CHAPTER XX

THE DUCHESS OF MILAN

Search for a queen to succeed Jane Seymour—Negotiations in France and Brussels—The Duchess of Milan—Hutton’s description of her—Her portrait by some unknown Netherland painter—Philip Hoby sent over with Holbein to obtain her portrait—Cromwell’s instructions to them—Hutton’s letter describing their visit—The small oil painting at Windsor—Description of the picture in the National Gallery—Continuation and final failure of the marriage negotiations—History of the picture—Purchased for the English nation by the National Art-Collections Fund for £72,000—Portrait of the Duchess as a child by Mabuse.

ON the very day of Jane Seymour’s death, the King and his Council began, with almost indecent haste, their search throughout the Courts of Europe for a new queen to fill her place. Henry’s ambassadors and agents were instructed to make discreet inquiries as to suitable candidates, and before the close of the year a number of names had been submitted to him for his consideration. In spite of this unseemly expedition, however, nearly two years were to elapse before the final choice was made, for it was not until the very end of 1539 that Anne of Cleves came to England as Henry’s fourth queen. Throughout the whole of 1538 marriage negotiations, which in the end proved fruitless, were carried on simultaneously with Francis I and the Emperor Charles V. Though Henry was anxious to marry again, in order that the succession, which rested on the precarious life of one infant Prince, might be made more assured, yet his search for a bride both in France and in Imperial circles at one and the same time was undertaken quite as much for political as for matrimonial reasons. It was his main object at that time to prevent any close understanding between his two rivals. With Charles and Francis united, and Europe at peace, there was nothing to prevent a coalition against England and an enforcement of the papal excommunication of Henry by force of arms. By playing off one monarch against the other with the bait of a proffered matrimonial alliance he hoped to keep the two apart, and by such means ensure the security of his throne, and be at liberty to continue the severe methods by which he sought to maintain his supremacy as self-appointed head of the English Church.

[Sidenote: SEARCH FOR A FOURTH QUEEN]

In the course of these negotiations quite a number of ladies were suggested, and in most, if not in all, cases, portraits of them were procured for Henry’s inspection. In some instances he sent his own painter for the purpose; in others, what may be termed “official” portraits, painted by foreigners, were forwarded to England by his ambassadors abroad. Of these portraits, two—those of the Duchess of Milan and of the Princess Anne of Cleves—were painted by Holbein, who was despatched to Brussels and to Düren in order to take their likenesses; but the authorship of the others is less certain, and as the portraits themselves cannot now be traced, it is difficult, if not impossible, to arrive at any final conclusion respecting them. There is much probability, however, amounting in two instances almost to certainty, that Holbein made other special journeys, in addition to the two just mentioned, for the purpose of painting ladies who had been reported to the King as beautiful or desirable. These journeys were to France, and solve, in the writer’s opinion, the mysterious journey to Upper Burgundy; but as the negotiations for a French marriage were running concurrently with those for the hand of the Duchess of Milan, it will be better, in order to avoid confusion, to deal separately with each of these proposed alliances, and the various portraits to which they gave rise. For this reason the present chapter is concerned with Holbein’s painting of the Duchess, while in the following one evidence is brought forward which indicates that he also received orders from the King to take the likenesses of several high-born ladies of France.

Shortly after the imposing funeral ceremonies of Queen Jane Seymour, Cromwell wrote to John Hutton, the English agent in Brussels at the court of the Regent of the Netherlands, Queen Mary of Hungary, the Emperor’s sister, to ask him to make secret inquiries as to suitable brides for the King, and in Hutton’s reply, dated December 4, 1537, occurs the first mention of the Duchess of Milan as a possible Queen of England. Hutton wrote:

“Uppon the recept of your letters addressid unto me by this berrar, I have made as myche secret sherche as the tyme wold permyt. The which, albeit had byn of lengar contenewance, I cold not perceve that anny sherche cold have found wone soo notable a personage as were meit to be lykynd to that noble Raynge. In the Court ther is wayttyng uppon the Queyn a lady of thage of 14 yerres, daughtar unto the Lord of Breidrood, of a goodly statwre. She is noted varteos, sadde, and womanly; hir beautie is competent, hir mother is departid this world, who was daughter to the Cardynall of Luikes sister. It is thought that the said Cardinall wold give a good dote to have hir bestoid after his mynd. Ther is a widdowe, the wiche also repayrithe offten to the Court, beyng of goodly personage. She was the wyffe of the late Yerle of Egmond, and, as I ame inffarmyd, she parsithe fortie yeres of age, the wich dothe not apeire in my judgement by hir face. Ther is the Duches of Myllayn, whom I have not seyn, but as it is reportid to be a goodly personage and of excellent beawtie. The Dewke of Clevis hathe a daughter, but I here no great preas neyther of hir personage nor beawtie. I have not myche exsperiens emonges ladies, and therfore this commission is to me very hard; soo that, yf in anny thyng I offend, I beseche your Lordshipe to be my mean for pardon. I have wryttyn the treuthe, as nighe as I canne possible lerne, levyng the further judgment to other, that are better skillid in such matters.”[254]

Footnote 254:

_C.L.P._, vol. xii. pt. ii. 1172. _St. P._, viii. 5.

* * * * *

The Duchess reached Brussels shortly after this letter was despatched, and Hutton wrote again to Cromwell on the 9th of December, after a personal inspection of the lady, whom he thought to be very like Mrs. Shelton, one of Anne Boleyn’s ladies, as follows:

[Sidenote: HUTTON’S LETTERS ABOUT THE DUCHESS]

“The Duches of Myllan ... arived here as ystarday, very honorably acompenyd as well of hyr owen treyn as withe suche that departed from hence to meit hyr. I ame inffurmyd she is of the age of 16 yeres, very high of stature for that age. She is highar then the Regent, a goodly personage of boddy, and compytent off beawtie, of favor excellent, sofft of speche, and very gentill in countenance. She werythe moornyng aparell aftre the maner of Ytalie.... She resemblythe myche wone Mystris Shelton, that somtyme watid in Court uppon Queyn Anne. She ussithe most to spek Frenche, albeit that as it is reportid she can [speak] Ytalian and Highe Almeyn. I knowlige my self of judgment herein very yngnorant, albeit I have inployd my wittes to sartiffie your Lordshipe off the trewthe.”[255]

Footnote 255:

_C.L.P._, vol. xii. pt. ii. 1187. _St. P._, viii. 6.

