Chapter VI (3)

[Footnote VI-40: Evelyn is only referred to here on account of his
_silence_ with respect to the pretended painting at Whitehall.
What he says of Holbein cannot be relied on, as will be seen from
the following passage, which is a fair specimen of his general
knowledge and accuracy. “We have seen some few things cut in wood
by the incomparable Hans Holbein the Dane, but they are rare and
exceedingly difficult to come by; as his _Licentiousness of the
Friars and Nuns_; _Erasmus_; _The Dance Macchabre_; the _Mortis
Imago_, which he painted in great in the Church of Basil, and
afterwards graved with no less art.”--Evelyn’s Sculpture, p. 69.
Edition 1769.]

The learned Conrad Gesner, who was born at Zurich in 1516, and died there in 1565, expressly ascribes the Lyons Dance of Death to Holbein;[VI-41] and, notwithstanding the contradictory statement in the preface to the first edition of this work, such appears to have been the general belief of all the artist’s contemporaries. Van Mander, who was born in 1548, and who died in 1606, appears to have been the first person who gave any account of the life of Holbein. His work, entitled Het Schilder Boek, consisting of biographical notices of painters, chiefly Germans and Flemings, was first published in 1604; and, when speaking of Holbein, he mentions the Lyons Dance of Death among his other works. Sandrart, in common with every other writer on art of the period, also ascribes the Lyons work to Holbein, and he gives the following account of a conversation that he had with Rubens respecting those cuts: “I remember that in the year 1627, when the celebrated Rubens was proceeding to Utrecht to visit Honthorst, I accompanied him as far as Amsterdam; and during our passage in the boat I looked into Holbein’s little book of the Dance of Death, the cuts of which Rubens highly praised, recommending me, as I was a young man, to copy them, observing, that he had copied them himself in his youth.” Sandrart, who seems to have been one of the earliest writers who supposed that Durer, Cranach, and others engraved their own designs, without any just grounds describes Holbein as a wood engraver. Patin, in his edition of the “Stultitiæ Laus” of Erasmus, 1676, repeats the same story; and Papillon in his decisive manner clenches it by asserting that “most of the delicate wood-cuts and ornamental letters which are to be found in books printed at Basle, Zurich, and towns in Switzerland, at Lyons, London, &c. from 1520 to about 1540, were engraved by Holbein himself.” Papillon also says that it is believed--_on croit_--that Holbein began to engrave in 1511, when he was about sixteen. “What is extraordinary in this painter,” he further adds, “is, that he painted and engraved with the left hand, so that he consequently engraved the lines on the wood from right to left, instead of, as with us, engraving from left to right.”[VI-42] Jansen, and a host of other compilers, without inquiry, repeat the story of Holbein having been a wood engraver, and that the cuts of the Lyons Dance of Death were engraved by himself. That he was the designer of those cuts I am thoroughly convinced, though I consider it “next to impossible” that he should have been also the engraver.

[Footnote VI-41: “Imagines Mortis expressæ ab optimo pictore
Johanne Holbein cum epigrammatibus Georgii Æmylii, excusæ
Francofurti et Lugduni apud Frellonios, quorum editio plures habet
picturas. Vidi etiam cum metris Gallicis et Germanicis, si bene
memini.” Mr. Douce cites this passage from Gesner’s Pandectæ,
“a supplemental volume of great rarity to his well-known
Bibliotheca.” The correct title of the volume in which it occurs
is “Partitiones Theologicæ, Pandectarum Universalium Conradi
Gesneri Liber Ultimus.” Folio, printed by Christopher Froschover,
Zurich (Tiguri) 1549. The notice of the Dance of Death is in folio
86, _a_.]

[Footnote VI-42: Traité de la Gravure en Bois, tom. i. p. 165. Van
Mander asserts that Holbein painted with his left hand; but Horace
Walpole, however, in opposition to this, refers to a portrait of
Holbein, formerly in the Arundelian collection, where he appears
holding the pencil in his _right_ hand.]

Holbein’s Bible Cuts, as they are usually called, were first published at Lyons, in 1538, the same year, and by the same printers, as the Dance of Death. The book is a small quarto, and the title is as follows: “Historiarum Veteris Testamenti Icones ad vivum expressæ. Una cum brevi, sed quoad fieri potuit, dilucida earundem et Latina et Gallica expositione. Lugduni sub scuto Coloniensi. M.D.XXXVIII.”[VI-43] On the title-page is an emblematic cut, with the motto _Usus me genuit_, similar to that on the title-page in the first edition of the Dance of Death, but not precisely the same; and at the end is the imprint of the brothers Melchior and Caspar Trechsel within an ornamental border, as in the latter work. I am greatly inclined to think that the brothers were only the printers of the first editions of the Dance of Death and the Bible cuts, and that the real proprietors were John and Francis Frellon, whose names appear as the publishers in subsequent editions.

[Footnote VI-43: A copy of this edition is preserved in the Public
Library at Basle, and there is another copy in the Royal
Collection at Dresden. Another edition, in every respect similar
to the first, was also printed by the brothers Trechsel in 1539.
Hegner, in his Life of Holbein, does not seem to have known of
this edition; speaking of that of 1538, he says, “It is probably
the same as that to which Papillon gives the date 1539.” There is
a copy of the edition of 1539 in the British Museum.]

