Early references to Holbein as a miniature painter—Receives instruction from Lucas Hornebolt—Rareness of genuine miniatures by him—Sir Thomas More—Lord Abergavenny—Lady Audley—Henry and Charles Brandon—Drawing in the British Museum of a lady and children on a bench—Miniature of Mrs. Robert Pemberton—Unknown youth in the Queen of Holland’s Collection—Miniature paintings of Holbein himself—Thomas Cromwell—Anne of Cleves—Jane Seymour—Edward VI—Livina Teerlinc—Miniatures of the Holbein school—Miniature of an unknown man, possibly the painter Harry Maynert, at Munich.

The old tradition that Holbein did not practise miniature painting until after he had settled in England is probably true. Van Mander says that it was only at a late period, after he had entered the King’s service, that he, who knew how to adapt himself almost to everything, took up the art of miniature painting, in which he had before done nothing. At that time he met at the Court a very famous master in this art, named Master Lukas. “With Lukas he kept up mutual acquaintance and intercourse, and learned from him the art of miniature painting, which, since then, he pursued to such an extent, that in a short time he as far excelled Lukas in drawing, arrangement, understanding, and execution, as the sun surpasses the moon in brightness.”[482] Seventy years later Sandrart repeated this statement, which he evidently took from Van Mander’s book. The Master Lukas in question was undoubtedly Lucas Hornebolt, who was in the employment of the King throughout the whole period of Holbein’s residence in England. So far, the only pictures extant which have been attributed with some certainty to the studio of Lucas and Gerard Hornebolt are the portraits of Henry VIII, of the type of the Warwick Castle portrait, when that monarch was drawing towards the end of his life; but the sister, Susanna, wife of John Parker, Yeoman of the Robes, and one of the King’s bowmen, was well known in her day as an excellent miniaturist, while Guicciardini speaks of Lucas as not only a very great painter, but as exceptionally good in the art of illuminating, so that it is extremely probable that a number of the miniatures still in existence, representing Henry, his wives, and members of his Court, which though very excellent, have not the brilliance of execution and the unfailing insight into character which mark the few genuine miniatures by Holbein, were the work of the members of this family. Guicciardini published his book only twenty-four years after Holbein’s death, so that his account of the position they occupied at Henry’s court, and the estimation in which they were held in England, borne out as it is by the royal accounts, is evidently an accurate one.

Further confirmation of the fact that Holbein was famous for his skill in miniature painting during his residence in England is to be found in a manuscript “Treatise concerning the Arte of Limning,” which was written, at the request of Richard Haydock, by Nicholas Hilliard, the first and one of the finest of English native-born miniature painters, who was born in all probability in 1537, and so was a boy of six when Holbein died, and based his art on Holbein’s own practice. This treatise, which was first published in its entirety by Dr. Philip Norman in the first annual volume of the Walpole Society, 1911-12, from the original manuscript in the Edinburgh University Library, was probably written by Hilliard between 1598-1602. The manuscript, which is not in the miniaturist’s own hand, is dated 18th March 1624. In it Hilliard extols “King Henry the eight a Prince of exquisit jugment and Royall bounty, soe that of cuning stranger even the best resorted unto him, and removed from other courts to his. Amongst whom came the most excelent Painter and limner Master Haunce Holbean the greatest Master Truly in both thosse arts after the liffe that ever was, so Cuning in both together and the neatest; and therewithall a good inventor, soe compleat for all three, as I never heard of any better then hee. Yet had the King in wages for limning Divers others, but Holbean’s maner of limning I have ever imitated and howld it for the best, by Reason that of truth all the rare Siences especially the arts of Carving, Painting, Goudsmiths, Imbroderers, together with the most of all the liberall Siences came first unto us from the strangers, and generally they are the best and most in number. I heard Kinsard [Ronsard?] the great French poet on a time say, that the Ilands indeed seldome bring forth any Cunning man, but when they Doe it is in high perfection; so then I hope there maie come out of this ower land such a one, this being the greatest and most famous Iland of Europe.”[483]

