of my outward prosperity, and of my fame,

whatever they may be, and would owe them rather than to any other

mortal. A fair portion of this wish has now been fulfilled by the gifted

hand of the painter. I recognise all, yet none more than thee, and from

the beautiful vestment of thy form I feel as if I could see thy still

more beautiful mind beaming forth.... Greet thy mother, the honoured

Mistress Alice, many times from me; as I could not embrace her myself, I

have kissed her picture from my heart.”[780] In the first letter Erasmus

writes Holbein’s name as Olpeius, confusing him for the moment with an

old “famulus” of his own, Severinus Olpeius. In the second letter, in

which he calls him Olpeinus, he gets nearer to the correct name. In her

answer to this last letter, dated November 4th, Margaret says: “Quod

pictoris tibi adventus tantæ voluptati fuit, illo nomine, quod utriusque

mei parentis nostrumque omnium effigiem depictam detulerit, ingentibus

cum gratiis libenter agnoscimus.”[781]

Holbein must soon have discovered that his prospects of remunerative

employment were far from promising, when compared with the field he had

so recently abandoned. Fortunately he had some little money in his

pockets when he returned, and perhaps for some months, before the

religious dissensions came to so acute a head, he may have found

profitable work. But the outburst in the spring of 1529 put an abrupt

end to all painting of sacred pictures or work of any kind for the

churches. The 18th clause (“upon pictures”) in an order passed by the

Reformation party in that year stated: “We have no pictures in our

churches, either in the city or country, because they formerly gave much

incitement to idolatry, therefore God has so decidedly forbidden them,

and has cursed all who make images. Hence, in future, by God’s help, we

will set up no pictures, but will seriously reflect how we can provide

comfort for the poor needy ones who are the true and living images of

God.”[782] For a painter who had to make a living for a wife and family

such conditions were serious enough, for they cut off one of his chief

sources of employment. Judging from the numerous studies in the Basel

Gallery, Holbein, before his first visit to England, must have been

frequently engaged on pictures, wall-paintings, and designs for windows

for churches, all of which, with few exceptions, such as the Meyer

Madonna and one or two others, perished before the fury of the mob. It

was natural that he should look forward to a continuance of work of this

nature, and however strongly, in his heart, he may have believed in the

Reformation itself, he must have been in little accord with it in its

treatment of art. Nor was it a time when the leading citizens of Basel

had leisure or desire for so peaceful an occupation as sitting for their

portraits. The times were far too strenuous. Several of his earlier

friends, and patrons, too, were no longer there to help him. Froben had

died two years before he got back, and Erasmus was about to wipe the

dust of Basel from his feet, while Amerbach was a temporary absentee.

His old friend, Jakob Meyer “zum Hasen,” was still a prominent figure

among the Catholic minority, and, therefore, had little influence to

place at his service. Under such adverse conditions it is, perhaps, not

wonderful that only one panel painting of the second Basel period can be

pointed to with any certainty—the portrait-group of his wife and two

elder children. This, and the remaining wall-paintings in the Council

Chamber of the Town Hall, are the only works of importance of which we

have any record.

[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF HIS WIFE AND CHILDREN]

The portrait of his wife and his two elder children, Philip and

Katherine, in the Basel Gallery (No. 325) (Pl. 90),[783] was, no doubt,

one of the first things he undertook after his arrival. In any case, it

was painted in 1528 or 1529. It is in oils on four pieces of paper

fastened together, and at some subsequent time has been cut out round

the figures and mounted on a panel, thus spoiling the delicacy of the

outlines. The figures are life-size, and the wife, who is seated, facing

the spectator, is shown at almost three-quarters length. She wears a

dark green bodice without ornament, cut very low and straight across the

breast, and a dark-brown over-garment trimmed with a thin band of fur.

Her light brown hair is covered by a transparent veil which comes low

over her forehead, and a small brown cap on the back of her head. On her

left knee she supports a red-haired baby, about eighteen months old,

born during Holbein’s absence, dressed in a cap and an undyed woollen

garment, while her right hand rests on the shoulder of a boy of about

six or seven, with long fair hair, wearing a dark blue-green dress above

which the white collar of his shirt is visible. The lad, who is shown in

profile, is looking upwards to the right, and presses against his

mother’s knee. His head and shoulders only are shown.

The picture is dated, but in the cutting out process it underwent prior

to its fastening upon the wood panel, which was done before 1586, as is

to be gathered from the Amerbach inventory, the last figure has been

shorn away, and only “152” remains. It is almost certain that this date

was 1528 or 1529, probably the former, for Holbein, once more united

with his wife and family, would be likely to give expression to his

pleasure by painting their portraits. In the greater energy of its

conception and the vigour of its treatment it more closely resembles the

portraits painted in England than his earlier Basel work.

VOL. I., PLATE 90.

[Illustration:

HOLBEIN’S WIFE AND CHILDREN

1528-9

BASEL GALLERY

]

[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF HIS WIFE AND CHILDREN]

There are other versions of this picture in existence, among them a good

late sixteenth-century copy in the Lille Museum,[784] which has a blue

background. Like the Basel example, it is on paper pasted upon wood, but

it has not been cut out round the outlines, while on a piece of paper

added to the top of the panel there is an inscription in gold, which

runs—

“Die Liebe zu Gott heist Charitas,

Wer Liebe hatt der tragtt kein hass,”

thus turning it into a representation of Charity. A second[785] example,

though a work of no particular skill, is of interest because it gives

what was probably the background of the original work before it was cut

down, one of those architectural compositions with pilasters and an

ornamental frieze which Holbein so frequently used as a setting for his

earlier portraits, part of which forms a high-backed seat in which the

wife is placed. This copy, which belongs to Herr E. Trümpy, of Glarus,

shows some small differences, in the boy’s hair, the folds of the

draperies, &c., but it has suffered so much that it is difficult to pass

judgment upon it. It must have been painted before the original work was

cut down towards the end of the sixteenth century. That the picture

represents the painter’s wife and children is certain, for it was in the

possession of Amerbach, whose son entered it in his inventory as

“Holbeins fraw vnd zwei kinder von im H. Holbein conterfehet vf papir

mit olfarben, vf holtz gezogen.”

This picture is painted with greater breadth and freedom than was his

custom. The delicacy of handling which marked almost all that he did has

given place to a more rapid but none the less truthful execution. The

baby is by no means a beautiful child, and the mother’s plainness of

countenance is almost repulsive at the first glance. Her expression is

one of deep dejection, her face careworn and unhappy, and her eyes are

rimmed with red, suggesting ill-health or sorrow. The grouping is

unconventional, and it may be that the artist began to paint them just

as he happened to see them, without any elaborate posing or attempt to

make a picture of them. The wonderful truth with which he has realised

them, however, the fine rich colour, and the luminous painting of the

flesh tones, combine to make it one of his greatest works, in the study

and appreciation of which the want of physical beauty in the principal

sitter and the severe plainness of the costumes are overlooked and

forgotten. Though only six years later than the Solothurn Madonna and

the portrait at the Hague, Elsbeth Holbein has already lost all

appearance of youth, and the cares of life have left heavy traces behind

them. Her features are now not merely homely, but heavy and

uninteresting, while her figure is solid, ample, and ungraceful. Yet it

is still possible to recognise the likeness, no doubt somewhat idealised

in the earlier work, but here set down with remorseless truth. The cause

of this loss of youth and good looks, due, according to some modern

critics, to Holbein’s neglect and his infatuation for Magdalena

Offenburg, has been touched upon in an earlier chapter. M. de Wyzewa,

who is one of those who hold this theory, regards this Basel family

group as one of the few pictures in which Holbein completely reveals his

artistic soul. “I doubt,” he says,[786] “if there exists in the world

another painting comparable to this for subtle and dolorous beauty of

expression.” In its revelation of truth it is an act of accusation

against the painter himself, such as is not to be found in any written

account of him by his contemporaries, who, it is suggested, influenced

by his importance as an artist and by his connection with big and

influential people, did not think it wise to speak the truth about him.