In a transcript of the same letter, addressed to Thomas Wriothesley, one of Cromwell’s secretaries, and despatched to England on the same date, Hutton added:

“Ther is non in theis parties off parsonage, beawtie, and byrthe, lyke unto the Duches off Myllayn. She is not soo pewre whyt, as was the late Qweyn, whois soal God pardon; but she hathe a syngular good countenaunce, and when she chancesithe to smyl, ther aperithe two pittes in hir cheikes, and wone in hyr chyne, the wiche becommythe hyr right excellently well.”[256]

Footnote 256:

_C.L.P._, vol. xii. pt. ii. 1188. _St. P._, viii. 7.

* * * * *

He wrote still further in her praise in a third letter to Cromwell, dated December 21:

“Synns my letter of the 4th sent unto your Lordshipe by Fraunces the corror, I wrot your Lordshipe wone other of the 9th, wherin I sartified the arivall of the Duches of Myllan, withe my judgement of hir personage and beawtie. Synns wiche tyme I have dayly notid hir gestur and countenance, the wiche presentithe a great majestie with myche sobrenes, soo that in the furtherance of that matter I thynke your Lordshipe shuld doo highe sarvis to the Kynges Highness, and to the whole commune welthe of his Realme like proffit.”[257]

Footnote 257:

_C.L.P._, vol. xii. pt. ii. 1243. _St. P._, viii. 8.

* * * * *

These descriptions were considered to be so satisfactory that Hutton’s other suggestions were discarded, and the young Duchess selected as a possible wife for Henry, if good terms could be arranged. Christina of Denmark, youngest daughter of King Christian II of Denmark and Isabella of Hungary, sister of Charles V, was born in 1523, and had been married, in 1534, when only eleven years of age, to Francesco Maria Sforza, the last Duke of Milan, who died in the following year, October 24, 1535. She was now in her sixteenth year, and as the niece of the Emperor, a marriage with her, so Henry and his Council considered, would be of great political advantage, as it would give the world a proof that his quarrel with Charles over the divorce of Katherine of Aragon was at an end. Henry, therefore, wrote on January 22, 1538, to Sir Thomas Wyat, his ambassador in Spain, ordering him to suggest the marriage to the Emperor, who in his reply, sent through his representative in London, Eustace Chapuys, declared that he would be glad to treat of it. Henry, who naturally wished to see the lady, if possible, before committing himself too far, began to throw out suggestions that she should be brought to Calais, in order that he might make her acquaintance, but this proposal was displeasing to the other parties concerned; and so, as the next best thing, it was determined to obtain her portrait. Hutton was instructed to procure one if he possibly could, and he wrote to Cromwell on February 21, describing a dinner-party he had attended given by the “Ladie Marqueis of Barrough,” at which she promised to show him, when finished, a portrait for which the Duchess of Milan was sitting, and for the purpose of which she had put off her mourning dress. This picture, apparently, was to be given to the Lady Marquis. He told Cromwell:

“The Lady Marqueis demaundid of me, yff the letters, wiche I had delyverid the Queyn, cam from the Kynges Highnes my master. Unto wiche I made answar that the cam frome the Empror. Then she said that when she sawe me delyver them, hir hart rejoissid, thynkyng ther had byne some good newis consarnyng the Duches of Myllain, of whom she made great preis, as well for hir beawtie, favor, wisdom, as for hir myche gentilnes. All wiche saynges I affirmyd. Withe that she said, yf I had seyn hir owt of hir mornyng aparell, so gorgeosly as she had seyn hir the day beffore, I wold have marveillid, for she said, to tell me in secret, she cawssid hir pikture to be made, wiche beyng fenisshed, the Duches had promissid to give it unto hir, soo that she of hir owen motion said, assone as it cam to hir handes I shuld have a sight therof.”[258]

Footnote 258:

_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. i. 326. _St. P._, viii. 14.

He goes on to describe an interview with the Duchess on the following day, in which she complained of the rain, telling Hutton, “This wether likythe not the Queyn, for She is therby pynnyd upp, that She cannot ride abrode to hunt. Then I demandid if Hir Grace did not love huntyng. She answered, ‘Non better,’ and soo pawssid.

“She spekithe French, and semythe to be of fewe wordes. In hir spekyng she lispithe, wiche dothe nothyng mysbecom hir. I canot in anny thyng perceve, but she shuldbe off myche sobreness, and very wisse and no les gentill. It may pleis your Lordship to consedar that my poore knowlege is not to give anny judgement in suche matters, but only to showe my openyon. And for that it wilbe yet theis 8th dais, beffore I can com by hir pikture, I thought it my duetie to sartiffie your Lordshipe the premissis; and incontinent the said pikture shall com to my handes, it shalbe sent your Lordshipe with spedy deligence. Advertissyng the Lady Marques that I did send it unto Barough, for that my wiffe had myche dessire to se the Duches.”[259]

Footnote 259:

_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. i. 326. _St. P._, viii. 14.

[Sidenote: HOBY AND HOLBEIN GO TO BRUSSELS]

Matters seemed now to be progressing so favourably that it was decided to send over Philip Hoby to Brussels, with some show of secrecy, for the purpose of a personal interview with the young lady, and, as Henry was very anxious to obtain an accurate likeness of her, it was also arranged that Holbein should go with him, without waiting for the portrait which Hutton hoped to secure.

Philip Hoby, who was born in 1505, was the son of William Hoby, of Leominster. His zeal for the Reformation commended him to Henry VIII and Cromwell, by whom he was constantly employed from 1538 onwards in diplomatic services at the courts of Spain and Portugal, and on special missions elsewhere. He was one of the gentlemen ushers of the King’s Privy Chamber, and took part in the siege of Boulogne, being rewarded with knighthood immediately after the conquest of that town in the autumn of 1544. He was made Master of the Ordnance and admitted to the Privy Council in 1552, and died in 1558. From his correspondence he appears to have been a man of culture and refinement. Holbein made two, if not three, journeys abroad in his company, and painted his portrait, though its whereabouts is not now known, but the drawing for it, in which he is shown with a scanty beard and long thin moustache, is in the Windsor Collection.[260]

Footnote 260:

Woltmann, 302; Wornum, ii. 7; Holmes, i. 40.

Cromwell’s instructions to Hoby were as follows:

“Instructions given by the L. Cromwell to Philip Hoby sent over by him to the duchess of Lorraine then [to the] duchess of Milan.

