The history of the book of drawings by Holbein in the royal collection at Windsor Castle—Early references to it—Sir John Cheke—The book’s various changes of ownership—Charles I exchanges it with the Earl of Pembroke for a Raphael—Afterwards in the Arundel Collection—Discovery of the drawings in Kensington Palace by Queen Charlotte—John Chamberlaine’s publication of them from engravings by Bartolozzi—Methods of their execution—Their present condition—Description of the more important of them—And of similar portrait-drawings at Berlin and Basel—Holbein and the Clouets—The “Queen of Sheba” miniature painting at Windsor—The “Death of Virginia” at Dresden—Drawing of a ship at Frankfurt—Drawings of animals.

IF, through some great misfortune, nothing remained of Holbein’s work but the wonderful series of drawings of the heads of the men and women of Henry VIII’s court, in the royal library at Windsor, this collection alone would still afford irresistible proof of his right to the title of one of the very greatest masters of portraiture. The history of these drawings can be traced with some exactness, though there are certain breaks in the continuity of the story. In whatever way they may have been preserved by Holbein during his lifetime, they were, shortly after his death, bound together in book form, and so remained until their rediscovery in the eighteenth century. Although they are not included in the elaborate inventory of the royal collection of works of art, dated 24th April 1542, or in the second inventory taken five years later, in the first year of Edward VI’s reign, it may be conjectured that they came into the possession of the Crown on Holbein’s death in 1543, or very shortly afterwards. His death was so sudden, that they may have been left behind in his painting-room at Whitehall, unknown to his executors, and so remained in royal keeping, though this is not a very likely surmise. It is certain, in any case, that the book containing them was at one time in the possession of Edward VI. This is proved by an entry in the Lumley inventory of 1590, to which reference has been already made more than once. The entry is as follows: “A greate booke of Pictures doone by Haunce Holbyn of certeyne Lordes, Ladyes, gentlemen and gentlewomen in King Henry the 8: his tyme, their names subscribed by Sr John Cheke Secretary to King Edward the 6 wch book was King Edward the 6.”

There is no reason to doubt the statement that the names on many of the drawings were supplied by Sir John Cheke, who, at one time professor of Greek at Cambridge, became one of the tutors of the young Prince before he ascended the throne, and died in 1557. He must thus have been intimately acquainted with a certain number of Holbein’s sitters, though not with all of them. This would account for the fact that although many of the names he has written on the drawings are the right ones, certain others are incorrect, while some fourteen of them are not named at all. He made mistakes, for instance, over some of the earlier drawings, such as several of the sitters in the More Family Group, with whom he was not likely to have been acquainted, and in some doubtful cases he probably indulged in guesswork. The late Sir Richard Holmes considered that he merely made a list of the drawings, which has not survived, and that from this list the names were inscribed on the sheets by some later hand.[559] There is an entry in the accounts of Sir Thomas Carwarden, Master of the Revels, preserved among the Loseley MSS., which very probably refers to this very book of drawings. The document is undated, but is considered to be of the reign of Edward VI. It is as follows: “Item for a peynted booke of Mr. Hanse Holby making, 6 li.” It is, of course, quite possible that this “peynted booke” may have had nothing to do with the Windsor drawings, but there is no other known work of Holbein’s to which the description would so well apply. The supposition that it was the very book, and that it was purchased by Sir Thomas for Edward VI, fits in well with the fact, established by the Lumley inventory, that the youthful monarch at one time possessed it. If this be so, the suggestion that Henry VIII obtained it immediately after Holbein’s death is, of course, incorrect.

