The discovery of another miniature by Holbein was made by Dr. G. C. Williamson in 1911,[518] and is one of exceptional interest, as it is an undoubted likeness of Thomas Cromwell, Earl of Essex, K.G. (Pl. 31 (6)). It came from a private source, and is now in the late Mr. Pierpont Morgan’s collection. It was fully described, and compared with other portraits of Cromwell, by Mr. Lionel Cust in the Burlington Magazine.[519] He is represented in a black cloak with fur collar, black cloth cap, and wearing the chain of the Garter with the pendant George. The background is blue. It is about two inches in diameter, painted on vellum or chicken-skin, pasted on card. “It is encased,” says Mr. Cust, “in an ivory box, carved on the back with a rose and other ornaments, similar to, though in no way so fine or so rich as, the ivory box which contains the miniature portrait of Anne of Cleves, lately bequeathed to the nation by Mr. George Salting, and now in the Victoria and Albert Museum. In the case, however, of Mr. Morgan’s portrait of Cromwell, the lower half of the box has been separated from the lid, cut down, and set in a gold frame, which is ornamented by a series of small deformed pearls. This gold framework is the work of a highly-efficient goldsmith, but hardly seems to date from the days of Henry VIII.” As Cromwell is shown wearing the Garter chain and badge, of which order he was made a knight in August 1537, the miniature was no doubt painted at some date between August and December in that year, to commemorate his election. In this connection it is of interest to note that in Cromwell’s accounts, preserved in the Record Office, there is an entry under 4th January 1538: “Hanns the painter, 40s.”[520] This payment would suggest that, in all probability, Holbein presented him with this miniature as a New Year’s gift, and that in return he received the forty shillings from his old patron as an acknowledgment.[521] The miniature is thus some three or four years later in date than the portrait at Tyttenhanger, painted not later than the spring of 1534, when he was Master of the Jewel House.[522]

Unfortunately this miniature has suffered severely during its past career, and has been so rubbed down that little of the details of the dress or ornaments can now be distinguished beyond the mere outlines. “The face,” says Mr. Cust, “is faded and also rubbed, but here the skilful drawing of the features reveals a master-hand which could be no other but Holbein’s. Very subtle, however, and recognizable are the distinctive features of Thomas Cromwell, the vulgar nose, with its sunken bridge, the cunning eyes with the puckered skin at their corners.”[523]

The scope of this book does not permit any detailed description of the very numerous miniatures of Henry VIII and the members of his family which are to be found in various collections in England, the more important of which have been publicly exhibited from time to time. In the royal collection in Windsor Castle there are four of the King himself, but none of them can be given to Holbein. Three of them appear to have been painted immediately before Holbein’s first visit to England, and the fourth shortly after his death. Two, in which Henry is beardless, and of youthful appearance, were in Charles I’s collection, and are entered in his catalogue as being among “the limned pictures which my Lord of Suffolk gave to the King.” One of them is inscribed, in two lines, “H.R. VIII. ANo ETATIS XXXVo,” which gives the date as 1525-6; the other, which it resembles closely, has no date, but merely “REX HENRICUS. OCTAVVS.”[524] The third Windsor miniature is inscribed “H.R. VIII. ANo XXXV.” In the spandrils four golden angels, on a bright red ground, are holding the letters H and K in golden cords, and linked with true-lovers’ knots. Sir George Scharf considered these initials to refer to the King’s last marriage, on July 12, 1543, with Catherine Parr, and the “XXXVo” as referring, not to Henry’s age, but to his regnal year. “The face,” he says, “at first sight looks youthful, but it is fat, and, on careful inspection, has a worn and very artificial appearance, as if means had been employed to conceal age.”[525] Mr. Wornum, on the other hand, considered the numerals to refer to the King’s actual age, and not to his reign, and the initial K to Katherine of Aragon.[526] It is only possible to say of the earlier of these miniatures that they are not the work of Holbein. As to the real author of them, the name of one or other member of the Hornebolt family can only be tentatively given, without any real proof in support of it, beyond the fact that the Hornebolts were settled in this country before 1526, the name appearing in the accounts of the expenses of the royal household in that year, and that there appears to have been no other foreign artist of like importance living in London at that date. Mr. Lionel Cust, in the Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition Catalogue, suggests the name of Jehan Perréal, or Jehan de Paris, as the possible author of some of the early portraits in miniature of the King, painted before Holbein’s arrival in England. Perréal was over here at the time of the marriage of Louis XII, whose official painter he was, with Princess Mary Tudor, for the purpose of designing the new Queen’s dresses. His visit, however, could have been but a short one, and does not account for miniatures of the year 1526.

