1530. Sir Thomas’s age is given as 50 (Ætatis 50), but Sir John’s as 77,

instead of “Anno 76” as in the sketch. Otherwise, in all these pictures, the ages of the sitters agree with the sketch, though the latter was done in 1527 and the former in 1530. This may be perhaps explained by the fact that Sir Thomas wished the ages to be kept as they were at the time when the studies were made, rather than when the picture was completed by another hand. One other version of importance was in Walpole’s day at Burford Priory, Oxfordshire, the seat of William Lenthall, the Speaker (Pl. 76 ),[671] who purchased the estate from Viscount Falkland, together with the pictures in the house. This version of the Group, before the Speaker owned it, had been in the possession of the Mores, at Gubbins, in Hertfordshire. By what means it passed into the hands of Lenthall, says Walpole, is uncertain. He is said to have purchased a number of pictures from the royal collections at Whitehall and Hampton Court, but the More Family Group did not come from that source, nor was it acquired from Viscount Falkland, for, according to Dallaway (note to Walpole, vol. i. p. 91), it was described by Aubrey in 1670 when in Lenthall’s earlier home at Besselsleigh, Berks, who says that it had an inscription in golden letters of about sixty lines. It was bought in at the Lenthall sale at Christie’s in 1808 for one thousand guineas. It reappeared in the saleroom in 1833, when it fetched only one hundred guineas, and came into the possession of the Strickland family of Cokethorpe Park, Ducklington, Oxfordshire, and, later on, passed from them by marriage to the Cottrell-Dormer family. A few years ago it was under consideration by the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery, but was not purchased, and, finally, it made a third appearance at Christie’s on 26th February 1910, when it was acquired by Sir Hugh P. Lane for nine hundred and fifty guineas. It measures 7 ft. 6 in. high by 11 ft. wide, and is dated 1593.[672] It contains eleven figures, and is made up from the original composition and portraits of later members of the family. Seven of the figures of Holbein’s group have been pushed to the spectator’s left, the ones omitted being Lady More, Margaret Gigs, Patenson, and the secretary, Harris. Elizabeth Dancey has been moved to the centre, behind and between her two seated sisters. The right side of the picture contains a group of four people of a later generation, the Chancellor’s grandson, Thomas More, and his wife, Maria Scrope, and their two sons, the elder of whom was the Thomas More who wrote the life of his great-grandfather. In the background there is a sideboard on the left, as in the Basel sketch, with two vases of flowers, and musical instruments, and the hanging clock is shown in its original position in the centre; but on the left the framed portrait of a lady has been introduced. In addition, coats of arms have been painted above seven of the heads without regard to the background itself. In an account of the Priory and its contents, communicated to the _Gentleman’s Magazine_ for August 1799 (vol. lxix. pt. 2, p. 644), by an anonymous correspondent, who describes the big picture in some detail, the portrait hanging on the wall is said to represent the wife of Sir John More. There is a large miniature painting of the picture, which was in the Tudor Exhibition, 1890 (No. 1087),[673] lent by Major-General F. E. Sotheby, and attributed to Peter Oliver, as it was by Walpole, who says: “The painter of this exquisite little piece is unknown, but probably was Peter Oliver.”[674] The picture and the miniature do not agree, however, in all the details. The latter includes twelve figures, for Patenson is introduced in the background peeping through a curtain in the centre. Only two coats of arms are shown, over the heads of Sir Thomas More and his father, and on the right-hand side, behind the later group of portraits, in place of the wall with the lady’s portrait there is an open archway through which is seen the Mores’ walled garden at Chelsea and a distant view of London. According to the _Dictionary of National Biography_, the large picture was the work of Rowland Lockey, who was working about 1590-1610. He was a pupil of Nicholas Hilliard, and was extolled by Richard Haydock (1598) and Francis Meres (1598) as among the eminent artists then living in England. It is stated in Nichol’s _History of Leicestershire_[675] that he painted “a neat piece in oil, containing in one table the picture of Sir John More, a judge of the King’s Bench, _temp._ Henry VIII, and of his wife, and of Sir Thomas More, lord chancellor, his son and his wife, and of all the lineal heirs male descended from them, together with each man’s wife unto that present year.” The expression “neat,” however, would apply more aptly to the large miniature group, and it is very possible that he was the author of it. VOL. I., PLATE 76. [Illustration: THE MORE FAMILY GROUP The Version formerly at Burford Priory. Now in the possession of Messrs. Parkenthorpe. ] [Sidenote: THE PORTRAIT OF SIR THOMAS MORE] There are separate studies for the heads of seven of the sitters in the family picture among the Holbein drawings in Windsor Castle. Sir John More,[676] Sir Thomas, his son John,[677] his daughters Elizabeth[678] and Cecilia (Pl. 77),[679] Anne Cresacre,[680] and Margaret Clement.