CHAPTER XIV
A NEWLY DISCOVERED PORTRAIT OF AN UNKNOWN ENGLISH LADY
THE discovery of a new portrait by Holbein must always be a matter of the highest interest to students of the master’s art, and when the panel so discovered is one in practically faultless condition and of exceptional attraction, its importance as an addition to the list of the painter’s works cannot be easily exaggerated. It is pleasant, therefore, to have to record the fact that such a portrait was brought to light for the first time during the present year (1913). The portrait in question formed part of a collection of pictures and engravings removed from Rotherwas House, near Hereford, the seat of the Bodenham family, early in the year, the greater number of which were sold by auction in London last February. The Holbein picture, however, was first heard of at a sale at Messrs. Puttick and Simpson’s rooms in Leicester Square on April 8th. It was in a very dirty state, and its beauty was almost entirely obscured by a thick coat of dark varnish, with which it had been covered some two centuries or more ago. It had also two slight abrasions above and below the right eye. Across the left sleeve was painted in white, in late eighteenth-century lettering, the inscription “Margaret Tudor, Queen of Scotland.” This attribution, however, was changed by the compilers of the sale catalogue to “Mary, Queen of Scots,” and it was described as by an unknown artist of the early English School. The bidding for this picture started at £10, and it was finally acquired for 340 guineas by Mr. Ayerst H. Buttery.
Upon careful cleaning the false inscription at once came away, and after the removal of the varnish the picture was found to be, as already stated, in a practically faultless condition—except for the two small abrasions—and in the original state in which it was left by the artist, thanks, no doubt, to the varnishing process it had undergone. It is unsigned, and has no inscription giving the name and age of the sitter, but in spite of this it is difficult to doubt its authorship. Holbein was the only painter then in England who possessed so fine a technique. It has been carefully examined by several leading authorities on the painter, among them Dr. Friedländer, of the Kaiser Friedrich Museum, Berlin, and all are agreed that it is a splendid example of Holbein. A detailed description of it, with several suggestions toward the solution of the identity of the sitter, was first published by Mr. Maurice W. Brockwell, in the _Morning Post_ of June 28, 1913.
VOL. I., PLATE 95.
[Illustration:
PORTRAIT OF AN UNKNOWN ENGLISH LADY (Formerly in the possession of the Bodenham family, Rotherwas Hall, Hereford) _Reproduced by kind permission of Mr. Ayerst H. Buttery_ ]
It is on panel, 31 inches high by 23½ inches wide (Pl. 95). The lady is shown full face, and almost three-quarters length, holding with both hands a very small open prayer-book or breviary, which is attached to a ribbon round her waist by a plain chain. The dress is of deep maroon satin, with the upper part of the bodice of black velvet. The latter is open at the throat, the points of the collar being turned back, showing the white lining. This style of collar occurs very rarely in Holbein’s pictures, and is to be seen in only two others of his finished portraits of ladies—those of Catherine Howard and Lady Butts. In these two, however, the “revers” are quite plain, whereas in Mr. Buttery’s picture they are richly embroidered in black with a floral design, suggesting carnations, conventionally treated, while round the edge runs a narrow border with a row of conventionalised flowers of a somewhat similar pattern, which occurs again on the white ruffs at her wrists. Her long and thin arms are encased in tightly fitting sleeves, terminating in the then fashionable “hanging” or “over” sleeves, partly of black velvet, which are exceptionally full and heavy, with slashings filled in with white silk embroidered in black with a design suggesting acorns arranged in groups of four. The skirt, or petticoat, of which little can be seen, shows an elaborate floral pattern. The lady wears no rings, but has a plain gold chain wound twice round her neck. The collar of the bodice is fastened together by a small brooch or pin set with a dark “table” stone, from which is suspended a circular medallion or pendant of gold and enamel, with the figure of a lady in a red dress, seated in a high-backed chair, and playing a lute or viol. Above this figure is a scroll with the legend, “Praise the Lord for evermore.” The whole is enclosed within a border of scroll-work, with a grotesque head in white enamel on either side, green leaves at the bottom and a red rose at the top. The head-dress is of the curved shape introduced from Paris, and not the more customary angular English hood. It has two bands of elaborately wrought goldsmith’s work, and is filled in with cerise-red satin, which makes a very beautiful colour contrast with the plain blue-green background, against which the head is so effectively placed. The arrangement of the fair hair, such of it as can be seen, is both unusual and attractive, being parted in the centre, while on either side bands, of slightly lighter colour than the rest, are brought forward over the ears, which are completely hidden. Individual golden hairs are indicated against the dark background, and both hair and head-dress have been rendered with all Holbein’s minute and loving care and dexterity of draughtsmanship.