“To repair to Mr. Hutton and tarry secretly at his lodging until he shall have been with the Regent. Then upon Hutton’s advertisement to go to the Duchess, present Cromwell’s commendations and say that no doubt she had heard from the Lady Regent and by the relation of the King’s ambassador there, the cause of his coming and Cromwell’s inclination to the advancement of the same as is declared ‘in the letter.’ He shall then beg her to take the pain to sit that a servant of the King, who is come thither for that purpose, may take her physiognomy; and shall ask when Mr. Hanns shall come to her to do so. The said Philip shall as of himself express a wish that both for my Lord’s reports of her virtues and for his own view of them, it might please the King, being now without a wife, to advance her to the honour of a queen of England. ‘And he shall well note her answers, her gesture and countenance with her inclination, that he may at his return declare the same to the King’s Majesty.’ Her picture taken, he and Hanns shall return immediately.”[261] Hoby was also supplied with a second document, in which all that he was to say to the Duchess was carefully drawn up for his guidance.

Footnote 261:

_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. i. 380(2).

In the heading to these instructions, which is written in a later hand than the body of the document, the words “to the” in square brackets have been inserted by the editor of the _Calendars of Letters and Papers, &c._ In doing this he has been misled by a very similar set of instructions issued to Hoby on the eve of a mission to Lorraine in August of the same year, which is dealt with in the next chapter. He thus reads the heading as indicating that Hoby was to go first of all to the Duchess of Lorraine and afterwards to the Duchess of Milan, and that the one set of instructions was to serve for the two visits. The inserted words, “to the,” however, are not needed. Christina, a few years after Holbein painted her, married, in 1540, François, Duke of Bar and Lorraine, and the writer who added the heading to the copy of Hoby’s instructions quite correctly describes her as the Duchess of Lorraine, “then (or “at that time,” _i.e._ at the time of Hoby’s journey to Brussels) Duchess of Milan.” This is a small point, but it is necessary to draw attention to it, as it has to do with Holbein’s subsequent journey to Upper Burgundy.

[Sidenote: HOBY AND HOLBEIN IN BRUSSELS]

The two travellers left London on the 2nd or 3rd of March, and reached Brussels on the evening of the 10th. The next day was spent in preliminary interviews, Hutton having audience with the Lady Regent and the Duchess in the morning, and Hoby delivering his message to the latter in the afternoon. All going smoothly, Holbein was fetched to the court at one o’clock on the 12th, and accomplished all that he had to do within three hours, to the great admiration of Hutton, who considered that he showed himself to be a master, and that the likeness was very perfect. The English agent, the day before their arrival, had already despatched a portrait of the lady to London—in all probability the one promised him by the Lady Marquis—but after seeing Holbein’s beautiful drawing, he sent a messenger post haste to stop the bearer of the first picture, which he now regarded as but “slobbered” in comparison with the other. Hoby and Holbein, who started upon their homeward journey on the evening of the 12th, appear to have taken this inferior picture with them, so that Cromwell might compare the two. There is no evidence to indicate by whom it was painted, but as the lady was represented in gay apparel, it must have been in marked contrast to Holbein’s study and the full-length portrait he afterwards painted, representing her in her Italian widow’s weeds. It is possible that this picture is still in existence in England, and its discovery would be most interesting.

Hutton’s letter to Cromwell, describing all that took place on the occasion, is a long one, but as it is one of the few important documents still existing in which Holbein is mentioned by name, it cannot well be omitted here. It is dated March 14, 1538, and runs as follows:

“My moste bounden duetie remembered unto Your good Lordshipe. Pleasithe the same to be advertissid, that the 10th of this present monethe in the evenyng arivid here your Lordshipis sarvand Phillip Hobbie, acompenied with a sarvand of the Kynges Majesties namyd Mr Haunce, by wiche Phillip I recevyd your Lordshippis letter, beryng date at Saynct Jamys the second day of this present. Theffect wherof apercevyd, havyng the day beffore sent wone of my sarvandes towardes youre Lordshipe withe a picture of the Duches of Myllain, I thought it very nessisarie to stey the same, for that in my openion it was not soo perffight as the cawsse requyrid, neyther as the said Mr Haunce coold make it. Uppon wiche determination I dispached another of my sarvandes, in post, to returne the same, wiche your Lordshipe shall receve by this berrar. The next mornyng aftre the arivall of your Lordshippis said sarvand, I did adresse my selff unto the Lady Regent, declaryng unto Hir that the night past ther arivid at my lodgyng a sarvand of your Lordshippis, withe wone other of the Kynges Majesties; by wiche your Lordshippis sarvand I had recevyd commiscion to sartiffie Hir Grace that thEmprors Ambassadors, resident with the Kynges Majestie my master, had made ernyst overture unto your Lordshipe for a marriage to be treatid betwixt the Majestie of my said master, and the Duches Grace of Millain. To the wiche albeit your Lordshipe was of no les good inclination for the furtherance of the same, then the said Ambassadors were, yet your Lordshipe thought it not exspedient to be broken unto the Kynges Highnes, withowt havyng some further occation mynistrid for the openyng of the same. And for as myche as your Lordshipe had hard great commendation of the furme, beawtie, wisdom, and other verteos qualiteis, the wiche God had indewid the said Duches with, you cold perceve no mean more meit for the advauncement of the same, than to procure her perffight pictur; for wiche your Lordshipe had sent, in compeny of your said sarvand, a man very excellent in makyng off phisanymies; soo that your Lordshippis desire was that your said sarvand myght in moste humbleist wisse salute the Duches Grace, requyryng that hir pleisur might be to apoynt the tyme and place, wher the said paynter might acomplische his charge. The Regent, when I began to declare this forsaid purpos, stud uppon hir feit; but, aftre She had a littill ynclyng to what effect the same wold com, She did sit dowen, not movyng, till I had fenisshid all that I had to say, and then answered as foloythe: ‘I thanke yow for your good newis. This is not the first report that I have had of the good inclination that the Lord Crumwell hathe to thEmprores afferris, for recompence wheroff I trust he shall not fynd Us ingrat. And as to his desire in this behalff, it shall gladly be accomplisshid.’ Then I said, ‘Madam, I have yet further commiscion, wiche is to sartiffie the same unto the Duches Grace.’ Hir answar was, that She wold goo to Councell, and when the Duches cam to hir oratorie, I myght [have] very good oportunitie to talke withe hir. Withe that the Regent departid towardes the Councell Chamber, and I taried the Duches commyng; who beying com to hir oratorie, wher as remenyd no moo but two of hir ladeis, I sartiffied Hir Grace the woll effect of your Lordshippis commission consarnyng Phelipe Hobbie, whom, when Hir Grace wold give awdiens, wold more ample sartiffie your Lordshippis pleisur. She made answar that, if ever it shuld ly in hir powar, the good will of your Lordshipe shoid towardes hir, wiche she in no part had desarvid, shuld not remeyn unrecompencesid; and that as to your said request it was not to be denyed, albeit that she, beying ther withe the Queyn hir awnt, thought it not meit to make anny graunt therunto withowt hir consent, wiche she wold move to obteyn at the first convenient leisar, that she myght have with the Queyn consarnyng the same. Commandyng to be called unto hir wone, naymd the Lord Benedike Court, who next unto Monsur de Correra is cheiff about hir; whoo beyng com, she said unto hym, ‘Goo withe thAmbassadour and entarteyn a gentilman that is at his lodgyng, and knowe wher you shall fynd hym at suche tyme as I shall send yow for hym.’ This done, wee tooke ower leve of Hir Grace, and cam to my lodgyng, wher the said Lord salutid Phillip Hobbie, communyng together in the Italian tunge a sarten space, and then tooke his leve to repaire agayn to the Court; wiche I percevyng, requyrid hym to take the portion withe us at dynnar, wiche he promissid to doo; but aftre beyng otherweis myndid, he sent us woord that he cold not com, but wold see us aftre dynnar; wiche apoyntment he kept. For at two of the cloke in the aftrenoon he cam for Phillipe to com speke withe the Duches his mystres: who can make relation to your Lordshipe more at large what passid at the tyme. The next day foloyng, at wone of the cloke in the aftrenoon, the said Lord Benedike cam for Mr. Haunce; who havyng but thre owers space hathe shoid hym self to be master of that siens, for it is very perffight; the other is but sloberid in comparison to it, as by the sight of bothe your Lordshipe shall well aperceve. The same night Phillipe tooke his leve of the Duches. I inffurmyd the Lady Regent that the said Phillipe wold gladly, accordyng to your Lordshippis commandment, have com to have done his duetie unto Hir, to have knowen what further sarvis Hir Grace wold commaund hym; but dowttyng he should be notid, wherby myght be discoverid that wiche till then was kept secret as coldbe. She answarid that it shuld not neid, reqwiring me, that I wold make hir most effectios commendations, by my letters, unto your Lordshipe, and that yow shuld here frome Hir more at large by thEmprors Ambassadour resident with the Kynges Majestie. To sartiffie your Lordship of hir sobreness, wisdom, and other varteos qualities shulde be but superfluitie, for this berrar can sartiffie your Lordshipe therof at length.”[262]