It would appear that the book came into the possession of Henry Fitz-Alan, Earl of Arundel, after the death of Edward VI, either by gift or purchase, and was preserved at Nonsuch, together with the various portraits by Holbein, already mentioned, some of which were certainly at one time in the royal possession; and on his death in 1580, passed to his son-in-law, Lord Lumley. The palace and estate of Nonsuch reverted to the Crown in 1591, by exchange for other property, but at what time the numerous pictures by Holbein left the possession of the Lumley family is not known. At Lord Lumley’s death in 1609 the greater number of his books passed into the hands of Henry, Prince of Wales, elder brother of Charles I, and it is very probable that the “greate booke of Pictures doone by Haunce Holbyn” accompanied them, and once again formed part of the royal collections.[560] It is usually stated, however, that Charles I obtained them through the good offices of M. de Liancourt, the French ambassador, this statement being based on a note in Abraham Van der Doort’s catalogue of that monarch’s pictures, which, if correct, indicates that at some time between the drawing up of the Lumley inventory (1590) and the list of King Charles’ pictures (1639), the book of drawings had been taken into France, and so cannot have belonged to Henry, Prince of Wales. It seems certain, nevertheless, that this supposed journey to France and back again never took place. Mr. Lionel Cust’s suggestion is evidently correct, and the mistake has arisen through a confusion between Holbein’s book of drawings and a very similar book of drawings by a French hand, representing illustrious personages of the French court, both of which were in the King’s collection, and are separately described in Van der Doort’s catalogue. It was the latter book, no doubt, which was procured through M. de Liancourt, some such volume as that now at Knowsley, or the collection formerly at Castle Howard, now at Chantilly,[561] or the numerous albums of a similar kind scattered about France. Holbein’s book of drawings, on the other hand, came to Charles I from his brother.

The King, however, did not retain the volume for long, but exchanged it with the Earl of Pembroke for the beautiful little picture of “St. George slaying the Dragon,” by Raphael, which is now in the Hermitage Gallery, St. Petersburg. This latter is entered in Van der Doort’s catalogue as “A little St. George, which the King had in exchange of My Lord Chamberlain, Earl of Pembroke, for the book of Holbein’s drawings.” This picture was sold by the Commonwealth for £150, and after passing through the La Noue, De Sourdis, and Crozat collections, found a final resting-place in the Hermitage. In 1627, while still in the Earl of Pembroke’s possession, it was engraved by Lucas Vorsterman, so that the exchange with the King may have taken place in 1628 or thereabouts. Lord Pembroke, in his turn, did not keep the drawings, but almost at once passed them on to the great collector, Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, who, according to Sir Edward Walker, who wrote his life, had “more of that exquisite master, Hans Holbein, than are in the world besides.” Whether Lord Pembroke gave the drawings to him, or in his turn carried out a second exchange, is not known.

Their presence in the Arundel Collection is proved by a contemporary reference in the manuscript among the Harleian MSS.[562] in the British Museum entitled, “An exact & Compendious Discours concerning the Art of Miniatura or Limning,” on the fly-leaf of which is written, in an eighteenth-century hand, “of Limning by Hilliard,” to which attention has been already called.[563] As the Holbein drawings were still in the possession of Charles I in 1627, the paragraph in the “discours” which speaks of them as in the Arundel Collection cannot have been penned by Nicholas Hilliard himself, who died in 1619. The compiler was almost certainly Edward Norgate, who held Holbein in the highest estimation. Speaking of the painting of shadows, he says:—

“The black must be deepened with ivory black, and if in working in the heightenings and light-reflections, you will mingle with your ordinary black a little lake and indigo, or rather a little litmus instead of indigo, you will find your black to render a rare and admirable reflection like to that of the well-dyed satin, especially if your lights be strong and hard; the manner whereof if you please to see inimitably expressed, you will find abundantly for your content in the gallery of my most noble Lord the Earl of Arundell, Earl Marshal of England, and done by the incomparable pencil of that rare master, Hans Holbein, who in all his different and various manners of painting, either in oil, distemper, limning, or crayon, it seems was so general and absolute an artist, as never to imitate any man, or ever was worthily imitated by any.”[564]

The reference to the Windsor drawings occurs in the chapter dealing with crayon-painting. “I shall not need,” the writer says, “to insist upon the particulars of this manner of working; it shall suffice, if you please, to view of a book of pictures by the life, by the incomparable Hans Holbein, servant to King Henry the Eighth. They are the pictures of most of the English lords and ladies then living, and were the patterns whereby that excellent painter made his pictures in oil by; they are all done in this latter manner of crayons I speak of, and though many of them be miserably spoiled by the injury of time, and the ignorance of some who formerly have had the keeping of the book, yet you will find in those ruinous remains an admirable hand, and a rare manner of working in few lines and no labour in expressing of the life and likeness, many times equal to his own, and ever excelling other men’s oil pictures. The book hath been long a wanderer; but is now happily fallen into the hands of my noble lord the Earl Marshal.”[565]