This opinion seems to be corroborated by the fact of there being an address from “_Franciscus Frellaeus_” to the Christian Reader in the Bible cuts of 1538 and 1539, which in subsequent editions is altered to “Franciscus _Frellonius_.” That the same person is designated by those names, I think there can be little doubt, as the addresses are literally the same. From adopting the form “Frellaeus,” however, in the editions of 1538 and 1539, it would seem that the writer was not wishful to discover his name. When the work becomes popular he writes it Frellonius; and in the second edition of the Dance of Death, when the character of this work is also established, and there seems no longer reason to apprehend the censures of the church of Rome, we find the names of John and Francis Frellon on the title-page under the “shield of Cologne.” Whatever might be their motives, it seems certain that the first publishers of the Dance of Death were wishful to withhold their names; and it is likely that the designer of the cuts might have equally good reasons for concealment. Had the Roman Catholic party considered the cuts of the Pope, the Nun, and two or three others as the covert satire of a _reformed_ painter, the publishers and the designer would have been as likely to incur danger as to reap profit or fame.

The address of Franciscus Frellaeus is followed by a copy of Latin verses by Nicholas Bourbon, in which Holbein is mentioned as the designer; and immediately preceding the cuts is an address “aux lecteurs,” in French verse, by Gilles Corrozet, who, perhaps, might be the poet that supplied the French expositions of those cuts, and the “descriptions severement rithmées” of the Dance of Death. The following is an extract from Bourbon’s prefatory verses, the whole of which it appears unnecessary to give.

“Nuper in Elysio cum fortè erraret Apelles
Una aderat Zeuxis, Parrhasiusque comes.
Hi duo multa satis fundebant verba; sed ille
Interea mœrens et taciturnus erat.
Mirantur comites, farique hortantur et urgent:
Suspirans imo pectore, Coûs ait:
O famæ ignari, superis quæ nuper ab oris
(Vana utinam!) Stygias venit ad usque domos:
Scilicet, esse hodie quendam ex mortalibus unum
Ostendat qui me vosque fuisse nihil:
Qui nos declaret pictores nomine tantum,
Picturæque omneis ante fuisse rudes.
Holbius est homini nomen, qui nomina nostra
Obscura ex claris ac prope nulla facit.
Talis apud manes querimonia fertur: et illos
Sic equidem merito censeo posse queri,
Nam tabulam siquis videat, quam pinxerit Hansus
Holbius, ille artis gloria prima suæ,
Protinus exclamet, Potuit Deus edere monstrum
Quod video? humanæ non potuere manus.
Icones hæ sacræ tanti sunt, optime lector,
Artificis, dignum quod venereris opus.”

Besides those verses there is also a Greek distich by Bourbon, to which the following translation “pene ad verbum” is appended:

“Cernere vis, hospes, simulacra simillima vivis?
Hoc opus Holbinæ nobile cerne manus.”

When Mr. Douce stated that it was “_extremely probable_ that the anonymous painter or designer of the Dance might have been employed also by the Frellons to execute a set of subjects for the Bible previously to his death, and that Holbein was afterwards employed to complete the work,” he seems to have forgot that such a testimony of Holbein being the designer was prefixed to the Bible cuts. In answer to Mr. Douce it may be asked, in his own style, if the Frellons knew that another artist was the designer of the cuts of the Dance of Death, and if he also had been originally employed to design the Bible cuts, how does it happen that they should allow Bourbon to give all the honour of the latter to Holbein, who, if the Dance of Death be not his, was certainly much inferior as a designer to the nameless artist whose unfinished work he was employed to complete?

The total number of the Bible cuts in the first edition of the work is ninety, the first four of which are the same as the first four of the Dance of Death; the other eighty-six are of a different form to the first four, as will be perceived from the specimens, which are of the same size as the originals. Those eighty-six cuts are generally much inferior in design to those of the Dance of Death, and the style in which they are engraved is very unequal, some of them being executed with considerable neatness and delicacy, and others in a much coarser manner. The following cut, Abraham about to sacrifice Isaac, Genesis XXII, is one of those which are the best engraved; but even these, so far as regards the expression of the features and the delicate marking of the hands, are generally much inferior to the cuts of the Dance of Death.

Though most of the Bible cuts are inferior both in design and execution to those of the Dance of Death, and though several of them are rudely drawn and badly engraved, yet many of them afford points of such perfect identity with those of the Dance of Death, that it seems impossible to come to any other conclusion than that either the cuts of both works have been designed by the same person, or that the designer of the one series has servilely copied from the designer of the other, and, what is most singular, in many trifling details which seem the least likely to be imitated, and which usually constitute individual peculiarities of style. For instance, the small shrubby tree in the preceding cut is precisely of the same species as that seen in the cut of the Old Woman in the Dance of Death; and the angel about to stay Abraham’s hand bears a strong general resemblance to the angel in Adam and Eve driven out of Paradise.

The cut on the opposite page--the Fool, Psalm LIII--is copied from one of those executed in a coarser style than the preceding. The children in this cut are evidently of the same family as those of the Dance of Death.

In the first cut, the Creation, a crack is perceived running nearly down the middle from top to bottom, in the edition of the Dance of Death of 1545. It is also perceptible in all the subsequent Lyons editions of this work and of the Bible cuts. It is, however, less obvious in the Bible cuts of the edition 1549 than in some of the preceding, probably in consequence of the block having been cramped to remedy the defect. Mr. Douce speaks, at page 105, as if the crack were not discernible in the Bible cuts of 1549; it is, however, quite perceptible in every copy that has come under my notice. Some of the latter editions of this work contain four additional cuts, which are all coarsely executed. In the edition of 1547 they form the illustrations to Ezekiel XL; Ezekiel XLIII; Jonah I, II, and III; and Habakkuk. The Bible cuts were also printed with explanations in English. The title of a copy now before me is as follows: “The Images of the Old Testament, lately expressed, set forthe in Ynglishe and Frenche vuith a playn and brief exposition. Printed at Lyons by Johan Frellon, the yere of our Lord God, 1549,” 4to. In the latter editions there are wood-cuts of the four Evangelists, each within an oval border, on the last leaf. They bear no tokens of Holbein’s style.