It was Magdalena who was the chief cause of this domestic misery, we are

told. She was “l’odieuse rivale qui l’a dépouillée de sa beauté et de

son bonheur, et de toute sa fortune par-dessus le marché, qui a réduit

l’exquise jeune femme du portrait de la Haye à devenir le fantôme

navrant du portrait de Bâle; voilà peut-être le grief qui aura pesé le

plus cruellement sur le cœur ulcéré d’Elisabeth Holbein! Et qui sait si

ce remords-là ne s’est point dressé au premier plan dans l’âme du

peintre lui-même, lorsqu’en 1529 celui-ci a éprouvé le besoin de nous

crier sa confession de mari et de père, en même temps qu’il allait nous

révéler la puissante, l’émouvante grandeur de son génie d’artiste?”

The boy in the picture, who appears to be six or seven years old, may

well have been the model for the Infant Christ in the Solothurn Madonna.

The group has been painted with a speed and spontaneity which is not

usual in Holbein’s portraits, with their minute finish and careful

elaboration of details. This unwonted vigour of handling, however, gives

to it a freedom and a largeness which make it unique among the varied

manifestations of his genius. It has many of the qualities of a

brilliant sketch, in which both likeness and character have been set

down with direct and masterly power.

VOL. I., PLATE 91.

[Illustration:

PORTRAIT OF A YOUNG WOMAN

_Unfinished study in oils_

BASEL GALLERY

]

A very remarkable portrait study of a young woman in the Basel Gallery

(No. 326) (Pl. 91),[787] which comes from the Faesch Cabinet, bears a

close resemblance to the Family Group, and is ascribed by Dr. Ganz to

the same year, 1528, to which it undoubtedly belongs. The subject,

evidently a woman of Holbein’s own class, is extremely plain, with heavy

features, and dark eyes and hair. She is represented to the waist,

turned slightly to the spectator’s left, her long hands, with numerous

rings, crossed in front of her. It is drawn with the pencil, and

coloured with oil colours thinly laid on and mixed with white upon a

red-toned ground. The background is a plain, deep blue. It is

unfinished, the turban-like cap, and the outer bodice of the dress

having the colour only slightly indicated. It is of the utmost interest,

as it affords evidence of Holbein’s methods of working at this period,

methods which he employed in painting his wife and children, also done

in oils on paper; and it is, in addition, a wonderfully powerful study

in portraiture, lifelike, vigorous, and subtle.

[Sidenote: RESUMES WORK IN COUNCIL CHAMBER]

Little is known of Holbein’s work in Basel during this period. No other

portrait from his brush has been so far discovered; but, happily for

him, in the summer of 1530 the Town Council found some employment for

him worthy of his great talents, work which occupied him for the

remainder of the year. They resolved to finish the internal decoration

of their Council Chamber, which Holbein had left incomplete some years

earlier, and he was naturally selected as the painter most fitted to do

it. For this work he received in all 72 florins, in four separate

payments between July 6 and November 18, 1530, a sufficiently modest sum

for five months’ work, which included at least two large wall-paintings;

but, nevertheless, better pay than he had gained for his earlier

frescoes in the same room, for the original arrangement was that he

should decorate the whole chamber for the sum of 120 gulden, and for

that sum he had covered all but the “back wall” with large pictures.

The new subjects, which may have been selected in 1521, when the work

was first begun, were “Rehoboam rebuking the Elders of Israel,” and “The

Meeting of Samuel and Saul.” A third subject, “Hezekiah ordering the

Idols to be broken in pieces,” was probably only one of the single

figures which were placed between the larger compositions. Unlike the

earlier wall-paintings, of which the subjects were taken from classical

antiquity, the ones upon which Holbein was now occupied were drawn from

the Old Testament, and were selected for the purpose of setting forth

the evil effects of bad government and the punishment which follows the

obstinacy of rulers who oppose their will to the will of God. The

“Hezekiah”[788] was chosen, no doubt, as an apt illustration of the

wisdom of obeying the commands of God in the sweeping away of all false

idols and images, as exemplified in the iconoclastic outbreaks in Basel

itself in the previous year, the painting of which Holbein must have

undertaken with mixed feelings.

VOL. I., PLATE 92.

[Illustration]

[Illustration:

“KING REHOBOAM REBUKING THE ELDERS”

Three fragments of the wall-painting formerly in the Basel Town Hall

1530

BASEL GALLERY

]

VOL. I., PLATE 93.

[Illustration:

REHOBOAM REBUKING THE ELDERS OF ISRAEL

Study for the wall-painting in the Basel Town Hall, 1530

BASEL GALLERY

]

Two fine preliminary designs for the “Rehoboam” and the “Samuel and

Saul” form part of the Amerbach Collection, drawings which may have been

made as early as 1521. Among the few fragments of the original

wall-paintings preserved in the Basel Gallery, there are two showing the

head and the raised hand with pointing little finger of Rehoboam (No.

328) (Pl. 92 (3)),[789] the head being drawn in profile, whereas in the

study it is full face, indicating a change in the design when carried

out on the wall. In the centre of the composition, as shown in the

drawing (Pl. 93),[790] King Rehoboam, seated upon a lofty throne beneath

a rich canopy backed by a curtain decorated with a fleur-de-lys device,

bends forward, his left hand stretched before him in vehement action,

with little finger extended towards the group of Israelitish elders

standing below him, some of whom turn away in despair. With his right

hand he points to a scourge held by an attendant on the left. The moment

depicted is when he cries out in a rage: “My little finger shall be

thicker than my father’s loins; my father hath chastised you with whips,

but I will chastise you with scorpions.” Behind the throne, within the

rails enclosing a large vaulted chamber in the Renaissance style, are a

number of figures, on the one side the older councillors who had served

his father, Solomon, whose advice he neglected, and on the other the

younger courtiers whose bad counsel he followed. On the right of the

composition is a glimpse of a hilly landscape, with the Crowning of

Jeroboam by the revolted tribes in the middle distance. The drawing is

washed in Indian ink, with touches of colour in the sky, in the circular

openings at the back of the hall, in the landscape, the faces of the

figures, and the rails and the floor. The story is told very simply and

clearly, but with considerable dramatic force, such as would make an

instant appeal to those for whom the lesson it contained was intended.

The figures are rather short and stumpy, a fault to be noticed in many

of Holbein’s earlier designs for books, wall-paintings, and painted

glass; but the composition is a dignified one, and the large painting

based upon it must have been a noble work. As stated above, the

fragments of the original painting which have been preserved show that

Holbein deviated from the sketch in essential points. The head of

Rehoboam, which is a masterpiece of strong expression, is seen in sharp

profile. There are also in the same Gallery two fragments containing

groups of heads of the Israelite Messengers (No. 329) (Pl. 92 (1 and

2)).[791] Traces of gold are still visible on these remains of the

original work, showing that Holbein made use of gilding in

wall-paintings as well as in portraits.