A second contemporary reference to the drawings occurs in the Bodleian Library manuscript, Miniatura or the Art of Limning, etc., also by Edward Norgate, to which reference has been already made.[566] Norgate, when dealing with crayon drawings, says: “A better way was used by Holbein, by priming a large paper with a carnation or complexion of flesh-colour, whereby he made pictures by the life, of many great lords and ladies of his time, with black and red chalke, with other flesh colours, made up hard and dry, like small pencil sticks. Of this kind was an excellent booke, while it remained in the hands of the most noble Earl of Arundel and Surrey. But I heare it has been a great traveller, and wherever now, he hath got his errata, or (which is as good) hath met with an index expurgatorius, and is made worse with mending.”[567] That the book was described as a “great traveller” is, no doubt, due to the fact that from 1642 until his death, four years later, the Earl was living on the Continent, and that he took all his works of art with him. “After her husband’s death,” says Mr. Cust,[568] “the Countess of Arundel continued to reside at various places on the Continent, accompanied by her collections, until her own death at Amsterdam in 1654. Litigation then ensued between her sons as to the disposal of her property. A good part of the valuable Arundel Collection was disposed of in Holland by the Countess’s younger son, Lord Stafford, but a considerable part eventually returned to the family of the Duke of Norfolk in England.” There is every reason to suppose that among the latter the Holbein book was included.

It should be noted that, according to Charles I’s catalogue, the number of drawings was only fifty-four. Van der Doort may have made a mistake in the entry, putting a 5 instead of an 8, otherwise it must be supposed that Lord Arundel already possessed some thirty of these “heads,” which he added to the book after Lord Pembroke had given it to him. The collection as it now exists does not contain the whole of the portrait-drawings of Holbein’s English period. The fine head of Lord Abergavenny at Wilton appears to have been kept back, or to have been accidentally retained, by Lord Pembroke when he parted with the remainder of the collection, and there are several others in continental museums and elsewhere, some of which are known to have once formed part of the Arundel Collection. At Basel there are Sir Nicholas Carew, an unknown English lady, and a second English lady and her husband; at Dresden the Count Moretta; at Munich the head of Henry VIII; at Berlin a fine head of an unknown Englishman; in the Salting Collection the magnificent study of a lady already described;[569] and the two heads in the Duke of Devonshire’s Collection at Chatsworth.[570] If, therefore, Van der Doort is correct in stating that there were only fifty-four drawings in the book when it was in his keeping, the one person in England most likely to have added so considerably to their number was the Earl of Arundel, who was unceasing in his search for original works from Holbein’s hand. There is no record to show at what time the book returned to the royal collections, though the tradition noted by Dallaway, in his edition of Walpole’s Anecdotes, that they were purchased for James II at the sale of the possessions of Henry, Duke of Norfolk, in 1686, is no doubt the correct one.[571] A list of the drawings was included in James II’s catalogue, which was published by Bathoe in 1758. After this the drawings themselves were laid aside and forgotten, and it was not until early in the reign of George II that they were rediscovered by Queen Caroline hidden away in a folio in an old bureau in Kensington Palace, together with a volume of equal importance containing the drawings of Leonardo da Vinci, which now form so valuable a part of the royal collection at Windsor. Queen Caroline had them framed and glazed, and for many years they decorated her own apartments, first at Richmond, and afterwards in Kensington Palace. Early in the succeeding reign they were removed to the Queen’s House, now Buckingham Palace, where they were taken from the frames and bound up in two volumes, forming a part of the large collection of drawings, similarly bound, got together by George III. The suggestion that they should be engraved originated with Dalton, the keeper of the King’s drawings, but the work was so badly done that it was abandoned in 1774 after ten plates only had been issued. The engraver was George Vertue, who, according to Walpole, was the originator of the project. “It is a great pity,” he says, “that they have not been engraved; not only that such frail performances of so great a genius might be preserved, but that the resemblances of so many illustrious persons, nowhere else existing, might be saved from destruction. Vertue had undertaken this noble work; and after spending part of three years on it, broke off, I do not know why, after having traced off, on oil paper, but about five and thirty. These I bought at his sale; and they are so exactly taken as to be little inferior to the originals.”[572] This tracing was done by Vertue and Müntz when the drawings were hanging in Queen Caroline’s room at Kensington. There were thirty-four of them, and they were framed and hung in what Walpole called his Holbein Chamber at Strawberry Hill. Somewhat later the projected publication was taken up again more successfully, on the suggestion, according to Dallaway, of Horace Walpole, under the direction of John Chamberlaine, who succeeded Dalton as keeper of the drawings. The engravings were published between 1792 and 1800 in fourteen numbers, containing eighty-two portraits, forming two large folio volumes, under the title of Imitations of Original Drawings by Hans Holbein, in the Collection of His Majesty, for the Portraits of Illustrious Persons of the Court of Henry VIII, with Biographical Tracts. The historical notices were written by Edmund Lodge, Lancaster Herald, and the plates, with the exception of eight, were engraved by F. Bartolozzi, R.A. F. C. Lewis was also engaged to take part in the work, but his plate of “Cecilia Heron” was in all ways so much finer than Bartolozzi’s efforts that Chamberlaine had the plate destroyed, fearing that if it were published side by side with the others, the latter would suffer so severely from the contrast that the success of the publication would be endangered. As transcripts of Holbein’s drawings, Bartolozzi’s engravings have very little artistic merit. Many of them, indeed, have small likeness to the originals, and all of them lack the strength and character and the searching truth of line which make the drawings themselves such masterpieces of art. In more recent years the drawings have been frequently photographed and published, the most important series being that issued by Mr. F. Hanfstaengl in two volumes, with an introduction and descriptive notes by the late Sir Richard Holmes, F.S.A. It should be added that under Queen Victoria the two volumes were broken up, and the drawings properly mounted and arranged. They are now kept in four portfolios.