Among the many instances of resemblance which are to be perceived on comparing the Dance of Death with the Bible cuts, the following may be enumerated as the most remarkable. The peculiar manner in which fire with smoke, and the waves of the sea, are represented in the Dance of Death can scarcely fail to strike the most heedless observer; for instance, the fire in the cut of Death seizing the child, and the waves in the cut of the Seaman. In the Bible cuts we perceive the same peculiarity; there is the same kind of fire in Moses directing the manner of burnt offerings, Leviticus I; in the burning of Nadab and Abihu, Leviticus X; and in every other one of those cuts where fire is seen. In the destruction of Pharaoh and his host, Exodus XIV, are the same kind of curling waves. Except in the Dance of Death and the Bible cuts, I have never seen an instance of fire or water represented in such a manner. If those cuts were designed by two different artists, it is certainly singular that in this respect they should display so perfect a coincidence of idea. The sheep in the cut of the Bishop in the Dance of Death are the same as those in the Bible cut of Moses seeing God in the burning bush, Exodus III; and the female figure in the cut of the Elector in the former work is perceived in the Bible cut of the captive Midianites, Numbers XXXI. The children introduced in both works are almost perfectly identical, as will be perceived on comparing the cut of Little Children mocking Elijah, chapter II, Kings II, with those of the Elector, and Death seizing the child, in the Dance of Death. The face of the Duchess in the latter work is the same as that of Esther in the Bible cut, Esther, chapter II; and in this cut ornaments on the tapestry, like fleurs-de-lis, behind the throne of Ahasuerus, are the same as those on the tapestry behind the King in the Dance of Death. The latter coincidence has been noticed by Mr. Douce, who, in direct opposition to the evidence of the German or Swiss costume of the living characters of the Dance of Death, considers it as contributing to demonstrate that both the series of those cuts are of Gallic origin.[VI-44] It is needless to enumerate more instances of almost complete identity of figures and details in the cuts of the Dance of Death and those of the Bible illustrations; they are too frequent to have originated from a conventional mode of representing certain objects and persons; and they are most striking in minor details, where one artist would be least likely to imitate another, but where the same individual designer would be most likely to repeat himself. “As to the designs of these truly elegant prints,” says Mr. Douce, speaking of the cuts of the Dance of Death, “no one who is at all skilled in the knowledge of Holbein’s style and manner of grouping his figures would hesitate immediately to ascribe them to that artist.”[VI-45] As this opinion is corroborated by a comparison of the Dance of Death with the Bible cuts, and as the internal evidence of the cuts of the Dance of Death in favour of Holbein is confirmed by the testimony of his contemporaries, the reader can decide for himself how far Holbein’s positive claims to the honour of this work ought to be affected by the passage in the anonymous address to Madame Jehanne de Touszele, which forms the groundwork of Mr. Douce’s theory.

[Footnote VI-44: “A comparison of the 8th subject of the
Simulachres,” says Mr. Douce, “with that of the Bible for Esther
I, II, where the canopy ornamented with fleurs-de-lis is the same
in both, will contribute to strengthen the above conjecture, as
will both the cuts to demonstrate their Gallic origin. It is most
certain that the King sitting at table in the Simulachres is
intended for Francis I, which if any one should doubt, let him
look upon the miniature of that king, copied at p. 214, in
Clarke’s ‘Repertorium Bibliographicum.’” The “above conjecture”
referred to in this extract is that previously cited at page 367,
where Mr. Douce conjectures that Holbein _might have been_
employed to complete the Bible cuts which _might have been_ left
unfinished in consequence of the death of Mr. Douce’s “great
unknown” designer of the Dance of Death.--Dance of Death, p. 96.
Mr. Douce, not being able to deny the similarity of many of the
cuts, says it is highly probable that Holbein was merely employed
to finish the Bible cuts, without ever considering that it is
_primâ facie_ much more probable that Holbein was the designer of
the cuts in both works.]

[Footnote VI-45: Dance of Death, p. 82.]

Having now examined the principal arguments which have been alleged to show that Holbein _was not_ the designer of the Dance of Death, and having endeavoured to justify his claims to that honour by producing the evidences on which they rest, I shall now take leave of this subject, feeling thoroughly assured that HOLBEIN WAS THE DESIGNER OF THE CUTS OF THE FIRST EDITION OF THE LYONS DANCE OF DEATH; and trusting, though with no overweening confidence, that the preceding investigation will render it necessary for the next questioner of his title to produce stronger objections than the solitary ambiguous passage in the preface to the first edition of the work, and to support them with more forcible and consistent arguments than have been put forth by Mr. Douce. M. T. Nieuhoff Piccard, I am inclined to think, will never again be called as a witness in this cause; and before the passage in the preface can be allowed to have any weight, it must be shown that such a personage as Madame Jehanne de Touszele _was_ prioress of the convent of St. Peter at Lyons at the time of the first publication of the work: and even should such a fact be established, the ambiguity of the passage--whether the pretendedly deceased artist were the engraver or designer, or both,--and the obvious desire to conceal his name, remain to be explained.

In 1538, the year in which the Dance of Death and the Bible cuts were first published at Lyons, Holbein was residing in England under the patronage of Henry VIII; though it is also certain that about the beginning of September in that year he returned to Basle and he remained there a few weeks.[VI-46]

[Footnote VI-46: “Venit nuper Basileam ex Anglia Ioannes Holbein,
adeo felicem ejus regni statum prædicans, qui aliquot septimanis
exactis rursum eo migraturus est.” From a letter written by
Rudolph Gualter to Henry Bullinger, of Zurich, about the middle of
September 1538.--Quoted by Hegner, S. 246.]

