An excellent half-length portrait is that of Lady Rich, the wife of the Chancellor (No. 74, belonging to Mr. W. Moseley). The drawing of this portrait, in the collection at Windsor Castle, made it possible to determine the correct name of the likeness, which in the catalogue is marked as the portrait of Queen Catherine of Arragon. It is a matron with austere, expressive features. She wears a large gold medal which represents a male and a female figure standing by a

corpse.

1

Mr. Pole Carew has lent the portraits of Sir William Butts, principal physician to the king, and that of his wife Margarette, daughter of John Bacon, Cambridgeshire. He is stated to have been painted at the age of fifty-nine, and she at the age of fifty-seven years. The heads of both are very much restored, and that of the doctor, besides, has been very coarsely painted over. His face, with the strongly developed chin, expresses ease, cleverness, and kindness. In the second scene, fifth act, of Shakspeare's Henry VIII., he is introduced as playing a part which at once characterises his kind heart and his influence with the king. He is an eye-witness of that degrading scene when the accused Archbishop Cranmer is compelled to wait among the menials at the door of the judges' chamber, and he calls the king's attention to this view. The portrait of Thomas Howard, third Duke of Norfolk, with the white stick of the Earl Marshal's office and the gold stick of the First Lord of the Treasury in his hands, exists in several copies. The best copy I have seen is the picture in the exhibition (No. 165) from her Majesty's collection at Windsor Castle, and I think it may be Holbein's original work. The head has been much injured, the small lean hands, however, are very well done. An old copy at Arundel Castle is not to be compared with this one; and the portrait preserved in Norfolk House, London, is a copy of the seventeenth century.

The number of Holbein's original pictures in the exhibition is at an end with this work; but with these eight oil-paintings must be classed another work by his hand-a large cartoon (No. 134) belonging to the Duke of Devonshire, which is one of the most important pieces in the whole exhibition. The cartoon represents the sketch of the one half of a grand fresco painting which Holbein executed in a room in Whitehall, in the year 1537, and which contained the colossal figures of Henry VIII. and his queen, Jane Seymour, and a little farther back the parents of the king, Henry VII, and Elizabeth of York. The background shows a rich and beautiful architecture in the Italian style. The painting itself was destroyed by the large fire in Whitehall in 1697, but fortunately the little copy which Remigius van Leemputte had made of it by order of Charles II., and which in

(1) As we know the year of the Doctor's death (1545), but not the year of his birth, it is not possible to give the exact date of the pictures.

the exhibition is to be seen beneath the cartoon (No. 135), gives an idea of the whole composition. Vertue has engraved this copy on a copper-plate. The cartoon proves that Holbein, who had formerly painted a great many frescoes at Basle, was also capable of producing representations of portraits in a true monumental style. Henry stands there with his enormous legs astride, and his huge broad shoulders. The right hand, which holds a glove, is set a-kimbo, and the left is playing with a poniard. The utmost splendour is bestowed on the costume, which is ornamented all over with embroidery and jewellery. All the strong passions and all the bad qualities of the king are expressed in his countenance and in his whole bearing. We see before us the violent and energetic man who knew how to assert his absolute powerful will, and we see at the same time the cruel tyrant, swayed by perverseness and filled with brutal egotism, whilst an unbounded conceit speaks out in his face and demeanour. That is the "overheerlijk portret " of which the oldest biographer of the painter, Van Mander, says, it is "zowel getroffen, dat hes den beschouwer mit verbaastheid andoct" (the likeness is so striking that it fills the spectator with dismay). "It seems to breathe," he continues," and to move head and limbs as naturally as if alive." A few steps higher stands Henry VII., dressed with a small cap and a long mantle, leaning against a parapet. His face, beardless according to the fashion of the 15th century, shows a somewhat melancholy expression. The picture seems to have been painted at Whitehall, over the throne of the king, which in the middle part of it reached as high up as the parapet just mentioned. R. van Leemputte in his copy has filled the empty space with Latin verses.