In Walpole’s day the collection consisted of eighty-nine sketches, but in more recent times two have been withdrawn, as the work of Jacob Binck. One of the two heads of Sir Thomas Wyat is only a good, careful copy of the other, in which the hair of the beard is drawn with great elaboration, from the hand of some follower or imitator of Holbein, and in one or two other cases the drawings are, perhaps, only copies of lost originals, or even original drawings by some other hand, such as the so-called “Melanchthon,” with its faltering line, which lacks much of Holbein’s customary strength and certitude.

The drawings were executed in almost all cases in black and coloured chalks. During his first visit to England Holbein used, as a rule, white paper, the outlines being drawn in black and the features modelled in red chalk. The series of heads of members of Sir Thomas More’s family, and contemporary drawings such as the Warham and Guldeford, are done in this manner. Later on it was his custom to use a paper covered entirely with a ground of flesh or salmon colour, upon which the features were modelled in black chalk, and slight touches of red, after which the outlines were strengthened and the details of the hair, dress, and ornaments put in with pen or brush and Indian-ink. In some cases the whole face was completely modelled with the greatest delicacy, and as a rule the eyes, hair, and beard were drawn in with water-colour or coloured crayons in their natural hues. Upon a number of the drawings the colour and material of the costume worn by the sitter are indicated by notes in Holbein’s own handwriting, and in some of them details of the ornaments or embroideries have been drawn on the margin of the sheet with the brush with the sure and rapid hand of a master. In one instance—the portrait of John Godsalve—the drawing is entirely finished in water-colours, and the figure is shown against a blue background; and in one of the two heads of Sir Thomas More the holes with which it was pricked for tracing on the panel can still be seen. The earlier drawings are usually the largest, the one last-named being about 16 in. high by 12 in. wide. The Warham is 17 in. by 12 in., the Guldeford 15 in. by 11 in., and the Godsalve the same size. One of the largest of all is the Jane Seymour, which is 20½ in. by 11 in.