The fourth miniature of the King at Windsor is in oils on oak, 2¾ in. in diameter, in which he is wearing a thin beard and whiskers. It is inscribed, “HENR. 8 REX. ANGL. ÆTA. S: 57.” Its date, therefore, must refer to the last year of the King’s reign, 1546, though there is a mistake in the age, as he never entered his fifty-seventh year. According to Charles I’s catalogue, it was “supposed to be done by Holben, and given to the King by my Lord Suffolk.” In type it corresponds very closely to the portrait of Henry in St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, London. There is yet another miniature of the King at Windsor, by Nicholas Hilliard, which appears to have been copied from some lost original by Holbein or by Hornebolt. It is one of the customary full-face versions, with beard, and is one of the four fine miniatures which were appended to an elaborate jewel which Hilliard executed in enamels and gold, possibly for Edward VI, representing the Battle of Bosworth Field, which was bought by Charles I from Laurence Hilliard, the painter’s son. The three other miniatures represent Henry VII, Jane Seymour, evidently copied from the well-known portrait by Holbein, and Edward VI, which recalls more than one of the portraits of the young King usually attributed to Guillim Stretes. The one of Henry VIII is inscribed in gold: “1536. ÆTATIS SVÆ 46.”

No less than five miniatures of the King were lent to the Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition by the Duke of Buccleuch, two of which are attributed to Holbein. One is a reduced copy of Holbein’s portrait of Henry belonging to Earl Spencer (Case C, 6). A second[527] is inscribed “H.R. VIII. ANo XXXV,” and appears to be the original from which the Windsor miniature, described above, was copied (Case C, 7). It was formerly in the Magniac Collection. The catalogue suggests that it is possibly the work of an illuminator of the French school. A third (Case C, 25), with a very similar inscription, is evidently a second copy of the same miniature. The fourth (Case C, 8 (D)), forms one of a series of eight in an ebony frame, which were formerly in the collection of Charles I. It is a full-face, with grey beard, and, according to the royal catalogue, was “done by Hans Holbein, given to the King by my Lord Suffolk.”[528] The companion miniatures represent Henry VII, Elizabeth of York (“copied by Hoskins after an ancient ould coloured piece”), Katherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn (also copied by John Hoskins “after an ould colured piece”), Queen Mary (“done by Ant. More”), Edward VI, and Queen Elizabeth (“done by Old Hilliard”). The “Henry VIII” is fine, and in the Burlington catalogue is attributed to Holbein, but it is more probably another copy from “an ould coloured piece” by the master. It has considerable resemblance to the fifth miniature from Montagu House[529] (Case C, 2), also ascribed to Holbein, but not by him.

The very fine miniature portrait of the King in the Pierpont Morgan Collection was included in the same exhibition (Case B, 1).[530] Old tradition says that this portrait was presented by the King himself to Anne of Cleves. Tradition in this case may be correct, though this Queen is the least likely of all to have been the recipient of such a gift. The correspondence with reference to the suggested marriages with the Duchess of Longueville, the Duchess of Milan, and Anne herself, shows that Henry always refused to send a portrait of himself while such negotiations were in progress. His anxiety was to see a portrait of the lady first, and, if possible, the lady herself, before making his final decision, and to send one of himself before such final decision had been made would have been too compromising. It is not likely, therefore, that he sent one to Anne in Düren, and as he took the strongest aversion to her directly he saw her, it is still less probable that she received a gift of so personal a nature after she arrived in England. Dr. Williamson, in his catalogue of Mr. Morgan’s miniatures, gives a very interesting account of the history of this fine little portrait,[531] and the companion one of Anne of Cleves, both at one time in the possession of the Barrett family, of Lee Priory, Kent, and later in that of the Meyricks, of Goodrich Court, to which reference has been made in an earlier chapter.[532] Some years before the death of General Meyrick, who had succeeded to the Goodrich Court Collection, the miniature of Henry VIII disappeared, and was supposed to have been stolen. It is said to have travelled as far as Vienna, but four years or so after General Meyrick’s death it reappeared in England, and was repurchased for the family, from whom, in 1906, it was acquired by Mr. Morgan.