This matchless portrait was made use of as a prototype for numerous images of the king. Wherever there was a portrait required of Henry VIII., it was copied from this. In the exhibition, for instance, there are two half-length portraits (Nos. 77 and 109) from the collection at Windsor Castle, and a third (No. 118) belonging to Viscount Galway, which are more or less faithful imitations of it. A very good old copy from it, and one of the best among the painted portraits of Henry collected here, is the large life-size painting (No. 144) belonging to Mr. H. D. Seymour, M.P. It agrees even in all the details of the costume with the little copy by Van Leemputte. The latter differs greatly from the cartoon in which Henry's head is not seen so much in full. None of the painted portraits of the king in the exhibition is an original by Holbein, and, up to this time, I have never seen a genuine work by Holbein among the numerous portraits painted in oil of Henry VIII. The portrait of the king from Warwick Castle (No. 99)—a painting of real artistic merit— was formerly considered a Holbein; but since objections have been raised against its genuineness (especially by Mr. J. G. Nichols in the

Archæologia," vol. xxxix. p. 31), even the name has no longer been mentioned in the Catalogue. It is evidently painted after Holbein's time, in the last years of Henry's life, for the hair and the beard begin to grow white with age, and the features are more swollen than previously also the costume belongs to a later period. The hands are painted well, but the head seems more feeble; and the execution of the rich costume is very inferior, compared with Holbein, who always displays the greatest mastery in the details. The king's portrait, from the collection of the Duke of Manchester (No. 75), which is ascribed to Holbein, is only an old copy from the last picture. A copy on canvas, a knee-piece, is preserved in St. Bartholomew's Hospital, London. It bears the inscription—

There is a discrepancy, for Henry was born 28th June, 1491. The inscription, however, can hardly be the invention of a later copyist; it is more probable that he has made a mistake in one of the two figures. But assuming even that one or the other of the two be correct, it would still determine the time for this type of pictures to be posterior to the death of Holbein.

Everything considered, it must be admitted as probable that Holbein did not often portray the king. Persons of high rank are not usually inclined to sit very often to the same artist, and Henry VIII. most probably did so less frequently, as he had at the same time several other artists-Luke Horneband, Anthony Toto, Bartholomew Penni-in his pay. Holbein certainly was never employed in executing portraits not painted from life, which were produced in large numbers to be given away as presents to persons attached to the Court and to foreign ambassadors. He never acted like the Saxon Court painter, Lucas Cranach, who issued from his studio, with his monogram, pictures of his sovereigns which were manufactured by him not by the dozen only, but, as is well known from documentary evidence, almost, one might say, by the hundred.

In fact, C. van Mander mentions only one more portrait of the king by Holbein, besides the fresco-painting in Whitehall-namely, the large picture in Barbers' Hall, in which Henry VIII. was represented granting the charter to the united company of the SurgeonBarbers.

It is a pity that this picture is not on view in the exhibition; but it was sometime ago exhibited in the South Kensington Museum. As it is of very great interest, a few remarks upon it may not here be out of place.