Footnote 262:

_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. i. 507. _St. P._, viii. 17.

[Sidenote: HUTTON’S ACCOUNT OF HOLBEIN’S VISIT]

The Queen Regent wrote to Eustace Chapuys in London, directly after Hoby’s departure, saying that: “I deem it opportune to acquaint you with a fact, of which you are not perhaps aware, namely, that Sieur Cromwell has sent here expressly a man, besides a message by ambassador Hauton, to the effect that the Emperor had proposed to the King, his master, the marriage of my niece, the dowager duchess of Milan, with honourable and advantageous conditions; that he (the Emperor) offers to help efficiently towards it, and wishes it to take place before King Francis becomes aware of it. Cromwell asks that the man be allowed to see and talk with my said niece, and take her portrait in order to show it to the King and give him greater desire to see her. This I have allowed, and the man has actually returned to England with the portrait, well satisfied with the personal appearance and manners of my said niece, who has not failed on the occasion to thank Cromwell for his offers and show of affection.”[263]

Footnote 263:

_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. i. 419. _Spanish Calendar_, vol. v. pt. ii. 217.

From Chapuys’ reply to her, dated March 23, we learn that Hoby and Holbein reached London on March 18, and that the King was delighted with the latter’s handiwork. He tells her:

“On the very same day, the 18th, the painter sent by this King to Flanders came back with the Duchess’ likeness, which, I am told, has singularly pleased the King, so much so, that since he saw it he has been in much better humor than he ever was, making musicians play on their instruments all day long. Two days after he went to dine at a splendid house of his, where he had collected all his musicians, and, after giving orders for the erection of certain sumptuous buildings therein, returned home by water, surrounded by musicians, and went straight to visit the duchess of Suffocq, the mother-in-law of the duke of Norfolk, and the wife of his brother, and ever since cannot be one single moment without masks, which is a sign he purposes to marry again, unless he does all that by way of dissimulation whilst the bishop of Tarbes is here still.”[264]

Footnote 264:

_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. i. 583. _Spanish Calendar_, vol. v. pt. ii. 220.

* * * * *

For the cost of this journey Hoby received £23, 6_s._ 8_d._ from the royal purse, which is noted in the book of the King’s household expenses for March 1538. “Item paid to Philip Hoby by the kinges commandment certifyed by my lord privy seal lettre for his coste and expences sent in all possible diligence for the kinge affaires in the parties of beyonde the See. xxiij _li._ vj_s._ viij_d._”[265]

Footnote 265:

_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. ii. 1280 (f. 6).

[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF THE DUCHESS AT WINDSOR]

No doubt the portrait which so delighted the King was one of those masterly studies in black chalk touched with colour, such as the “John Godsalve” among the Windsor drawings, from which Holbein afterwards painted the magnificent full-length now in the National Gallery. He could not have done much more than this in the three hours which was the whole time allowed him for the sitting. Sir Claude Phillips, however, is of opinion that it must have been something more than a drawing, however consummate—perhaps a finished sketch of the head only in oils. “It is difficult to believe,” he says, “that a layman would express so enthusiastic an approval of a drawing of modest dimensions, and (if it followed the usual Windsor type) of modest aspect. Neither sketch, however, nor drawing is known to exist.”[266]

Footnote 266:

_Daily Telegraph_, May 8, 1909.

It was suggested by the late Sir George Scharf, F.S.A., that the small oil panel, showing the Duchess to the waist, which is practically a replica of the upper half of the National Gallery picture, is the original study made by Holbein in Brussels. This portrait, then unnamed, he discovered in 1863, in a small apartment in Windsor Castle, and it was described by him in a paper read before the Society of Antiquaries, and published in _Archæologia_, with a good lithograph of the picture by T. H. Maguire.[267] It is on wood, 17 in. high by 13 in. wide.

Footnote 267:

“Remarks on a Portrait of the Duchess of Milan, recently discovered at Windsor Castle, probably painted by Holbein at Brussels in the year 1538,” _Archæologia_, 1866, vol. xl. p. 106.