It represents the head and shoulders only, full-face, with grey beard and moustache. Henry wears a black cap trimmed with jewels, loops of pearls, and a white feather, a brown fur coat over a grey doublet embroidered with black, a narrow white collar, and a gold chain round his neck. There is no inscription on the blue background. It is 1¼ in. in diameter, and is still preserved within its original turned ivory box, ornamented at top and bottom with the Tudor rose, and covered with a piece of rock crystal. There is some resemblance between it and the crayon drawing of the King at Munich, and, in the details of the costume, to the large cartoon at Chatsworth and the full-face portrait in Windsor Castle, which has been considered by some critics to be a copy of a lost picture by Holbein, and by others as an original portrait by some such court painter as Lucas Hornebolt. The differences in the costume are slight, and the dress is in its main features the same. Fine as this miniature is, it is difficult to ascribe it to Holbein himself; it is more probably only an excellent old copy of a lost original, or the work of some capable miniaturist adapted from one of Holbein’s paintings.

The miniature of Anne of Cleves, which is slightly larger than the one of Henry VIII, and is enclosed within a similar turned ivory box delicately carved to represent a Tudor rose, has been already described.[533] It is of the finest workmanship, and may be given to Holbein with little hesitation. It was included in the Burlington Club Exhibition, 1909 (Case B, 4), and the catalogue states that in all probability it was painted in July 1539, at Düren. Holbein’s visit to that place was of longer duration than was usual when he was sent to take likenesses of the ladies who were candidates for Henry’s hand.[534] As a rule, he only remained just long enough to make a study in coloured crayons, but he stayed at Düren for a week or two, and so may have had time to paint both the large portrait and the miniature, though it must be remembered that he also painted or drew the lady’s sister, the Princess Amelia. It is much more probable that the miniature was taken from the larger portrait, or that both were done from some lost crayon study, than that the Louvre picture should have been painted from the miniature.

There are several miniatures of Queen Jane Seymour in existence, in most cases attributed to Holbein, all, with one exception, closely following the portrait of that Queen in the Vienna Gallery, upon which they are evidently based. Among the best are two which were in the Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition, lent by Mr. Vernon Watney and by the Duke of Buccleuch. The former (Case B, 2),[535] inscribed merely “AoN XXV,” is said to have belonged originally to the Seymour family, and to have been given by Charles, Duke of Somerset, to his granddaughter, Elizabeth Wyndham, wife of the Right Hon. George Grenville, from whom it passed into the possession of the Duke of Buckingham. It was afterwards in the Sackville Bale and Lumsden Propert collections. Sir George Scharf considered this miniature to be a portrait of Anne Boleyn, and regarded the “XXV” as the King’s regnal date, and not as that of the lady’s age;[536] but the likeness to Jane Seymour is stronger, though not very marked. Mr. C. F. Bell points out[537] that the likeness of the sitter to Lady Hemingham or Heveningham (“Henegham”), as she is represented in the fine drawing at Windsor,[538] is much more pronounced, and he suggests that the miniature was painted from the portrait of that lady, taken from the drawing, which has now disappeared. Mr. Watney’s miniature, however, closely resembles the one belonging to the Duke of Buccleuch (Case C, 5),[539] though the latter has no inscription and the pendant jewel set with large pearls is absent. This last portrait belonged to Horace Walpole, and by him was regarded as representing Katherine of Aragon, and under that name it passed from the Strawberry Hill sale into the hands of Mr. Blamire, and afterwards into its present ownership. It appears to be, however, an undoubted portrait of Henry’s third queen. Another miniature of Jane Seymour was lent to the same exhibition by Mr. H. Dent-Brocklehurst (Case B, 6),[540] attributed like the others to Holbein, which was also formerly in the possession of Horace Walpole. The portrait of this queen is also among the four miniatures attached to the enamelled jewel, of Nicholas Hilliard’s workmanship, in the royal collection at Windsor, mentioned above. It is inscribed “ANŌ DNĪ 1536 ÆTATIS SVÆ 27,” which no doubt appeared on the original miniature by Holbein, now lost, from which all these others are also derived.

