holbein's irish sitter?

Holbein's Irish Sitter?Author(s): David StarkeySource: The Burlington Magazine, Vol. 123, No. 938 (May, 1981), pp. 300-301+303Published by: The Burlington Magazine Publications Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/880241 .

Accessed: 21/05/2014 18:09

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Burlington Magazine Publications Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend accessto The Burlington Magazine.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 109.175.155.201 on Wed, 21 May 2014 18:09:37 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bmpl

http://www.jstor.org/stable/880241?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


BONINGT ON AND BOYS: SOME UNPUBLISHED DOCUMENTS AT YALE

throw it up altogether, & instead of 5 guineas which I first asked will reduce it to four, but less I can not

Yours truly & ever Thomas Boys

J. Hogarth Esq. Neither lithograph has been identified and it is likely that

Boys only worked on part of each stone. John Fairlie was an architectural restorer known primarily for his tedious set of illustrations of Cheveley Church (1851),25 the restoration of which he supervised. From 1847 Boys had advertised in The Builder as a reproductive lithographer, and the Fairlie commission was the type of work brought in by such advertisements. After expenses the remunera- tion was paltry. It is likely that many prints by Boys of this type, without his signature, survive, and that their routine production consumed much of his time and con- centration. By 1850 his fortunes were in steep decline, to the extent that he was forced to sell at auction in that

year his Bonington water-colour of Verona.26 His activities as a reproductive printmaker may have served to keep his creditors at bay, but it is one of the tragedies in the history of English printmaking that the remark- able promise of his work of the 30s, which began mod-

estly enough with his etched copy of Bonington's Verona, was later squandered on commonplace illustration.

25 Illustrations of Cheveley Church, Cambridgeshire, from Drawings by John Fairlie, Esq., London [1851]. 26 ALASTAIR SMART: Thomas Shotter Boys, Nottingham University Art Gallery and Thomas Agnew & Sons, Nottingham [1974], p.28. This water-colour was probably one of those referred to by Boys in a note to Colnaghi of 1829 (The Huntington Library HM 16679): 'I had brought down a drawing or 2 of Bonington's to show you I say show you as I really cannot find it in my heart to part with one of them'.

Shorter Notices

Holbein's Irish sitter?

BY DAVID STARKEY

THE Holbein drawing labelled 'Ormonde' (Parker 23) is one of the most impressive in the royal collection (Fig.36). Its subject is striking in physique; its treatment is bold and brilliant, with large unbroken areas of red and black water-colour. For many years (indeed probably since the eighteenth century) it has generally been taken for granted that the sitter was Thomas Boleyn, father of Anne, Henry VIII's second Queen. Boleyn had already been created Viscount Rochford in 1525, but as his daughter climbed further into the King's affections, so the father advanced in the peerage, becoming Earl of Wiltshire and Ormond in 1529. The Earldom of Ormond he could claim through his grandfather, Thomas Butler, Earl of Ormond, who had died in 1515 without male heirs; while the Earldom of Wiltshire had also been briefly held by the Butlers (then hotly Lancastrian) in the middle of the fifteenth century.' However there has been some dissatisfaction with the identification on

the grounds of the age of the sitter. As the catalogue to the Queen's Gallery Exhibition, Holbein and the Court of Henry VIII pointed out, the subject of the drawing appears to be in his thirties; on the other hand, Boleyn, who was born in 1477, was well into his fifties in the 1530s when - it has been assumed - the portrait was executed.2 These doubts were fully confirmed by John Rowlands's review ofHolbein and the Court of Henry VIII in Master Drawings. For, to the discrepancy in age, he added the utter dissimilarity between the Windsor drawing and Boleyn's superb tomb brass (Fig.37). The former shows a square-faced man of the same Rugby-forward build as the King himself; the latter represents a lean figure with the sort of long face so familiar to us in portraits of Boleyn's grand- daughter, Elizabeth I.3 So clearly 'Ormonde' is not Thomas Boleyn. Then who is he?