As the productions of this distinguished painter occupy so large a portion of this chapter, it perhaps may not be unnecessary to give here a few particulars of his life, chiefly derived from Hegner’s work, previous to his coming to England. Hans Holbein, the Younger, as he is often called by German writers to distinguish him from his father, was the son of Hans Holbein, a painter of considerable reputation. The year and place of his birth have not been positively ascertained, but there seems reason to believe that he was born in 1498, at Augsburg,[VI-47] of which city his father was a burgher, and from whence he appears to have removed with his family to Basle, about the end of the fifteenth or the beginning of the sixteenth century. Young Holbein was brought up to his father’s profession, and at an early age displayed the germ of his future excellence. There is a portrait in oil by young Holbein of the date of 1513, which, according to Hegner, though rather weak in colour and somewhat hard in outline, is yet clearly and delicately painted. From the excellence of his early productions, Patin, in his Life of Holbein, prefixed to an edition of the Laus Stultitiæ of Erasmus[VI-48] thinks that he must have been born in 1495. That he was born in 1498 there can, however, be little doubt, for Hegner mentions a portrait of him, at Basle, when in the forty-fifth year of his age, with the date 1543. Several anecdotes are told of Holbein as a jolly fellow, and of his twice or thrice discharging his account at a tavern by painting a Dance of Peasants. Though there seems reason to believe that Holbein was a free liver, and that he did paint such a subject in a house at Basle, the stories of his thus settling for his liquor are highly improbable. He appears to have married young, for in a painting of his wife and two children, executed before he left Basle for England in 1526, the eldest child, a boy, appears to be between four and five years old.[VI-49]

[Footnote VI-47: Dr. Dibdin, in his Bibliographical Tour vol. iii.
pp. 80, 81, Edit. 1829, mentions two paintings at Augsburg by the
elder Holbein, one dated 1499 and the other 1501. The elder
Holbein had a brother named Sigismund, who was also a painter, and
who appears to have established himself at Berne. Papillon, in his
usual manner, makes Sigismund Holbein a wood engraver. By his
will, dated 1540, he appoints his nephew Hans the heir of all his
property in Berne.]

[Footnote VI-48: Patin’s edition of this work was published in
octavo, at Basle, in 1676. It contains eighty-three copper-plate
engravings, from pen-and-ink sketches, drawn by Holbein, in the
margin of a copy of an edition printed by Frobenius, in 1514, and
still preserved (1860) in the Public Library at Basle. It is said
that Erasmus, when looking over those sketches, exclaimed, when he
came to that intended for himself, “Oho, if Erasmus were now as he
appears here, he would certainly take a wife.” Above another of
the sketches, representing a man with one of his arms about a
woman’s neck, and at the same time drinking out of a bottle,
Erasmus is said to have written the name “_Holbein._” In an
edition of the Laus Stultitiæ, edited by G. G. Becker, Basle,
1780, 8vo. those sketches are engraved (very indifferently) on
wood.]

[Footnote VI-49: Hegner, Hans Holbein der Jüngere, S. 110.]

The name of Holbein’s wife is unknown; but it is said that, like Durer’s, she was of an unhappy temper, and that he enjoyed no peace with her. It is not, however, unlikely that his own unsettled disposition and straitened circumstances also contributed to render his home uncomfortable. Like most other artists of that period, he appears to have frequently travelled; but his journeys do not seem to have extended beyond Switzerland and Suabia, and they were for the most part confined to the former country. He seems to have travelled rather in search of employment than to improve himself by studying the works of other masters. Perhaps of all the eminent painters of that period there is no one whose style is more original than Holbein’s, nor one who owes less to the study of the works of his contemporaries or predecessors. Though there can be no doubt of his talents being highly appreciated by his fellow-townsmen, yet his profession during his residence at Basle appears to have afforded him but a scanty income. The number of works executed by him between 1517 and 1526 sufficiently testify that he was not deficient in industry, and the exercise of his art seems to have been sufficiently varied:--he painted portraits and historical subjects; decorated the interior walls of houses, according to the fashion of that period, with fanciful and historical compositions; and made designs for goldsmiths and wood-engravers. It is said that so early as 1520, the Earl of Arundel,[VI-50] an English nobleman, having seen some of his works in passing through Basle, advised him to try his fortune in England. If such advice were given to Holbein at that period, it is certain that it was not adopted until several years after, for he did not visit this country till 1526.

[Footnote VI-50: It is conjectured by Walpole that this might be
Henry Fitz-Alan, Earl of Arundel.]

]

[Footnote VI-51: It is impossible to exceed the beauty and skill
that are manifested in this fine piece of art. The figures are,
a king, queen, and a warrior; a young woman, a monk, and an
infant; all of whom most unwillingly accompany Death in the Dance.
The despair of the king, the dejection of the queen, accompanied
by her little dog, the terror of the soldier who hears the drum of
Death, the struggling of the female, the reluctance of the monk,
and the sorrow of the poor infant, are depicted with equal spirit
and veracity. The original drawing is in the public library at
Basle, and ascribed to Holbein.]