The miniatures of Catherine Howard have been already described.[541] It is doubtful whether Holbein painted Queen Catherine Parr, for the King did not marry her until July 12, 1543, only a month or two before the artist died. A miniature in the possession of Mr. H. Dent-Brocklehurst, lent by him to the Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition (Case B, 7), is said to represent this Queen and to be by Holbein, but both attributions are probably incorrect. It is inscribed “ANO XXXII,” and if this is to be read as the regnal year, it must have been painted between April 1540 and April 1541, and, if it represents this Queen, more than two years before her marriage. She wears a scarlet, black, and white circular French hood with black fall, and cloth of gold dress. Sir George Scharf considered it to be a portrait of Catherine Howard.[542]

Several miniatures of Edward VI exist—there are three in the Buccleuch Collection—though not one has been so far discovered from the hand of Holbein himself. Most of them represent the boy at a period after Holbein’s death, and the name of Guillim Stretes has been suggested as their author.[543] The beautiful little circular drawing of the Prince, at a very early age, in the Basel Gallery,[544] is apparently Holbein’s first study for a miniature which has now disappeared, and may have been the “portrait of the Prince’s Grace” which the artist presented to Henry VIII on New Year’s Day, 1539.[545]

Certain of these miniatures, and others not described here, some of them apparently copies after Holbein, while others are original works, were no doubt produced by Susanna Hornebolt, Livina[546] Teerlinc, and Stretes, all three of whom were in turn much employed about the court, and enjoyed royal pay. It has been impossible, so far, to separate the works of these artists, or to find any starting-point in the shape of a signed miniature from which any judgment of their particular methods and style can be formed. What little is known of Susanna Hornebolt has been given in an early chapter. Livina Teerlinc, eldest daughter of the miniaturist, Simon Binnink of Bruges, married George Teerlinc of Blankenberghe, near Bruges, and after the death of her husband’s father, in 1545, they came to England.[547] She is mentioned by Vasari in a short passage as “Levina, daughter of the above-named Master Simon of Bruges, who was nobly married in England by Henry VIII, was held in great esteem by Queen Mary, and is now in much favour with Queen Elizabeth,” an account which Guicciardini copies and slightly elaborates.[548] Her name does not occur in the royal accounts, however, until Midsummer, 1547, under Edward VI, when, as “maistris Levyn Terling paintrix,” she received a quarter’s wages of £10. She held the same appointment under Mary and Elizabeth and at the same salary, £40 a year. On New Year’s Day, 1556, she presented Queen Mary with a small picture of the Trinity, and two years later her New Year’s gift to Queen Elizabeth was a portrait of her Majesty “finely painted upon a card,” for which she received in return a silver-gilt casting-bottle weighing 2¾ oz. In 1561, on a like occasion, there was given to the same Queen, “By Mrs. Levina Terling, the Queenes personne and other personnages in a box fynely painted,” which so pleased Elizabeth that she retained it in her own keeping, and gave “Maistris Levyn Terling” in return a silver-gilt covered salt-cellar weighing 5½ oz.[549] George Teerlinc returned to Bruges, and died there before 25th August 1580; and Mr. Weale conjectures that his wife died before him, probably in England, but there is no documentary evidence of this. In any case, Vasari, and Guicciardini after him, were wrong in stating that while at the English court she was “nobly married.”