“The picture by Holbein,” says Sir George, “could only have been a drawing or a painting on rather a small scale, inasmuch as it had at once to be conveyed by a messenger to England, and one of the objects of Hutton’s letter was to show the diligence with which the King’s commands were executed and to announce the coming of the picture. The scale and workmanship of the picture before us are exactly such as might have been expected from a first-rate painter and tactician under such circumstances. All essential points are observed with scrupulous fidelity, and, certainly, as far as internal evidence extends, without flattery. It is not to be supposed that Holbein did nothing to the picture beyond the term of the three hours’ sitting afforded by the Duchess. Having secured all the essential points of likeness, and given the general colouring, he doubtless spent some time in further finishings from memory. But time must have been given for the picture to dry.”

Wornum, however, refuses to accept Sir George’s ascription. “The head is vigorously painted,” he says, “and very natural; it shows, however, no complete finish, which, if the picture referred to, is exactly what one would expect; but it lacks also the mastery one would expect to find in a free sketch by Holbein. The hands are inferior, but they appear to have been partly repainted; the background has also been entirely repainted.... In its present state, it looks much more like a clever study from the Arundel picture, than its pattern; anyhow the distance between them is immense, but this does not prove much, for a very inferior master to Holbein could elaborate a magical effect from a mere rough sketch, provided this possessed the real germs of truth in it.”[268]

Footnote 268:

Wornum, p. 313.

[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF THE DUCHESS AT WINDSOR]

Woltmann, too, was of opinion that this small panel was not an original work by Holbein. “We cannot find in the picture at Windsor,” he says “that freedom and bold masterly style which absolutely belong to a sketch from life, and which alone could have excited such lively admiration in John Hutton. The picture at Windsor is very pretty and graceful, but has something almost sober in its treatment. It can indeed be just as little a copy from the large painting. It exhibits some differences in the costume, for instance, a somewhat larger fur collar, and another position of the fingers, although the characteristic attitude of the hands is essentially the same. Christina also wears three rings instead of a single one; namely, a black widow’s ring on the little finger of the right hand, and on the next finger a gold hoop with a square black stone. We might, therefore, believe that this is a copy by another hand of the sketch Holbein painted from life. In favour of this opinion, we find the head, which the sketch naturally gave most distinctly, by far the best part of the painting, while the rest, which was only indicated in the sketch, appears far weaker.”[269]

Footnote 269:

Woltmann, 1st ed., English translation, pp. 426-7.

Sir George Scharf describes with care the many small differences between the two works. In addition to the three rings instead of one, mentioned by Woltmann, the fur of the dress in the smaller picture is much deeper and has every appearance of being a wide fur collar separate from and placed over the black dress. In the larger portrait the fur is much narrower, and evidently forms the lining and collar of the outer robe, a narrow edging of it being shown down the front. In the National Gallery picture, too, this outer robe is open several inches in front, showing the under-dress of black and the knotted ribbon at the waist, all of which are missing in the Windsor panel. Again, though the hands holding the gloves have the same general position in both, the position of the fingers shows considerable variation. In the smaller portrait the two last fingers of the right hand and the two middle ones of the left are bent inwards; in the larger, the only bent fingers are the two last of the left hand. There are some other minor differences which need not be specified.

Both pictures at one time belonged to Henry VIII, and are included in the inventory of that King’s “money, jewels, plate, utensils, apparel, wardrobe stuffs, goods and chattels, consigned to the care of Sir Anthony Denny at Westminster.” The volume, now in the Record Office, is dated April 24, 1542. They appear again in a similar inventory, made after Henry’s death, taken “by vertue of a Commission under the greate seale of England, bearing date at Westminster the viij day of September, in the first year of our Sovereyne Lord Edwarde the Sixte” (1547). In these, the smaller panel is described as “Item, a Table with a Picture of the Duchesse of Myllayne.”

Woltmann’s conjecture that it is a contemporary copy made from Holbein’s original sketch appears to be the true one, though for whom made it is now impossible to say. There seems to be no reason why Henry, having the full-length panel in his possession, should have commissioned this smaller and inferior one. If ordered by Thomas Cromwell, which is not very likely, it may have reached the King in the form of plunder after the former’s execution; if done in order to be sent to the Duchess herself, it is strange that it should have remained in England. In any case, it cannot have been the “slobbered” work which Hutton, in his eagerness to serve his royal master, had hurriedly despatched on its way to London on the eve of Holbein’s arrival in Brussels. All the evidence points to the latter as being the portrait of the Duchess “out of her mourning apparel” which was to be given to the Lady Marquess, who had promised to show it to Hutton when finished, as his letter tells us. Hutton, pleading urgency, and knowing that the latter lady was in favour of the match, in all probability borrowed it, or begged it as a gift.

This portrait of the Duchess of Milan,[270] 70 in. by 32 in. (Pl. 21), is incomparably the greatest work from Holbein’s brush now remaining in England; it is, indeed, in many respects his masterpiece. It is of additional interest and value, too, as being the only full-length, life-size portrait of a lady painted by him. She is represented standing, facing and looking towards the spectator, her hands in front of her holding her gloves. She is dressed in mourning apparel as the widow of Sforza, a gown of plain black satin tied round the waist with a black cord, and a long black cloak reaching to her feet, lined with yellow sable, with a collar of the same fur, open in the front sufficiently to allow a part of her dress to be seen. At her neck and wrists are white frills with a narrow black edging, and on her head a closely-fitting black cap, which covers all her hair, and a part of her forehead. The gloves are pale buff, and her only ornament is a gold ring with a red stone, probably a cornelian, on the third finger of her left hand. The floor on which she stands is of pale yellow-brown colour, though no floor-boards are indicated, and the background is a plain one of deep blue, now almost black, only broken by the white cartellino over the sitter’s left shoulder, which is affixed to the wall with four dabs of red sealing-wax.

Footnote 270:

Woltmann, 2. Reproduced by Pollard, _Henry VIII_, p. 250; Davies, p. 172; Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 121; and elsewhere.