“Some have been rubbed,” says Walpole, “and others traced over with a pen on the outlines by some unskilful hand.”[573] In a few instances, it is true, these strengthening touches appear to be by some other hand than Holbein’s, but in most of the drawings they are just as certainly his. The studies have suffered considerable damage during the passage of time. They are stained, and many of them badly rubbed, so that the more delicate modelling and colouring carried out in crayons has almost vanished. In consequence the brush-work, which has better withstood rough usage, at first sight appears to be a little hard, and in some instances even coarse, thus slightly marring that perfect harmony of effect which characterised the drawings when fresh from the artist’s hand. The finer details have been worn away, leaving certain lines more prominent than Holbein intended. A closer study, however, as Sir Richard Holmes points out, shows that it is to the wonderful strength and delicacy combined of these touches that the portraits owe the vivid and life-like quality which they so pre-eminently possess. “On some of the heads these touches occur only on the eyes, nostrils, and lips, where the marvellous accuracy of modelling, particularly in the corners of the mouth, is not to be excelled in the work of any other master.”[574] It must be remembered, too, that these studies were, in almost all cases, working drawings, done for transference or for copying on the panel, and are in that sense not finished works, some parts and details being emphasised more strongly than others. In certain of the drawings the beard and the hair have been put in with the brush with that careful and elaborate detail with which such features were usually carried out by Holbein in his finished portraits; for instance, in the long beard of Sir Thomas Wyat or the close-cut hair of Simon George. In other drawings the unshaven stubble on a man’s chin or upper lip is put in with a few masterly strokes. Here and there high lights have been indicated with a touch of white, as in the heads of Lord and Lady Vaux. It may be taken, then, that in the greater number of cases, the only hand which can be traced in these drawings is that of Holbein himself, dimmed here and there by the passing of the years, or rough or careless usage at some time or other during their earlier wanderings. Certain critics, however, consider that in many of them, some later hand has attempted to revivify the fading lines, with results quite contrary to those intended. Mr. Campbell Dodgson, speaking of the lovely head of an Englishwoman in the Salting Collection, describes it as being “entirely free from the retouching which disfigures many of the Windsor heads.”[575] Mr. Gerald Davies is also among those who consider that the drawings have been retouched by some other hand than Holbein’s. “I am quite persuaded,” he says, “that the strengthening of the outlines, either by chalk lines or in many cases by Indian-ink, is not due to the hand of Holbein himself. Among the drawings are a few which have never been so touched. The lines of these are of great delicacy and of the most expressive quality—an artistic dream which has almost faded from the paper. These are the select few which, having suffered most from rubbing, and having the faintest indications to guide the hand of the reinforcer, have been left in their ghostly beauty. Others have been revived by the application of a bolder chalk line of the proper colour in parts where the outline seemed most to need it. It has been done on the whole well, if such a thing can ever be said to have been well done at all. But these same lines will be found to be hard and wiry, and somewhat unfeeling as compared to the subtly sympathetic outline of the master himself. There remains yet the further manner of reinforcement by a strong outlining, often accompanied by a slight thickening in parts by means of a wash, in what appears to be Indian-ink. The ink has toned now, and has lost much of the offence of its once strong contrast with the rest of the delicate modelling. But remembering what that contrast would have been when the ink was fresh, I find it impossible to believe that it was added by the hand of Holbein.”[576] Mr. Davies suggests that this Indian-ink strengthening took place when the drawings came into the hands of Charles I, and that possibly Wenceslaus Hollar was employed for the purpose. It is difficult to follow him in this suggestion of Hollar’s retouching, nor can the writer agree with him in his opinion that a more or less wholesale retouching of the drawings has ever been undertaken by any hand than that of Holbein himself. A more credible suggestion is that of Mr. Lionel Cust, who says: “It is very probable that the drawings were refreshed by outlines very soon after Holbein’s death, if not by the painter himself. Since that date the most likely time for them to have suffered any alteration would have been after their rediscovery at Kensington, when they were for a time in the hands of George Vertue, an expert crayon-artist himself as well as engraver.”[577]