The picture on a first view makes a very uncertain impression. It

is not beautiful either in the manner of execution or in composition. And yet some heads are so excellent that the masterly hand of Holbein is unmistakable. Others, on the contrary, are so repulsive and poor that they produce the greatest doubts as to its genuineness. If we look for an explanation of this contradictory impression, we find it in the following passage of Van Mander, the oldest writer on the subject. He says: "Volgends bet gevoelen van eenigen zonde Holbein das stuck zelf nieb volvoerd hebben, naar het outbreckende door iemand anders erbij geschildert ziju: 't goen, wauneer bet ecne warbeid ware, zoude moeten docu befluiten, dat de voltoojer de manier van Holbein zo verstandig heeft wecten te volgen, das geen Schilder of Kunslenaer met groud oordeelen kan, bet van ver schillende Handen te ziju.” (According to the impression of some it is assumed that Holbein himself did not finish the picture, but that it was completed by the hand of another painter. If that be true, it leads to the conclusion that the finisher has been able to follow the manner of Holbein so closely that no painter or artist can reasonably judge it to have been painted by different hands.) This opinion does not give a favourable idea of Van Mander's knowledge and taste. The absence of harmony in the conception, the deviations from Holbein's art, are too glaring. We do not know whether ancient reports have given rise to the opinion that Holbein left the picture unfinished, or whether it may have been merely assumed from artistic judgment. At all events it is interesting for us to know that such an opinion was already prevalent at an early period. Historical data perfectly support this view. The Act of Parliament granting common corporate rights to the Surgeons' and Barbers' Company is dated from the 32nd year of Henry VIII.'s reign, 1541. The picture which represents the granting of that charter was of course ordered some time afterwards. Holbein died in 1543, and being, as the painter of the king, no doubt a man overwhelmed with work, the progress of so large a picture, it may be assumed, could only be very slow.

The writer of this article has examined the picture twice in clear weather, which, on account of the darkness of the Barbers' Hall, is very necessary. Moreover, standing on the sideboard, he inspected each head and every part of it very closely, and he believes himself to have obtained a correct knowledge of the whole so as to be able to offer a reliable opinion upon it. Holbein certainly painted no more of this picture than the outline of the whole composition and the faces of several members of the company from life, in the order in which they respectively sat to him. None of the heads are in their original state, but many of them have nevertheless a very splendid effect, as, for instance, immediately to the right of the king, the old and venerable W. Chambers, whose head exactly corresponds with his portrait in the Belvedere Gallery at Vienna; then, to the left of the king,

Aylef, whose head seems to be the best of all. Next there is Harman, a very lively face with a flat nose, and behind him, Monforde, a full beardless face, which bears a striking resemblance to that of Dr. Martin Luther. The other faces-for instance, that of Sir William Butts, next to Chambers-are too much injured to pass any judgment upon them. A second row of six heads is most decidedly of a later period. There is not a touch of Holbein's pencil in them. They are wretchedly drawn, not one chin is correct, and the colour is a dirty, yellow-looking compound. Henry's face is painted over; originally it may possibly have been painted by Holbein. But the figure of the king is certainly not by him. Although placed a little backwards, the seated figure is larger than the other figures kneeling in front before the king. It is possible that Holbein himself was compelled to give way to the want of taste of those who ordered the picture, and who carried their reverence to his Majesty so far as to wish him to appear, according to ancient custom, taller than themselves. But even then the body could not have been so badly drawn, especially in its fore-shortening, and the carelessness in the treatment of the costume and of all details, is a thing utterly impos sible in Holbein. The state of the picture does not give us a very favourable idea of the taste of the members of the company, who allowed Holbein's unfinished work to be so barbarously injured. A dauber finished the picture, and he has not even spared the parts painted by Holbein himself. The whole background is covered with very rudely-painted fruits and flowers of a much later time. The names of the persons are written in large letters, each several inches in height, across the figures, with a dirty-looking gold colour, which is a shocking vandalism. At the top to the right there was, as seen in a copy in the College of Surgeons, painted in the beginning of the seventeenth century, a window, with a view of a Gothic church steeple. At a later time a large Latin inscription, on a white ground, was substituted for it. Nevertheless, even this ruin may be of inestimable value for every one who has knowledge enough to distinguish in it the traces of Holbein's pencil.

The exhibition shows also a large picture belonging to the Bridewell Hospital with the portrait of King Edward VI. presenting at Whitehall, in 1552, charters to the three hospitals of Christ, Bridewell, and St. Thomas. This picture (No. 192), and that in Barbers' Hall, were, in former times, usually mentioned together as two principal pictures by Holbein, and in the catalogue it still appears under his name, though the discovery of the real year of his death has mercilessly destroyed this illusion. The picture, which shows an act taking place nine years after Holbein's death, and which, we think, is painted even at a later period, is a very mediocre production. The legs of all the figures are extremely feeble, the expression of the