Still further proof of Holbein’s fame as a limner or miniature painter is to be found in a manuscript written by Edward Norgate, called “Miniatura or the Art of Limning,” now among the Rawlinson MSS. in the Bodleian Library, dedicated to Henry Frederick, Earl of Arundel. Other versions of this treatise on the “Art of Limning” are in the British Museum (Harl. MSS., No. 6000); in the possession of the Royal Society, which came from the Arundel Collection; and elsewhere. Norgate based a considerable part of his treatise on the earlier one by Hilliard. “The incomparable H. Holbein,” he says, “who, in all his different and various methods of painting, either in oyle, distempre, lymning or crayon, was, it seems, so general an artist as never to imitate any man, nor ever was worthily imitated by any.”[484]

Van Mander is, no doubt, correct in saying that Holbein received instruction in the art of miniature painting from Lucas Hornebolt, and that he had not practised it until he came to England; though Hornebolt had nothing to teach him but the practical use of a medium in which, as applied to portraiture, he had until then had very little experience. There is no evidence to show that he produced true miniatures while in Basel, though there is one attributed to him in the collection of the late Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan, a portrait of a Baseler, a certain Arnold Franz, described below, which affords possible proof that he did so. Such an isolated example as this, however, may have been painted during one of his later visits to Basel, or it may represent one of the members of the German colony in London. Several of his small circular oil paintings, almost the size of the true miniature, have been described in earlier chapters,[485] so that he was already skilled in working on a small scale, and within it of producing a life-like portrait, of the utmost delicacy and truth to nature, while his extraordinary skill and precision in rendering with most minute yet masterly touches of the brush all the details of the sitter’s costume, jewellery, and accessories, must have left him little to learn when he began to work in the new medium. It is evident that he soon set up a standard of excellence in this field which both his contemporaries and the miniaturists who came after him did their best to reach.

His miniatures are now of the greatest rarity, though there are many in various English collections which still wrongfully bear his name, given to them in less critical days, when every portrait, great and small, dating from Tudor times, was ascribed to him. In certain of these, very possibly Holbein’s original handiwork has been buried beneath repairs and repaints by later and less skilful hands. No doubt a number of others have been lost, for so delicate and small an object of art as a miniature is soon damaged or mislaid; though against this must be set the fact that many of them were kept in specially-made ivory boxes, and so would not easily suffer destruction. The number of them which, from the perfection of their execution, can be said with some approach to certainty to be from his brush, can be counted almost on the fingers of one’s hands. These include the portraits of Mrs. Pemberton; the two sons of the Duke of Suffolk, Henry and Charles Brandon; Lady Audley; Queen Catherine Howard; Sir Thomas More; the portrait of an unknown youth in the Queen of Holland’s collection; several of the painter himself, done in the last year of his life, and two or three others. After these come several which, though less perfect in draughtsmanship, have serious claims to be considered as his work, and after these, again, there are those fairly numerous examples which, though of good execution and of real interest and value, have no pretensions to rank as works of the great master. Some of these have been attributed tentatively to such painters as the Hornebolts, Livina Teerlinc, Stretes, or Bettes, though modern criticism has not succeeded as yet in disentangling the works of these little masters the one from the other, so that the various attributions are at present more or less mere guesswork.