[Sidenote: “THE MEETING OF SAMUEL AND SAUL”]

The wall-painting of “Samuel and Saul” was the largest of all the

decorations in the Council Chamber, and that it was painted side by side

with the “Rehoboam” on the only wall in the room unbroken by door or

window is evident from the fact that in the sketches the same dividing

column appears in both. It was probably about 7 or 8 feet high by 16 or

17 feet long, and if the same proportion was preserved in both designs,

the “Rehoboam” must have been about 13 feet long. The moment chosen for

representation is the return of Saul from his conquest of the

Amalekites, and his meeting with the Prophet Samuel. Instead of obeying

the command of God, and destroying men, women, children, and flocks, he

has spared them, and carried them and much spoil away with him. Samuel

has come forth in anger, and Saul, perceiving him, has dismounted, and

advances to meet him bent in reverence. The prophet heaps reproaches

upon him. “Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and

sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Because thou hast

rejected the word of the Lord, He hath also rejected thee from being

king.” The right half of the composition is crowded with foot-soldiers

and horsemen, wearing Roman helmets, among whom the conquered King Agag

is borne captive. In the distance are seen the captured herds and

flocks, and the burning villages on the hillsides. The composition is a

finely-balanced one, and the noble, menacing figure of the Prophet is

well contrasted with the cringing figure of the King, conscious, now

that the flush of victory is passing, that he has failed to fulfil the

sacred commands. The army behind him is most effectively grouped, and

the soldiers’ lances, seen darkly against the sky, produce much the same

effect of grandeur and of numbers as in Velazquez’s great picture. In

the left upper corner is a long white tablet—no doubt in the finished

painting it was shown hanging from the painted framework surrounding the

picture—on which the Latin text, quoted by Tonjola, was inscribed.

The sketch (No. 347) (Pl. 94)[792] has been slightly washed with colour,

blue in the sky, the stream in the middle distance, the trees, and the

hills, and brown over the landscape, which combines with the blue to

produce green in the trees and hillsides, while the flames from the

burning villages are bright red. The figures are drawn in brown and

shaded with a wash of cool grey. It is not possible from this, however,

to gain much idea of the actual colouring of the wall-painting, but,

from the darting flames and the volumes of heavy smoke rolling across

the sky and blotting out a part of the landscape, it is possible that

the general effect attempted was one of strong contrasts of chiaroscuro,

such as are to be seen in the Basel Passion picture. Still, the sketch,

small as it is, affords ample evidence of the greatness of Holbein’s

power of design in large compositions crowded with figures, and

emphasizes the seriousness of the loss suffered through the destruction

of the whole of his wall-paintings and larger decorative works.

VOL. I., PLATE 94.

[Illustration:

SAMUEL AND SAUL

Study for the wall-painting in the Basel Town Hall

_Pen drawing in brown touched with water-colour_

BASEL GALLERY

]

Beyond the Town Hall frescoes, little remains to show in what manner he

was employed during the remainder of his stay in Basel. There is a fine

design for a dagger-sheath, richly decorated with Renaissance ornament,

in the Basel Gallery, dated 1529 (Pl. 45 (1), Vol. ii.);[793] but this

is the only work of the kind that can be given definitely to this

period, though possibly some of the other designs for dagger-sheaths and

bands of ornament in the Basel Gallery, described in a later

chapter,[794] were made during these years. He also produced a number of

designs for woodcuts, among them a series of illustrations for the

_Cosmography_ and several astronomical works by Sebastian Münster of

Munich, published by Heinrich Petri. Münster was in Basel in the autumn

of 1529, and it is possible, so Dr. Ganz suggests,[795] that his

fellow-townsman, Niklaus Kratzer, whose portrait Holbein had so recently

painted, drew his attention to the artist’s skill in the delineation of

scientific and mathematical instruments, such as Münster required for

the illustration of his books. In this way, no doubt, the author and the

artist came into personal contact. Holbein drew for him a number of fine

designs, such as figures representing the signs of the Zodiac, drawings

of sun-dials, and a variety of mathematical and astronomical

instruments, and a great astronomical table, first published in 1534,

but starting from the year 1530, with ornamental accessories and

representations of the four seasons, a work of great beauty.[796]

He also painted a new portrait of Erasmus, most probably in Freiburg,

for the portrait at Parma, which is one of the best of various almost

contemporary copies, is dated 1530. The small circular picture in the

Basel Gallery is very possibly the original study painted directly from

the sitter. These portraits and the roundel of Melanchthon in the

Provinzial Museum at Hanover, which is probably of the same period, have

been described in a previous chapter.[797]

[Sidenote: REPAINTING OF RHINE GATE CLOCK]

There is only one other record to show that he received any further

employment from the civic authorities after the completion of the Town

Hall paintings. On October 7, 1531, he was paid “17 pfund 10 schilling,”

or fourteen gulden, for repainting the two clocks on the Rhine Gate

(“von beden Uren am Rinthor zemalen”).[798] This commission was for

renovating the two faces of the old clock, which was decorated with the

grotesque figure of the “Lallenkönig,” with distorted countenance

stretching out his tongue towards Little Basel. This undertaking seems

very paltry after the big decorative works upon which he had been

occupied twelve months earlier, but was apparently all that the

authorities had to give. It is an exaggeration, however, to speak of it,

as some writers do, as contemptible work for an artist of his standing.

Mrs. Fortescue says of it: “As soon as Holbein got his pay for this

disgraceful commission—a pay he was now much too hard pressed to

refuse—he quietly slipped away from Basel without taking the Council

into his confidence.”[799] To Holbein, who by no means regarded himself

as a portrait-painter only, but to whom all decorative work, however

large or however small, was equally an occasion for giving of the best

that was in him, the ornamentation of a clock face would in no ways

appear to be work in any way disgraceful or beneath him; nor is there

the slightest evidence to show that he ran away from Basel like a thief

in the night. Throughout his life, indeed, his methods were orderly, and

such as became a citizen and guildsman of his adopted town. He must,

nevertheless, have suffered many anxieties, for times were unpropitious

in Basel, and offered few opportunities for the remunerative practice of

the fine arts.

Both in 1529 and 1530 great scarcity prevailed. The religious

excitement, too, grew in strength, and the Protestant persecutions

became as severe as the papal ones which had preceded them. Holbein

himself fell under suspicion. On June 18, 1530, just when he was

beginning to work on the Town Hall frescoes, he was called upon,

together with a number of other citizens, to justify himself for not

having taken part in the Communion instituted in the Basel churches

after the abolition of the Catholic ritual in 1529. He gave as an answer

that he demanded, before approaching the Lord’s Table, that the

signification of the holy mystery should be better explained to him. It

appears that the information given to him was sufficient to satisfy his

conscience, as he did not persist in his refusal. His friend, Bonifacius

Amerbach, was more obdurate, and so had the ban passed upon him.

In 1531 open war broke out between the different cantons, through stress

of religious differences. This was possibly the last straw in Holbein’s

case. Work growing daily more difficult to obtain, his thoughts would

naturally turn to the happier fields for his genius which England

afforded, and he determined to return there. The exact date of his

departure is unknown, but it must have been towards the end of 1531 or

in the early spring of 1532; perhaps the latter date is the more

probable of the two, as the journey, in the way in which he would be

forced to make it, would be an unpleasant, if not a difficult, one in

winter.[800]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT TO CHAPTER XIV

A NEWLY DISCOVERED PORTRAIT OF AN UNKNOWN ENGLISH LADY

THE discovery of a new portrait by Holbein must always be a matter of

the highest interest to students of the master’s art, and when the panel

so discovered is one in practically faultless condition and of

exceptional attraction, its importance as an addition to the list of the

painter’s works cannot be easily exaggerated. It is pleasant, therefore,

to have to record the fact that such a portrait was brought to light for

the first time during the present year (1913). The portrait in question

formed part of a collection of pictures and engravings removed from

Rotherwas House, near Hereford, the seat of the Bodenham family, early

in the year, the greater number of which were sold by auction in London

last February. The Holbein picture, however, was first heard of at a

sale at Messrs. Puttick and Simpson’s rooms in Leicester Square on April

8th. It was in a very dirty state, and its beauty was almost entirely

obscured by a thick coat of dark varnish, with which it had been covered

some two centuries or more ago. It had also two slight abrasions above

and below the right eye. Across the left sleeve was painted in white, in

late eighteenth-century lettering, the inscription “Margaret Tudor,

Queen of Scotland.” This attribution, however, was changed by the

compilers of the sale catalogue to “Mary, Queen of Scots,” and it was

described as by an unknown artist of the early English School. The

bidding for this picture started at £10, and it was finally acquired for

340 guineas by Mr. Ayerst H. Buttery.