Some part of the damage done to them may have been due to wear and tear in the artist’s own studio, for it is possible that he employed an assistant or two; though if that had been the case, it is strange that there is no record among the State papers of a licence granting him leave to employ journeymen, such as was necessary under the Act dealing with foreign residents. It is possible, too, though far from probable, that he may have had one or two pupils—though here again there is no record of them—who would copy his drawings, and might be entrusted occasionally with the tracing of the drawings upon the panel, or even in painting parts of the replicas of portraits which must sometimes have been ordered. It is evident that these drawings were made solely for the artist’s own purposes, both in order to avoid a too frequent attendance of his sitters at his studio, and also because it was the method of working which best suited him. They remained, therefore, in his own possession, and were never handed over to his patrons. The fashion of collecting portraits of celebrities which was in vogue in France throughout the sixteenth century was only imitated in a very minor degree in England. In France, as M. Dimier points out, “the result of this rage for portraits was that people were not content with the necessarily limited number of originals. The works of the masters of the time were copied and recopied a hundred times, often by unskilful and sometimes by absolutely clumsy hands. This was the case not only with the portraits of kings and queens, which have been multiplied thus in all ages, but with those of any one at court—a feature which is peculiar to the period under consideration. Not even the number of painted portraits and painted copies was enough; there was a demand for quicker and cheaper satisfaction. The original chalk-drawings were copied, in the same medium, an infinite number of times, far oftener, indeed, than the paintings; and these drawings were commonly bound into albums and preserved as family treasures. A vast number of these albums must have perished, but a vast number still exist.”[578] Nothing of this kind occurred on this side of the Channel. Holbein’s original drawings, after his death, were preserved in a volume in this fashion, but they formed an unique example. Though copies or duplicates of one or two of them exist, such as the John Fisher and the Duchess of Suffolk in the British Museum, the Guldeford, Fisher and Poyntz formerly in the Heseltine Collection, and the head called Sir Charles Wingfield in the collection of Sir John Leslie, Bart., recently published by Mr. Lionel Cust,[579] the collection as a whole was never copied in this way, as it would have been in France. It is doubtful if most of these duplicates, fine as they are, are actually from Holbein’s own hand.

It may be taken for granted that portraits were painted from nearly all these Windsor studies, more than eighty in number, though possibly a few, drawn during the last months of his life, were not carried out in this way. It is, therefore, a little extraordinary that less than thirty of such finished oil portraits have so far been traced, the remainder having disappeared; and of these latter only about one half are original paintings by Holbein, the remainder being copies of lost originals. Among the first-named we have Jane Seymour, Catherine Howard, the Prince of Wales, Sir Thomas More, Warham, Guldeford, Southwell, John Godsalve, Reskimer, Simon George, Lady Vaux, Lady Rich, Lady Butts, Lady Audley (miniature only), and one or two others; in the second class the More Family Group is the most important, there being no less than seven studies for this great work at Windsor, including the one of Sir Thomas himself.

There still remain more than fifty drawings in England alone of which no paintings are known. It seems impossible that the whole of these pictures should have perished. Some of them, it is to be hoped, may yet be discovered, hidden away in some remote country house, perhaps obscured by dirt and disfigured by repaintings, so that hitherto they have remained unrecognised. It is not very likely that drawings of this size were made as preliminary studies for miniatures, or otherwise this might account for some of the missing portraits, as such small works would be much more easily lost than panel paintings. It is true that in a few instances, such as the portraits of Lady Audley and the Earl of Abergavenny, we have miniatures closely following the drawings, but no large portraits; but it does not follow that the latter were not painted.