The beautiful miniature of Sir Thomas More, rediscovered by Dr. Williamson when in the Godolphin-Quicke Collection, and first published by him in his History of Portrait Miniatures, which is in the late Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan’s collection, has been already described when speaking of the portraits of Sir Thomas.[486] A second miniature of More, in the collection of the Duke of Buccleuch at Montagu House, was first reproduced by Mr. Dudley Heath in The Connoisseur.”[487] This, though based, like the Pierpont Morgan miniature, on the Huth portrait, shows some differences from both. It is smaller than the other miniature, and the sitter appears to be some years older. The eyes are more downcast and the head slightly bent, while the scanty beard is whiter. In other respects the dress, consisting of black cap and furred gown, and collar of SS with the Tudor rose, is the same. Another interesting point about it is that it is painted, not in water-colours, but in oil on a gesso ground, upon a metal plaque which appears to be silver. It has, unfortunately, suffered to some extent in the course of time, and has been retouched here and there, but it is a fine example, very possibly by Holbein, showing, according to Mr. Heath, “that vivid realism, yet reserve of expression, that sensitive modulation of the tones and contours, that insistent yet flexible drawing of the features, which constitute the sign-manual of the great portrait painter.” Nothing seems to be known of the history of this miniature, which was exhibited at South Kensington in 1862 (No. 2061), in the Royal Academy Winter Exhibition in 1879 (Case L, 4), and at the Burlington Fine Arts Club in 1909 (Case C, 17). These miniatures of More would seem to suggest that Holbein’s earlier biographers were wrong in stating that he did not begin to practise in this branch of art until after he had entered Henry VIII’s service. It has been generally supposed that when he returned to England a second time he saw little or nothing of the Chancellor, and if that is so, these miniatures must have been painted between 1526 and 1528, when he was at work on the big group of his first English patron’s family. At that time, however, Holbein had no official connection with the court, and was possibly not yet on terms of intimacy with the Hornebolts, so that it seems more probable that any miniatures of More from his hand were done between 1532, the date of Holbein’s return to London, and 1534, when the ex-Chancellor was imprisoned in the Tower. Another possible solution is that they were painted after More’s death for friends or relations who desired a memorial of him, and were done from the oil painting or from the preliminary drawings still in the painter’s possession.

Another miniature from the Montagu House Collection was also reproduced for the first time by Mr. Dudley Heath in the same article,[488] and was lent by the Duke of Buccleuch to the Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition (Case C, 22). It represents George Nevill, third Lord Abergavenny, and, as already noted,[489] is founded on the fine drawing in the collection of the Earl of Pembroke, for so long considered to be a portrait of Thomas Cromwell. The face, which is that of an old man, is turned three-quarters to the spectator’s right, and is clean-shaven. His white hair is almost covered by the black cap, on which is a gold jewel with three pendant pearls. He wears a black fur-lined gown over a black doublet open at the throat, showing his white shirt. On the left-hand side of the bright-blue background is inscribed “G. Abergaveny.” It is painted, like nearly all miniatures of the period, on a playing card, and is 1¾ in. in diameter. It was purchased by its present owner, with some other miniatures, at the Earl of Westmorland’s sale at Apethorpe Hall, Northamptonshire, in 1892. It is in a perfect state of preservation, full of vitality, and excellent in modelling, and has considerable claims to be regarded as an original. The pale, high tones of the flesh colour are in marked contrast to the lower tones of the oil miniature of Sir Thomas More in the same collection.

The two almost similar miniatures of Catherine Howard, at Windsor Castle (Pl. 31 (4)) and Montagu House, have been already described;[490] both are beautiful examples, and each one is almost certainly from Holbein’s own hand, though the former has suffered from restoration. In the royal collection at Windsor there are three other miniatures which also can be given to him without any hesitation, all three being masterpieces of the art of the limner; these are the portraits of Lady Audley and the two Brandon boys. The miniature of Lady Audley (Pl. 31 (3)),[491] is of extraordinary delicacy in handling and colour, and bears the stamp of Holbein in every minute and unerring touch. As Mr. Law says, “there was no other artist at the court of Henry VIII, or indeed in Northern Europe, who could have produced so exquisite a work of art.”[492] She is shown to the waist, turned to the right, with hands folded in front of her. Her richly-brocaded dress is of pale crimson, with under-sleeves of dark grey and white ruffles, and she wears a French hood trimmed with pearls, and a black fall over her fair hair. Her double necklace is of almost the same pattern as the one worn by Catherine Howard. There is no inscription on the plain, deep blue background. It is 2½ in. in diameter, and is painted on the back of the two of hearts. The identity of the sitter is placed beyond doubt by the fine drawing, inscribed “The Lady Audley,” in the Windsor Collection (Pl. 37 (1)),[493] in which the position and features of the sitter, the costume and ornaments, are almost exactly the same, while the colour of the dress in the miniature agrees with the note in Holbein’s handwriting on the drawing—“damast rot.” This drawing is one of the finest and most delicate among the heads of women in the Windsor Collection—a long, handsome face, with pointed chin and sharp nose, and very expressive eyes. Holbein has carefully indicated the details of the ornaments she is wearing. Her necklace is of elaborate workmanship, apparently a band of alternate links of enamel and pearls arranged as flowers, with a large pendant with inset facetted jewels and three hanging pearls. At her breast is a large circular ornament of a somewhat similar design. The oil painting for which the preliminary study was made, and from which the miniature was possibly taken, is now lost. Elizabeth, Lady Audley, was the eldest daughter of one who must have been in constant touch with Holbein—Sir Bryan Tuke, the Treasurer of the Chamber, whose portrait by him has been already described, and from whose hands he received his salary. She married John Touchet, ninth Lord Audley.