Upon careful cleaning the false inscription at once came away, and after

the removal of the varnish the picture was found to be, as already

stated, in a practically faultless condition—except for the two small

abrasions—and in the original state in which it was left by the artist,

thanks, no doubt, to the varnishing process it had undergone. It is

unsigned, and has no inscription giving the name and age of the sitter,

but in spite of this it is difficult to doubt its authorship. Holbein

was the only painter then in England who possessed so fine a technique.

It has been carefully examined by several leading authorities on the

painter, among them Dr. Friedländer, of the Kaiser Friedrich Museum,

Berlin, and all are agreed that it is a splendid example of Holbein. A

detailed description of it, with several suggestions toward the solution

of the identity of the sitter, was first published by Mr. Maurice W.

Brockwell, in the _Morning Post_ of June 28, 1913.

VOL. I., PLATE 95.

[Illustration:

PORTRAIT OF AN UNKNOWN ENGLISH LADY

(Formerly in the possession of the Bodenham family, Rotherwas Hall,

Hereford)

_Reproduced by kind permission of Mr. Ayerst H. Buttery_

]

It is on panel, 31 inches high by 23½ inches wide (Pl. 95). The lady is

shown full face, and almost three-quarters length, holding with both

hands a very small open prayer-book or breviary, which is attached to a

ribbon round her waist by a plain chain. The dress is of deep maroon

satin, with the upper part of the bodice of black velvet. The latter is

open at the throat, the points of the collar being turned back, showing

the white lining. This style of collar occurs very rarely in Holbein’s

pictures, and is to be seen in only two others of his finished portraits

of ladies—those of Catherine Howard and Lady Butts. In these two,

however, the “revers” are quite plain, whereas in Mr. Buttery’s picture

they are richly embroidered in black with a floral design, suggesting

carnations, conventionally treated, while round the edge runs a narrow

border with a row of conventionalised flowers of a somewhat similar

pattern, which occurs again on the white ruffs at her wrists. Her long

and thin arms are encased in tightly fitting sleeves, terminating in the

then fashionable “hanging” or “over” sleeves, partly of black velvet,

which are exceptionally full and heavy, with slashings filled in with

white silk embroidered in black with a design suggesting acorns arranged

in groups of four. The skirt, or petticoat, of which little can be seen,

shows an elaborate floral pattern. The lady wears no rings, but has a

plain gold chain wound twice round her neck. The collar of the bodice is

fastened together by a small brooch or pin set with a dark “table”

stone, from which is suspended a circular medallion or pendant of gold

and enamel, with the figure of a lady in a red dress, seated in a

high-backed chair, and playing a lute or viol. Above this figure is a

scroll with the legend, “Praise the Lord for evermore.” The whole is

enclosed within a border of scroll-work, with a grotesque head in white

enamel on either side, green leaves at the bottom and a red rose at the

top. The head-dress is of the curved shape introduced from Paris, and

not the more customary angular English hood. It has two bands of

elaborately wrought goldsmith’s work, and is filled in with cerise-red

satin, which makes a very beautiful colour contrast with the plain

blue-green background, against which the head is so effectively placed.

The arrangement of the fair hair, such of it as can be seen, is both

unusual and attractive, being parted in the centre, while on either side

bands, of slightly lighter colour than the rest, are brought forward

over the ears, which are completely hidden. Individual golden hairs are

indicated against the dark background, and both hair and head-dress have

been rendered with all Holbein’s minute and loving care and dexterity of

draughtsmanship.

The face is a most expressive one. Both the mouth and the grey,

contemplative eyes are full of character, suggested in the most subtle

manner and with unerring brushwork. The modelling of the flesh is of

extraordinary delicacy. The lady, whoever she may be, though not perhaps

strictly beautiful has considerable pretensions to good looks, and her

whole personality, indeed, is one of great charm. The colour-scheme,

too, is one of exceptional attraction. The contrast between the

sombre-coloured garments with glinting lights upon them, and the pale

and pearl-like face, standing out against the blue-green of the

background, is most harmonious, and the band of red in the head-dress

adds to and sets off the delicate blondness of her features. Another

point to be noted is the skill with which the slight ripples in the

plainly-cut bodice and upper sleeves have been indicated, as well as the

little inequalities and furrows in the satin of the head-dress, where

the material has slightly puckered at the edge by which it is fastened

to the ornamental bands. The portrait, indeed, is one of the most

beautiful and attractive ever produced by the painter.

Little or nothing is known of the history of this picture, and at

present the identity of the sitter has not been established. The ancient

family of Bodenham was settled at Rotherwas long before Henry VIII came

to the throne. It was the recent death of Mr. Charles Bodenham, the last

direct descendant of this family, which brought about the sale of the

estate together with the family mansion and the whole of its contents.

“The entire property,” says Mr. Brockwell, “seems to have been first

purchased by a firm at a south coast watering-place, who being in no

special way attracted by the æsthetic and financial value of the

contents of the house, without much ado proceeded to pass them on to a

well-known trading firm in Hereford. Fifty-three pictures and

thirty-five engravings were disposed of at the end of February last by

auction in London. Before that time, it is understood, a picture”—the

picture now in question—“had been, for sentimental reasons, offered for

£15 to distant connections of the Bodenham family, an offer that was not

accepted, and it was ultimately put up for sale at Messrs. Puttick and

Simpson’s.” The Tudor panelling of the house was sold for a great sum of

money to an American collector.

Thomas Bodenham was one of the leading gentlemen of Herefordshire during

Henry VIII’s reign. His name occurs frequently on lists of sheriffs,

magistrates, gaol deliveries, and the like, in his own county, but

otherwise there is no mention of him in the _Calendars of Letters and

Papers_, and he does not appear to have been attached to the Court. It

is not, therefore, very probable that the portrait represents his wife

or daughter, though this would provide the most natural solution of the

sitter’s identity. Most critics who have seen the picture are decidedly

of the opinion that it was produced during Holbein’s first visit to

England, in 1526-8, an opinion based largely on the painting of the

hands, undoubtedly the least satisfactory part of the panel. They are

hard and stiff in the modelling, and have none of the expressiveness

which is so marked a characteristic of Holbein’s painting of hands

during the last ten or twelve years of his life. In some other respects

the picture shows qualities which would seem to place it some years

later in the painter’s career, towards the beginning of his second and

longer residence in this country. One feature which may possibly

indicate a later date than 1527 is the dress, and more particularly the

French hood. It is true that instances are known of the wearing of this

head-dress in England as early as 1527, but at that time its use seems

to have been confined to a few ladies of the highest aristocracy about

the Court. The angular hood with its long black fall was then the almost

universal headgear, and remained so for some years longer. The fashion

of the latter, and the method of wearing it, can be well seen in

Holbein’s costume study of a lady in the British Museum. (No. 11 in Mr.