In the case of Livina, as with Susanna Hornebolt, it is impossible to point with certainty to any work as being indubitably from her hand. The two beautiful miniatures in the Salting Collection representing two little girls, sisters, aged five and four respectively, which were formerly in the collection of Mr. C. H. T. Hawkins, were attributed by both these owners to Livina Teerlinc, and were so described in the catalogue of the Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition (Case B, 5).[550] The richness of the costume indicates that they were the children of some important personage about the court. Each one is dated “ANO DNI 1590,” and they are enclosed in a contemporary turned ivory case. Dr. Williamson states that at one time they had attached to them “a strip of parchment on which was recorded, in handwriting undoubtedly contemporary, that the two little portraits were ‘fynely’ painted by Lavina Teerlinc in 1590 at Greenwich.”[551] It is impossible however, that miniatures painted in 1590 can be her work if Mr. Weale’s conjecture[552] that she died before 1580 is correct; but Dr. Williamson, who has been good enough to re-examine his notes, made when the miniatures were in the Hawkins collection, is now of opinion that the date on the parchment is not 1590, but 1570. The third figure is indistinct, but appears to be 7. If this is so, the attribution of these charming little works to Livina is very probably a true one, and the artist may still have predeceased her husband, as Mr. Weale surmises. There is an interesting miniature in Earl Spencer’s collection, signed with an “L,” and dated 1526, a double portrait, said to represent Sir John Boling and his mother, though the couple appear to be man and wife, which has been ascribed by some writers to Lucas d’Heere, though the date, of course, makes such authorship impossible. Mr. J. J. Foster[553] states that when he examined it he thought he could discern a “T” following the “L,” and suggests that it was the work of Livina Teerlinc; but this is equally impossible, for, according to Mr. Weale’s researches, she and her husband did not reach England until about 1545, while in 1526 she must have been a mere child.

There are several very interesting miniatures in the Pierpont Morgan Collection which, although they cannot be given to Holbein himself, are certainly of his school and period. One of the finest represents a Baseler named Arnold Franz, a man with a brown beard and moustache, dressed in black.[554] It is in a richly-enamelled gold frame with pendant pearls, and the sitter’s age, “AET. 32,” enamelled on the front, and on the reverse, “Arnold Franz, Holbein Pinx.” It was procured at the sale of a collection in Basel, and was stated to have been in the possession of the descendants of the sitter ever since it was painted. There was also an unbroken family tradition that Holbein himself had painted it, and that Franz, said to have been a printer and a friend of Froben’s, was intimately acquainted with the artist. The Franz family, now extinct, are also said to have possessed for many years a letter from Holbein to his friend, in which the miniature is mentioned, but the document has been lost.[555] A second miniature in Mr. Morgan’s collection is a portrait of Niklaus Kratzer, and is evidently by the same hand as the one of Arnold Franz. It is not a reduced version of the Louvre picture, which was painted in 1528, but appears, in Dr. Williamson’s opinion, to have been painted some years earlier than that date, though, if that be the case, it is not very likely that Holbein was its author. The face is nearly in profile, to the left, and the astronomer is wearing the customary fur-lined black coat and black cap, and a gold chain round his neck. In his hand he holds a brass armillary sphere. A third miniature, in the same possession, which has considerable affinity in style to the two just mentioned, represents Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk. It was formerly in the possession of the royal house of Holland, and afterwards in the Propert and Tomkinson collections. Dr. Williamson suggests that some of the Holbeinesque miniatures, such as these, which exist in considerable numbers, may have been the work of Hans Mielich (1515-1572), of Munich, who painted portraits and miniatures of some merit, and was for a time court painter to the Duke Albrecht V of Bavaria. There is no record, however, of any visit paid by him to England. Others may be possibly the work of such painters as Thomas and John Bettes and Guillim Stretes, who are dealt with in a succeeding chapter.[556]

There remains one other miniature to be noted, which until recently was regarded as the work of Hans Mielich, but is now, with apparent justice, given to Holbein. It is in the Bavarian National Museum, Munich, and represents a young man, turned slightly to the right, with a fair pointed beard and moustache, and wearing a black dress and cap. It is inscribed upon the blue background, on either side of the sitter’s head, “H.M. ÆTATIS SVÆ 27.”[557] It was once thought to be a portrait of Melanchthon, and afterwards, on account of the initials it bears, it was regarded as a portrait of Mielich by himself. Its attribution to Holbein was due to Dr. Hans Buchheit, the director of the National Museum, who published it in 1911 as a work of the painter’s later time. The initials upon it are undoubtedly those of the sitter, and not of the artist, and it has been suggested that it represents the painter, Harry Maynert, one of the witnesses to Holbein’s will.[558] Whether this is so or not, the miniature itself is a fine one, and, judging from a photograph alone, its attribution to Holbein by Dr. Buchheit must be accepted as the correct one.