The portraits of the two young sons of the Duke of Suffolk, Henry and Charles Brandon, are acknowledged on all sides to be among the very finest of Holbein’s miniatures. Dr. Woltmann, indeed, considered the one of the elder brother to be the best which ever came from his brush. It is, he says, “the most beautiful miniature painting by Holbein that is known to us, and exhibits more strikingly than any other his artistic style and his spirited and perfect mode of execution, true in spite of all its delicacy.”[494] This is certainly by no means too high praise, for both miniatures are delightful renderings of childhood, drawn with all Holbein’s keen perception, and faultless in their precision of line and delightfulness of colouring. The elder boy, Henry (Pl. 31 (1)),[495] aged five, is shown to the waist, full-face, leaning with his left arm on a table at his side, his head slightly bent in the same direction. He is wearing a black velvet dress with green under-sleeves, and a black hat with a white feather. His fair hair is cut straight across his forehead, and there is a rather sad look in his eyes. On the ledge of the table is inscribed, “ETATIS SVE 5 6 SEPDEM,” and below, on the table-leg, “ANNO” and the date, which has been variously read by different writers. The younger brother, Charles (Pl. 31 (2)),[496] aged three, is also seen to the waist and full-face. His dress is a bluish grey braided in red, and with black cuffs. His flat black cap has no feather; his hair, like his brother’s, is very fair, and his blue eyes look straight at the spectator. There is a strong likeness between the two. He holds in front of him a paper with the inscription “ANN 1541 ETATIS SVÆ 3 10 MARCI.” Both miniatures are painted on a playing card, 2 in. in diameter, and in each the background is the usual bright blue. Their pedigree in the royal collection can be traced back as far as Charles I, in whose catalogue they appear as: “Done by Hans Holbein. Given to the King by Sir H. Vane. No. 64. Item. Done upon the wrong light. Upon a round card, one of the Duke of Brandon’s children, being in a purple habit laced with red velvet lace, with both his hands before him. 2 inches.” “No. 65. Item. Another fellow piece of the same Duke of Brandon’s children, in a black cap and habit with green sleeves, leaning with his left arm upon the table, bending his breast towards his left shoulder, on the table written his age, and the year of our Lord, done upon the wrong light.” They appear again in James H’s catalogue, No. 646, as: “Two heads in one frame, in limning, being the sons of Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk. By Holbein.”

The boys were the sons of Charles Brandon, first Duke of Suffolk, who became brother-in-law of the King by his secret marriage in Paris on May 13, 1515, with the young Queen Dowager of France, widow of Louis XII; and their mother, Suffolk’s fourth wife, was Catherine, only daughter and heiress of William, tenth Lord Willoughby de Eresby. The year date on the elder boy’s portrait has been usually read as 1535. It is so given by Wornum and Woltmann, and other writers have followed them, but if the portrait represents Henry Brandon, the date is quite impossible. Mary Tudor, the “French Queen,” the Duke of Suffolk’s third wife, died on June 25, 1533, and in September of the same year Brandon married Catherine Willoughby, the mother of these two boys. In Burke, on the other hand, it is stated that the marriage took place in 1535; but this appears to be incorrect. The Dictionary of National Biography gives the date of the elder boy’s birth as September 18, 1535, which date is fixed by the inquisitio post mortem held after his father’s death in 1545; so that it is quite impossible that the lad could have been five years old in 1535. Mr. Ernest Law reads the date on the miniature as possibly 1539; to the writer, however, who has not had the privilege of examining the original, it appears, from careful examination of the excellent reproduction in Mr. Law’s book, to be either 1543 or 1545, the third figure being plainly a 4. Neither of these dates, however, can be correct, and it is quite possible that at some time the inscription, growing illegible, has been repainted, and that in so doing the restorer has made a mistake. The lettering on both miniatures lacks the precision of an original inscription by Holbein. It is generally assumed that the two dates, “6 Sep” and “10 Marci,” refer to the boys’ birthdays, and there is no difficulty with regard to the second boy, Charles, who was born in March 1538, two and a half years after his brother. The two miniatures have every appearance of having been painted at about the same time, and it is to be expected that the elder of the two would be painted first. The writer suggests, therefore, that the correct date of the portrait of Henry is September 1540, and that of Charles, March 1541.