[Illustration:

VOL. II., PLATE 21 THE DUCHESS OF MILAN 1538 NATIONAL GALLERY, LONDON ]

Holbein made the choice of a true artist in thus depicting her in her widow’s weeds instead of in all the bravery of the court dress which she was again beginning to assume. The effect of fine rich colour produced by this wonderful rendering of a plain black costume is masterly, but in no way detracts the attention of the spectator from the grace of the slender form and the vitality and subtle expression of the face, as more elaborate accessories might have done. The whole panel is painted with the utmost simplicity and directness, and yet is stamped with real grandeur of style in every delicate stroke of the brush. The modelling of the flesh is rendered with extraordinary delicacy, while the tints are unusually transparent, and a faint rosy glow of health just flushes her cheeks. Her dark-brown eyes, from under fair eyebrows, look out upon the world with an intensity of expression which is surpassed in few, if any, portraits by the greatest masters; the red lips are full of character, but not more so than the hands, which are exquisitely painted. In the painting of hands Holbein was always a master, but he never accomplished anything finer in this direction than those of the young Duchess. The portrait, indeed, bears the stamp of truth in every line. The painter, who never exaggerated, has made no attempt to add to the lady’s beauty; such as she was he painted her. The draperies are admirably arranged, and the painting of fur and satin as good as anything Holbein ever did, even in such portraits as that of Gisze. The restrained but stately attitude of the young girl, still only on the threshold of womanhood, the refined, reserved, and dignified character in the fresh young face, which, though gentle, is in no way lacking in strength, and the sense of humour lurking in the lips, combine to produce an effect which is fascinating in the highest degree; indeed, in the simplicity of its methods, the strength, refinement, and elegance of its conception, and in its extraordinary vitality, it must always remain not only Holbein’s masterpiece in the portraiture of women, but one of the greatest portraits in the world.

[Sidenote: NATIONAL GALLERY PORTRAIT]

There is no doubt that Holbein painted the portrait immediately after his return from Brussels, although some writers have suggested that it is a year or so later in date than 1538. This conclusion is based largely on the supposition that Holbein’s visit to High Burgundy later in the same year was for the purpose of obtaining further sittings from the Duchess; but this is an error, as will be shown in the next chapter. The portrait was painted for Henry, and would naturally be done at once, before the negotiations for the marriage were broken off, and it remained in his collection throughout his life. Holbein was out of England more often and for a longer period in 1538 than has been generally supposed. In addition to at least one other continental journey on the King’s service, he was absent from about the middle of August until nearly Christmas, and thus everything indicates that this important panel was painted in April or May.

Another argument, advanced by Sir George Scharf in favour of the contention that it was painted some time after 1538, is that the name and titles of the lady written on the fictitious piece of paper attached to the dark background near to her left shoulder, by four dabs of sealing-wax, designate her “Duchess of Lorraine.” This inscription Sir George reads as: “Christine, Daughter to Christierne K. of Deñarke, and Dutchess of Lotragne and heretofore (?) Dutches of Milan.” The writing, however, is much rubbed, and is by no means easy to decipher; thus the word which Sir George read as “heretofore,” Mr. Wornum considered to be “hered” (hereditary). “This,” Sir George goes on to say, “would, if the writing be contemporary with the picture, bring the date to 1541, the year of her second marriage to Francis, Duke of Lorraine and Barr. The style of writing on the paper may perhaps raise some question, and may possibly be found to belong to the period of James I, when through his Queen and the occasional presence of Christian IV in England, a considerable interest was felt in matters connected with Denmark.”[271]

Footnote 271:

_Archæologia_, xl. p. 109. The date of her marriage to Lorraine appears to have been 1540.

The inscription as it now is was probably painted over an earlier one from Holbein’s brush, for it is too badly done to be original; but there is no need to place it as late as Sir George suggests, for the Lumley inventory speaks of her as the Duchess of Lorraine, so that the alteration may have been due to Lord Lumley or his father-in-law. It is even possible that Holbein may have placed no title of any kind on the picture, but that the whole label was added by some other painter employed for the purpose by the owner of Nonsuch.

In spite of Henry’s admiration for the picture, the proposed match came to nothing, though for some time Hutton continued to write letters in her praises. Thus, on the 1st April 1538, he wrote to the King:

[Sidenote: FAILURE OF MARRIAGE NEGOTIATIONS]

“Pleasithe Your Majestie to be advertissid that synns the departyng frome hence of Phillipe Hobbie, I have for the most part byne dayly in the Queyns chambre, by cawse I myght withe the more commoditie aperceve, whether the great modestiosnes, that is in the Duches of Myllayn, proceid of a symple yngnorance, or of a naturall inclination acompenid withe wisdom; to that intent I myght the better sartiffie Your Highnes of the same. Wherunto I have inployid my selff withe all celeritie, havyng bothe seyn and hard hir, aswell in matters off weight, as playing at the cardes and other pastymys, not apercevyng in hir anny liklihod that ther is want off wit, but rather to be estemyd, emonge the nombre of wise, the wissist. Hir sobre and gentill demenewre is myche lawdid by all them that knowe hir. Soo that I take it to be above the compas off a womans wit to dissemble longe withe that is graven in the hart to the contrary, but I noot that in all hir acttes she uttrithe such a myldnes, the wiche maniffestithe to be wroght in hir by nature, and presarvid withe grace and wisdom.”[272]

Footnote 272:

_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. i. 656. _St. P._, viii. 21.

In the following month (May 17) he informed Wriothesley that “the Lady Regent, acompenyd with the Duches Grace of Myllayn have byne dayly a huntyng, wiche is the exarsis, that the bothe moste desyre, and have greatest delit in; and by cawsse I have thought it my bounden duetie to repayre wher the Duches Grace was, procuryng occation many tymis to talke withe Hyr Grace, whom I fynd of myche wisdom, and of as great modestiosnes, as ever I knewe anny woman. Sithe the tyme that Phelip Hobbie departid frome theis parteis, Hir Grace hathe, bothe by woordes and countenance, ussid towardes me myche benyngnitie.”[273]

Footnote 273:

_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. i. 1018. _St. P._, viii. 29.

He added that he had presented the Regent with four couple of young hounds and an ambling gelding, and had promised the same to the Duchess, “wiche offre she gently acceptyd.”

Early in June an obstacle to the match was suggested which proved that the Emperor and his sister were only using the Duchess as a pawn on the political chess-board, and that there was no real intention of giving her to Henry. This obstacle was the fact that the Duchess was a near kinswoman of the late Queen Katherine, Henry’s first wife, and that the Pope’s dispensation was therefore necessary. The negotiations dragged on throughout the year, Hutton suddenly dying in the middle of them, on September 5, just when the King his master was sending over two commissioners, Thomas Wriothesley, one of his secretaries, and Stephen Vaughan, to treat personally with the Regent. There is no need to record their adventures, or the manner in which that lady continually put them off with plausible excuses. They followed her about the country on her journey to Compiègne to meet the King and Queen of France. On neither side was there any real sincerity, but the Englishmen, although Dr. Edward Carne[274] was sent over to help them, could not score a point in the game. They had several personal interviews with the Duchess, after one of which they reported that “she is a godly personage, of stature hiegher thenne eyther of us, a very good womans face, and competently faire, but very wel favored, a lytle browne.”[275]

Footnote 274:

Knighted by the Emperor some years later.