[681] These are all larger than the majority of the sketches in the collection, and on white unprimed paper. There are two drawings of Sir Thomas (Pl. 78),[682] which, although the face is taken from the same point of view, are not replicas, but distinctly separate studies; the pose is slightly different, and the hair quite unlike, and it may perhaps be conjectured that one of them is the study made for the Group, and the other a later study made shortly before the artist left England. In addition to the family picture, Holbein painted separate portraits of Sir Thomas, Lady More, and, possibly, Margaret Roper. The portrait of More is the well-known one belonging to Mr. Edward Huth,[683] which has been frequently exhibited, most recently at the Burlington Fine Arts Club in 1909 (No. 53). Before it came into the possession of the Huth family it was in the collection of an Irish nobleman, from whom it was acquired—in payment for a picture-cleaning bill, so it is said—by Farrer, the picture-dealer, who sold it to Mr. Henry Huth for £1200. It was probably the first work painted by Holbein after his arrival in England, and finished early in 1527. It is based on the head in the Windsor Collection, and the position corresponds with the figure in the Basel sketch. It is a half-length, seated, three-quarters to the spectator’s right, with dark hair, and clean-shaven, but the grey of the moustache and beard indicated. He is dressed in black cap, black gown lined with brown fur, with deep fur collar, and a golden collar of SS. with portcullis clasps and Tudor rose pendant. His right elbow rests on a table to the left, and he holds a folded paper in both hands. The background consists of a green curtain with a gold fringe, looped back by a gold cord. The date “MDXXVII” is inscribed on the edge of the table. This noble representation of a noble man is one of the finest portraits painted by Holbein in this country. It has suffered somewhat in the course of time, but still remains a wonderful study of character, penetrating in its insight. The nobility of More’s nature, the strength of his will, the gentleness of his disposition when not roused to just anger, the firmness of the finely-cut lips, and the penetrating glance of his bright eyes, have been mirrored by Holbein as though in a glass. Both the statesman and the scholar stand revealed with that searching power of seizing the essentials of a man’s nature which is one of the greatest qualities of Holbein’s art. VOL. I., PLATE 77. [Illustration: CECILIA HERON _Drawing in black and coloured chalks_ WINDSOR CASTLE ] VOL. I., PLATE 78. [Illustration: SIR THOMAS MORE _Drawing in black and coloured chalks_ WINDSOR CASTLE ] A portrait of Sir Thomas was in the Orleans Gallery in 1727, and a second was in the possession of Lord Lumley in 1590, and was sold from Lumley Castle in 1785, to Mr. Hay, of Savile Row.[684] The latter was probably the one now belonging to Mr. Huth, and is the original from which so many copies have been made.[685] The panel on which it is painted measures 29 in. by 23½ in. There are also a variety of portraits scattered about the European museums to which the name of Sir Thomas More has been attached erroneously. The small portrait by Holbein of Sir Henry Wyat, father of Sir Thomas Wyat, in the Louvre, was long regarded as a likeness of More, and is still so described in the official catalogue.[686] There is another small panel, in the Brussels Museum (No. 641), to which the names of Holbein and More were attached on the frame-label until quite recently, although both ascriptions are absurd. It represents a bearded man with one hand thrust within the folds of his cloak, and a small book held open with the fingers of the other, and a small dog on the table in front of him. It was recognised as the work of some second-rate French artist more than fifty years ago, and bears not the slightest resemblance to Holbein’s style.[687] M. A. J. Wauters suggests that it is the work of Nicolas Denisot (1515-1559), a French poet and painter of modest capacities, who was in England for three years as French tutor to the three daughters of the Protector Somerset. Under his guidance these young ladies wrote Latin elegies to Margaret of Navarre, which were published under his editorship. A portrait of Margaret, dated 1544, is attributed by M. Bouchot to Denisot. More recently this work has been attributed to Corneille de Lyon, and is said to be a portrait of Henry Patenson. There is certainly a slight likeness between it and the head of Patenson in the Basel study for the More Family Group. [Sidenote: LEGEND ABOUT A PORTRAIT OF MORE] A curious legend with regard to a portrait of More which Henry VIII is said to have possessed, was contributed to the _Athenæum_ by Dr. Augustus Jessop.