Before he left Basle he had painted two or three portraits of Erasmus, and there is a large wood-cut of that distinguished scholar which is said not only to have been painted, but also engraved by Holbein. This cut is of folio size, and the figure of Erasmus is a whole length. His right arm rests upon a terminus, and from a richly ornamented arch is suspended a tablet, with the inscription, ER. ROT. Some old impressions have two verses printed underneath, which merely praise the likeness without alluding to the painter, while others have four which contain a compliment to the genius of Erasmus and to the art of Holbein.[VI-52] The original block is still preserved in the Public Library at Basle; but there is not the slightest reason for believing that it was engraved by Holbein. In 1526 Holbein left Basle for England: Patin says, because he could no longer bear to live with his imperious wife. Though this might not be the chief cause, it is easy to conceive that a person of Holbein’s character would feel but little regret at parting from such a helpmate. Van Mander says that he took with him a portrait which he had painted of Erasmus, with a letter of recommendation from the latter to Sir Thomas More, wherein it was observed that this portrait ‘was much more like him than any of Albert Durer’s.’ Hegner, however, thinks that what Van Mander says about the contents of this letter is not correct, as no such passage is to be found in the published correspondence of Erasmus with Sir Thomas More. Erasmus had already sent two portraits of himself to England;[VI-53] and as Sir Thomas More was personally acquainted with him, Hegner is of opinion that it would be unnecessary to mention that the portrait was a better likeness than any of those painted by Albert Durer. It is, however, by no means unlikely that Erasmus in speaking of a portrait of himself by Holbein--whether forwarded by the latter or not--might give his own opinion of it in comparison with one from the pencil of Durer.

[Footnote VI-52: The verses underneath the impressions which are
supposed to be the earliest, are as follows:

“Corporis effigiem si quis non vidit Erasmi,
Hunc scite ad vivum picta tabella dabit.”

The others:

“Pallas Apellæam nuper mirata tabellam,
Hanc, ait, æternum Bibliotheca colat.
Dædaleam monstrat musis Holbeinnius artem,
Et summi ingenii Magnus Erasmus opes.”]

[Footnote VI-53: Erasmus, writing to Bilibald Pirkheimer, in 1524,
says, “Rursus nuper misi in Angliam Erasmum bis pictum ab artifice
satis eleganti.” Hegner thinks that this artist was Holbein. In
1517 a portrait of Erasmus, with that of his friend Petrus
Aegidius, was painted at Antwerp by Quintin Matsys. It was
intended by Erasmus as a present to Sir Thomas More. This painting
came subsequently into the possession of Dr. Mead, at whose sale
it was purchased, as the production of Holbein, by Lord Radnor,
for £110.]

It would appear that in 1525 Erasmus had already mentioned Holbein’s desire of trying his fortune in England to Sir Thomas More, for in a letter written by Sir Thomas to Erasmus, dated from the court at Greenwich, 18th of December 1525, there is a passage to the following effect: “Your painter, dear Erasmus, is an excellent artist, but I am apprehensive that he will not find England so fruitful and fertile as he may expect. I will, however, do all that I can in order that he may not find it entirely barren.”[VI-54] From a letter, dated 29th of August 1526, written by Erasmus to his friend Petrus Aegidius at Antwerp, it seems reasonable to conclude that Holbein left Basle for England about the beginning of September. Though Holbein’s name is not expressly mentioned in this letter, there cannot be a doubt of his being the artist who is thus introduced to Aegidius: “The bearer of this is he who painted my portrait. I will not annoy you with his praises, although he is indeed an excellent artist. Should he wish to see Quintin, and you not have leisure to go with him, you can let a servant show him the house. The arts perish here; he proceeds to England to gain a few angels; if you wish to write [to England] you can send your letters by him.”[VI-55] In this extract we discover a trait of the usual prudence of Erasmus, who, in introducing his humbler friends to persons of power or influence, seems to have been particularly careful not to give annoyance from the warmth of his recommendations. How gently, yet significantly, does he hint to Aegidius that the poor painter who brings the letter is a person about whom he need give himself no trouble: if he has not _leisure_ to introduce him personally to Quintin--that is, Quintin Matsys--he can send a servant to show him his house. The suggestion of the servant was a hint from Erasmus that he did not expect the master to go with Holbein himself.

[Footnote VI-54: “Pictor tuus, Erasme carissime, mirus est
artifex, sed vereor ne non sensurus sit Angliam tam fœcundam ac
fertilem quam sperarat. Quanquam ne reperiat omnino sterilem,
quoad per me fieri potest, efficiam. Ex aula Grenwici. 18 Dec.
1525.”]

[Footnote VI-55: “Qui has reddit, est is qui me pinxit. Ejus
commendatione te non gravabo, quanquam est insignis artifex. Si
cupiet visere Quintinum, nec tibi vacabit hominem adducere,
poteris per famulum commonstrare domum. Hic frigent artes: petit
Angliam ut corradat aliquot angelatos: per eum poteris quæ voles
scribere.”--Erasmi Epist.]

Holbein on his arrival in England appears to have been well received by Sir Thomas More; and it is certain that he resided for some time with the learned and witty chancellor in his house at Chelsea. It is indeed said that he continued with him for three years, but Walpole thinks that this is very unlikely. Whether he may have resided during the whole of the intermediate time with Sir Thomas More or not, there seems reason to believe that Holbein entered the service of Henry VIII. in 1528. About the autumn of 1529[VI-56], he paid a short visit to Basle, probably to see his family, which he had left in but indifferent circumstances, and to obtain permission from the magistracy for a further extension of his leave of absence, for no burgher of the city of Basle was allowed to enter into the service of a foreign prince without their sanction. Patin, in his Life of Holbein, says that during his visit he spent most of his time with his old tavern companions, and that he treated the more respectable burghers, who wished to cultivate his friendship, with great disrespect. Hegner, however, considers all those accounts which represent Holbein as a man of intemperate habits and dissolute character, as unworthy of credit; in his opinion it seems impossible that he who was a favourite of Henry VIII, and so long an inmate of Sir Thomas More’s house, should have been a dissolute person. M. Hegner throughout his work shows a praiseworthy regard for Holbein’s moral character, but his presumption in this instance is not sufficient to counterbalance the unfavourable reports in the opposite scale.