The face is a most expressive one. Both the mouth and the grey, contemplative eyes are full of character, suggested in the most subtle manner and with unerring brushwork. The modelling of the flesh is of extraordinary delicacy. The lady, whoever she may be, though not perhaps strictly beautiful has considerable pretensions to good looks, and her whole personality, indeed, is one of great charm. The colour-scheme, too, is one of exceptional attraction. The contrast between the sombre-coloured garments with glinting lights upon them, and the pale and pearl-like face, standing out against the blue-green of the background, is most harmonious, and the band of red in the head-dress adds to and sets off the delicate blondness of her features. Another point to be noted is the skill with which the slight ripples in the plainly-cut bodice and upper sleeves have been indicated, as well as the little inequalities and furrows in the satin of the head-dress, where the material has slightly puckered at the edge by which it is fastened to the ornamental bands. The portrait, indeed, is one of the most beautiful and attractive ever produced by the painter.
Little or nothing is known of the history of this picture, and at present the identity of the sitter has not been established. The ancient family of Bodenham was settled at Rotherwas long before Henry VIII came to the throne. It was the recent death of Mr. Charles Bodenham, the last direct descendant of this family, which brought about the sale of the estate together with the family mansion and the whole of its contents. “The entire property,” says Mr. Brockwell, “seems to have been first purchased by a firm at a south coast watering-place, who being in no special way attracted by the æsthetic and financial value of the contents of the house, without much ado proceeded to pass them on to a well-known trading firm in Hereford. Fifty-three pictures and thirty-five engravings were disposed of at the end of February last by auction in London. Before that time, it is understood, a picture”—the picture now in question—“had been, for sentimental reasons, offered for £15 to distant connections of the Bodenham family, an offer that was not accepted, and it was ultimately put up for sale at Messrs. Puttick and Simpson’s.” The Tudor panelling of the house was sold for a great sum of money to an American collector.
Thomas Bodenham was one of the leading gentlemen of Herefordshire during Henry VIII’s reign. His name occurs frequently on lists of sheriffs, magistrates, gaol deliveries, and the like, in his own county, but otherwise there is no mention of him in the _Calendars of Letters and Papers_, and he does not appear to have been attached to the Court. It is not, therefore, very probable that the portrait represents his wife or daughter, though this would provide the most natural solution of the sitter’s identity. Most critics who have seen the picture are decidedly of the opinion that it was produced during Holbein’s first visit to England, in 1526-8, an opinion based largely on the painting of the hands, undoubtedly the least satisfactory part of the panel. They are hard and stiff in the modelling, and have none of the expressiveness which is so marked a characteristic of Holbein’s painting of hands during the last ten or twelve years of his life. In some other respects the picture shows qualities which would seem to place it some years later in the painter’s career, towards the beginning of his second and longer residence in this country. One feature which may possibly indicate a later date than 1527 is the dress, and more particularly the French hood. It is true that instances are known of the wearing of this head-dress in England as early as 1527, but at that time its use seems to have been confined to a few ladies of the highest aristocracy about the Court. The angular hood with its long black fall was then the almost universal headgear, and remained so for some years longer. The fashion of the latter, and the method of wearing it, can be well seen in Holbein’s costume study of a lady in the British Museum. (No. 11 in Mr. Binyon’s Catalogue. Not in Woltmann. Reproduced by Ganz in _Die Handzeichnungen von Hans Holbeins des Jüngeren_, x. 4.) This drawing consists of two whole-length studies on one sheet. In one of them the lady stands turned three-quarters to the left, her hands in front of her, holding a rosary; in the other she is seen more from the back, the left hand raised and pointing. It is in Indian ink and brush outline,
## partly washed with Indian ink, and the flesh tints in red. It is signed
twice, “H. H.” and “H. H. B,” but these signatures are false. An excellent idea of the costume of the period and of the method by which the fall was attached to the hood can be gained from this effective drawing, which was formerly in the Malcolm and Lawrence collections.