Footnote 275:

_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. ii. 550. _St. P._, viii. p. 59.

After another interview Wriothesley wrote to the King, on February 1, 1539:

“A blinde man shuld judge no colours, but surely, Sir, after my poure entendement, for that lyttel experyence that I have, she is mervelous wise, very gentel, and as shamfast as ever I sawe soo wittye a woman. I thinke her wisdome no lesse thenne the Quenes, which in my pouer opinion is notable for a woman. Her gentlenes excedeth. Asferre as I canne judge or here for this lytel tyme that I have been here, I am deceyved, if she prove not a good wief, if God send her a wise husbande; and sumwhat the better I lyke her, for that I have been enformed that of all the hole stock of them, her mother (Isabella, sister of Charles V) was of best opinion in religion, and shewed it soo farre, that bothe thEmperour and al the pack of them were sore greved with Her, and seamed in thende to have Her in contempte. I wolde hope no lesse of the doughter, if she might be so happye as to nestle in Englande. Very pure, faire of colour she is not, but a mervelous good brownishe face she bathe, with faire redd lippes, and ruddy chekes; and oneles I be deceyved in my judgement, which in all thinges, but specially in this kynde of judgement, is very basse, she was yet never soo wel paynted, but her lyvely visage dothe muche excel her poincture.”

* * * * *

Later on in the same interview Wriothesley pressed her as to her own desire in the matter, and sang his master’s praises:

“At this she blusshed excedingly, and said: ‘Asfor myn inclination,’ quod she, ‘what shuld I saye? You knowe that I am at thEmperrurs commaundement,’ and again, ‘You knowe I am thEmperours poore servaunt, and must followe his pleasour.’ Your Majesties wisedom shall easly judge uppon this, of what inclination the women be, and specially the Duchesse, whose honest countenaunce, with the fewe woordes that she wisely spake, together with that which I knowe by the meane of her most secrete chamberers and servauntes, maketh me to thinke there canne be no doubt in her.”[276]

Footnote 276:

_C.L.P._, vol. xiv. pt. i. 194. _St. P._, viii. 137.

[Sidenote: HISTORY OF THE PICTURE]

This letter seems to indicate that there is no truth in the well-known story told by Sandrart, and repeated by Walpole, that the Duchess herself was not anxious to become Queen of England, telling Henry’s ambassadors that “she had but one head; if she had two, one of them should be at his Majesty’s service.” On the contrary, Carne and his fellow-commissioners frequently mentioned that she seemed bent on the alliance, and could not bear to hear of any other marriage proposals. Among the frequenters of the English court it was common gossip that she was very likely to be the next queen. Thus, Robert Warner, of the Earl of Sussex’s household, writing to Lord Fitzwater on November 21, 1538, tells him that “there is small speaking of any queen; merely a report that it should be the duchess of Milan. In any case it will be an outlandish woman and will not happen till the spring.”[277] There was also a report that the King had sent her a diamond worth 16,000 ducats.

Footnote 277:

_C.L.P._, vol. xiii. pt. ii. 884. _Ellis_, 1st series, ii. 96.

Early in 1539 Francis and Charles V were in full accord, and Henry was making every possible preparation for war. The Regent and the Emperor no longer attempted to keep up the farce of a possible matrimonial alliance with England, though even then Wriothesley was writing for Henry’s “phisnamy,” which he thought would make the Duchess leave Emperor and all rather than be frustrated of so great a match. In the end the three ambassadors departed for home on March 19, though not without some trouble, as war appeared imminent; and thus Holbein’s famous portrait remained as the only record in Henry’s possession of these long and futile negotiations.

The picture has never left England since the day it was painted. It was in the possession of Henry VIII at the time of his death, and is described in the inventory already mentioned, in which it is the twelfth entry, as—“Item, a greate table with the picture of the Duchyes of Myllayne, beinge her whole stature.” According to Mr. Lionel Cust,[278] it passed from King Henry’s collection to that of the King’s cousin, Henry Fitz-Alan, Earl of Arundel, after whose death it belonged to his son-in-law, John, Lord Lumley, husband of the Earl’s eldest daughter and co-heiress, Lady Joan Fitz-Alan. It is included in the manuscript inventory of pictures and other objects of art belonging to Lord Lumley in the reign of Queen Elizabeth already mentioned more than once. This inventory is entitled “A Certyficate from Mr. John Lampton, Stewarde of Howseholde to John, Lord Lumley, of all his Lo: Monumentes of Marbles, Pictures and tables in Paynture, with other his Lordshippes Howseholde stuffe, and Regester of Bookes. Anno 1590.” The picture is described as “The statuary of the Duchess of Myllayne, afterwards Duches of Lorreyn daughter to Christierne King of Denmarke doone by Haunce Holbyn,” the word “statuary” being used for a standing whole-length figure.

Footnote 278:

Letter to _The Times_, May 5, 1909.

Against the contention that the picture passed directly from Henry’s collection into the possession of the Earl of Arundel must be placed Carel van Mander’s statement that in 1574 Zuccaro saw it in the Earl of Pembroke’s house in London. “The said Zucchero,” he says, “was also delighted with the portrait of a certain Countess, dressed in black satin, life-size, a full-length figure, unusually pretty and well painted by Holbein, and kept in Lord Pembroke’s house, where he saw it in company with some painters and lovers of art, and took such great delight in it, that he declared he had not seen its like in art and delicacy even in Rome; therefore went away filled with admiration.”[279]

Footnote 279:

See Woltmann, English translation, p. 426.

Van Mander’s book was not published until 1604, thirty years later than this incident, and it is, of course, quite possible that either he or Zuccaro made a mistake as to the ownership of the picture and the place where it had been seen; but the statement is very definite, and must be taken into consideration in tracing the portrait’s history. In any case, there is no doubt that Lord Lumley owned it in 1590, and that he was a lover of Holbein’s works, of which he possessed a considerable number, most of which have been referred to individually in preceding pages, among them the great cartoon of Henry VII and Henry VIII belonging to the Duke of Devonshire, and portraits of Erasmus, Sir Thomas More, and Sir Henry and Lady Guideford, and the book of the Windsor drawings, all of which are entered in the inventory as “drawne” or “doone” by “Haunce Holbyn.” In Lord Lumley’s collection were also portraits of Sir Nicholas Carew, Sir Thomas Lovell, the elder and the younger Sir Thomas Wyat, and Sir Thomas Hennege, some of which also may well have been by Holbein, though no artist’s name is placed against them in the list.