[Footnote VI-56: Erasmus, in a letter to Sir Thomas More, written
from Freyburg in Brisgau, 5th September, 1529, alludes to a
picture of More and his family which had been brought over by
Holbein; and Margaret Roper, the eldest daughter of Sir Thomas
More, writing to Erasmus in the following November, says, that she
is pleased to hear of the painter’s arrival with the family
picture,--“utriusque mei parentis nostrumque omnium effigiem
depictam.” Hegner thinks that those portraits of Sir Thomas More
and his family was only a drawing in pen-and-ink, which is now in
the Public Library at Basle. The figures in this drawing are: Sir
Thomas and his wife, his father, his son, and a young lady, three
daughters, a servant, and Sir Thomas’s jester. Over and under the
figures are written the name and age of each. The drawing is free
and light; and the faces and hands are very distinctly
expressed.--Hans Holbein der Jüngere, S. 202-235-237. The drawing
in the Public Library at Basle was probably a sketch of Holbein’s
large picture of the family of Sir Thomas More.]

About the latter end of 1532, or the beginning of 1533, Holbein again visited Basle; and his return appears to have been chiefly influenced by an order of the magistracy, which was to the following effect: “To M. Hans Holbein, painter, now in England. We Jacob Meier, burgomaster and councillor, herewith salute you our beloved Hans Holbein, fellow-burgher, and give you to understand that it is our desire that you return home forthwith. In order that you may live easier at home, and provide for your wife and child,[VI-57] we are pleased to allow you the yearly sum of thirty guilders, until we can obtain for you something better. That you may make your arrangements accordingly, we acquaint you with this resolution. Given, Monday, 2nd September 1532.”[VI-58] It is uncertain how long Holbein remained at Basle on his second visit, but it was probably of short duration. Though he obeyed the summons of the magistracy to return, he seems to have had sufficient interest to obtain a further extension of his leave of absence. For the third and last time he revisited Basle in 1538; and from a licence, signed by the burgomaster Jacob Meier, dated 16th November in that year, it appears that he obtained permission to return to England and remain there for two years longer. In this licence fifty guilders per annum are promised to Holbein on his return to Basle, and till then the magistrates further agree to allow his wife forty guilders per annum to be paid quarterly, and the first quarter’s payment to commence on the eve of St. Lucia next ensuing,--that is, on the 12th of December. As the mention of the allowance to Holbein’s wife would seem to imply that she was not very well provided for by her husband, Hegner attempts to excuse his apparent neglect by suggesting “that the great sometimes forget to pay, and will not bear dunning;” and in illustration of this he refers to the passage in Albert Durer’s Journal which has been previously given at page 269.

[Footnote VI-57: Holbein’s wife and _child_ only, not children,
are mentioned in this licence. It is not known what became of
Holbein’s children, as there are no traces of his descendants to
be found at Basle. Merian, a clergyman of Basle, in a letter to
Mechel on this subject, in 1779, writes to this effect: “According
to a pedigree of the Merian family, printed at Regensburg in 1727,
Christina Syf, daughter of Rodolph Syf and Judith Weissin, and
grand-daughter of Hans Holbein the unequalled painter, (born
1597,) was married on the 17th of November 1616 to Frederick
Merian.” Perhaps it is meant that Judith Weissin was Holbein’s
grand-daughter: there is evidently an error in the pedigree; and
if it be wrong in this respect, it is not entitled to much credit
in another.]

[Footnote VI-58: Hegner, S. 242.]

Holbein’s three visits to Basle have been here especially noticed in order that the reader might judge for himself as to the probability of his making the drawings for the Lyons Dance of Death on any of those occasions. As this work was published in 1538, and as Holbein on his last visit appears to have arrived at Basle about the beginning of September in that year, it is impossible that he should have made the drawings then; for if the forty-one cuts were executed by one person--as from the similarity and excellence of the style there seems every reason to believe--it would require at the least half a year to engrave them, supposing that the artist worked as expeditiously as a wood engraver of modern times. As it is highly probable that Holbein both made designs and painted on his former visits, in 1529, and in 1532 or 1533, I think it most likely that they were made on the latter occasion,--that is, supposing them to have been designed on one of those visits. It is, however, just as probable that the designs were made in England, and forwarded to a wood engraver at Basle.

Of the various paintings executed by Holbein during his residence in England it is not necessary to give any account here; those who wish for information on this point are referred to Walpole’s Anecdotes of Painting.[VI-59] Of his life in England there are few particulars. “In some household accounts of Henry VIII,” says Mr. Douce, “there are payments to him in 1538, 1539, 1540, and 1541, on account of his salary, which appears to have been thirty pounds per annum. From this time little more is recorded of him till 1553, when he painted Queen Mary’s portrait, and shortly afterwards died of the plague in 1554.” Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, the great patron of artists, in the time of Charles I, was desirous of erecting a monument to the memory of Holbein, but gave up the intention as he was unable to discover the place of the artist’s interment. As Holbein seems to have left no will, and as his death appears to have excited no notice, it is likely that he died poor, and in comparative obscurity. If his satirical drawings[VI-60] of Christ’s Passion, ridiculing the Pope and the popish clergy, were known to Mary, or any of her spiritual advisers, it could not be expected that he should find favour at her court.

[Footnote VI-59: See Dallaway’s edition, revised by R. N. Wornum.
London, Bohn, 1849, 3 vols. 8vo. Vol. i. pp. 66 et seq.]

[Footnote VI-60: Those designs were engraved on sixteen small
plates by Hollar, but without his name. The enemies of Christ are
represented in the dress of monks and friars, and instead of
weapons they bear croziers, large candlesticks, and other church
ornaments; Judas appears as a capucin, Annas as a cardinal, and
Caiaphas as a bishop. In the subject of Christ’s Descent to Hades,
the gates are hung with papal bulls and dispensations; above them
are the Pope’s arms, and the devil as keeper of the gate wears a
triple crown. Underneath this engraving are the following verses,
which are certainly not of the period of Holbein:

“Lo! the Pope’s kitchin, where his soles are fried,
Called Purgatorie; see his pardons tied
On strings; his triple crown the Divell weares,
And o’er the door the Pope’s own arms he beares.”