The lady of the picture appears to be about twenty-two or twenty-three years of age, and it is, of course, quite impossible that she can be Margaret Tudor, whose features are well known, and who was nearly forty in 1527, while Mary, Queen of Scots, born in 1542, is still more impossible. The “French Queen,” Mary Tudor, the King’s second sister, was born in 1498, and so was twenty-nine in 1527; but here again several authentic portraits of her exist, and these bear little or no resemblance to Mr. Buttery’s lady. It must be remembered, too, that all evidence points to the fact that Holbein had no connection with the Court during his first visit to England. It is very probable that the luting figure on the medallion is intended to represent St. Cecilia, and that the sitter, as Mr. Brockwell points out, was named after her. This suggested to him that it might be a portrait of Sir Thomas More’s second daughter, Cecilia Heron, who was twenty years of age in 1527 when the More Family Group was painted; but this theory had to be abandoned, for there is little or no likeness between the lady of the picture and the head of Cecilia in the Windsor collection. It is probable that medallions with a figure of St. Cecilia were by no means uncommon at that time. Two of them are mentioned in lists of jewels belonging to the Crown at the period in question. These lists will be found in the _Calendars of Letters and Papers._ Among the entries in the first list, dated 1528 (_C. L. P._, vol. iv. pt. ii. 5114) are the following:—“A brooch with a gentlewoman luting, with a scripture above it,” and “a gentlewoman, holding a leyer in her hand, silver-gilt (delivered to Mr. Wyat).” In the second list, dated 1530 (_C. L. P._, vol. iv. pt. iii. 6789), which appears to be a copy of the first, the same entries occur with slight differences:—“A brooch with a gentlewoman luting, and a scripture about it,” and “_Images._ A gentlewoman, holding a layer in her hands, silver-gilt (Mr. Wyat).” There are not, however, sufficient grounds for suggesting that the lady in question is wearing one of these
## particular royal jewels, and that, therefore, she was closely connected
with the King, or even a member of Sir Thomas Wyat’s family, though the richness and elaborateness of the dress and the exceptionally fine embroidery seem to indicate a personage of high quality. It is to be hoped that further researches will solve the mystery of this fair unknown. In the meanwhile, the portrait provides a very notable and welcome addition to the tale of the master’s work, and one not easily surpassed by any other among his portraits of ladies. Thanks to the great kindness of Mr. Buttery the picture is reproduced here.
END OF VOL. I.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOOTNOTES
-----
Footnote 1:
Anton Werner, _Der Sammler_, No. 143, 1907.
Footnote 2:
Anton Werner, _Der Sammler_, No. 143, 1907.
Footnote 3:
Entries in the Augsburg Bürgerbuch and Steuerbücher.
Footnote 4:
See Glaser, _Hans Holbein der Ältere_, p. 171.
Footnote 5:
_Katalog der Œffentlichen Kunstsammlung in Basel_, 1908, p. 66.
Footnote 6:
Woltmann, A. H., 20.
Footnote 7:
Woltmann, A. H., 25.
Footnote 8:
Woltmann, _Holbein und seine Zeit_, i. 67.