The two boys were very carefully brought up in the Protestant faith by their mother. Martin Bucer, the German reformer, was appointed their tutor, and they were afterwards in the charge of Thomas Wilson, who became Secretary of State to Queen Elizabeth. At a later period Henry was sent to Sir John Cheke, and was educated with Prince Edward, and finally entered St. John’s College, Cambridge, where his brother afterwards followed him. While there the two boys contracted that scourge of the sixteenth century, the sweating sickness. On the occasion of the outbreak they were hastily removed for safety to the Bishop of Lincoln’s palace at Brickdon, in Huntingdonshire, but too late, for both developed the disease, and died together in one bed, on the same day, July 11, 1551, the younger within less than an hour of the elder. Their death at so early an age made an extraordinary impression at the time, and a pamphlet on the subject was published by their tutor, Dr. Walter Haddon. Peter Martyr said of Henry that, with the exception of Edward VI, he was the most promising youth of his day.

There is a very beautiful drawing of the boys’ mother in the Windsor Collection,[497] a head turned three-quarters to the left, wearing the English angular head-dress with a band of pearls, and a second ornamented band of which part of the pattern has been drawn in detail by Holbein. The collar is elaborately braided with black velvet, and a medallion is indicated at the breast. The brown eyes and the hair have been put in with water-colour. The portrait for which it was the original study has not been traced. There is a replica of this head in the British Museum (No. 10),[498] which was formerly in the Robinson and Malcolm collections. In this connection, too, a second drawing in the British Museum may be cited, which represents a woman and children sitting on a bench (No. 8) (Pl. 32).[499] It is in Indian-ink on paper, 5¼ in. × 4¼ in., and comes from the Cosway and Utterson collections. It has been reproduced by the Vasari Society,[500] with a note by Mr. Campbell Dodgson, and by Dr. Paul Ganz.[501] Mr. Dodgson suggests that the scene represented is the interior of a church. An effect of warm sunshine is skilfully suggested by the light which falls from a window, not seen, on the right. The mother or nurse is seated in the centre of the group, on a high-backed bench with panelling of the Tudor “linen” pattern, a baby in long clothes held on her lap. On her right a boy with a flat cap and feather, and puffed sleeves, is seated, his left elbow resting on the arm of the bench. A little girl stands in front of her, looking up, and on the left a younger boy, dressed like his brother, is standing, the whole making a group of the greatest charm. It is described in the British Museum Catalogue as an admirable example of Holbein’s earlier Basel period, but it is evidently of later date, and the costumes are undoubtedly English. It has been recently suggested by Mr. Peartree that the woman is “Mother Jack,” nurse to Prince Edward.[502] In features and costume she bears considerable likeness to the unnamed drawing in the Windsor Collection,[503] which is supposed to be a portrait of that nurse. If this supposition be correct, the baby would be the Prince of Wales, and the date of the drawing about 1537; but this fails to account for the three other children. Dr. Ganz considers it to be a group of members of the Brandon family,[504] and as far as the two boys are concerned, this suggestion has something in its favour. The lad on the right is by no means unlike Henry Brandon. The position of the head and the left arm are exactly the same as in the miniature, and the dress has many points of resemblance. The second boy, too, has some likeness to Charles, though he does not wear the velvet-braided costume of the miniature. Again, however, there is a stumbling-block to this theory in the presence of the two younger children, for the Duke’s family by his fourth wife consisted of the two boys only. By his second marriage with Anne, daughter of Sir Anthony Browne, he had two daughters, Anne, afterwards Lady Powys, and Mary, afterwards Lady Monteagle, and by his third wife, the King’s sister, he had two other daughters, Frances, afterwards Countess of Dorset, and Eleanor, afterwards Countess of Cumberland, but these ladies were all too old for one of them to have been the little girl represented in the drawing. Owing, no doubt, to the wrong date on the miniature of Henry Brandon, Dr. Ganz ascribes this drawing to the year 1535, and sees signs in the elder boy’s face of approaching illness, although no such illness is recorded until the sudden one in 1551, when he was nearly sixteen. Both explanations are ingenious, but neither is entirely satisfactory. On the margin of the drawing, in a later hand, is written—“exaltate Cedrus. H. Holbein,” which, apparently, is a reference to Ecclesiasticus xxiv. 17, “Quasi cedrus exaltata sum in Libano.”

