^{page 3 note a} Patin, in his edition of Erasmus' “Moriæ Encomium,” (Basle, 1676,) places Holbein's birth in 1495; but a portrait of the painter, dated 1543, ætatis 45, corroborates the usually received date. See the arguments on this point in , Hegner, “Hans Holbein der jüngere,” p. 35 (Berlin, 1827).Google Scholar

^{page 3 note b} Kunstblatt 1846, No. 45 and 46.

^{page 3 note c} Waagen, Handbook, p. 189.

^{page 3 note d} In Mr. Baring's collection.

^{page 3 note e} Hegner, p. 48, who gives good reasons why these entries do not apply to Holbein's father.

^{page 3 note f} Handbook of Painting—German, Flemish, and Dutch schools, based on that of Kugler, and edited by Dr. Waagen, vol. i. p. 186.

^{page 3 note g} Holbein's drawings were engraved and published in the edition of the Moriæ Encomium published by Patin at Basle in 1676.

^{page 4 note a} Erasmi Opera (1703), torn. iii. App. Epist. cccxxxiv.

^{page 4 note b} See More's Letter to Ægidius in Erasmi Opera (1703), tom. iii. App. Epist. cxcii.

^{page 4 note c} Erasmi Opera (1703), tom. iii. Epist. dcccxxxii.

^{page 4 note d} Het Schilder Boeck.

^{page 4 note e} Extracts are printed in the Trevelyan Papers, Part I., edited for the Camden Society by J. P. Collier.

^{page 4 note f} Privy Purse Expenses of Henry VIII., edited by N. H. Nicolas (Pickering, 1827).

^{page 5 note a} In the Louvre, Paris.

^{page 5 note b} At Windsor Castle.

^{page 5 note c} At Corsham House; another is at Munich.

^{page 5 note d} At Windsor Castle.

^{page 5 note e} In the Louvre, Paris.

^{page 5 note f} Dated 10 July, 1528, now in the Uffizzi, Florence.

^{page 5 note g} Erasmi Opera (1703), tom. iii. Epist. mlxxiv. and mlxxv.

^{page 5 note h} Erasmi Opera (1703), tom. iii. App. Epist. ccclii.

^{page 5 note i} “dreissig Stücken Geldes;” see Hegner, p. 242, where the letter is printed.

^{page 6 note a} Lappenberg, Urkundliche Geschichte des Hansischen Stahlhofes zu London, Hamb. 1851, pp. 80, 81, 173.

^{page 6 note b} Woodcuts representing both, subjects have appeared in Waagen's Handbook, vol. i. p. 199.

^{page 6 note c} Pitture scelte, da Carla Caterina Patina, Cologne, 1691, p. 36.

^{page 6 note d} State Papers, Henry VIII. vol. viii. p. 17.

^{page 6 note e} Arundel MS. 97.

^{page 7 note a} Presumed to be the picture at Arundel Castle. (Waagen, Handbook, p. 201.) This is, however, a fulllength picture, carefully painted, and could not have been executed in the time. Perhaps is was painted from a sketch made by Holbein on this occasion.

^{page 8 note a} Sir Harris Nicolas has misread this word, which is written n¹., as ij li.

^{page 8 note b} Hegner, p. 246.

^{page 8 note c} From the original roll penes J. B. Nichols, F.S.A. This entry has been quoted by Walpole, who suggests that Cornelis signifies Lucas Cornelli, the painter. There can, however, be little doubt that it is Cornelius Hayes, the King's goldsmith, who is constantly mentioned both in the Privy Purse Expenses and in the Household Accounts.

^{page 9 note a} See Literary Remains of Edward VI., edited by J. G. Nichols, Esq., F.S.A., p. cccxlv.

^{page 9 note b} Presumed to be the one now in the Louvre. Waagen, Handbook, p. 201.

^{page 9 note c} Cott. MS. Vitel. B. xxi. 186. Printed in Ellis, Original Letters, first series, vol. ii. p. 122.

^{page 10 note a} Archæologia, Vol. XVIII. p. 325. See also the Loseley MSS., edited by A. J. Kempe, p. 92.

^{page 10 note b} Handbook, vol. i. p. 201.

^{page 10 note c} Art Treasures, ii. 246.

^{page 11 note a} Art Treasures in Great Britain, Supplement, p. 355.

^{page 11 note b} A portrait of Henry VIII. at Trinity College, Cambridge, bears the same monogram and date; as does likewise one of Elizabeth Brandon at Wentworth Castle, dated 1550.