Footnote 9:
See Willy Hes, _Ambrosius Holbein_, p. 149.
Footnote 10:
Woltmann, 1-4. The first and third reproduced by Curt Glaser, _Hans Holbein der Ältere_, Pl. ii.
Footnote 11:
The “Death of Mary” in the Basel Gallery, formerly part of the Afra altar-piece in the chapel of the Kaisheimer-Hofes in Augsburg, bears an almost illegible date, which the Basel catalogue gives as 1490, but is more probably 1495. See Curt Glaser, _Hans Holbein der Ältere_, p. 23, and Pl. iii.
Footnote 12:
Woltmann, 5. Reproduced by Glaser, Pl. v.; Davies (central part), p. 4.
Footnote 13:
Or Rehlingen.
Footnote 14:
Woltmann, 6. See Glaser, p. 36.
Footnote 15:
Woltmann, i. 49. First cited by Hassler in _Verhandlungen des Vereins für Kunst und Altertum in Ulm und Oberschwaben_, ix. and x., 1855, p. 79.
Footnote 16:
Woltmann, 207-210. Reproduced by Glaser, Pl. xii.
Footnote 17:
Three of them reproduced by Glaser, Pls. x. and xi.
Footnote 18:
Woltmann, 238-253. Ten of the panels reproduced by Glaser, Pls. xiv.-xix.
Footnote 19:
Woltmann, 7. Reproduced by Glaser, Pl. xxii.
Footnote 20:
Woltmann, 8. Reproduced by Glaser, Pl. xxvi.; Davies (left-hand panel only), p. 12.
Footnote 21:
Glaser, 230. Woltmann, 277. Reproduced by Glaser, Pl. i.
Footnote 22:
Glaser, 218 and 153. Woltmann, 160 and 170. The first reproduced by W. Hes (_Ambrosius Holbein_), Pl. i. (2), and by Woltmann and Frisch in _Hans Holbein des Ä. Silberstiftzeich. im Berlin_, Pl. 64; the second by Glaser, Pl. xxxvii.; Davies, p. 1; Woltmann, vol. i., frontispiece; and elsewhere.
Footnote 23:
Glaser, 233. Reproduced by Davies, p. 14.
Footnote 24:
Davies, p. 16.
Footnote 25:
For details of these payments, taken from the account books St. Moritz, see Woltmann, ii. p. 30.
Footnote 26:
Woltmann, i. pp. 96-97, ii. 31. (Extracts from the Augsburger Gerichtsbücher.)
Footnote 27:
The altar-piece of 1512 for the Convent of St. Catherine is referred to in the next chapter. See pp. 23-5.
Footnote 28:
Woltmann, 254-258. Central panel and inner sides of shutters reproduced by Glaser, Pls. xxx., xxxi.; the latter reproduced by Davies, p. 22; outer sides of shutters by Woltmann, vol. i. pp. 88, 89.
Footnote 29:
Woltmann, i. 95.
Footnote 30:
Woltmann, vol. ii. p. 132, not numbered; reproduced by Glaser, Pls. xxxii., xxxiii.; A. Seeman, in _Zeitschr. f. bild. Kunst_, xiv. p. 197, 1903 (in colour); Arundel Club, 1907, Pl. 4.
Footnote 31:
See note at end of this chapter.
Footnote 32:
Raczynski, _Les Arts en Portugal_, 1846, p. 295.
Footnote 33:
Glaser, p. 100; Reber, in _Kunstchronik_, xiv. p. 493, 1903.
Footnote 34:
Glaser, p. 105.
Footnote 35:
W., 41, 127-31, 279. G., 104-10.
Footnote 36:
W., 131-2, 226, 279-80. G., 109-14.
Footnote 37:
W., 109. G., 133.
Footnote 38:
W., 110. G., 134.
Footnote 39:
W., 117-18, 224. G., 137-9.
Footnote 40:
W., 119. G., 140.
Footnote 41:
W., 120. G., 141.