The utmost perfection in miniature painting is to be found in the portrait of Mrs. Robert Pemberton (#Pl. 33 (1)pl-33#),[505] in the late Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan’s collection (No. iv.), which bears in every touch the unapproachable skill and rare individuality of the artist. It was formerly in the collection of Mr. C. Heywood Hawkins, and at his sale on May 15, 1904, realised £2750, afterwards passing into the possession of Mr. Morgan, by whose courtesy it is reproduced in this book. In the Hawkins Sale-Catalogue it was described as the portrait of Frances Howard, Duchess of Norfolk, but without authority, for there was no Duchess of Norfolk of that name in Holbein’s time. When exhibited by Mr. Hawkins at South Kensington in 1865, it was described in the catalogue as merely—“Portrait of a Lady, Anno Aetatis Suae 23. Her coat of arms is affixed to the case.” This coat, described by Sir Richard Holmes in the Burlington Magazine,[506] in a note accompanying a reproduction of the portrait, is dated MDLVI, and in style and painting is about a century later than the miniature. These arms, as Sir Richard first pointed out, are those of the Pemberton family. Further researches, undertaken by Dr. Williamson, and embodied in his catalogue of Mr. Pierpont Morgan’s Miniatures, prove, almost without doubt, that the lady represented was Mrs. Robert Pemberton. He says: “The arms of the wyverns’ heads which are quartered with those of Pemberton belong to the family of Jago di Lago, gentleman, of Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire; and Robert Pemberton, of Rushden, Northants, M.P. for Northampton in 1478, married Alice, daughter and co-heir of this Jago di Lago.... Major-General R. C. B. Pemberton, to whom I am indebted for these interesting references, is of opinion that the lady in the miniature is Margaret, daughter of Richard Throgmorton, of Higham Park, co. Northants, who was buried at Rushden, 27th October 1576. She married Robert Pemberton, of Pemberton, co. Lancs., and of Rushden, eldest son of William Pemberton, of the same places, and he died in September 1594. The arms would be those of this Robert Pemberton, whose grandfather certainly bore them.”[507]

In this very beautiful little masterpiece the lady is shown three-quarters face to the right, wearing a black velvet bodice and small white linen cape, and a lawn collar and cuffs, embroidered with a geometrical design in black. She has a red carnation fastened in her dress, and round her neck a thin black cord with gold filigree ends, and holds a single green leaf in her crossed hands. Her hair, which is parted in the centre, is almost concealed beneath her white linen cap. The background is, as usual, blue, and across it, in gold letters, runs the inscription, “ANNO ETATIS SVÆ 23.” It is painted on the back of a playing card, and is still in its original frame, decorated with white and black enamel and three pearls.