In fact, I suspect that there is no real problem of identification at all: the difficulties have been manufactured solely by later commentators. The point is that there were Earls of Ormond of two different families in Henry VIII's reign: Boleyn himself, and the more direct Butler line of Piers Butler (1467-1539) and his son James (c. 1504-46). It was from Piers that Boleyn had wrested the title in 1529, only to see it restored to him in 1538. From then until Boleyn's death in 1539 there were two Earls of Ormond, just as there were two Lords Dacre. But since Boleyn died without heirs male his line of the title became extinct.4 This meant that in the 1550s, when the identifications were added to the drawings (accord- ing to the Lumley Inventory by Sir John Cheke), 'Ormonde' referred not to the Boleyn but to the Butler line. And the obvious sitter is James, who was still only Lord James Butler when the drawing was probably made.

His age was right: in his early thirties by the mid-1530s. His background is right: he had been brought up at the English court, very much by the King himself, to whom he had developed a strong personal attachment. And though by the 1530s he was ordinarily resident at Kilkenny, that great Irish stronghold had been turned by his father, and still more by his redoubtable mother, into a centre of advanced Anglo- European civility. His movements are right: in June 1537 he left Ireland to visit the Netherlands (seeing the court of the Lady Regent, which could well have stimulated his interest in portraiture) and returned to England in October 1537. The occasion is right: on that autumn visit he moved into high favour at court; officiated at the christening of Prince Edward and presented successful petitions for the restitution of the lands of Thomas, the last Butler Earl, and the restoration of the Earldom of Ormond itself. The lands were granted immediately, and the Earldom a few months later in February 1538. What more natural therefore than to have his portrait taken at such a happy time in the family fortune?s Finally, the dress is right: the resemblance between Ormond's costume and that of Henry VIII in the Cartoon for the Whitehall wall-painting has been frequently noted. The reason is now clear: the wall-painting was dated 1537 in the frieze, while the Ormond portrait was (ifI am right) executed in the autumn of that year. What we see in both, therefore, is the high fashion of 1537. A slightly earlier and so less extravagant version of the style appears in another of Holbein's greatest portraits: this time the highly-finished oil of Charles de Solier, sieur de la

1 G. E. c[ockayne]: The Complete Peerage, revised by V. Gibbs and later H. A. Doubleday, 13 Vols., London [1910-49], sub 'Ormond' and 'Wiltshire'.

2 Holbein and the Court of Henry VIII, catalogue of an exhibition at the Queen's Gallery, Buckingham Palace, London [1978], pp.67-68. 3 JOHN ROWLANDS: review of Holbein and the Court ofHenry VIII, Master Drawings, XVII No.l, New York [1979], pp.53 if. 4 G. E. C., loc. cit. s For all this, see G. E. c. sub 'Ormond'. G. E. C. in turn largely refers to Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII, edited by J. s. BREWER, J. GAIRDNER, and R. H. BRODIE, 21 Vols and appendix, London [1862-1932]. I have checked all these citations and (as usual for the Peerage) they are correct.

300



:i l'

•-i~-iiii i

-

iiii-iii

:- --- -:- _ _

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii

.' iii:: i iiiiiiiiiiii

i-iiiiiiiii-iiii

;

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii;iiiiii iiiiiii:::,-:i-i:

- i:_i :::::: . i:-::_-:--:-:- --- - : - -- : i ' --

-:-::!

i

i-i:iii:::-:-iI:::-:-i ii i i -i-ii::-- --a:- -:_

:-:-l iiiii iii ii:

iiii-ii--iiiiiiiiiii'i-iiii i- ...... ..-. ii i-iiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii-l -::-- -::-----:---ii-iiii-iiiiii -i

iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiaiiiiii ..................................::- ........................

::::::: iiiiiiiiiii::::iii iii••iii:i•i:ii••••••••Ji••••••Z:i Z iii iiiiiiiili-iiiiiiii iiiii:

... ......................................... ... !ii!! iiiii iliiiiiiiii iii-i!!!!!i i!!iii!!ii:ii-i ;ii~ii~iii~iiiiiii-ii~iii~a iiil : ili'iiiiiiiii::'iiiiiiiiiiiii:,iii~iiiiiiiilii-ii

.......iiii-'~a~--iiii : i-:i •i -i_-i~ii~ii~ii~iiii~iii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-

i!ii•iiia~ iiii•iii~iiiii~ i iiii~iiiiiiiiiiiiii~i iiiiiii8:iirii

•!!• iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii i!•!•iiiii•!