Footnote 42:
W., 121. G., 142.
Footnote 43:
W., 122. G., 143.
Footnote 44:
W., 149. G., 172.
Footnote 45:
W., 148. G., 169.
Footnote 46:
W., 143. G., 164.
Footnote 47:
W., 141-2. G., 165-6.
Footnote 48:
W., 111-12. G., 135-6.
Footnote 49:
W., 153-4. G., 156-7.
Footnote 50:
W., 231. G., 154.
Footnote 51:
W., 34. G., 170.
Footnote 52:
W., 145-6. G., 167-8.
Footnote 53:
W., 155-7. G., 209-11.
Footnote 54:
W., 159. G., 213.
Footnote 55:
W., 133-4. G., 115-17.
Footnote 56:
W., 124-5, 225. G., 100-2.
Footnote 57:
W., 126. G., 103.
Footnote 58:
W., 108. G., 151-2. Reproduced by Glaser, Pl. xxxvi.
Footnote 59:
Woltmann, 284.
Footnote 60:
Glaser, p. 133.
Footnote 61:
_Burlington Magazine_, October 1908, pp. 37-43.
Footnote 62:
Berlin, 2558. Glaser, 216. Woltmann, 158.
Footnote 63:
The portrait and both drawings reproduced by Mr. Dodgson in his article; and the portrait in the _Illustrated Catalogue of the Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition_, 1906, Pl. xxxi.
Footnote 64:
In May of the present year (1913) the “Fountain of Life” picture was removed from the Palacio das Necessidades to the Museu Nacional de Arte Antiga in Lisbon.
Footnote 65:
See page 254.
Footnote 66:
Published in 1868.
Footnote 67:
Woltmann, i. p. 101.
Footnote 68:
Woltmann, 14-17.
Footnote 69:
Reproduced by Glaser, Pl. xxix.
Footnote 70:
Glaser, p. 85.
Footnote 71:
Reproduced by Davies, p. 16.
Footnote 72:
This band of ornament, which is different in each panel, recalls the very similar scroll-work by the younger Hans used in the upper part of the organ shutters at one time in the cathedral church of Basel.
Footnote 73:
“IVSSV. VENER. PIENTQVE MATRIS VERONI . . W . . . E. H. HOLBAIN IN AVG. ÆT. SVÆ XVII.” Wornum, p. 88. Woltmann, ii. p. 4.
Footnote 74:
_Kunstwerke und Künstler in Deutschland_, 1845.
Footnote 75:
Already mentioned, see p. 11. Glaser, 153. Woltmann, 107.
Footnote 76:
See page 5.
Footnote 77:
See Hes, p. 12, and footnote giving Woltmann’s various surmises as to the date and figures inscribed on the drawing.
Footnote 78:
Woltmann, 160. Glaser, 218. Reproduced by Woltmann, _H. H. des Ä. Silberstiftzeichnungen_, &c., Pl. lxiv.; Hes, Pl. i.
Footnote 79:
Woltmann, 43. Glaser, 203. Reproduced by His in his publication of the elder Holbein’s drawings, Pl. lxxiv.; Hes, Pl. iii.
Footnote 80:
Woltmann, 58. Glaser, 265. Reproduced by His, Pl. lvii.; Hes, Pl. iv.
Footnote 81:
Reproduced by Glaser, Pl. xiii.; Hes, Pl. v.
Footnote 82:
Reproduced by Glaser, Pl. xvii.
Footnote 83:
See Hes, p. 15.
Footnote 84:
Parthey, No. 1418.
Footnote 85:
Or possibly from such miniatures as those in the Duke of Buccleuch’s collection. See vol. ii. pp. 230-1.
Footnote 86:
Woltmann, i. 477. Dr. Paul Ganz suggests that one of these portraits may have been the small roundel belonging to Lord Spencer, traditionally known as a portrait of Holbein, but considered by him to represent the jeweller, Hans of Antwerp. See Ganz, _Holbein_ (Klassiker der Kunst), p. 253. This large miniature is described more fully in vol. ii. pp. 14-15.