The miniature in the Queen of Holland’s collection (Pl. 31 (5)) equals, if it does not surpass, in the brilliance and delicacy of its execution and in the subtlety of its characterisation, the portrait of Mrs. Pemberton; in some ways, indeed, it is the most perfect example of Holbein’s mastery of this branch of art which remains. Its discovery was due to Sir Richard Holmes, who, in 1903, first attributed it to Holbein, in a communication to the Burlington Magazine,[508] accompanied by a reproduction of the miniature. It forms one of a collection of some four hundred, of which about fifty are of English origin, in the royal collections of Holland at the Hague. It represents a youth of about fifteen or sixteen, who so far has not been identified. The head and shoulders only are shown, turned three-quarters to the spectator’s right, the eyes cast down. The hair is cut close, and the dress is a brown doublet trimmed with black, with a small open, falling collar with white strings attached. There is no inscription on the background. With the exception of slight discoloration of the collar through the oxidization of the pigment, this miniature is in faultless condition. “Its extraordinary power and beauty,” says Sir Richard, “were manifest at first sight, and a close examination has convinced me that it can be attributed only to Holbein, of whose work in this branch of portraiture I have long been a student, as well as of his crayon drawings. It has all the restraint of power so characteristic of him, and the exquisite delicacy of line combined with firmness and precision, which never united in the same degree in any master with whose work I am acquainted.”[509] The same writer suggested that it is possibly the portrait of a member of the family of one of the German merchants of the Steelyard. The facial characteristics, however, appear to be more English than German, and it most probably represents the son of some personage about Henry’s court. It was exhibited at the Exhibition of Miniatures in Rotterdam in 1910, and again at Brussels in 1912 (No. 846). Another fine miniature in the Queen of Holland’s collection, the portrait of an unknown man in black (Brussels Exhibition, No. 847), was first pointed out by Dr. Williamson in his History of Portrait Miniatures as very probably the work of Holbein; and since its exhibition at Brussels in 1912 the attribution has been accepted by some of the leading Dutch critics.[510]

A fine miniature portrait of the artist himself, painted in the last year of his life, is in the possession of the Duke of Buccleuch,[511] and was exhibited at the Royal Academy Winter Exhibition, 1879 (Case F, 25), and at the Burlington Fine Arts Club in 1909 (Case C, 23). It is a bust portrait, turned three-quarters to the left, the head facing the spectator. He is represented in the act of painting, the left hand supporting the right, and is dressed in a plain black costume with white pleated collar and cuffs, and a round black skull-cap. He has dark hair and a closely-cut beard. Across the blue background is inscribed, “H.H. AN. 1543. ÆTATIS SVÆ 45.” It was formerly in the collection of Horace Walpole, and at the Strawberry Hill sale in 1842 was purchased by Mr. W. Blamire, and when the latter’s collection was disposed of in 1863 it passed into the possession of the Duke of Buccleuch. It is one of the best of several similar miniatures, and is very fine in execution, and has been usually ascribed to Holbein himself. The best of all is in the Wallace Collection (Case B, 93) (Pl. 33 (2)),[512] and appears to be from the painter’s own hand. A number of copies are to be found in various collections; one of them, in the Mayer van den Bergh Collection, Antwerp, is reproduced by Dr. Ganz.[513] Woltmann considered that the Montagu House portrait was “scarcely the original, but an old and contemporaneous copy,”[514] but it is too excellent in execution to be the work of a mere copyist. There is a second and larger version in the Buccleuch Collection, with the same date, 1543, also attributed to Holbein. The first-named example may possibly be the small round mentioned by Van Mander as being in Amsterdam in his day. Lucas Vorsterman’s circular engraving was evidently based on this miniature or the somewhat larger portrait now lost,[515] of which the exceedingly poor likeness of the painter in the Uffizi Gallery gives but a feeble echo. The print follows the miniature closely, but is reversed, so that Holbein is represented as painting with his left hand. Hollar’s engraving, dated 1647, in which the painter’s left hand is omitted, was taken, according to the inscription, from an original in the collection of the Earl of Arundel, though Wornum was of opinion that it was based upon Vorsterman’s version. Both are described in an earlier chapter.[516] The inscription across the background in Hollar’s print—“HH. Æ 45. ANo 1543”—agrees with the second miniature in the Buccleuch Collection. Van Mander states that Holbein painted with his left hand, and in this Sandrart and Patin follow him, but that this was a legend is proved by the original miniature in which the artist has represented himself holding his brush. Vorsterman’s engraving, which appears to bear out Van Mander’s statement, through his failure to reverse his drawing on the wood block, if not the original source of the error, may have helped to spread it. Sir George Scharf, however, suggested another cause as the source of this tradition. “Most of the portraits of Henry VIII,” he says, “more especially those attributed to Holbein, have the light coming in from the spectator’s right, a circumstance which may have tended, in some degree, to establish the tradition that Holbein was left-handed. These are specified by Van der Dort as done upon the wrong light.”[517]