On the other hand, there are a considerable number of Holbein’s portraits—between thirty and forty—for which no preliminary studies remain, and these range over every period of his career. This, however, is not so extraordinary, for drawings disappear more easily than pictures. In some instances, too, their absence may be explained by the artist’s method of work. It was his occasional habit, more particularly in the earlier half of his career, to fasten down the preliminary study upon the panel, and use it as the ground-work of his painting, so that the drawing naturally was lost. The portrait of his wife and children at Basel has been carried out in this way, and the Anne of Cleves in the Louvre is painted on vellum or parchment, afterwards mounted on canvas. This, however, was not his more regular practice, which was to transfer the study to the panel by tracing or pricking. Not a single study exists for any one of the portraits of the German merchants of the Steelyard, or for such portraits as the Duchess of Milan, Jean de Dinteville and the Bishop of Lavaur, Kratzer, Thomas Godsalve, Sir Henry Wyat, Cromwell, Tuke, the Duke of Norfolk, Cheseman, Dr. Chamber, and the painted portraits of various unknown men at Berlin, Vienna, Basel, and elsewhere. For the portraits of Erasmus there is only a study for the hands, while there is no drawing for the Amerbach or Froben. On the other hand, among a number of fine drawings in continental museums there are, in addition to the two earlier and three later ones of the members of the Meyer family, only two—the Morette in Dresden and the Sir Nicholas Carew in Basel—of which the finished paintings still exist.

There is no doubt that Holbein’s practice as a portrait painter during his second and longer residence in England was almost entirely confined to the court and to those who were in the King’s employment. The Windsor drawings, a number of which have been described in previous chapters of this book, make this sufficiently clear. Included among the heads which have not been described are John Russell, Earl of Bedford; Sir William Parr, afterwards Marquis of Northampton; Thomas Boleyn, Earl of Wiltshire and Ormonde; Edward Stanley, Earl of Derby; George Brooke, Lord Cobham; Thomas, Lord Vaux; Sir Thomas Parry; Sir William Sherrington; Sir Thomas Wentworth; Edward, Lord Clinton; Sir Thomas le Strange; Sir George Carew; Lord Chancellor Rich, and others; and among the ladies, Lady Parker, Lady Ratcliffe, Mary Zouch, Lady Rich, Lady Henegham, the Marchioness of Dorset, Lady Mewtas, Lady Monteagle, and Lady Borough.

The study of William Parr, Marquis of Northampton (Pl. 34 (2)),[580] is one of the few in which the hands are shown. The head, with close-cropped hair and short, round beard, has suffered from rubbing, but remains a fine and strongly individualised study of character. The dress and jewellery are indicated with some elaboration, to which are added notes in Holbein’s handwriting, and detailed sketches of his hat ornaments and other jewellery are drawn in the margin. The medallion he wears appears to be of open-work with a figure of St. George, and one of the links of his chain is inscribed with the word “Mors.” In the Thomas Boleyn,[581] also, the right hand is shown, and the dress is drawn with much more detail than in most of the companion drawings, while the face is one of the most carefully elaborated in the whole series, the individual hairs of the beard and moustache being indicated with minute precision. Equally careful drawing of the hair is to be seen in the head of Lord Stanley,[582] with its expressive face and fine eyes. Another very powerful drawing is the full-face portrait of Lord Cobham,[583] with open doublet showing his bare chest, a head of most striking individuality. One of the most beautiful among the more finished studies is that of Lord Vaux (Pl. 35),[584] in which the hair, cut straight across the forehead, and the beard and moustache are put in with almost microscopic detail, as well as the design upon the white collar with its strings of black and white cord. There is a second study of Lord Vaux[585] in the collection. It is, of course, impossible to give even a short description of the whole of the drawings, but among the numerous studies of “unknown men” two in particular cannot be overlooked. The one is the head of a handsome young man with a long, sharp nose,[586] thin whiskers, and a small beard, the head turned slightly to the right, and both eyes shown (Pl. 34 (1)). He wears large ostrich feathers in his black hat, which has a medallion, the design not indicated, and gold tags. The dress, very roughly sketched in, is badly rubbed. The drawing is one of great beauty, very delicate and refined in its treatment and feeling. The second, to which reference has been already made, is the very striking likeness of a man with a flat, broad nose, bushy, curly beard, and hair falling over the ears, his eyes cast slightly downwards, one of the most powerful drawings in the Windsor Collection, which Miss Hervey suggests is possibly a study for a second portrait of Jean de Dinteville (Pl. 36# (1)).[587] Dr. Paul Ganz considers the sitter to be a man of pronounced southern French type, and probably a member of the French embassy which was in London in 1533.[588] It is just as probable, however, that this unknown nobleman was English, for the type, though unusual, is to be met with occasionally.