[688] He found it among the papers of the Hon. Roger North, in a somewhat elaborate “Register of Pictures” at one time in North’s custody. In giving an account of a portrait of Pope Gregory XIV, which his brother Montague had bought at Marseilles in 1693, he adds: “This picture is judged to be by Pomerantius, painter to Gregory XIV, who was in England _tempore_ Henry VIII, concerning whom the following story is told. _The picture of Sir T. More done by Holbein_ was in Whitehall when the news was brought to Henry VIII that Sir Thomas More was beheaded. And the King fell into a passion upon the news, and running to the picture, _tore it down and threw it out of the window. And the picture in the fall broke in three pieces_; but Pomerantius, then coming by, took it up, carried it home, and so put it together and mended the colours that it is not to be discovered that it was ever broke.” However much or however little truth there may be in this story, which was apparently current in the seventeenth century, it is certain, in any case, that “Pomerantius” can have had nothing to do with its rescue. Niccolo Circignano (Il Pomarancio) was born in 1519, and would be a lad of sixteen at the time when More was executed; nor is there any evidence to show that he was ever in England. He appears to have spent the greater part of his life in Rome. The account errs, also, in saying that he was painter to Gregory XIV, for he died in 1590, aged seventy-two, in which year Gregory XIV became Pope. North’s story is very similar to the one told by Baldinucci.[689] The latter, who describes the picture as a stupendous portrait, says that Henry kept it in an apartment together with those of some other eminent men. “It happened that on the very day of the ex-chancellor’s death (after the king had reproached her), the wicked Queen Anne Boleyn cast her eyes upon it, and seeing the expressive face of her enemy looking at her as if he were still living—she never forgave his refusal to be present at her wedding—she was seized with a feeling of either horror or remorse, and unable to endure the steady gaze and the reproaches of her own conscience, she threw open the window of the palace, and exclaiming, ‘Oh me! the man seems to be still alive,’ flung the picture into the street: a passer-by picked it up and carried it away, and eventually it found a resting-place in Rome, where in Baldinucci’s time it was still preserved in the Palazzo de’ Crescenzi.”[690] If this story has any foundation in fact, it is possible that Circignano may have put the picture in order after it reached Rome; but it can hardly have been the one belonging to Mr. Huth, as Dr. Jessop suggested. Wornum was of opinion that this legendary work might possibly be identified with an unnamed portrait by Holbein mentioned by an earlier Italian writer than Baldinucci, Francesco Scannelli, who, in an account of “an ultramontane painter named Olbeno,”[691] after praising the portrait of Morette, then in the gallery of the Duke of Modena, for its exact imitation of nature, says: “A similar excellence is shown in the small portrait by the same master, now at Rome in the possession of Monsignor Campori.” Mr. Wornum also suggested that this small work praised by Scannelli might be identical with the portrait of Sir Henry Wyat in the Louvre, which at the time he was writing (1867) was generally regarded as a portrait of More. [Sidenote: MINIATURE OF SIR THOMAS MORE] Holbein’s work as a miniature painter is dealt with in a later chapter, but while speaking of the portraits of More, it is impossible to omit reference to the exceedingly fine miniature painting of him to which attention was first called by Dr. Williamson.[692] It was then in the possession of the Quicke family, of Newton St. Cyres, Devon; but in July 1905, it was sold at Messrs. Christie’s by the order of the trustees of the late Mr. John Quicke, and passed into the collection of the late Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan. In position, dress, and accessories it bears a close resemblance to Mr. Huth’s picture, upon which it may have been based.[693] It is circular, 2⅜ in. in diameter, painted on thin paper, mounted on a playing card, and is contained in a metal and enamel frame. On the back of the card, in a hand very little later than the date of the portrait, is written the one word “Holben,” while on the reverse of the frame is inscribed “THOMAS MORUS CANCELLARIVS HOLBEIN PINX.” The background is bright blue. For close upon one hundred years it had been in the house in Devonshire, and had attached to its frame a small scrap of paper, on which was written, in a script of the early Stuart period, the information as to whom it represented, and by whom it was painted. The Ropers were connected with the Quickes by marriage, and as the connection dates from a period soon after the death of Sir Thomas More, the family tradition which states that the portrait has been handed down from the time when the great statesman perished on the scaffold has every likelihood of being true. It has usually been asserted that the portrait of Sir Thomas More is the only independent portrait of a member of the More family painted by Holbein, with the possible exception of the panel at Knole, which by some is regarded as a likeness of Margaret Roper. There was, however, a small panel portrait, 14 in. by 10 in., exhibited at the Royal Academy Winter Exhibition, 1910 (No. 106), as by Holbein, lent by General Lord Methuen, which is undoubtedly a portrait of Lady More. It was catalogued under the erroneous title of “Mrs. Anne Roper,” with a note which stated that it “has also been thought to be a portrait by Mabuse, of Margaret, Countess of Richmond and Derby, mother of Henry VIII.” There was no Mrs. Anne Roper in Holbein’s day; and the “Anne” is probably a mistake for “Margaret” on the part of the person who first misnamed the picture. The portrait really represents Margaret Roper’s stepmother, as a comparison with the head of Lady More in the Basel sketch conclusively proves. There is a strong likeness between the two, and the