Footnote 87:
Walpole, _Anecdotes_, ed. Wornum, 1888, i. p. 93.
Footnote 88:
See vol. ii. pp. 230-1.
Footnote 89:
This small roundel is now considered to be a portrait of Hans of Antwerp. See vol. ii. p. 14.
Footnote 90:
Davies, p. 14.
Footnote 91:
Ganz, _Hdz. Schwz. Mstr._, note to i. 10.
Footnote 92:
His name does not appear in the Augsburg rate-books after 1509, and after 1512, the date on one of his brother’s portrait-studies of him, no further trace of him is to be found in his native city.
Footnote 93:
Reproduced by Davies, p. 33; Knackfuss, fig. 1; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 3.
Footnote 94:
Woltmann, 359.
Footnote 95:
S. Vögelin, “Ein wiedergefundenes Meisterwerk Holbeins,” in _Frankfurter Zeitung_, 1871 (Nos. 236-7, 244, 248), and _Der Holbein-tisch auf der Stadtbibliothek in Zürich_, Wien, 1878. Reproduced as a whole and in detail, together with a reconstruction, by Ganz in _Holbein_ (_K. der K._) pp. 6-9.
Footnote 96:
Woltmann, 7, 8. Reproduced by Knackfuss, figs. 2, 3; Ganz, _Holbein_, pp. 19, 20.
Footnote 97:
Woltmann, 168. Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 4; and in outline by Reinach, _Répertoire de Peintures_, i. p. 401 (as by H. H. the Elder).
Footnote 98:
Reproduced by Reinach, _Répertoire_, i. p. 4.
Footnote 99:
Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 5. Wrongly described in Reinach, _Répertoire_, as “The Flagellation.”
Footnote 100:
Dr. Willy Hes considers this portrait to be by Herbster himself. See p. 60.
Footnote 101:
Woltmann, 27. Reproduced by Knackfuss, fig. 4; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 21.
Footnote 102:
Woltmann, 24. Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 22.
Footnote 103:
Woltmann, 25. Reproduced by Davies, p. 38; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 23.
Footnote 104:
Woltmann, 26. Reproduced by Davies, p. 40; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 25.
Footnote 105:
Woltmann, 28. Reproduced by Davies, p. 42; Knackfuss, fig. 5; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 24.
Footnote 106:
Davies, p. 40.
Footnote 107:
Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 233.
Footnote 108:
Woltmann, 51. Reproduced by Ganz, _Handzeichnungen Schweizerischer Meister_, iii. 8; Knackfuss, fig. 66.
Footnote 109:
See Appendix (A).
Footnote 110:
Ganz, _Hdz. Schwz. Mstr._, note to iii. 8.
Footnote 111:
Woltmann, Woodcuts, 193. Reproduced by Knackfuss, fig. 67.
Footnote 112:
Woltmann, 234. Reproduced by Davies, p. 186; A. F. Butsch, _Die Bücher-Ornamentik der Renaissance_, 1878, Pl. 41; Wornum, dedication page.
Footnote 113:
Woltmann, 111.
Footnote 114:
This inscription, however, is now regarded as a rather doubtful one, and it is possible that the book was never permanently in the possession of Erasmus. See Hes, _Ambrosius Holbein_, pp. 83-94, where the history of the book and the various theories as to its ownership and the authorship of the drawings are very fully discussed.
Footnote 115:
See Ganz, _Hdz. Schweiz. Mstr._, note to i. 52.
Footnote 116:
Dr. Hes subjects the drawings to careful analysis, and gives a complete list, together with the suggested authorship of each of them, in _Ambrosius Holbein_, pp. 90-94 and 161-166.
Footnote 117:
Twelve of them reproduced by Ganz, _Hdz. Schweiz. Mstr._, i. 52; the whole set by Mantz, but so badly engraved that they are of little service for purposes of comparison; the whole of the drawings now attributed to Ambrosius by Hes, Pls. xvi.-xx., and p. 139.