Binyon’s Catalogue. Not in Woltmann. Reproduced by Ganz in _Die

Handzeichnungen von Hans Holbeins des Jüngeren_, x. 4.) This drawing

consists of two whole-length studies on one sheet. In one of them the

lady stands turned three-quarters to the left, her hands in front of

her, holding a rosary; in the other she is seen more from the back, the

left hand raised and pointing. It is in Indian ink and brush outline,

partly washed with Indian ink, and the flesh tints in red. It is signed

twice, “H. H.” and “H. H. B,” but these signatures are false. An

excellent idea of the costume of the period and of the method by which

the fall was attached to the hood can be gained from this effective

drawing, which was formerly in the Malcolm and Lawrence collections.

The lady of the picture appears to be about twenty-two or twenty-three

years of age, and it is, of course, quite impossible that she can be

Margaret Tudor, whose features are well known, and who was nearly forty

in 1527, while Mary, Queen of Scots, born in 1542, is still more

impossible. The “French Queen,” Mary Tudor, the King’s second sister,

was born in 1498, and so was twenty-nine in 1527; but here again several

authentic portraits of her exist, and these bear little or no

resemblance to Mr. Buttery’s lady. It must be remembered, too, that all

evidence points to the fact that Holbein had no connection with the

Court during his first visit to England. It is very probable that the

luting figure on the medallion is intended to represent St. Cecilia, and

that the sitter, as Mr. Brockwell points out, was named after her. This

suggested to him that it might be a portrait of Sir Thomas More’s second

daughter, Cecilia Heron, who was twenty years of age in 1527 when the

More Family Group was painted; but this theory had to be abandoned, for

there is little or no likeness between the lady of the picture and the

head of Cecilia in the Windsor collection. It is probable that

medallions with a figure of St. Cecilia were by no means uncommon at

that time. Two of them are mentioned in lists of jewels belonging to the

Crown at the period in question. These lists will be found in the

_Calendars of Letters and Papers._ Among the entries in the first list,

dated 1528 (_C. L. P._, vol. iv. pt. ii. 5114) are the following:—“A

brooch with a gentlewoman luting, with a scripture above it,” and “a

gentlewoman, holding a leyer in her hand, silver-gilt (delivered to Mr.

Wyat).” In the second list, dated 1530 (_C. L. P._, vol. iv. pt. iii.

6789), which appears to be a copy of the first, the same entries occur

with slight differences:—“A brooch with a gentlewoman luting, and a

scripture about it,” and “_Images._ A gentlewoman, holding a layer in

her hands, silver-gilt (Mr. Wyat).” There are not, however, sufficient

grounds for suggesting that the lady in question is wearing one of these

particular royal jewels, and that, therefore, she was closely connected

with the King, or even a member of Sir Thomas Wyat’s family, though the

richness and elaborateness of the dress and the exceptionally fine

embroidery seem to indicate a personage of high quality. It is to be

hoped that further researches will solve the mystery of this fair

unknown. In the meanwhile, the portrait provides a very notable and

welcome addition to the tale of the master’s work, and one not easily

surpassed by any other among his portraits of ladies. Thanks to the

great kindness of Mr. Buttery the picture is reproduced here.

END OF VOL. I.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOOTNOTES

-----

Footnote 1:

Anton Werner, _Der Sammler_, No. 143, 1907.

Footnote 2:

Anton Werner, _Der Sammler_, No. 143, 1907.

Footnote 3:

Entries in the Augsburg Bürgerbuch and Steuerbücher.

Footnote 4:

See Glaser, _Hans Holbein der Ältere_, p. 171.

Footnote 5:

_Katalog der Œffentlichen Kunstsammlung in Basel_, 1908, p. 66.

Footnote 6:

Woltmann, A. H., 20.

Footnote 7:

Woltmann, A. H., 25.

Footnote 8:

Woltmann, _Holbein und seine Zeit_, i. 67.

Footnote 9:

See Willy Hes, _Ambrosius Holbein_, p. 149.

Footnote 10:

Woltmann, 1-4. The first and third reproduced by Curt Glaser, _Hans

Holbein der Ältere_, Pl. ii.

Footnote 11:

The “Death of Mary” in the Basel Gallery, formerly part of the Afra

altar-piece in the chapel of the Kaisheimer-Hofes in Augsburg, bears

an almost illegible date, which the Basel catalogue gives as 1490, but

is more probably 1495. See Curt Glaser, _Hans Holbein der Ältere_, p.

23, and Pl. iii.

Footnote 12:

Woltmann, 5. Reproduced by Glaser, Pl. v.; Davies (central part), p.

Footnote 13:

Or Rehlingen.

Footnote 14:

Woltmann, 6. See Glaser, p. 36.

Footnote 15:

Woltmann, i. 49. First cited by Hassler in _Verhandlungen des Vereins

für Kunst und Altertum in Ulm und Oberschwaben_, ix. and x., 1855, p.

79.

Footnote 16:

Woltmann, 207-210. Reproduced by Glaser, Pl. xii.

Footnote 17:

Three of them reproduced by Glaser, Pls. x. and xi.

Footnote 18:

Woltmann, 238-253. Ten of the panels reproduced by Glaser, Pls.

xiv.-xix.

Footnote 19:

Woltmann, 7. Reproduced by Glaser, Pl. xxii.

Footnote 20:

Woltmann, 8. Reproduced by Glaser, Pl. xxvi.; Davies (left-hand panel

only), p. 12.

Footnote 21:

Glaser, 230. Woltmann, 277. Reproduced by Glaser, Pl. i.

Footnote 22:

Glaser, 218 and 153. Woltmann, 160 and 170. The first reproduced by W.

Hes (_Ambrosius Holbein_), Pl. i. (2), and by Woltmann and Frisch in

_Hans Holbein des Ä. Silberstiftzeich. im Berlin_, Pl. 64; the second

by Glaser, Pl. xxxvii.; Davies, p. 1; Woltmann, vol. i., frontispiece;

and elsewhere.

Footnote 23:

Glaser, 233. Reproduced by Davies, p. 14.

Footnote 24:

Davies, p. 16.

Footnote 25:

For details of these payments, taken from the account books St.

Moritz, see Woltmann, ii. p. 30.

Footnote 26:

Woltmann, i. pp. 96-97, ii. 31. (Extracts from the Augsburger

Gerichtsbücher.)

Footnote 27:

The altar-piece of 1512 for the Convent of St. Catherine is referred

to in the next chapter. See pp. 23-5.

Footnote 28:

Woltmann, 254-258. Central panel and inner sides of shutters

reproduced by Glaser, Pls. xxx., xxxi.; the latter reproduced by

Davies, p. 22; outer sides of shutters by Woltmann, vol. i. pp. 88,

89.

Footnote 29:

Woltmann, i. 95.

Footnote 30:

Woltmann, vol. ii. p. 132, not numbered; reproduced by Glaser, Pls.

xxxii., xxxiii.; A. Seeman, in _Zeitschr. f. bild. Kunst_, xiv. p.

197, 1903 (in colour); Arundel Club, 1907, Pl. 4.

Footnote 31:

See note at end of this chapter.

Footnote 32:

Raczynski, _Les Arts en Portugal_, 1846, p. 295.

Footnote 33:

Glaser, p. 100; Reber, in _Kunstchronik_, xiv. p. 493, 1903.

Footnote 34:

Glaser, p. 105.

Footnote 35:

W., 41, 127-31, 279. G., 104-10.