:I: l'-:i~i~ i 'iiiiiiiiiii'i!!ii!! •!!!i•• iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~ i••!!~ ii~i i~ !!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii•i••ii •!iI~ii ................................................... iiiiiiiiiiiii

•i~ii~~iiiii~i~iii~i~ii~iiii~i~i!• !!!•!i~ i~i~i~ ~iiiiii~ i~ ii!•i~•!i'•,•i~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii•,,,•, ",,• iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii i• ii i l i i

•iii~i~ii~ii~~iiiiiiii~iii~iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii;•!• ••~ i !•!i~~~iiiiiiiii ii ii~i~ i iiiiii~iiiiii-ii~i iii~i~ii•i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiiii~iiiiiii~ii~ : : -~-s8~?~iii-ii~ i~i~~

36. Lrd Ja es Buler, ater arl o Ormnd (frmerl thouht torepreent T omasBoley , firt Ear of W ltshie an

Ormod), y Has Hobein c. 537.Blac and colo red halk, waer-clourand nk, 0.1 y 292 cm

(Roya colectin). eproucedby Gaciou Perissin ofH.M.the ueen

/

j>j

ii

I 1741

~itl

37. Thomas Boleyn, First Earl of Wiltshire and Ormond. Rubbing from a brass at Hever, Kent. (Victoria and Albert Museum).



The 'Pictur' of Elizabeth I when Princess

BY JANET ARNOLD

THE generous loan of a group of paintings from the Royal Collection at Windsor Castle to the National Portrait Gallery in 19791 included Elizabeth I when Princess (Fig.38) and Edward VI (Fig.39). The pictures were hung in a newly opened small gallery, which afforded an excellent opportunity for close study. Oliver Millar points out that both portraits are without doubt by the same hand.2 Identical treatment of the silk pat- terned with metal thread woven in a raised looped pile used for both undersleeves and forepart of Elizabeth's petticoat may be seen in the curtain behind Edward.3 Roy Strong suggests that the pictures are both by William Scrots in his capacity as painter to the Crown in succession to Holbein.4

Edward's portrait was probably painted for his father late in the autumn of 1546; the fur-lined gown suggests cold weather. He wears a jewel with the Prince of Wales's crown and feathers. A second version at Petworth may have been started in 1546, but was probably finished after Edward's accession, as the jewel no longer bears the Prince of Wales's insignia.5

Elizabeth's portrait may also have been commissioned by Henry VIII. However, in a letter written to her brother after his accession, she refers to her 'pictur' for which he had asked. The prince and princess were very fond of each other. They were at Enfield together at the end ofJanuary 1547 when the news of their father's death was broken to them. After this they were separated but Elizabeth often wrote to Edward in her exquisite italic hand. The young king was very pleased to receive her letters and it was quite natural that he should have asked for her portrait at this time. His letter does not survive, apparently, but the one that Elizabeth sent with her picture from Hatfield is printed here.6 It is dated 15th May and, although no year is given, it seems likely to have been 1547.

'Like as the richeman that dayly gathereth riches to riches, and to one bag of mony layeth a greate sort til it come to infinit, so me thinkes your Majestie not beinge suffised withe many benefits and gentilnes shewed to me afore this time, dothe now increase them in askinge and desiring, wher you may bid and commaunde, requiring a thinge not worthy the desiring for it selfe but made worthy for your highnes request. My pictur I mene in wiche if the inward good mynde towarde your grace might as wel be declared, as the outwarde face and countenaunce shal be seen I wold not have taried the commandement but prevent it, nor have bine the last to graunt but the first to offer it. For the face, I