position of the figure, with the head slightly bent down, and an open book held in both hands on her lap, is the same in both. It is a half-length figure, seated to the left, with a dark dress trimmed with fur and red under-sleeves, black angular head-dress with black fall, and a white cap underneath. She wears a triple gold chain round her neck, with crucifix attached, and a medallion brooch with three pendant pearls. The background is a dark blue-green. The brushwork is weak and hesitating, but it is possibly a much-damaged and repainted original panel by Holbein, though practically nothing of the master’s own handiwork is now visible. If not a badly-damaged original, it must be a nearly contemporary copy from a lost picture by him, rather than one taken from the figure in the Nostell Priory version. Curiously enough, the use of the name “Anne” in conjunction with Roper—Lady More’s name was “Alice”—is also to be found on the back of a miniature after Holbein in the Royal Collection, which at one time, before the inscription was uncovered, was said to represent Queen Katherine of Aragon. It is inscribed in two lines—“Anna Roper Thomæ Mori Filia. W. Hollar pinxit post Holbeinium, 1652.” Here the “Anne” is evidently a mistake for “Margaret” or “Mar.,” perhaps made by Hollar himself when copying the original; or, possibly, the original may have been a portrait of Lady More, a companion miniature to the one already described of Sir Thomas, to which an erroneous title had become attached before Hollar was employed to copy it.[694] The portrait of Margaret Roper at Knole, which for many years has been generally known as Queen Katherine of Aragon, was exhibited by Lord Sackville at the Burlington Fine Arts Club in 1909 (No. 44).[695] The same portrait was lent, as “Queen Katherine,” to the National Portrait Exhibition in 1866 (No. 78), by the Countess Delawarr. It is probably a nearly contemporary copy of a lost original by Holbein, and corresponds closely, excepting for slight differences in the hands, with the figure in the Basel sketch. It is a three-quarters length, on panel, 25½ in. by 19½ in., the figure turned three-quarters to the left, with diamond-shaped hood embroidered with gold, a square-cut black and white dress, edged with jewels, over a transparent chemisette, and cloth of gold sleeves. A string of black beads and a fine gold chain are round her neck, and a cinquefoil jewel at her breast. She holds a book open with both hands, on a table in front of her. The inscription, “Queen Cathrine,” is in an eighteenth-century hand. [Sidenote: DRAWING OF AN ENGLISH LADY] There is a brilliant drawing of an English lady by Holbein in the collection bequeathed by Mr. George Salting to the nation (Pl. 79), which was included in the same exhibition at the Burlington Fine Arts Club (No. 72), a study in black and red chalks, heightened with white, and reinforced with Indian ink, upon pale pink-tinted paper.[696] The sheet has been cut round the outline by some vandal, but the drawing itself is entirely free from the retouching which disfigures certain of the Windsor heads. The high lights on the cheek, nose, and eyes are put in with white, and red chalk is used sparingly on the lips and elsewhere. The band of hair which shows beneath the coif is washed with yellowish brown. It has been suggested by more than one critic that it is a portrait of Margaret Roper, but as Mr. Campbell Dodgson, who contributed a note upon it for the Vasari Society, points out, so far as the evidence of the Basel drawing goes, the identification appears possible, but not convincing. It is not one of the preliminary studies for the picture itself, which were done on white paper, and if it represents Margaret Roper, she must have sat again to Holbein after his return to England in 1532. According to the same authority, it is probably the “Portrait of a Lady,” lot 48 in the Jonathan Richardson sale, 1746, in which case it was bought by Knapton, whose drawings were sold in 1804. Later on it was in the collections of the Marquis of Stafford and Lord Ronald Sutherland Gower. It is certainly one of the very finest Holbein drawings in existence. “No portrait-study of a woman,” says Sir Claude Phillips, “even in the great Windsor series, equals this in the spiritual beauty which illumines and transforms—or rather interprets—a presentment of quiet and unforced realism. But rarely the great portraitist allows himself thus to lay bare for the beholder the inner workings of the soul; as a rule he contents himself with a supreme truth which is not infrequently as difficult to unravel as Nature herself.”[697] Finally, there is a picture belonging to the Bray family of Shere, which, from an old inscription on the frame, is said to be a portrait of Margaret, whose daughter was one of the four wives of Sir Edward Bray.[698] The likeness to the Basel sketch, however, is not very evident, and the picture has no pretence to be by Holbein. The sitter wears a close-fitting white cap with long ends falling on her breast, and holds a rosary attached to a large circular ornament which forms part of her girdle. The background is a landscape, with a view of the bend of a wide river running between high cliffs.[699] VOL. I., PLATE 79. [Illustration: PORTRAIT OF AN ENGLISH LADY _Drawing in black and red chalk, and Indian ink_ SALTING BEQUEST, BRITISH MUSEUM ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------