Footnote 118:
Dr. Hes points out the similarity of this figure to that of the schoolmistress in the “Schoolmaster’s Signboard,” and considers that Ambrosius had a share in the painting of the latter. See _Ambrosius Holbein_, p. 93.
Footnote 119:
By Ambrosius Holbein.
Footnote 120:
The name, however, was not written by Erasmus, but is a later addition.
Footnote 121:
Woltmann, under H. H. the Elder, 182. Reproduced by Knackfuss, fig. 6; Ganz, _Holbein_ (_K. der K._), p. 203; Hes, Pl. xxxiv.
Footnote 122:
Dr. Hes regards this portrait as the work of Herbster himself. See _Ambrosius Holbein_, p. 145.
Footnote 123:
Woltmann, under H. H. the Elder, 106, but he afterwards attributed it to the younger Hans. Reproduced by Ganz, _Handzeichnungen Schweizerischer Meister_, &c., ii. 2; Hes, Pl. xxiv.
Footnote 124:
Woltmann, 5, 6. Reproduced by Knackfuss, figs. 10, 11; Ganz, _Holbein_ (_K. der K._), pp. 10, 11.
Footnote 125:
Woltmann, 11. Reproduced by Davies, pp. 44, 46; Knackfuss, figs. 14, 15; Ganz, _Holbein_, pp. 12, 13.
Footnote 126:
On the back of the portrait of Meyer, Holbein painted, four years later, the sitter’s coat of arms, surmounted by a scroll inscribed “I.M. 1520.” (Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 30.) There is a good old copy of the wife’s portrait in the collection of Mr. Ralph Brocklebank, Haughton Hall, Tarporley, which was previously in the William Graham collection; and a copy of both portraits in the Basel Gallery, No. 350, from the Faesch collection.
Footnote 127:
According to Stödtner, these portraits show the influence of Burgkmair.
Footnote 128:
Woltmann, 33, 34. Reproduced by Ganz, _Hdz. Schwz. Mstr._, ii. 18 and iii. 7, and the “Meyer” in _Hdz. von H. H. dem Jüng._, Pl. 2; the “Dorothea” by Davies, p. 46; both by Knackfuss, figs. 12, 13.
Footnote 129:
“—ogen schwarz—baret rot mosfarb—brauenn gelber dan das har—grusen wit brauenn.”
Footnote 130:
Woltmann, 9. Reproduced by Knackfuss, fig. 16; Ganz, _Holbein_ (_K. der K._) p. 14.
Footnote 131:
Ganz, _Holbein_ (_K. der K._), p. 233.
Footnote 132:
Reproduced by Law, _Royal Gallery of Hampton Court_, p. 154.
Footnote 133:
This theory is held by Herr Th. von Liebenau. See his _H. H. des Jüng. Fresken am Hertensteinhause zu Luzern_, &c., 1888.
Footnote 134:
Woltmann, 16. Reproduced by Ganz, _Hdz. Schwz. Mstr._, ii. 52; Hes, Pl. xxx.
Footnote 135:
E. His, “Die Baseler Archive über H. H.,” in Zahn’s _Jahrbuch_, 1870, p. 113. Woltmann, i. p. 135; Hes, p. 16.
Footnote 136:
Woltmann, 5. Reproduced by Hes, Pl. xxxvi.
Footnote 137:
Woltmann, Woodcuts, 18-21. See Hes, p. 23, who reproduces all four woodcuts, Pls. xiv.-xv.
Footnote 138:
Woltmann, 2, 3. No. 294 reproduced in the Basel Catalogue, 1908, and both by Hes, Pl. xxxi., xxxii.
Footnote 139:
Woltmann, 24. Reproduced by Hes, Pl. xxix.
Footnote 140:
Reproduced by Hes, Pl. xxviii.