Footnote 36:

W., 131-2, 226, 279-80. G., 109-14.

Footnote 37:

W., 109. G., 133.

Footnote 38:

W., 110. G., 134.

Footnote 39:

W., 117-18, 224. G., 137-9.

Footnote 40:

W., 119. G., 140.

Footnote 41:

W., 120. G., 141.

Footnote 42:

W., 121. G., 142.

Footnote 43:

W., 122. G., 143.

Footnote 44:

W., 149. G., 172.

Footnote 45:

W., 148. G., 169.

Footnote 46:

W., 143. G., 164.

Footnote 47:

W., 141-2. G., 165-6.

Footnote 48:

W., 111-12. G., 135-6.

Footnote 49:

W., 153-4. G., 156-7.

Footnote 50:

W., 231. G., 154.

Footnote 51:

W., 34. G., 170.

Footnote 52:

W., 145-6. G., 167-8.

Footnote 53:

W., 155-7. G., 209-11.

Footnote 54:

W., 159. G., 213.

Footnote 55:

W., 133-4. G., 115-17.

Footnote 56:

W., 124-5, 225. G., 100-2.

Footnote 57:

W., 126. G., 103.

Footnote 58:

W., 108. G., 151-2. Reproduced by Glaser, Pl. xxxvi.

Footnote 59:

Woltmann, 284.

Footnote 60:

Glaser, p. 133.

Footnote 61:

_Burlington Magazine_, October 1908, pp. 37-43.

Footnote 62:

Berlin, 2558. Glaser, 216. Woltmann, 158.

Footnote 63:

The portrait and both drawings reproduced by Mr. Dodgson in his

article; and the portrait in the _Illustrated Catalogue of the

Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition_, 1906, Pl. xxxi.

Footnote 64:

In May of the present year (1913) the “Fountain of Life” picture was

removed from the Palacio das Necessidades to the Museu Nacional de

Arte Antiga in Lisbon.

Footnote 65:

See page 254.

Footnote 66:

Published in 1868.

Footnote 67:

Woltmann, i. p. 101.

Footnote 68:

Woltmann, 14-17.

Footnote 69:

Reproduced by Glaser, Pl. xxix.

Footnote 70:

Glaser, p. 85.

Footnote 71:

Reproduced by Davies, p. 16.

Footnote 72:

This band of ornament, which is different in each panel, recalls the

very similar scroll-work by the younger Hans used in the upper part of

the organ shutters at one time in the cathedral church of Basel.

Footnote 73:

“IVSSV. VENER. PIENTQVE MATRIS VERONI . . W . . . E. H. HOLBAIN IN

AVG. ÆT. SVÆ XVII.” Wornum, p. 88. Woltmann, ii. p. 4.

Footnote 74:

_Kunstwerke und Künstler in Deutschland_, 1845.

Footnote 75:

Already mentioned, see p. 11. Glaser, 153. Woltmann, 107.

Footnote 76:

See page 5.

Footnote 77:

See Hes, p. 12, and footnote giving Woltmann’s various surmises as to

the date and figures inscribed on the drawing.

Footnote 78:

Woltmann, 160. Glaser, 218. Reproduced by Woltmann, _H. H. des Ä.

Silberstiftzeichnungen_, &c., Pl. lxiv.; Hes, Pl. i.

Footnote 79:

Woltmann, 43. Glaser, 203. Reproduced by His in his publication of the

elder Holbein’s drawings, Pl. lxxiv.; Hes, Pl. iii.

Footnote 80:

Woltmann, 58. Glaser, 265. Reproduced by His, Pl. lvii.; Hes, Pl. iv.

Footnote 81:

Reproduced by Glaser, Pl. xiii.; Hes, Pl. v.

Footnote 82:

Reproduced by Glaser, Pl. xvii.

Footnote 83:

See Hes, p. 15.

Footnote 84:

Parthey, No. 1418.

Footnote 85:

Or possibly from such miniatures as those in the Duke of Buccleuch’s

collection. See vol. ii. pp. 230-1.

Footnote 86:

Woltmann, i. 477. Dr. Paul Ganz suggests that one of these portraits

may have been the small roundel belonging to Lord Spencer,

traditionally known as a portrait of Holbein, but considered by him to

represent the jeweller, Hans of Antwerp. See Ganz, _Holbein_

(Klassiker der Kunst), p. 253. This large miniature is described more

fully in vol. ii. pp. 14-15.

Footnote 87:

Walpole, _Anecdotes_, ed. Wornum, 1888, i. p. 93.

Footnote 88:

See vol. ii. pp. 230-1.

Footnote 89:

This small roundel is now considered to be a portrait of Hans of

Antwerp. See vol. ii. p. 14.

Footnote 90:

Davies, p. 14.

Footnote 91:

Ganz, _Hdz. Schwz. Mstr._, note to i. 10.

Footnote 92:

His name does not appear in the Augsburg rate-books after 1509, and

after 1512, the date on one of his brother’s portrait-studies of him,

no further trace of him is to be found in his native city.

Footnote 93:

Reproduced by Davies, p. 33; Knackfuss, fig. 1; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 3.

Footnote 94:

Woltmann, 359.

Footnote 95:

S. Vögelin, “Ein wiedergefundenes Meisterwerk Holbeins,” in

_Frankfurter Zeitung_, 1871 (Nos. 236-7, 244, 248), and _Der

Holbein-tisch auf der Stadtbibliothek in Zürich_, Wien, 1878.

Reproduced as a whole and in detail, together with a reconstruction,

by Ganz in _Holbein_ (_K. der K._) pp. 6-9.

Footnote 96:

Woltmann, 7, 8. Reproduced by Knackfuss, figs. 2, 3; Ganz, _Holbein_,

pp. 19, 20.

Footnote 97:

Woltmann, 168. Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 4; and in outline by

Reinach, _Répertoire de Peintures_, i. p. 401 (as by H. H. the Elder).

Footnote 98:

Reproduced by Reinach, _Répertoire_, i. p. 4.

Footnote 99:

Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 5. Wrongly described in Reinach,

_Répertoire_, as “The Flagellation.”

Footnote 100:

Dr. Willy Hes considers this portrait to be by Herbster himself. See

p. 60.

Footnote 101:

Woltmann, 27. Reproduced by Knackfuss, fig. 4; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 21.

Footnote 102:

Woltmann, 24. Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 22.

Footnote 103:

Woltmann, 25. Reproduced by Davies, p. 38; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 23.

Footnote 104:

Woltmann, 26. Reproduced by Davies, p. 40; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 25.

Footnote 105:

Woltmann, 28. Reproduced by Davies, p. 42; Knackfuss, fig. 5; Ganz,

_Holbein_, p. 24.

Footnote 106:

Davies, p. 40.

Footnote 107:

Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 233.

Footnote 108:

Woltmann, 51. Reproduced by Ganz, _Handzeichnungen Schweizerischer

Meister_, iii. 8; Knackfuss, fig. 66.

Footnote 109:

See Appendix (A).

Footnote 110:

Ganz, _Hdz. Schwz. Mstr._, note to iii. 8.

Footnote 111:

Woltmann, Woodcuts, 193. Reproduced by Knackfuss, fig. 67.

Footnote 112:

Woltmann, 234. Reproduced by Davies, p. 186; A. F. Butsch, _Die

Bücher-Ornamentik der Renaissance_, 1878, Pl. 41; Wornum, dedication

page.

Footnote 113:

Woltmann, 111.

Footnote 114:

This inscription, however, is now regarded as a rather doubtful one,

and it is possible that the book was never permanently in the

possession of Erasmus. See Hes, _Ambrosius Holbein_, pp. 83-94, where

the history of the book and the various theories as to its ownership

and the authorship of the drawings are very fully discussed.