[Sidenote: HISTORY OF THE PICTURE]

For many years Lord Lumley resided at Nonsuch. The erection of this palace was begun by Henry VIII in the year in which the Duchess was painted. The house, of which Toto was probably the chief architect or decorator,[280] was unfinished at the King’s death, and remained so during the reign of Edward VI; but in that of Mary it was completed by the Earl of Arundel, who had become possessed of it, “after the first intent and meaning of the said King his old maister.” Here Lord Lumley resided with his wife and father-in-law until the Earl’s death in 1580, when he became its owner. He added the front quadrangle, and entertained Queen Elizabeth there on more than one occasion. From his hands it reverted to the Crown in 1591 in exchange for other property. No doubt Lord Lumley’s collection of pictures remained at Nonsuch until that year, and very possibly the inventory, dated 1590, was drawn up in preparation for the removal of the works of art when this transfer of estates took place.[281]

Footnote 280:

See Vol. i. pp. 276-7.

Footnote 281:

See Cust, _Burlington Magazine_, vol. xiv., March 1909, pp. 366-8, and _The Times_, May 5, 1909; A. W. Franks, _Archæologia_, vol. xxxix. p. 35.

Upon the death of Lord Lumley without issue, it is evident that the picture passed, with other portraits of the Fitz-Alan family, into the possession of Philip Howard, Earl of Arundel, son of Thomas, fourth Duke of Norfolk, and Lady Mary Fitz-Alan, younger daughter and co-heiress of Henry, Earl of Arundel. Philip Howard was father of Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, probably the greatest art-collector the world has ever known. When in the latter’s possession it was seen by Sandrart, in 1627, who mentions it as the portrait of the King’s “incomparable beloved one, a princess of Lorraine” (unvergleichlicher Liebstin, einer Prinzessin von Lothringen). It was entered in the Arundel inventory of 1655 as “Duchessa de Lorena grande del naturale.”

From that time until 1909 it remained in the possession of the Howard family. Walpole adds to his _Anecdotes_ a note to the effect that “Vertue saw a whole length of this princess at Mr. Howard’s, in Soho Square.”[282] It was afterwards at Worksop Manor, then belonging to the Duke of Norfolk, and later on was removed to Arundel Castle, where it was described in the catalogue as “a very curious portrait of a Duchess of Milan.” It was included in the exhibition of Old Masters at Burlington House in 1880, and the Duke of Norfolk then lent it to the National Gallery, where it remained on loan for nearly thirty years. About 1908 the Duke informed the Trustees that he was receiving large offers for the picture, which he felt bound to consider, but that he was most anxious that, if possible, it should be secured for the nation; and he, therefore, gave an undertaking that before closing with any purchaser he would first offer it to the Gallery at the same price.

Footnote 282:

Walpole, _Anecdotes_, ed. Wornum, p. 72.

On April 22, 1909, his Grace told the authorities that he had been offered a sum of £61,000, which he had accepted, subject to the option granted to the National Gallery of purchasing at the same price, and that the purchasers had consented to wait until May 1 for the completion of the transaction. As the Trustees were unable to find so great a sum in so short a time, the Duke sold the picture to Messrs. P. & D. Colnaghi & Co. for £61,000 on the latter date. The purchasers then in turn offered it first of all to the nation, at the enhanced price of £72,000, giving the Trustees a month in which to raise the necessary fund. A determined effort to secure the picture was then made by the chairman, Lord Balcarres, and committee of the National Art-Collections Fund, but in spite of strenuous endeavours, the amount subscribed up to within a few days of the expiration of the time-limit fell far short of the great sum required. Most happily, however, at the last moment a munificent anonymous donor came forward with a gift of £40,000, which, with £10,000 from the Government, and other subscriptions, including one from the vendors, enabled the Fund to complete the purchase, and thus this great picture, undoubtedly the finest portrait Holbein ever painted, for which more than one millionaire collector was prepared to give an even greater price for its possession, was saved for the English nation, and has at last found a permanent home in the National Gallery.

[Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF THE DUCHESS AS A CHILD]

It is interesting to note that this Duchess of Milan is identical with the little dark-eyed girl wearing a peculiar hood in the well-known picture of the three children of the King of Denmark by Mabuse, in the English Royal Collection, now in Hampton Court. This picture was engraved by Vertue in 1748, and was removed at that date from Kensington Palace to Windsor. It was thought at that time—possibly the mistake was Vertue’s—to represent the three children of Henry VII, Prince Arthur, Prince Henry, and Princess Margaret, though in Henry VIII’s catalogue they were correctly named as the “three children of the Kynge of Denmarke.” The whole matter was cleared up by Sir George Scharf in a paper read before the Society of Antiquaries in 1860, and printed in _Archæologia_.[283] The original picture appears to have been painted in the spring of 1526 at Malines, where Mabuse was then engaged, amid other work, in restoring pictures for the Lady Regent. From a letter from Sir Robert Wingfield to Wolsey, written from that city on the 14th March 1526, we learn that the young Prince of Denmark and his two sisters were then on a visit to their aunt, “which be right goodly and fair children, specially the daughters.”[284] A letter from the Emperor to the Archduke Ferdinand, of about the same date, also mentions this visit. “I am sorry to hear of the death of the Queen of Denmark. Her children are with my aunt in Flanders.”[285]

Footnote 283:

Vol. xxxix. p. 245.

Footnote 284:

_C.L.P._, vol. iv. pt. i. 2025.

Footnote 285:

_C.L.P._, vol. iv. pt. i. No. 2051.

In Charles I’s catalogue this picture was attributed to Janet (“a Whitehall piece thought to be of Jennet”); and the earliest instance of its rightful ascription to Mabuse is in the Commonwealth inventory, among the pictures at St. James’s, where it is entered as: “Three children in one piece by Mabuse, sold to Mr. Grinder for £10, 23rd Oct. 1651.”

Sir George Scharf, comparing this juvenile likeness with the one painted by Holbein some thirteen years later, says: “The same features and expression of countenance, notwithstanding the difference of years, may be traced in both. The look of the eyes is quite the same, and I would also invite attention to the form of the upper eyelids which, especially in the Arundel picture, become remarkably broad on the side away from the nose.”[286] There are five or six replicas of the Mabuse picture in this country, at Wilton, Sudeley Castle, Longford Castle, Corsham House, and elsewhere. Other likenesses of the Duchess are to be found on existing medals both of Sforza and Lorraine, and in the fine engraving or etching of her by Agostino Carracci, published in Campo’s _History of Cremona_.

Footnote 286:

_Archæologia_, vol. xl. p. 140.

------------------------------------------------------------------------