graunt, I might wel blusche to offer, but the mynde I shal never be asshamed to present. For thogth from the grace of the pictur the coulers may fade by time, may give by wether may be spotted by chance, yet the other nor time with her swift winges shal overtake, nor the mistie cloudes with her loweringes may darken, nor chance with her slipery fote may overthrow. Of this althogth yet the prose coulde not be greate because occasions hathe bine but smal, notwithstand- ing as a dog hathe a day, so may I perchaunce have time to declare it in dides when now I do write them but in wordes. And further I shal most humbly beseche your Majestie that when you shal loke on my pictur you wil witsafe to thinke that as you have but the outwarde shadow of the body afore you, so my inwarde minde wischeth that the body it selfe were oftener in your presence howbeit bicause bothe my so beinge I thinke coulde do your Majestie litel pleasure thogth my selfe great good, and againe bicause I se as yet not the time agreing thereat I shal lern to folow this sainge of Orace Feras non culpes quod vitari non potest. And thus I wil (troblinge your Majestie I fere) ende with my most humble thankes. Besechinge God longe to preserve you to his hon- our to your comfort, to the realmes profit, and to my joy. From Hatfilde this 15 day of May. Your Majesties most humbly sistar and servant.

Elizabeth' Although 'the coulers may fade by time' might suggest the fugitive colours of a miniature, 'may give by wether' is an apt description of warped wood panels with flaking paint after exposure to excessive damp and/or very warm, dry conditions. 'May be spotted by chance' could refer to either miniature or panel painting.

Neither Edward's nor Elizabeth's portrait is recorded in the inventory prepared for Henry VIII in 1542 and both are listed in that prepared for Edward in 1547.7 Elizabeth's is described as 'A table with the picture of the ladye Elizabeth her grace with a booke in her hande her gowne like crymsen clothe of golde withe workes'. If it had been painted as a companion piece to his portrait for Henry VIII in 1546, Edward would probably not have written asking for another picture so soon after he was separated from his sister. It would have been unnecessary with such a recent portrait already in the Royal Collection. The inscription 'Elizabetha/(?Filia) Rex/Angliae' may originally have read 'Soror'.

The letter is dated 15th May; the portrait would probably have taken six or eight weeks to complete. Elizabeth would have worn mourning black for a few weeks8, but Edward VI's coronation was on 20th February 1547 and by March she would no doubt have been ready to wear her best gown for a portrait to please her brother. The fabric is painted in minute detail; the artist has put flecks of yellow to give the effect of gold thread on the sleeves, bodice front and sides of the skirt. The 'workes', in a bold linear design, may have been in cut velvet or perhaps were produced by the arrangement of deep crimson warp threads against a lighter ground in a similar way to an example in the Victoria and Albert Museum.9 The undersleeves and matching forepart are in very rich material

1 Masterpieces from Windsor Castle, January-April 1979, at the National Portrait Gallery, London. 2 OLIVER MILLAR: The Tudor, Stuart and Early Georgian Pictures in the Collection of Her Majesty the Queen, London [1963] Cat.44 and 46, pp.64-65. 3 For detailed illustrations see JANET ARNOLD: 'The 'Coronation' Portrait of Queen Elizabeth I', THE BURLINGTON MAGAZINE, Vol. CXX [November 1978] Figs. 12-16. 4 ROY STRONG: The English Icon, London [1969], p.74. 5 MILLAR, op. cit. 6 British Library, Cott. Ms. Vesp. F III no.46. Quoted in AGNES STRICKLAND:

Life of Queen Elizabeth, London [1867 edn.], p.37.

7 MILLAR, op. cit. 8 The exact duration of royal mourning is uncertain at this period and probably varied at different courts. For example James V of Scotland and Mary of Guise were in mourning for several weeks in August and September 1541 when their two sons died, and again in the autumn of the same year for Margaret Tudor. However Diane de Poitiers advised Mary of Guise not to wear full mourning on her visit to the French Court after her father's death, as 'Queens never wear it unless for their husbands, and by doing so you would damage your dignity'. Mary might, however, wear black clothes without any explicit evidences of mourning. See ROSALIND MARSHALL: 'Hir Rob Ryall: the costume of Mary of Guise', Costume, No. 12 [1978], pp.5-6. 9 Illustrated in my forthcoming book Queen Elizabeth's Wardrobe Unlock'd to be published by Macmillan.

303

SHORTER NOTICES

Morette, which was taken during Morette's tour of duty as French ambassador in England in 1534-35.

So the circumstantial evidence for the identification of the sitter as Lord James Butler is strong. It is only to be hoped that another portrait will turn up (presumably in Ireland) which will clinch the matter one way or another.



holbein's irish sitter?

Documents