Footnote 115:

See Ganz, _Hdz. Schweiz. Mstr._, note to i. 52.

Footnote 116:

Dr. Hes subjects the drawings to careful analysis, and gives a

complete list, together with the suggested authorship of each of them,

in _Ambrosius Holbein_, pp. 90-94 and 161-166.

Footnote 117:

Twelve of them reproduced by Ganz, _Hdz. Schweiz. Mstr._, i. 52; the

whole set by Mantz, but so badly engraved that they are of little

service for purposes of comparison; the whole of the drawings now

attributed to Ambrosius by Hes, Pls. xvi.-xx., and p. 139.

Footnote 118:

Dr. Hes points out the similarity of this figure to that of the

schoolmistress in the “Schoolmaster’s Signboard,” and considers that

Ambrosius had a share in the painting of the latter. See _Ambrosius

Holbein_, p. 93.

Footnote 119:

By Ambrosius Holbein.

Footnote 120:

The name, however, was not written by Erasmus, but is a later

addition.

Footnote 121:

Woltmann, under H. H. the Elder, 182. Reproduced by Knackfuss, fig. 6;

Ganz, _Holbein_ (_K. der K._), p. 203; Hes, Pl. xxxiv.

Footnote 122:

Dr. Hes regards this portrait as the work of Herbster himself. See

_Ambrosius Holbein_, p. 145.

Footnote 123:

Woltmann, under H. H. the Elder, 106, but he afterwards attributed it

to the younger Hans. Reproduced by Ganz, _Handzeichnungen

Schweizerischer Meister_, &c., ii. 2; Hes, Pl. xxiv.

Footnote 124:

Woltmann, 5, 6. Reproduced by Knackfuss, figs. 10, 11; Ganz, _Holbein_

(_K. der K._), pp. 10, 11.

Footnote 125:

Woltmann, 11. Reproduced by Davies, pp. 44, 46; Knackfuss, figs. 14,

15; Ganz, _Holbein_, pp. 12, 13.

Footnote 126:

On the back of the portrait of Meyer, Holbein painted, four years

later, the sitter’s coat of arms, surmounted by a scroll inscribed

“I.M. 1520.” (Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 30.) There is a good

old copy of the wife’s portrait in the collection of Mr. Ralph

Brocklebank, Haughton Hall, Tarporley, which was previously in the

William Graham collection; and a copy of both portraits in the Basel

Gallery, No. 350, from the Faesch collection.

Footnote 127:

According to Stödtner, these portraits show the influence of

Burgkmair.

Footnote 128:

Woltmann, 33, 34. Reproduced by Ganz, _Hdz. Schwz. Mstr._, ii. 18 and

iii. 7, and the “Meyer” in _Hdz. von H. H. dem Jüng._, Pl. 2; the

“Dorothea” by Davies, p. 46; both by Knackfuss, figs. 12, 13.

Footnote 129:

“—ogen schwarz—baret rot mosfarb—brauenn gelber dan das har—grusen wit

brauenn.”

Footnote 130:

Woltmann, 9. Reproduced by Knackfuss, fig. 16; Ganz, _Holbein_ (_K.

der K._) p. 14.

Footnote 131:

Ganz, _Holbein_ (_K. der K._), p. 233.

Footnote 132:

Reproduced by Law, _Royal Gallery of Hampton Court_, p. 154.

Footnote 133:

This theory is held by Herr Th. von Liebenau. See his _H. H. des Jüng.

Fresken am Hertensteinhause zu Luzern_, &c., 1888.

Footnote 134:

Woltmann, 16. Reproduced by Ganz, _Hdz. Schwz. Mstr._, ii. 52; Hes,

Pl. xxx.

Footnote 135:

E. His, “Die Baseler Archive über H. H.,” in Zahn’s _Jahrbuch_, 1870,

p. 113. Woltmann, i. p. 135; Hes, p. 16.

Footnote 136:

Woltmann, 5. Reproduced by Hes, Pl. xxxvi.

Footnote 137:

Woltmann, Woodcuts, 18-21. See Hes, p. 23, who reproduces all four

woodcuts, Pls. xiv.-xv.

Footnote 138:

Woltmann, 2, 3. No. 294 reproduced in the Basel Catalogue, 1908, and

both by Hes, Pl. xxxi., xxxii.

Footnote 139:

Woltmann, 24. Reproduced by Hes, Pl. xxix.

Footnote 140:

Reproduced by Hes, Pl. xxviii.

Footnote 141:

Woltmann, 23. See Hes, pp. 124-6. Reproduced by him, Pl. xxxiii.

Footnote 142:

Woltmann, 1. Reproduced by Hes, Pl. xxiii.

Footnote 143:

Woltmann, 4.

Footnote 144:

Woltmann, under Hans the Younger, 203. Reproduced by Hes, Pl. xxxvii.;

Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 204.

Footnote 145:

See Hes, pp. 144-6.

Footnote 146:

Woltmann, 6. Reproduced by Ganz, _Hdz. Schwz. Mstr._, iii. 6; Hes, Pl.

xxvi.

Footnote 147:

Woltmann, 7. Reproduced by Hes, Pl. xxvii.

Footnote 148:

Woltmann, 8. Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. xvi.; Hes, Pl. xxv.

Footnote 149:

Woltmann, 10. Reproduced by Ganz, _Hdz. Schwz. Mstr._, i. 22;

Knackfuss, fig. 39; Hes, Pl. xxii.

Footnote 150:

Woltmann, 22. Reproduced by Hes, Pl. xxxv.

Footnote 151:

This picture was included in the Exposition de la Toison d’Or, Bruges,

1907, No. 130.

Footnote 152:

Woltmann, Woodcuts, 7. Reproduced by Butsch, _Die Bücher-Ornamentik

der Renaissance_, Pl. 46; Hes, Pl. x.

Footnote 153:

Woltmann, Woodcuts, 17.

Footnote 154:

Woltmann, Woodcuts, 16.

Footnote 155:

See Woltmann, ii. pp. 205-214; Hes, pp. 27-80, and Pls. vi.-xv.; also

Butsch.

Footnote 156:

Reproduced by Ganz, _Hdz. Schwz. Mstr._, i. 39; Hes, Pl. xxi.

Footnote 157:

See Hes, p. 148. Reproduced by Vasari Society, No. 17, Pt. i., 1905-6.

Footnote 158:

Woltmann, 103. Reproduced by Ganz, _Hdz. Schwz. Mstr._, i. 40; and in

_Hdz. von H. H. dem Jüng._, Pl. 4; and _Holbein_, p. 154.

Footnote 159:

Woltmann, 216.

Footnote 160:

Woltmann, i. p. 143. Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 16.

Footnote 161:

Woltmann, 53. Reproduced by Ganz, _Hdz. Schwz. Mstr._, ii. 3; and in

_Holbein_, p. 154; the left-hand half by His, _Dessins d’Ornaments de

Hans Holbein_, Pl. ii.

Footnote 162:

Ganz, _Hdz. Schwz. Mstr._, note to ii. 3.

Footnote 163:

For completer details, see Th. von Liebenau, _Hans Holbeins d. J.

Fresken am Hertenstein Hause in Luzern_, 1888; P. Ganz, “Hans Holbeins

Italienfahrt,” in _Süddeutsche Monatshefte_, 1909, vol. vi. p 596.

Footnote 164:

Parthey, 1548. Woltmann, ii. p. 166, who doubts that the original was

by Holbein.