In the subject of Christ before Caiaphas is the following
inscription in German: “_Wer wider die Römischen, der soll
sterben_,”--that is, “He who is against the Romans shall die.”]

Wood engraving in England during the time of Holbein’s residence in this country appears to have been but little cultivated; but though there cannot be a doubt that the art was then practised here by native wood engravers, yet I very much question if it were practised by any person in England as a distinct profession. It is not unlikely that many of the wood-cuts which appear in books printed in this country about that period were engraved by the printers themselves. It has indeed been supposed that most of the wood-cuts in English books printed at that period were engraved on the continent; but this opinion seems highly improbable--there could be no occasion to send abroad to have wood-cuts so rudely executed. Perhaps the difficulty, or rather the impossibility of finding a wood engraver in England capable of doing justice to his designs might be one reason why Holbein made so few for the booksellers of this country during his long residence here. The following portrait of Sir Thomas Wyatt, the poet, who died in 1541, was probably drawn on the block by Holbein. It is given on the reverse of the title of a small work in quarto, printed at London, 1542, and entitled “Næniæ in mortem Thomæ Viati equitis incomparabilis. Joanne Lelando antiquario autore.” The verses, which are printed underneath the cut, seem decisive of the drawing having been made by Holbein. There is a drawing of Sir Thomas Wyatt by Holbein, in the Royal Collection, which is engraved in Chamberlain’s work, entitled “Imitations of Original Drawings by Hans Holbein,” folio, 1792. There is little similarity between the drawing and the cut, though on comparison it is evident that both are intended for the same person.

It has been supposed that the original cut, of which the preceding is a fac-simile, was engraved by Holbein himself: if this were true, and the cut itself taken as a specimen of his abilities in this department of art, there could not be a doubt of his having been a very indifferent wood engraver, for though there be considerable expression of character in the drawing of the head, the cut is executed in a very inferior style of art.

The cuts in Cranmer’s Catechism, a small octavo, printed in 1548,[VI-61] have been ascribed to Holbein; but out of the whole number, twenty-nine, including the cut on the reverse of the title, there are only two which contain his mark. In the others the manner of pencilling is so unlike that of these two, and the drawing and composition bear so little resemblance to Holbein’s usual style, that I do not believe them to have been of his designing. In the cut on the reverse of the title, the subject is Cranmer presenting the Bible to Edward VI.; the others, twenty-eight in number, but containing only twenty-six different subjects,--as two of them are repeated,--are illustrative of different passages of Scripture cited in the work. The following cut is one of those designed by Holbein. It occurs at folio CL as an illustration of “the fyrst sermon. A declaration of the fyrst peticion” [of the Lord’s Prayer]. Holbein’s initials, H. H.--though the cross stroke of the first H is broken away--are perceived on the edge of what seems to be a book, to the left of the figure praying.

[Footnote VI-61: The following is the title of this scarce little
volume. “Catechismus, that is to say, a shorte instruction into
Christian religion for the singuler commoditie and profyte of
childrē and yong people. Set forth by the mooste reverende father
in God, Thomas Archbyshop of Canterbury, primate of all Englande
and Metropolitane.--Gualterus Lynne excudebat, 1548.” At the end
of the book, under a cut of Christ with a child before him, is the
colophon: “Imprynted at London, in S. Jhones Streete, by Nycolas
Hyll, for Gwalter Lynne dwellyng on Somers kaye, by Byllynges
gate.” Mr. Douce, at page 96, mentions a cut with the name _Hans
Holbein_ at the bottom, as occurring in the title-page of “A lytle
treatise after the manner of an Epystle wryten by the famous clerk
Doctor Urbanus Regius,” &c. also published by Walter Lynne, 1548.]

The other cut, designed by Holbein, and which contains his name at full length,[VI-62] occurs at folio CCI. The subject is Christ casting out Devils, in illustration of the seventh petition of the Lord’s Prayer,--“Deliver us from evil.” The following is a fac-simile.

[Footnote VI-62: Mr. Douce, in his observations prefixed to
Hollar’s etchings of the Dance of Death, published by Edwards in
1794, says, “A _set_ of cuts with the latter mark [_Hans Holben_]
occurs in Archbishop Cranmer’s Catechism, printed by Walter Lyne,
in 1548;” and in the same page he commits another mistake by
describing the mark on the cut of the Duchess in the Lyons Dance
of Death as [[HB]], instead of [[HL]]. It has been considered
necessary to notice these errors, as it is probable that many
persons who possess the work in which they occur, but who never
may have seen a copy of the Lyons Dance of Death, nor of
Cranmer’s Catechism, may have been misled in those matters by
implicitly relying on Mr. Douce’s authority. A certain class of
compilers are also extremely liable to transmit such mistakes,
and, to borrow an expression of Hegner’s, to give currency to
them, as if they stood ready for use “in _stereotype_.”]

For the purpose of showing the difference of style between those two cuts and the others contained in the same work, the three given on the following page have been selected. The first, illustrating the Creation, occurs at the folio erroneously numbered CXCV, properly CIX, No. 1; the second, illustrating the sermon of our redemption, at folio CXXI, No. 2; and the third, illustrating the third petition of the Lord’s Prayer,--“Thy will be done,”--at folio CLXVIII, No. 3. The following are the introductory remarks to the explanation of what the archbishop calls the third petition: “Ye have herde how in the former petycions, we require of our Lorde God to gyve us al thinges that perteyne to his glorye and to the kyngdom of heaven, whereof he hath gyven us commaundemente in the three preceptes written in the first table. Nowe folowethe the thirde peticyon, wherein we praye God to graūte us that we may fulfyll the other seven commaūdementes also, the whiche intreat of matiers concerning this worldly kingdome and transitorye lyfe, that is to saye, to honoure our parentes and gouernours, to kyl no man, to committe none adulterye, to absteyne from thefte and lyinge, and to behave our selfes in all thinges obedientlye, honestlye, peaceably, and godly.”

The feebleness of the drawing and the want of distinctness in these three cuts, are totally unlike the more vigorous delineation of Holbein, as exemplified, though but imperfectly, in the two which are doubtlessly of his designing. None of them have the slightest pretensions to delicacy or excellence of engraving, though they may be considered as the best that had been executed in this country up to that time. Those which, in my opinion, were not designed by Holbein have the appearance of having been engraved on a _frushy_ kind of wood, of comparatively coarse grain. It is not, however, unlikely that this appearance might result from the feebleness of the drawing, conjoined with want of skill on the part of the engraver.

The following cut will not perhaps form an inappropriate termination to the notice of the principal wood engravings which have been ascribed to Holbein. It occurs as an illustration of the generation of Christ, Matthew, chapter I, in an edition of the New Testament, printed at Zurich, by Froschover, in 1554,[VI-63] the year of Holbein’s death. Though there be no name to this cut, yet from the great resemblance which it bears to Holbein’s style, I have little doubt of the design being his.

[Footnote VI-63: The title-page of this book--which has previously
been referred to at page 357, in illustration of the word
_picta_--is as follows: “Novi Testamenti Editio postrema per Des.
Erasmum Roterodamum. Omnia picturis illustrata. Accesserunt
Capitum argumenta Elegiaco carmine, Rudolpho Gualtero authore,
conscripta. Tiguri, in Officina Froschoviana. Anno M.D.LIIII.”
8vo.]

The three following specimens of the cuts in Tindale’s Translation of the New Testament, printed at Antwerp in 1534,[VI-64] ought, in strict chronological order, to have preceded those of the Dance of Death; but as Holbein holds the same rank in this chapter as Durer in the preceding, it seemed preferable to give first a connected account of the principal wood-cuts which are generally ascribed to him, and which there is the strongest reason to believe were actually of his designing. The celebrity of Tindale’s translation, as the earliest English version of the New Testament which appeared in print, and the place which his name occupies in the earlier part of the history of the Reformation in England, will give an interest to those cuts to which they could have no pretensions as mere works of art. It is probable that they were executed at Antwerp, where the book was printed; and the drawing and engraving will afford some idea of the style of most of the small cuts which are to be found in works printed in Holland and Flanders about that period. The first of the preceding cuts represents St. Luke employed in painting a figure of the Virgin, and it occurs at the commencement of the Gospel of that Evangelist. The second, which occurs at the commencement of the General Epistle of James, represents that Saint in the character of a pilgrim. The third, Death on the Pale Horse, is an illustration of the sixth chapter of Revelations.

[Footnote VI-64: The volume is of octavo size, and the title is as
follows: “The Newe Testament. Imprinted at Antwerp by Marten
Emperour. Anno M.D.XXXIIII.” The letters on the wood-cut of the
printer’s device, seen in the copies on paper, are M. K. The first
edition of Tindale’s Translation was printed in 1526. William
Tindale, otherwise Hitchins, was born on the borders of Wales, but
was of a Northumberland family, being descended from Adam de
Tindale of Langley, near Haydon Bridge, in that county. He was
strangled, and his body was afterwards burnt as that of a heretic
by the popish party, at Vilvorde, near Brussels, in 1536.]

There is a beautiful copy, printed on vellum, of this edition of Tindale’s Translation of the New Testament in the Library of the British Museum. It appears to have formerly belonged to Queen Anne Boleyn, and was probably a presentation copy from the translator. The title-page is beautifully illuminated; the whole of the ornamental border, which is seen in the copies on paper, is covered with gilding and colour, and the wood-cut of the printer’s mark is covered with the blazoning of the royal arms. On the edges, which are gilt, there is inscribed, in red letters, ANNA REGINA ANGLIÆ. This beautiful volume formerly belonged to the Reverend C. M. Cracherode, by whom it was bequeathed to the Museum.

The first complete English translation of the Old and New Testaments was that of Miles Coverdale, which appeared in folio, 1535,[VI-65] without the name or residence of the printer, but supposed to have been printed at Zurich by Christopher Froschover. The dedication is addressed to Henry VIII, by “his Graces humble subjecte and daylie oratour, Myles Coverdale;” and in the copy in the British Museum the commencement is as follows: “Unto the most victorious Prynce and our most gracyous soveraigne Lorde, kynge Henry the eyght, kynge of Englonde and of Fraunce, lorde of Irlonde, &c. Defendour of the Fayth, and under God the chefe and supreme heade of the churche of Englonde. ¶The ryght and just administracyon of the laws that God gave unto Moses and unto Josua: the testimonye of faythfulnes that God gave of David: the plenteous abundance of wysdome that God gave unto Salomon: the lucky and prosperous age with the multiplicacyon of sede which God gave unto Abraham and Sara his wyfe, he gevē unto you most Gracyous Prynce, with your dearest just wyfe and most virtuous Pryncesse, Quene Anne. Amen.” In most copies, however, “Quene Jane” is substituted for “Quene Anne,” which proves that the original dedication had been cancelled after the disgrace and execution of Anne Boleyn, and that, though the colophon is dated 4th October 1535, the work had not been generally circulated until subsequent to 20th May 1536, the date of Henry’s marriage with Jane Seymour.