Footnote 141:
Woltmann, 23. See Hes, pp. 124-6. Reproduced by him, Pl. xxxiii.
Footnote 142:
Woltmann, 1. Reproduced by Hes, Pl. xxiii.
Footnote 143:
Woltmann, 4.
Footnote 144:
Woltmann, under Hans the Younger, 203. Reproduced by Hes, Pl. xxxvii.; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 204.
Footnote 145:
See Hes, pp. 144-6.
Footnote 146:
Woltmann, 6. Reproduced by Ganz, _Hdz. Schwz. Mstr._, iii. 6; Hes, Pl. xxvi.
Footnote 147:
Woltmann, 7. Reproduced by Hes, Pl. xxvii.
Footnote 148:
Woltmann, 8. Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. xvi.; Hes, Pl. xxv.
Footnote 149:
Woltmann, 10. Reproduced by Ganz, _Hdz. Schwz. Mstr._, i. 22; Knackfuss, fig. 39; Hes, Pl. xxii.
Footnote 150:
Woltmann, 22. Reproduced by Hes, Pl. xxxv.
Footnote 151:
This picture was included in the Exposition de la Toison d’Or, Bruges, 1907, No. 130.
Footnote 152:
Woltmann, Woodcuts, 7. Reproduced by Butsch, _Die Bücher-Ornamentik der Renaissance_, Pl. 46; Hes, Pl. x.
Footnote 153:
Woltmann, Woodcuts, 17.
Footnote 154:
Woltmann, Woodcuts, 16.
Footnote 155:
See Woltmann, ii. pp. 205-214; Hes, pp. 27-80, and Pls. vi.-xv.; also Butsch.
Footnote 156:
Reproduced by Ganz, _Hdz. Schwz. Mstr._, i. 39; Hes, Pl. xxi.
Footnote 157:
See Hes, p. 148. Reproduced by Vasari Society, No. 17, Pt. i., 1905-6.
Footnote 158:
Woltmann, 103. Reproduced by Ganz, _Hdz. Schwz. Mstr._, i. 40; and in _Hdz. von H. H. dem Jüng._, Pl. 4; and _Holbein_, p. 154.
Footnote 159:
Woltmann, 216.
Footnote 160:
Woltmann, i. p. 143. Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 16.
Footnote 161:
Woltmann, 53. Reproduced by Ganz, _Hdz. Schwz. Mstr._, ii. 3; and in _Holbein_, p. 154; the left-hand half by His, _Dessins d’Ornaments de Hans Holbein_, Pl. ii.
Footnote 162:
Ganz, _Hdz. Schwz. Mstr._, note to ii. 3.
Footnote 163:
For completer details, see Th. von Liebenau, _Hans Holbeins d. J. Fresken am Hertenstein Hause in Luzern_, 1888; P. Ganz, “Hans Holbeins Italienfahrt,” in _Süddeutsche Monatshefte_, 1909, vol. vi. p 596.
Footnote 164:
Parthey, 1548. Woltmann, ii. p. 166, who doubts that the original was by Holbein.
Footnote 165:
Eight of them reproduced by Ganz, together with a reconstruction of the façade by A. Landerer, in _Holbein_, pp. 153-158.
Footnote 166:
Reproduced in the _Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of New York_, vol. i. No. 12 (Nov. 1906); _Burlington Magazine_, Oct. 1906, p. 53; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 15.
Footnote 167:
Woltmann, 58. Reproduced by Ganz, _Hdz. Schwz. Mstr._, i. 41 (_a_).
Footnote 168:
See _Süddeutsche Monatshefte_, 1909, p. 599.
Footnote 169:
See pp. 140-3, 150, &c.
Footnote 170:
Woltmann, 16. Reproduced by Knackfuss, fig. 19; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 55.
Footnote 171:
See p. 40.
Footnote 172:
According to Dr. Ganz, the architectural motives are derived from the loggia of the Cathedral of Como. See _Holbein_, p. 236.
Footnote 173:
See