^{page 11 note c} Dallaway, in the list of Holbein's works which he appended to Walpole's memoir of this artist, includes three other portraits, viz.: John Dudley Duke of Northumberland, 1545, at Penshurst; Sir Edward Grimstone, æt. 20, 1548, at Gorhambury; and Sir Thomas Chaloner, æt. 28, 1548. The originals of which it would be desirable to examine before expressing an opinion.

^{page 12 note a} “Soo is Holbeen in groote benoutheydt te Londen ghestorven van de Pest A° 1554, oudt 56 Jaren.” (Van Mander, Het Schilder Boeck, 1604, f. 224.)

^{page 12 note b} Vies des Peintres Flamands.

^{page 12 note c} It should, however, be stated as to this, that in 1540 Sigismund Holbein, of Berne, made his Will, in which he leaves to his dear brother's son, Hans Holbein the painter, burgher of Basle (the subject of this notice), all his household property, furniture, &c., at Berne. (See Hegner, “Hans Holbein der jüngere,” p. 24.) This accession of worldly goods should have relieved the artist from his apparent state of poverty, but there is no evidence when Sigismund Holbein died, and he may have survived his nephew, or died about the same time. At any rate, the English Will need not have affected property on the Continent.

^{page 12 note d} From a letter from the magistrates of Basle, 1538, it is clear that he had not then had her over.

^{page 13 note a} See, however, a suggestion on this point made by Mr. Nichols, infra, p. 36.

^{page 13 note b} Ed. Sir H. Nicolas, p. 161.

^{page 13 note c} For instance, the curious volume in the British Museum from the Sloane Collection.

^{page 13 note d} Vol. i. p. 892.

^{page 13 note e} Ed. Sir F. Madden, p. 20.

^{page 14 note a} Arundel MS., 97.

^{page 14 note b} See Walpole's “Anecdotes of Painting,” reign of Henry VIII.

^{page 14 note c} Edition of 1754, vol. i. p. 397.

^{page 14 note d} No information is to be derived from the registers, as the registers of burials of St. Andrew Undershaft do not commence till 1558, as I have been informed by H. C. Coote, Esq.; while those of St. Catherine Cree church date only from 1663.

^{page 15 note a} “Wurde er 1554 im 56 Jahre seines Alters von der damals in Londen wütenden Pest hingerafft.”

^{page 15 note b} Though the two official acts which follow the copy of the Will may at first appear inconsistent both with the Will and also with each other; yet, if we suppose that John Anwarpe was considered to have been appointed executor by implication (which the law allowed), much of the seeming inconsistency will disappear. The object of the renunciation may have been either to obviate some doubt which existed as to whether John Anwarpe was so made executor (for the language is hardly strong enough), or to avoid certain liabilities that would have affected him as executor, but not as administrator. Formerly a person was said to have died intestate, not only when he left no Will, but also when he left a Will and appointed no executor, or appointed executors and they all renounced. In this administration act the testator is accordingly said to have died intestate. The word abintestato should, I presume, have been ab intestato. Abintestatus was not common for intestate; the more usual Latin term was intestatus, or ab intestato, as may be seen in Lynwode's Provinciale (Tabula, s. v.). Carpentier gives abintestatus as used in France. Ab intestato was in use in this country as late as the reign of Elizabeth. (See West's Symboleography, s. 650.) The great difficulty in these official acts is how John Anwarpe could have been executor and Mr. Anthony not. If the latter had been executor also, and died before the testator, that should and in all probability would have been mentioned. However, if he were Anthony, the King's servant, he is known to have survived the testator. The second of the two official acts is almost a repetition of the first, and both are dated on the same day. Such an administration in modern times would have been called an administration cum testamento annexo.

^{page 16 note a} It may be well to notice that some letters in the State Paper Office, dated 1527, which are indexed by Thomas, under Hans Holbein, relate to Hans Holm, a native, apparently, of Mecklenburgh.

^{page 16 note b} Since deceased.

^{page 17 note a} Mr. Nelson was also kind enough to furnish me with an extract from another subsidy roll, in which a person of the name of Hugh Holbeine is mentioned. From the sum, however, at which he is assessed, it is probable that he was an Englishman. It is an extract from an indenture of a subsidy roll for the City of London, made the 4th day of April, 35 Henry VIII.:—

^{page 17 note b} Stowe's Annals.

^{page 17 note c} See Nichols's Literary Remains of Edward VI.

^{page 18 note a} This volume was sold at the sale of Craven Ord, June, 1829.