Footnote 165:

Eight of them reproduced by Ganz, together with a reconstruction of

the façade by A. Landerer, in _Holbein_, pp. 153-158.

Footnote 166:

Reproduced in the _Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of New York_,

vol. i. No. 12 (Nov. 1906); _Burlington Magazine_, Oct. 1906, p. 53;

Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 15.

Footnote 167:

Woltmann, 58. Reproduced by Ganz, _Hdz. Schwz. Mstr._, i. 41 (_a_).

Footnote 168:

See _Süddeutsche Monatshefte_, 1909, p. 599.

Footnote 169:

See pp. 140-3, 150, &c.

Footnote 170:

Woltmann, 16. Reproduced by Knackfuss, fig. 19; Ganz, _Holbein_, p.

55.

Footnote 171:

See p. 40.

Footnote 172:

According to Dr. Ganz, the architectural motives are derived from the

loggia of the Cathedral of Como. See _Holbein_, p. 236.

Footnote 173:

See chapter vii.

Footnote 174:

Ganz, _Hdz. Schwz. Mstr._, notes to ii. 3, 51, iii. 9, 35; _Holbein_,

pp. xvi.-xviii.

Footnote 175:

Woltmann, 83, who calls the figure St. Pantalus. Reproduced by Ganz,

_Hdz. Schwz. Mstr._, iii. 35.

Footnote 176:

For further proofs, see Appendix (B).

Footnote 177:

Gauthiez, _Holbein_, p. 52, and the same writer’s “Holbein sur la

route d’Italie,” in _Gazette des Beaux-Arts_, Dec. 1897, Feb. 1898.

Footnote 178:

One is to be seen in the “Fountain of Youth” decoration for the

Hertenstein house.

Footnote 179:

Woltmann, 29. Reproduced by Ganz, _Hdz. Schwz. Mstr._, i. 53.

Footnote 180:

Woltmann, 107. Reproduced by Knackfuss, fig. 34.

Footnote 181:

For two others, see Appendix (B).

Footnote 182:

Woltmann, 99. Reproduced by Ganz, _Hdz. Schwz. Mstr._, iii. 10; and in

_Hdz. von H. H. dem Jüng._, Pl. 5; Knackfuss, fig. 27.

Footnote 183:

See Ganz, _Hdz. Schwz. Mstr._, note to iii. 10.

Footnote 184:

Reproduced by His, _Jahrbuch der Kgl. Preussischen Kunstsammlungen_,

1894, p. 208.

Footnote 185:

Gauthiez, p. 56.

Footnote 186:

_Index Operum Holbenii_, appendix to _Moriæ Encomium_, 1676, Nos.

47-51. Walpole, _Anecdotes_, ed. Wornum, p. 77.

Footnote 187:

Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 187, and note upon it, p. 249, from which this

information is taken.

Footnote 188:

Reproduced in _Hdz. Schwz. Mstr._, iii. 45, with note by Meyenburg.

Footnote 189:

See Ganz, _Holbein_, p. xviii.

Footnote 190:

Woltmann, i. 145.

Footnote 191:

Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. xl.

Footnote 192:

Woltmann, i. 145.

Footnote 193:

Woltmann, i. 183.

Footnote 194:

From Pantaleon, _Heldenbuch_, vol. iii.

Footnote 195:

For an exhaustive account of the formation and history of the Amerbach

Collection, which contains transcripts from the earliest inventory,

prepared by Basilius Amerbach, down to the one drawn up when the

collection was taken over by the city, see _Die Entstehung des

Amerbach’schen Kunstkabinets und die Amerbach’schen Inventare_, by Dr.

Ganz and Dr. Emil Major, in the 59th annual report (1907) of the Basel

Gallery.

Footnote 196:

Woltmann, 10. Reproduced by Davies, p. 60; Knackfuss, fig. 20; Ganz,

_Holbein_, p. 29.

Footnote 197:

Wornum, _Holbein_, p. 117.

Footnote 198:

See Ganz, _Holbein_, p. xvi.

Footnote 199:

See Ganz, _Holbein_, p. xix.

Footnote 200:

See p. 138.

Footnote 201:

See Appendix (E).

Footnote 202:

Ganz, _Holbein_, pp. 188-191.

Footnote 203:

Woltmann, 155, 156. Reproduced by Knackfuss, figs. 58, 59; Ganz,

_Holbein_, pp. 56-59.

Footnote 204:

There is considerable likeness between this group of the Infant Christ

and the boy angels surrounding him, and the one in the beautiful “Holy

Family” by Gaudenzio Ferrari at Dorchester House, more particularly in

the figure of the angel with small wings and close-fitting dress, who,

in Holbein’s picture, kneels in front of the Child with his back to

the spectator, and in the other is shown in profile, supporting him.

According to Miss Halsey (_Gaudenzio Ferrari_, p. 86), the Dorchester

House picture was “probably painted about 1521.”

Footnote 205:

Knackfuss, p. 83.

Footnote 206:

Woltmann, i. 178.

Footnote 207:

Woltmann, i. 176. Wornum, p. 112 (quoting from Hegner, _Hans Holbein

d. J._ 1827, and Schreiber, _Geschichte des Münsters zu Freiburg_,

&c.).

Footnote 208:

Woltmann, 20. Reproduced by Knackfuss, figs. 54, 55, and 56; Ganz,

_Holbein_, pp. 46-54; Mrs. Fortescue, Pl. 9.

Footnote 209:

According to Peter Ochs, it was painted for the Council Chamber of the

Basel Town Hall. Boisserée (1829) was of opinion that the damaged

panel of “The Last Supper,” already described, originally formed the

central panel of this altar-piece.

Footnote 210:

Sandrart, _Teutsche Akademie_, ii. p. 82.

Footnote 211:

Wornum, pp. 68-71.

Footnote 212:

That the restorer made changes, more particularly in the colour, can

be seen from two old copies of the “Betrayal” and the “Crucifixion”

subjects, now in the depot of the Basel Gallery, which indicate the

picture’s original state.

Footnote 213:

Woltmann, Eng. trans., p. 128.

Footnote 214:

See Ethel Halsey, _Gaudenzio Ferrari_, pp. 58, 69, &c.; Ganz,

_Holbein_, p. xxii., &c. The technique, also, closely resembles that

of the Milanese school, differing considerably from Holbein’s earlier

practice.

Footnote 215:

Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 235.

Footnote 216:

Reproduced by Ernest Law, _Holbein’s Pictures at Windsor Castle_, Pl.

x.; Davies, p. 98; Knackfuss, fig. 57; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 80.

Footnote 217:

Knackfuss, p. 81.

Footnote 218:

Davies, p. 98.

Footnote 219:

_Holbein’s Pictures at Windsor Castle_, p. 32.

Footnote 220:

Woltmann, 19. Reproduced by Davies, p. 76; Knackfuss, figs. 60, 61;

Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 45.

Footnote 221:

See Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 235.

Footnote 222:

_Jahrbuch der preuss. Kunsts._, 1907, vol. 28.

Footnote 223:

Woltmann, 62. Reproduced by Ganz, _Hdz. Schwz. Mstr._, ii. 51;

Knackfuss, fig. 65.

Footnote 224:

_Ganz, Hdz. Schwz. Mstr._, note to ii. 51. A photograph of the

sculptures on this doorway is reproduced by Dr. Ganz in his _Holbein_,

p. xix.

Footnote 225:

Woltmann, 52. Reproduced by Davies, p. 224; Knackfuss, fig. 64.

Footnote 226:

Woltmann, 172. Reproduced by Ganz, _Hdz. von H. H. dem Jüng._, Pl. 6.

Footnote 227: