Download pdf - The Portraiture of Lady Margaret Beaufort

The Antiquaries Journalhttp://journals.cambridge.org/ANT

Additional services for The Antiquaries Journal:

Email alerts: Click hereSubscriptions: Click hereCommercial reprints: Click hereTerms of use : Click here

The Portraiture of Lady Margaret Beaufort

Frederick Hepburn

The Antiquaries Journal / Volume 72 / March 1992, pp 118 140DOI: 10.1017/S0003581500071213, Published online: 21 April 2011

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0003581500071213

How to cite this article:Frederick Hepburn (1992). The Portraiture of Lady Margaret Beaufort. The Antiquaries Journal, 72, pp 118140 doi:10.1017/S0003581500071213

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/ANT, IP address: 130.194.20.173 on 15 Mar 2013

THE PORTRAITURE OFLADY MARGARET BEAUFORT

By FREDERICK HEPBURN

LADY MARGARET BEAUFORT (1443-1509), Countess of Richmond and Derby, was one of the mostremarkable women of her time. A wealthy heiress, she was married early, and was alreadywidowed at the age of thirteen, shortly before the birth of her son, who was to become KingHenry VII. During the Wars of the Roses she learned to survive through political astuteness,though she showed that she was willing to risk all for her son when, during Richard I l l ' s reign,she conspired to bring Henry to the throne. Her devotion to Henry, together with heroutstanding personal qualities, meant that when he became king in 1485, Lady Margaretremained his most trusted supporter and adviser. Accorded semi-regal status, she administeredher vast estates with exemplary efficiency and fairness, showing a concern for individuals whichsprang from her own religious humility. She is best known today for her patronage of learning,particularly at Cambridge, where in addition to providing endowments for individual religiousscholars, she was the foundress of Christ's and St John's Colleges. In view of Lady Margaret'sachievements it seems entirely appropriate, not only that she is buried in Henry VII's Chapel inWestminster Abbey, but also that her epitaph was written by Erasmus and that her splendid giltbronze tomb-effigy (fig. 1) is the masterpiece of another man of the Renaissance, the Florentinesculptor Pietro Torrigiano.

The production of Lady Margaret's tomb is in fact very well documented.1 The contractbetween the executors of her will and 'Petir Thoryson of florence graver' (who neverthelesssigned himself 'Piero Torrigiani Schultore fiorintino') survives among the muniments of StJohn's College, Cambridge, and is dated 23 November 1511. From this contract, and fromvarious entries in a volume of the accounts of the executors, also preserved at St John's College,we gather that Torrigiano was required to follow a certain design. The tomb project wasevidently supervised by William Bolton, Prior of St Bartholomew's, a man noted for his abilityas an administrator of building works. Bolton assembled a team of foreign craftsmen whichincluded the painter Meynnart Wewyck. During 1512-13 Wewyck drew alternative designs forthe tomb on paper; one of these was chosen and approved by the executors; Wewyck thenproduced two copies of the approved design, painted on canvas; one of these was kept by theexecutors, and the other delivered to Torrigiano. In the course of his work on this project, on22 June 1513, Wewyck was also paid 335. ̂ d. 'for makinge the picture and image of the seideladye'.

Meynnart Wewyck's involvement in the tomb project is interesting. Presumably he wasrequired to provide 'the picture and image' of Lady Margaret because Torrigiano needed alikeness on which he could base his tomb-effigy portrait, since by 1513, of course, LadyMargaret had been dead for four years. Presumably also Wewyck was chosen to provide thislikeness because he had already, at some previous time, painted a portrait of Lady Margaret.There is sufficient evidence to indicate that it was a common practice among painters of royaland princely portraits at this time to keep drawings or replicas which could be used as the basisof further painted portraits, should these be required.2 In this connection it seems significant

PORTRAITURE OF LADY MARGARET BEAUFORT 119

FIG. I . Pietro Torrigiano: Lady Margaret Beaufort.Gilt bronze effigy on Lady Margaret's tomb in

Westminster Abbey, c. 1514Photograph: The Conway Library, Courtauld Institute of Art

120 THE ANTIQUARIES JOURNAL

that, at some point during the years 1510-13, Lady Margaret 's executors also paid Wewyck £3'ffor payntynge the pyketour off my lady the kynges grauntmother [i.e. Lady Margaret] inCristys college in Camberige . . . in partye of payment of a more somme'.3

In the latter entry the executors referred to Wewyck as 'Maynerde payntor' . In the entriesconcerned with his work for Lady Margaret 's tomb he is called 'Maynarde paynter ' and'Maynarde Vewike of London paynter' , though he signed his own name as Meynnart Wewyck.We find his name again, at earlier dates, in the accounts of the royal household: in 1506 apayment of 4.0s. had been made to 'Maynard Waywike duchman in Reward'; and 20s. in 1505had been paid to 'maynard the kings payntor for pictors'. In view of these references Wewyck isvery probably identifiable with the painter named in the Scottish treasurer's accounts as'Mynour ' . In 1502 he had brought from England to the court of James IV portraits ofHenry VI I , Elizabeth of York, Prince Henry and Princess Margaret (shortly to be married toJames) , and had stayed in Scotland until 1503.4 Presumably Wewyck himself had painted theportraits which he took to Scotland, and he may well have been the originator of the standard'official' likenesses of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York. Sadly, no portrait survives today whichcan be attributed to Wewyck's own hand, though some of the earliest of the surviving examplesof the standard likenesses of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York certainly could be his work.s

Having said this much about Wewyck, one must also note that, sometime during 1510-11,Lady Margaret 's executors paid a total of £3 10s. to 'Wolff the paynter' for two pictures of LadyMargaret .6 John Wolff (assuming that this is he) appears elsewhere in records mainly as aheraldic painter.7 He seems rather an unlikely choice as a painter of portraits, and it may be thathe was asked to provide these because the executors were keeping Wewyck fully occupied withtheir other commissions. Wolff would probably have worked from the same approved portraitpattern as Wewyck.

A large number of painted portraits of Lady Margaret have survived from the sixteenthand early seventeenth centuries. They range in size from the miniature head (fig. 4) to thefull-length, life-size portraits (figs. 2, 6). The majority are in the same format, depicting thesitter rather less than life-size and at half-length or a little less (figs. 5, 7-8). The reason for thefrequent occurrence of this format is that it was the norm for the series of panel-paintings ofkings and queens with which it became fashionable to decorate the walls of the Long Gallery ingreat Elizabethan and Jacobean houses. Series of this kind, with panels usually measuringabout 56o-8omm by 43o-6omm, evidently quite often included a portrait of Lady Margaret.Examples which still form part of Long Gallery sets are in the royal collection at HamptonCourt (fig. 5)8 and in the Deanery at Ripon,9 and many of the other paintings which havesurvived separately are similar to these in size and style.10 If one takes all of the painted portraitsof Lady Margaret together, one can see that, without exception, they show her with her head inthree-quarters view, and wearing essentially the same, nun-like costume. This is a strongindication that all of these paintings were derived, at nearer or further removes, from a singlesource. Their costume also, of course, relates them to Lady Margaret 's tomb-effigy, which, aswe have seen, was based on a painting supplied by Meynnart Wewyck. In view of theseobservations, the surviving painted portraits ought to provide evidence for the nature ofWewyck's painting.

None of the surviving portraits appears to date from Lady Margaret 's lifetime, or to beidentifiable with any of the paintings commissioned by her executors c. 1510—13. It is possible, infact, that no portrait had been taken during Lady Margaret 's lifetime — none is documented —but that Wewyck had painted a likeness from memory, or perhaps using a death-mask. A


FIG. 2. Rowland Lockey: Lady Margaret Beaufort. Panel, i-8ioby 1159m.c. 1598. St John's College, Cambridge

Photograph: reproduced by permission of the Master and Fellows


parallel instance of a memorial portrait of a college founder is that of Richard Fox, Bishop ofWinchester (died 1528), attributed to another Netherlandish immigrant artist, JohannesCorvus, at Corpus Christi College, Oxford. This has the appearance of having been based on adeath-mask, or even perhaps on a drawing of the corpse.11 In Lady Margaret's case, however,evidence in favour of a likeness having been made during her lifetime is provided by one of thesurviving portraits, namely that at St John's College, Cambridge (fig. 2). This portrait is knownto have been painted by Rowland Lockey c. 1598, the date at which it was presented to StJohn's.12 It shows Lady Margaret kneeling at her devotions beneath a richly embroideredcanopy, presumably in a chapel, whose stained-glass window is seen at the left-hand side of thepicture. Its importance lies in the fact that it was very probably based on an earlier painting ofthe type which is found recorded in Edward VI's collection at St James's Palace in 1549-50:'. . .

FIG. 3. Bruges Master of 1499: Diptych of Margaret of Austria. Panel, each wing 305 by 146mmc. 1505. The painting on the left wing, of the Virgin and Child crowned by angels, is by a different,

later hand. Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Ghent


the picture of the Duches of Richmonte and Darbie sitting upon her knees'.13 Such a painting,no doubt originally forming part of a diptych in which Lady Margaret was depicted prayingbefore Christ or an appropriate saint, is positively more likely to have originated during herlifetime than afterwards. Its function, in the chapel or church in which it was placed, would havebeen to act as a substitute for Lady Margaret herself, so that, even though she might beotherwise occupied, she was always, in a sense, praying to the chosen object of her devotions.

The portrait by Rowland Lockey is a large memorial picture (1810 by 1159mm) intendedfor public display; one must imagine that the original work which it reflects was probably moremodest in size. A parallel example dating from the early sixteenth century is shown in figure 3.This is a diptych representing that other powerful and cultured dowager, the Habsburg princessMargaret of Austria, kneeling in prayer before the Virgin and Child. The right-hand panel, withthe portrait of Margaret, is attributed to the Bruges 'Master of 1499' and datable to c. 1505; theleft panel is by a different, later hand. Each panel measures only 305 by 146mm, so that thepaintings are not far removed in size from miniatures. The panels, which are now set inrectangular frames, seem originally to have been round-topped.14 Margaret is shown full-length, kneeling at her prayer-desk in her own chamber: a fire blazes in the hearth behind her,vases stand on the sideboard, and she is accompanied by her pets, a little dog and amonkey—and, interestingly, just above Margaret's head and to the left, a small, round-toppeddiptych is visible, hanging on or placed against the back wall of the room. The pronounceddomesticity of this interior is worth noting because it contrasts with the usual type ofdonor-painting of the late fifteenth century, in which the sitters were shown, in an ecclesiasticalor landscape setting, being presented to the deity by their patron saints. The Rowland Lockeyportrait of Lady Margaret Beaufort might well be seen as reflecting a painting which, like that ofMargaret of Austria, represented the sitter at prayer in a more intimate and naturalistic way.The canopy beneath which Lady Margaret kneels is embroidered with a Tudor Rose above herhead, and her personal coat-of-arms and her badge, the Beaufort Portcullis, at the back. ThePortcullis forms the centre of the repeated pattern on the dark-coloured cloth hanging next tothe window, and appears again in the stained glass of the window itself. This suggests that thesetting was intended to represent a private chapel in one of Lady Margaret's own residences.15

The costume depicted in this and all the other representations of Lady Margaret is ofparticular interest because it can be understood, almost entirely, by reference to a documentwhich was compiled by Lady Margaret herself. It is an indication of her concern that differentranks in the earthly, as well as the heavenly, hierarchy should be properly observed that, in1492-3, she drew up an 'ordinance and reformation of apparell for greate estates of women forthe tyme of mourninge'.16 Comparing the evidence presented by this document with LadyMargaret's costume in the portraits, one sees that she is shown wearing a 'surcoat' (a long, blackmourning garment like a cassock) with a train at both front and back, a black mantle, also with atrain, a 'barbe' (neckcloth) extending over her chin in accordance with her rank ('Duchessesand Countesses, and all higher estates, may be barbed above the chin'), and a 'frontlet'(presumably the cloth covering the brow) beneath a white hood. It would seem that thiscostume, with its elements of white as well as black, was worn as secondary mourning, replacingthe entirely black costume of full mourning which was worn at the funeral itself and perhaps forsome time afterwards.

If one considers the costume further, in the light of comparable visual evidence, one seesthat Lady Margaret's hood has been given a fashionable gable shape at the front, of the kindthat appears in the portraits of her daughter-in-law, Elizabeth of York. The exact nature of


FIG. 4. Lucas Horenbout: Lady Margaret Beaufort. Vellum stuck on to a playing card,circular, 30mm in diameter, c. 1530. V. de S. Collection, The Netherlands

Photograph: Victoria and Albert Museum, London

Lady Margaret's hood and neckwear can best be studied in the earliest surviving representa-tions of her, namely her tomb-effigy (fig. 1) and the unique miniature portrait (fig. 4). Thisminiature, measuring only 30mm in diameter, is now in a private collection in the Netherlands,together with a companion portrait of Henry VIII. Both miniatures have been dated by Sir RoyStrong to c. 1530. On technical and stylistic grounds they belong to a corpus of survivingminiature portraits of Henry VIII and members of his family which are attributed to LucasHorenbout (alias Hornebout or, in an Anglicized form, Hornebolte). Horenbout was anotherNetherlandish artist who was employed at the Tudor court, and we know from documents thathe received a very generous annuity from Henry VIII from 1525 until his death in 1544.17 We


can assume that, in circumstances such as these, Horenbout's likeness of Lady Margaret willhave been copied from a good source, most probably the panel-painting which is found recordedin an inventory of Henry VIII's pictures etc. in the Palace of Westminster in 1542 (discussedbelow).18

In the miniature portrait, the lappets of Lady Margaret's hood are painted with narrowhorizontal stripes. These appear in almost all of the other surviving paintings, including theportrait by Rowland Lockey, though they are more faintly represented there than usual. Thestripes indicate that the cloth was crimped. Although no parallel representation of a head-dresswith this feature seems to have survived from the fifteenth or early sixteenth centuries, there areNetherlandish paintings of priests wearing surplices whose sleeves were clearly crimpedhorizontally in this way.19 Interestingly, Torrigiano did not attempt to reproduce the crimpedsurface of the cloth in Lady Margaret's tomb-effigy. Perhaps he felt that the effect wasstylistically unharmonious; in any case he chose to simplify the design of the whole hood,making the cloth fold under at the front, rather than over and outwards to form lappets.

It can also be seen from the miniature portrait that Lady Margaret's neckwear consisted ofnot one garment, but two. First, there appears to have been a white cloth covering the lower partof her chin, her neck, and the upper part of her shoulders. Judging from its folds, this cloth wasdrawn quite closely under the chin and will have been tied at the back of the neck. Then, overthis, there was a layer of gauze with narrow, vertical pleats: the pleats are indicated by lines ofwhite paint on Lady Margaret's chin, by darker lines over most of the area of the white cloth,and then by lighter lines against the black cloth of the surcoat. The lines are continuous exceptfor a rather puzzling gap at the lower edge of the white cloth. It looks as though the white clothitself had a pleated border, defined in the miniature by the rather uneven line runninghorizontally across it near its lower edge, the row of more widely spaced vertical lines runningdownwards from this, and the wavy line along the lower edge. Examples of white cloth with apleated or fluted border can be seen in a number of fifteenth-century Netherlandish paintings.20

If this is the correct 'reading' of what is shown, then the artist may well have felt that, in order todepict with reasonable clarity the pleated border of the white cloth underneath the layer ofpleated gauze, he would have to leave a gap in his painting of the pleats in the gauze. It is, at anyrate, clear that the layer of gauze was worn over the white neckcloth; and it appears from all theother surviving paintings that the layer of gauze was much longer than the neckcloth, coveringLady Margaret's shoulders and the upper part of her body like a cape.

What, one might ask, was the reason for these two items of neckwear? The purpose of awidow's barbe was evidently to provide a modest covering for her neck and upper chest, whichwould otherwise be left visible by the normal types of fashionable clothing. Judging fromrepresentations of barbes which have survived from the fifteenth century, they were characteris-tically pleated. Presumably this was how they got their name, the pleats looking rather like thelocks of hair of a beard.21 If one assumes, then, that Lady Margaret's layer of pleated gauze washer barbe, this was clearly not functional in the normal way since it was made of transparentmaterial. It would seem only to have symbolized, by means of its traditional narrow pleats, thatthe wearer was a widow, and to have been made transparent deliberately in order to show thewhite neckcloth underneath it. The neckcloth—more properly called a 'wimple'—was adistinctive feature of nuns' costume,22 and one would suppose that it was worn by LadyMargaret to show that she was a vowess. Already during the lifetime of her third and lasthusband, Thomas Stanley, Earl of Derby, Lady Margaret had taken a vow of chastity, and onStanley's death in 1504 she reaffirmed her intention to live as a vowess.


Looking again at the tomb-effigy in the light of these observations, one realizes that itwould have been virtually impossible for Torrigiano, working in sculpture, to indicate thepresence of a vowess's wimple beneath a much longer widow's barbe: he had to choose one orthe other. He chose to represent the plain wimple, either for artistic reasons—as, probably, wasthe case with his simplified form of the head-dress—or because he, or more probably theexecutors, decided to emphasize that Lady Margaret was a vowess rather than a widow. It willalso be noticed that Torrigiano showed the wimple pushed down just underneath LadyMargaret 's chin, rather than coming up over the chin as it does, along with the barbe, in theminiature painting. No doubt his reason for this, even though it may not strictly have befittedLady Margaret 's rank, was to show the face more clearly.

If, on the grounds that it is the earliest surviving painting of Lady Margaret of undoubtedlygood quality, one takes the Horenbout miniature portrait as presenting an image of the sitter'shead which is probably not far removed from Wewyck's original work, the head of the portraitby Rowland Lockey emerges quite creditably from a comparison with it. In particular, Lockeyseems to have understood the double layer of neckwear properly—which the painters of anumber of the other copies of similar date, c. 1600, clearly did not. Consider, for example, thehalf-length portrait now at Hampton Court (fig. 5). The painter of this seems to have beenunsure whether there were two layers of neckwear or only one. At Lady Margaret 's chin a bandof greyish-coloured cloth is indicated above the wimple, seemingly emerging from beneath it,while the pleated transparent material of the barbe could be taken either as, again, emergingfrom beneath the wimple (whose pleated border is here made to belong to the barbe), or as beingattached to the wimple's lower edge as part of the same garment. At all events the painter didnot understand that the wimple was worn beneath the barbe. Also, if one looks at the folds in thewimple, as they are represented here, one sees that they are roughly similar to those in theminiature, except for the rather odd extra fold on Lady Margaret 's chin. Those in the Lockeyportrait are much closer to the arrangement shown in the miniature. Looking also at the way theback of the head-dress is represented, one sees that the rather complex series of crumpled foldsshown in the miniature has been lost entirely, whereas something of the appearance of thesefolds has been preserved in the Lockey portrait. The correspondence in this respect is not asclose as it is with the folds of the wimple, but at least Lockey was able to distinguish correctly the'tippet'. This is the narrow strip of cloth which hangs down at the very back of the hood,beginning from about where the crown of the head is. According to Lady Margaret 's regulationson mourning dress, a countess's tippet was to be 'in lengthe to the ground, lackinge a quarter of ayarde, and, in bredthe, a large nayle', i.e. a good 2/4 inches (57mm). 2 3 Finally, the facialfeatures in the Hampton Court painting have been somewhat normalized, with the result thatthe likeness is lost. In the miniature Lady Margaret is shown with the rather heavy-lidded eyesand fine, high-arched eyebrows which seem to have been a family trait. They reappear inportraits of her son, Henry V I I , and, even more strikingly, in portraits of her great-granddaughter, Elizabeth I. The prominent high cheek-bones are another noticeable feature,especially at the far side of the face where the line of the jaw slopes inwards quite abruptlybeneath the cheek-bone. These characteristics are much more successfully retained in theLockey portrait, though it must be pointed out that, for some reason, the shape of the nose isdifferent. The line defining its form from the bridge down to the tip has a slightly concave curve,whereas in the miniature the line curves outwards, and then slightly inwards just before the tip.

With the exception of this difference in the facial features, it would seem possible to take theLockey portrait as being a reasonably faithful copy, though enlarged in size, of a painting


FIG. 5. Unknown artist: Lady Margaret Beaufort. Panel, 559 by 451 mm, late sixteenth to earlyseventeenth century. Hampton Court

Photograph: Royal collection, St James's Palace. Copyright: Her Majesty the Queen


FIG. 6. Unknown artist: Lady Margaret Beaufort. Panel,i 956by 1 047m. c. 1580-90 (tree-ring dating). Christ's College,

CambridgePhotograph: reproduced by permission of the Master


produced during Lady Margaret's lifetime. Even the gold cloth, with a pattern of stylized foliagewoven into it in black thread, which is used for the canopy and the covering of the prayer-desk, isof a type which one finds represented in paintings of the late fifteenth and early sixteenthcenturies; it appears to have gone out of fashion after c. 1530.24 As to more precisely when such aportrait might have been produced, Dr Pamela Tudor-Craig, writing about the portraits ofLady Margaret in general, has suggested 1504 as the most likely date.25 This is the year in whichLady Margaret became a widow and renewed her intention to live as a vowess. Clearly theprobability of this is strengthened when one takes into account the two layers of neckwear andtheir significance.

It was mentioned earlier that, not long after Lady Margaret's death, we have a record of apainter called Wolff being paid a total of £3.1 o.r. for producing two pictures of her, while anotherrecord tells us that, at about the same time, Meynnart Wewyck was paid £3 'in partye ofpayment of a more somme' for painting a picture of Lady Margaret for Christ's College,Cambridge. Wolff may not, of course, have been paid the same amount for each of his twopaintings, but whichever way one looks at this evidence Wewyck's painting was clearly moreexpensive. The most probable reason is simply that Wewyck's painting was larger. Wewyck, aswe have also already seen, was at this same time working on designs for Lady Margaret's tomb,and we learn from the records in connection with this that the two copies of the design which wasfinally approved by the executors were 'made in cloth beyng the length of her tombe wroughtwith colours'.26 This design, then, painted on canvas and presumably including a full-lengthrecumbent figure of Lady Margaret, was life-size. Whether the 'picture and image' of LadyMargaret for which Wewyck was paid 335. \d. was also full-length and life-size we do not know.In the light of these pieces of evidence, however, the unique panel-painting which survives todayin the Hall of Christ's College, showing Lady Margaret life-size and full-length standing, is veryinteresting (fig. 6).27

The painting is, unfortunately, in very poor condition, and this cannot now be improved.It was cleaned in 1884, and again in 1977. In the report which he sent to Christ's Collegeafter examining the picture in 1977, the restorer Mr John Hargrave commented that thepaintwork was badly damaged and had been much repainted. Mr Hargrave subsequentlyremoved the overpaint from the face, barbe, head-dress and hands, and restored theseareas.28 Caution is needed, therefore, in assessing the painting on the grounds of its presentappearance. However, it seems that one can be fairly confident in supposing that the variousfeatures in the restored areas follow basically the forms in which they were first painted. Onenotes, then, that, as with the Hampton Court painting (fig. 5), the folds in the wimple areonly roughly similar to the pattern shown in the early miniature (fig. 4). Also, the wimple'spleated border is here much lighter in colour than the rest of the wimple, looking like a bandof different, thicker cloth. Part of the reason for its lighter appearance, however, is that thevertical pleats of the barbe, indicated by closely spaced lines of white paint, begin at this point.This means, of course, that the painter misunderstood the barbe as being a kind of borderattached to the wimple. Looking next at the back of the head-dress, one sees that, again aswith the Hampton Court painting, the crumpled folds shown in the miniature have been lostcompletely and there is no indication of the tippet visible here. Finally, as with the HamptonCourt painting, the features of the face have been normalized to the extent that the likenesshas been lost. All of these observations incline one very much to concur with the date sug-gested for this painting by the late Dr John Fletcher on the basis of tree-ring measurements,c. 1580-90.29


At the same time, however, the possibility is there that this painting is a reflection—athowever many removes—of a full-length portrait produced by Wewyck for Lady Margaret 'sexecutors, perhaps the documented portrait painted for Christ's College in 1510-13. As DrTudor-Craig has pointed out, the text shown inside the prayer book held by Lady Margarethere would have been very appropriate to a design produced in connection with her tomb-effigy:it comes from St John ' s Gospel, 11:25: 'Ego sum resurrectio et vita: qui credit in me, etiam simortuus fuerit, vivet' ('I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though hewere dead, yet shall he live').30 Although the majority of the surviving half-length portraits alsoshow Lady Margaret holding a prayer book open before her, this text is in fact unique to thispainting. Another point worth noting is that, if one compares the representation of the handshere with the way they are represented in the half-length portraits, certain differences emerge.Firstly, the thumb of Lady Margaret 's left hand is completely visible, whereas in the half-lengthportraits it disappears inside the prayer book (e.g. figs. 5, 7-8). Then, Lady Margaret 's righthand is shown in an anatomically rather unconvincing position, with the thumb resting on topof the prayer book's pages. In the half-length portraits only the tip of the thumb of this hand isvisible, while the fingers appear, much more naturally, round the edge of the prayer book. Thesedifferences may seem to be too minor to count for very much, but one must bear in mind thatElizabethan copyists were not given to making deliberate changes to the image from which theywere working without some reason. It is difficult to see what reason there could have been formaking these particular alterations if the painter had been basing his work on one of thestandard half-lengths. The simple extension of such an image from half-length to full-lengthwould surely not have necessitated any alteration of the hands. It is more likely that the painterreproduced the hands and prayer book more or less faithfully from whatever source he wasusing, and that this source was therefore different from the standard half-length portraits,though still closely related to them.

It has been objected that the idea of a full-size, full-length portrait being painted inEngland in 1510-13 is art-historically implausible, because a portrait of this kind would beunparalleled at such an early date. In England, it is true, nothing comparable survives beforeHolbein's portrait of Christina of Denmark, painted in 1538 (National Gallery, London).Moreover, in north European painting of the earlier sixteenth century there does not appear tobe any independent portrait which would exactly parallel a full-size, full-length portrait of LadyMargaret . However, there is certainly enough evidence to show that full-length portraits of thissize were being produced at that time on the Continent as part of larger works. Most of thesurviving examples either are or were part of religious compositions: painted on the wings ofaltarpieces, they represent the donors. In the Netherlands there are the portraits of theArchduke Philip the Fair and his wife Joanna of Castile, painted by an unknown artist on eachwing of the Zierikzee Last Judgement triptych of c. 1505 (Musees Royaux des Beaux-Arts deBelgique, Brussels).31 In Germany there are several instances: Diirer's Paumgdrtner Altarpiece ofc. 1502, in which the saints depicted on the wings, George and Eustace, are very probablyportraits of the Paumgartner brothers, Stephen and Lucas (Alte Pinakothek, Munich); 3 2 thedouble portrait of Claus and Margaret Stalburg associated with the lost panel of a Crucifixion,attributed to Jorg Ratgeb, 1504 (Stadelsches Kunstinstitut, Frankfurt);33 and the portrait ofConrad Rehlinger the elder, standing in front of a brocaded red cloth, painted by BernhardStrigel in 1517—opposite him, on the other wing, stand his eight children (Alte Pinakothek,Munich) . 3 4 Also in Germany, and evidently intended for a secular context, are the impressivepanels showing Henry the Pious, Duke of Saxony, and his wife Katherine, painted by Lucas


Cranach the elder in 1514 (Gemaldegalerie, Dresden). It seems likely that these two portraitswere in fact originally painted on a single panel, and that they therefore belong to a tradition offull-length double portraits which, as Dr Lome Campbell has recently shown, goes back into thefifteenth century in Germany, the Netherlands and Italy.3S In view of the context provided bythese examples it is by no means impossible that the peculiar circumstances of Wewyck'scommission for likenesses of Lady Margaret, at a time when he was also making designs for hertomb-effigy, should have prompted him to attempt a full-size, full-length painting.

Lastly, some consideration needs to be given to the half-length portraits of Lady Margaret.Although it is quite probable that the two portraits for which Wolff was paid by the executors in1510—11 were half-lengths, neither of these has survived. Nor, so far as is known, has thehalf-length portrait which is listed among the pictures of members of Henry VIII's familyhanging in the Palace of Westminster in 1542, and again just after Edward VI's accession in1547. The entry in both of these inventories is very brief, describing the portrait simply as '. . .the picture of Henry the seventh his mother being Countess of Richemont. . .'. One can deducethat it was a half-length portrait, however, from Abraham van der Doort's later description of itas one of'Nyne old heades' hanging in Whitehall Palace in the time of Charles I: ' . . . the Picture. . . of Kinge Henrie ye 7ths Moother. In a white mourning dressing habbitt Houlding a Blackbooke in her hands . . .'. According to Sir Oliver Millar, this portrait seems to have beenrecovered by the Crown at the Restoration, but not to be recorded in the royal collection after1714.36

There exist a number of visual sources which can help us to gain a better idea of what thisportrait in the royal collection looked like. Firstly, there is the miniature portrait by LucasHorenbout which has already been referred to (fig. 4). As was remarked above, this miniature islikely to have been derived directly from the portrait in the royal collection. It is a work of highquality, and is undoubtedly our best source for the appearance of the head in the royal collectionportrait. But, because of its format, the miniature shows little more than the head; and becauseits blue background and gold lettering are standard features of Horenbout's miniatures, theycannot be considered to tell us anything about the background behind the head in the royalcollection portrait.37 For information about the portrait's appearance in the areas beyond thehead, then, one has to look elsewhere.

On stylistic grounds, another portrait belonging to Christ's College, Cambridge, has a verygood claim to be the earliest in date of the surviving half-lengths, and in fact to be of about thesame date as the miniature (fig. 7).38 The distinctiveness of this portrait's style lies in itsneatness and clarity, achieved by a kind of artistic understatement. The forms of the figure aredefined by outlines which are precise without ever being emphatic, and the modelling of theforms is indicated by gentle gradations of tone in pink or grey paint very thinly and evenlyapplied. The effect is almost of a coloured drawing rather than an oil-painting. This style placesthe painting among a corpus of panel-portraits which have come to be described as products ofthe 'Cast Shadow workshop'. The reason for this name is that the first examples to be recognizedand grouped together, by C. K. Adams in the 1960s, all had backgrounds of flat colour—eithergreen, brown or orange-red—against which the sitter cast a shadow. As the workshop's style ofpainting the sitters themselves then emerged more clearly, it became possible to add to thegroup portraits without any obvious cast shadow in the background. (In a number of cases thebackground has probably been overpainted at a later date, and that is certainly true of thisportrait of Lady Margaret, as will be seen below.) The number of surviving portraits which havebeen identified as products of this workshop now stands at about twenty-five. Almost all of them


FIG. 7. Cast Shadow workshop: Lady Margaret Beaufort. Panel, 505 by 359mm.c. 1530-40. Christ's College, CambridgePhotograph: reproduced by permission of the Master


depict members of Henry VIII's family, about a dozen being portraits of royal predecessors,and it seems that the latest in date is a portrait of Prince Edward (later Edward VI) which,judging from his apparent age, was painted c. 1542. Most of the portraits were probablyproduced during the 1530s, and Sir Roy Strong has pointed out that their date coincides with atime when we know there was much activity going on in the decoration of the palaces ofWhitehall and Hampton Court.39

If one compares the Cast Shadow workshop's portraits of Henry VIII's Plantagenetpredecessors, Henry V, Henry VI, Edward IV and Richard III, with the portraits of those kingswhich still survive in the royal collection today, one sees that they are clearly related.40 Themaster of the workshop was evidently required to base these likenesses on 'approved' sourceswhich were already in Henry VIII's collection—and the same is therefore likely to be true of thelikeness of Lady Margaret. But when one looks in more detail, one realizes that the Cast Shadowworkshop copies vary in the faithfulness with which they reflect the prime images, and none ofthem is in fact a very accurate copy. This warns one to approach the portrait of Lady Margaretwith caution. In spite of its comparatively early date, one needs ways of checking its reliability asa reflection of the lost royal collection portrait.

One can gain some idea of the Cast Shadow workshop portrait's reliability, of course, bycomparing its representation of Lady Margaret's head with that in the miniature portrait(fig. 4). Immediately here one is struck by the close similarity of the faces: they correspond verywell indeed, with the exception that in the panel-portrait the eyes have been made a littlesmaller in relation to the area of the whole face. This is another distinctive characteristic of theCast Shadow workshop's portraits. Relatively small eyes, and mouths, are seen in many of theirother copies of earlier works, and also characterize their portraits of contemporary sitters.41 Thetwo heads also correspond very well in terms of the treatment of the folds of drapery in thewimple and at the back of the head-dress. However, looking further at the head-dress, onenotices that in the panel-portrait the lappets of Lady Margaret's hood are plain, lacking thecrimped effect which is shown in the miniature. In fact, it is evident from faint traces which arestill visible that the painter of the panel-portrait began by including this feature, and thendecided to cover it over. (There is no reason to suppose that the plain white paint on the lappetswas added by a later hand.) Then, although the two layers of Lady Margaret's neckwear areshown with excellent clarity on her chin, the pleats of the barbe are not continued downwardsover the rest of the area of the wimple. Perhaps, again, this was because the painter preferred toleave the white areas of the costume as plain as possible: the wimple is also shown here without apleated border. The transparent gauze of the barbe is in fact visible, painted very delicately,overlying the wimple at its far edge. But, still looking at this far edge, one sees that the gauze isnot continued down beyond the bottom of the wimple; it seems rather to turn inwards, as thoughit were somehow secured beneath the wimple. This does not accord very easily with the fact thatthe vertical pleats of the gauze barbe begin to be indicated again below the wimple, against theblack area of the costume, and one must conclude that, in trying to make the costume look moreplain and simple, the painter has here depicted something which does not quite make sense.These differences from the miniature are a strong indication that the Cast Shadow workshoppainter was indeed exercising a degree of artistic licence in copying from the prime image.42

Another way in which one can check the reliability of the Cast Shadow workshop portrait isby turning to some of the later half-length versions of the same type. In a small number of theselater paintings the details of the drapery in Lady Margaret's neckwear and head-dress areshown in the same way as they appear in the miniature. An example of good quality is


FIG. 8. Unknown artist: Lady Margaret Beaufort. Panel, 572 by 438mm. c. 1590-1600. In thecollection of Mrs Barker Mill in 1954; present location unknown

Photograph: National Portrait Gallery, London


reproduced here in figure 8. This painting, the present location of which is unknown, was in thecollection of a Mrs Barker Mill in 1954, when it was photographed for the National PortraitGallery. Its dimensions are recorded as being 572 by 438mm, which is typical of portraitsproduced for Long Gallery sets in the years c. 1590-1600. Because the details of the drapery arerepresented correctly here, and because the facial features also correspond well with thoseshown in the miniature (rather than being normalized, as we have seen them to be in some of theother versions of about this date), one can probably regard this painting as being the work of acareful copyist. One would only point out that the overall format of the painting is likely to be alittle wider than that of the original work: this kind of difference is observable between similarcopies of portraits of the later Plantagenet kings and the surviving originals.43 In the latterrespect, therefore, the Cast Shadow workshop portrait is likely to reflect the original work moreaccurately than this painting. In other respects, beyond the head of the figure, the two imagesare in substantial agreement. In both of them Lady Margaret's prayer book has a gilt clasp, andthe text on the pages inside it is written in two columns (in contrast to the Hampton Courtportrait (fig. 5) where the prayer book has ties hanging from its upper corners, and blank pages).In both there are decorative gilt spandrels in the upper corners of the picture and in both therewas originally a background of brocaded cloth behind the figure. The painting from thecollection of Mrs Barker Mill still has its original background, but that in the Cast Shadowworkshop portrait has, unfortunately, been painted over. The portrait's present backgroundconsists of a heavy layer of dark green paint which has become badly cracked. A technicalexamination carried out by Mrs Renate Woudhuysen-Keller in 1988 showed that 'islands' ofthe original background still survive beneath this layer. Sadly, much of the original backgroundwas removed before the layer of overpaint was applied. Enough survives, however, for one to beable to tell that the background was originally blue, and painted with a pattern like brocadedcloth.

From these various sources, then, one can gain a good idea of the appearance of the lostroyal collection portrait. It is, unfortunately, impossible to say whether the royal collectionportrait was itself an original work by Meynnart Wewyck. The portraits of the later Plantagenetkings which still survive in the royal collection and which are almost certainly identifiable withthose recorded in the 1542 and 1547 inventories have been shown to be copies dating from the1520s and '30s,40 so the same may have been true of the portrait of Lady Margaret. Nor can onesay whether the half-length format for portraits of Lady Margaret originated during her lifetimeor after her death. In a sense, however, the latter question is immaterial, since at whatever timethe half-length format began, it will most probably have been made up using the same drawingas was used for the portrait showing Lady Margaret full-length kneeling, without any furtherreference to the sitter herself. The continuation of theme between these two formats is clearlyshown by the inclusion of the prayer book and the background of brocaded cloth in thehalf-length image. Also, in the version of the full-length kneeling format by Rowland Lockey(fig. 2) the text inside the prayer book is written in two columns on each page, as it is in the betterversions of the half-length format. It may well be, in fact, that the earliest half-length portraits ofLady Margaret served a similar purpose to the kneeling portrait. It would not be hard toimagine the image as half of a diptych, or perhaps hanging, as an independent portrait, on a sidewall of a chapel so that Lady Margaret seemed to be looking towards the altar. In the lattercontext especially, the gilt spandrels might be seen as intended to indicate some kind ofarchitectural setting, giving the illusion that Lady Margaret was actually present in the chapel,sitting in a canopied pew. Fouquet's famous portrait of Charles VII of France (Louvre, Paris),

10


dating probably from the early 1450s, is likely to have served such a purpose in the church inwhich it is first recorded, the Sainte-Chapelle at Bourges. The king is shown, with his handsclasped prayerfully before him, beneath the fringed edge of a canopy whose curtains are openedto reveal him. Gilt spandrels similar to those in the portrait of Lady Margaret occur in the royalcollection portraits of Henry VI , Edward IV and.Richard I I I , and although, as has alreadybeen mentioned, these portraits are early sixteenth-century copies, there is good reason tobelieve that the spandrels were also present in the original portraits. At least with the Henry VI itis likely enough that the original portrait was intended for a religious context like that ofFouquet's Charles VII.4*

From the point of view of understanding how the half-length portraits of Lady Margaretwere used after her death, it is a pity that we know nothing at all about the intended purpose ofthe two, probably half-length, portraits which were commissioned by the executors from Wolff.All one can say is that these seem to have been independent paintings, rather than componentparts of diptyches. In the same way it is a pity that we are not told more precisely whereabouts inChrist's College, Cambridge, the expensive, perhaps full-length, portrait of Lady Margaretcommissioned from Wewyck was intended to hang. More especially is this the case since thisseems to be the earliest record we have of an independent memorial portrait of a founder beingpainted for an educational institution.45 It is, at least, certain that by 1542 a half-length portraitof Lady Margaret was hanging in a secular context in a royal palace, as one of a group ofportraits of members of the king's family. It is also certain that, considering the portraiture ofLady Margaret as a whole, we have here an early and quite remarkable example of theproliferation of a single basic image, during a period of about a century, to serve differentfunctions in different contexts in different artistic media.

NOTES1 See Scott 1915; also Lindley 1990, 113-16. York, and previously Lord Brownlow, Belton2 See Campbell 1990, 183-5, 2 I 5 - House, Grantham.3 Cooper 1874, 198, quoting from the executors' 6 Cooper 1874, 185.

accounts preserved at St John's College. 7 Ibid., 259-60; Auerbach 1954, 193.4 For this documentation see Campbell 1985, xv. 8 See Millar 1963, 51-2, No. 15.

Wewyck has been discussed by Kipling 1977, 9 See Tudor-Craig 1977, 94, P47.52-66, but unfortunately Kipling's account of the 10 Examples are at Swynnerton Park (Lord Staf-portraits which he attributes to Wewyck needs to be ford), Capesthorne (Lady Bromley Davenport),treated with extreme caution. Sledmere (SirTattonSykes, Bt.), Stjohn's College,

5 For example, the portrait of Henry VII which Cambridge, and the National Portrait Gallerywas sold at Christie's, 22 November 1985 (lot 94); (NPG 551); another was in the collection of Mrson this see Fletcher 1983, 373-4 and pi. LXV. This Barker Mill in 1954 (repr. here, fig. 8); others wereportrait has a mark in the form of a section through sold at Christie's, 16 December 1949 (lot 167), anda pomegranate incised on the back of its panel, and, 11 November 1983 (lot 136), the latter from theas Dr Fletcher points out, an identical mark occurs collection of Viscount Mountgarret and previouslyon the back of a portrait of Elizabeth of York at Mrs H. F. M. Tempest. Smaller versions, but prob-Holyrood Palace, Edinburgh (Duke of Hamilton): ably of similar date, areatSyon (DukeofNorthum-these two portraits were therefore presumably pro- berland), Hatfield (Marquess of Salisbury),duced at about the same time. Another early por- Wingfield Castle (Mr Gerard Fairhurst), andtrait of Henry VII is at Hinton Waldrist, Chequers. That belonging to the University ofOxfordshire (Mr N.Davenport), and another was Cambridge (Old Schools) was evidently given tosold at Parke-Bernet's, New York, 14 March 1951 the University in 1580, but has been crudely over-(lot 16), from the collection of Irving T. Bush, New painted. The large version—i04i.4by 736.6mm—


at Stanford Hall (Lord Braye) has a face whichlooks disconcertingly like an ad vivum portrait of anElizabethan or Jacobean contemporary. Photo-graphs of many of these paintings are in theNational Portrait Gallery's reference archive, and Iam grateful to the Director and staff of the Galleryfor allowing me to consult them.

11 Strong 1969, 1, 125-6; 2, pi. 249; for paintedportraits based on death masks and on representa-tions of corpses see Campbell 1990, 190, 194.

12 See Tudor-Craig 1977, 82, ¥7, and Strong1983a, 93, No. 123, both listing previous literature.St John ' s College also owns a copy of this picture,and there is a half-length version of it at Knowsley(Earl of Derby).

13 Quoted by Millar 1963, 51-2, No. 15. Millarnoted the probable similarity between the paintingrecorded here and that by Rowland Lockey, ashave, subsequently, Strong and Tudor-Craig. Thispainting does not seem to be identifiable in anylater inventories of the royal collection.

14 For this diptych, which is in the Museum voorSchone Kunsten, Ghent (Inv. 1973-A), see VanOrley 1981, No. 33. A very similar diptych by thesame artist, with a portrait of Chretien de Hondt,Abbot of Notre Dame des Dunes near Bruges, is inthe Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten,Antwerp; its panels retain their round-topped for-mat (see Friedlander 1967-76, vol.4, 75, No. 37,and pi. 44). I am grateful to M. Johan Anthonis forproviding this information.

l s cf. also another, slightly later, diptych showingMargaret of Austria kneeling before the Virgin andChild. This was painted c. 1518 by Bernart vanOrley, and showed both Margaret and the Virginat somewhat more than half-length, on either sideof a table which was continued from one panel intothe other. Margaret was depicted in widow's cloth-ing, and the portrait was clearly related to herstandard 'official' independent portrait, also byVan Orley, of which a number of examples survive.The diptych has been split up: the left panel,round-topped and measuring 2 4 o b y i 8 o m m ,showing the Virgin and Child, is in the collection ofthe Prince of Wied in Munich, and what wasperhaps the original portrait of Margaret , con-verted to an oval format, was sold in Amsterdam.At least two copies of the complete work exist. SeeFriedlander 1967-76, vol .8, 61, 109, No. 133, andpi. 115.

It is jus t possible that Lockey's painting ofLady Margaret was derived from an illuminatedminiature in a book. cf. the kneeling figure of JohnColet, Dean of St Paul 's, in a volume of the NewTestament which was copied out for Colet by the

Netherlandish scribe Peter Meghen in 1509 (Cam-bridge University Library, MS Dd. vii. 3, fol. 5;reproduced in colour Williams 1973, 95); also thefigure of Henry V I I I at prayer in the Liber Niger ofthe Order of the Garter, of c. 1534 (reproducedStrong 1983a, 42). However, it is difficult to imag-ine that the heraldic details shown in Lockey'spainting could have been included in a representa-tion on such a small scale.

16 Printed, with notes, Strutt 1842, 2, 212-14. Iam grateful to Miss Margaret Scott for providingme with a copy of this, and for giving me her owncomments on the costume.

17 Strong 1983a, 39, Nos. 12, 13. For this corpusof miniatures and Lucas Horenbout see ibid.,34-44; Strong 1983b, 29-44; I y e s '986, 56, 287-8;Backhouse 1989, 1-17; Backhouse 1991, 88-92.The documentary evidence for Horenbout 's careeris given in full by Campbell and Foister 1986,

721-5-18 T h a t the likeness in the miniature was taken

from this source is further suggested by the fact thatthe only other miniature in the Horenbout corpusto have been copied from a panel-painting, that ofthe Emperor Charles V, was based on a paintingwhich was in the royal collection and which, in thisinstance, is still there today: see Strong 1983a, 38-9,No. 11.

19 See, e.g., Gerard David's painting of CanonBernardino de Salviatis and three saints, datingfrom shortly after 1501, and the same artist 's paint-ing of the Betrothal of St Catherine with the donorRichard van der Capelle, dating from between 1500and 1511 (National Gallery, London, Nos. 1045and 1432: Friedlander 1967-76, vol. 6b, 80, 108,Nos. 219, 216, and pis. 223, 221.

2 0 See, e.g. Scott 1986, Nos. 69, 74, 79, 105 (allhead-dresses, including that of Giovanna Arnolfini,1434), and No. 131 (analogous to Lady Margaret 'sneckcloth: that worn by St Elizabeth of Hungary ina painting of c. 1485-90).

2 1 Examples can be seen in the tomb-effigy ofPhilippa, Duchess of York (died 1431), in West-minster Abbey (illustrated and discussed Taylor1983, 74-5), and in the memorial brass of HenryStathum, which includes a representation of hiswidow Margaret , of c. 1481, in Morley church,Derbyshire (illustrated and discussed Scott 1986,No. 120).

22 cf. the eldest d a u g h t e r in Meml inc ' s MoreelTriptych of 1484 (Groeninge M u s e u m , Bruges) ,r ep roduced Scott 1980, 191. St El izabeth of H u n -gary (Scott 1986, No. 131) was p re sumab ly shownwear ing a wimple because she had become a Fran-ciscan tertiary.

138 THE ANTIQUARIES JOURNAL23 Strutt 1842, 2, 213.24 For a very similar example, in this case worn

as clothing, see the painting of J eanne de Bourbon-Vendome, Comtesse de la Tourd 'Auvergne , by theMaster of the de la Tour d'Auvergne Triptych,dat ing from between 1495 and 1498 (NorthCarolina Museum of Art, Raleigh; reproducedScott 1986, No. 145). cf. also the cloth covering theprayer-desks of Henry V I I and Elizabeth of York inthe painting in the royal collection by an unknownartist, dating probably from c. 1505-9, in which theking and queen are shown with their childrenkneeling as donors in the foreground, with StGeorge fighting the dragon behind them (Millar1963, 52-3 , No. 19, and pi. 1). The latest example ofthis type of cloth-design which has been foundoccurs in portraits of Kather ine of Aragon(National Portrait Gallery (NPG 163) andMuseum of Fine Arts, Boston: see Strong 1969, 1,39-40, 2, pis. 73-4). There it appears on the sleevesof the dress, and incorporates emblematicpomegranates.

25 Tudor-Cra ig 1977, 91 , P41.26 Scott 1915, 371.27 O n this portrait see Tudor-Craig 1977, 91 ,

P41, also listing previous literature; Goodison 1985,No. 71. I am grateful to the late M r J o h n Mitchell,Keeper of the Portraits at Christ 's College, Cam-bridge, for drawing my attention to the latter publi-cation. I should like to record here my grati tude toM r Mitchell for showing me the portraits atChrist 's College and for providing me with muchvaluable information about them.

28 For a pho tograph of the picture before thecleaning and restorat ion of 1977 see Strong 1969, 2,pi. 34.

" F l e t c h e r 1974, 255; Tudor -Cra ig 1977, 91 ,P41 . Chr is t ' s College has owned a n u m b e r of differ-ent portrai ts of Lady Marga re t at various times,and it is impossible to tell whether this par t icularone is being referred to in the earlier records.Goodison (1985, No. 71) points out that the paint-ing may or may not be identifiable with either oftwo portrai ts which are recorded as having beenreceived by the College in 1601 and 1602. I a mdoubtful whether , as Goodison states, the mezzo-tint engraved b y j . Fabe r senior in 1714 was basedon this paint ing: the mezzotint shows a half-lengthfigure with the hands in a different posi t ion—thesame position, in fact, as occurs in many half-lengthportrai ts of Lady M a r g a r e t — a n d a backgroundwith a pa t te rn of large heraldic portcullises andT u d o r roses among foliage.

30 Tudo r -Cra ig 1977 ,91 , P41 .31 See Campbe l l 1990, 100-1 , 103.

32 Strieder 1980, 40, 4 2 - 5 , No. 73.33 Os ten and Vey 1969, 106.34 Descargues 1958, 8, 65.35 Campbe l l 1990, 53-4 , 124-5. Some of the

portrai ts ment ioned here from documents werelarge, probably life-size; surviving examples tend tobe smaller. Full-length portrai ts of single subjects,some life-size, but mostly I ta l ian, are discussedibid., 56.

36 Millar 1963, 52, No. 15, with quotations fromthe Henry VIII, Edward VI and Charles Iinventories.

37 In connection with the miniature's gold let-tering, it may be noted here that Horenbout was nota good Latinist: the words for 'King Henry VII' arewritten in the nominative case, whereas they oughtto be in the genitive case, agreeing withHllustrissimi'.

38 This portrait has been at Christ's College foronly a comparatively short time: it was apparentlybequeathed in 1927 by the then Master, Sir ArthurShipley, for whom it had been purchased atSotheby's on 25 February 1925. Its provenanceprior to that is unknown (Goodison 1985, No. 74).

39 Strong 1983b, 42. Strong gives a list of por-traits associated with the Cast Shadow workshopibid., 192-3, note 51, but a number of others havebeen added since 1983. For the portrait of PrinceEdward (NPG 1132) see Strong 1969, 1, 88, 92; 2,pi. 165.

40 For the royal collection's portraits of these fourkings see Millar 1963, 50-1, Nos. 6, 8, 10, 14. Allfour can be reasonably safely identified with thoserecorded in the inventories of 1542 and 1547,though they are themselves copies of earlier worksnow lost (see Fletcher 1974, 256-7; Hepburn 1986,27-89 passim). From the Cast Shadow workshopthere survive one Henry V (private collection), threeHenry Vh (NPG 2457; DOE No. 339; Society ofAntiquaries of London No. 16), three Edward IVs(NPG 3542; DOE No. 1262; Society of AntiquariesNo. 17) and two Richard Ills (Society of AntiquariesNo. 21, and a portrait sold at St Gudule, Brussels,27-30 June 1921, present location unknown). Forphotographic comparisons see Strong 1969, 2, pis.161, 163, 283-4; Hepburn 1986, pis. 47-8, 54, 60.

41 cf. the National Portrait Gallery's MargaretPole, Countess of Salisbury (NPG 2607: Strong 1983a,No. 24), and the royal collection's Mary of Hungary,Regent of the Netherlands (for which see Baker 1937,124 and pi. 44). The latter picture, now atHampton Court, is the only Cast Shadow workshopportrait still to remain in the royal collection. Inthat it represents a contemporary Netherlandishsitter, it may prove to be a key portrait in the


workshop's ceuvre. Measuring 489 by 330mm, it is the collection of Mrs Barker Mill were sold atclose in size to the Lady Margaret Beaufort Christie 's, 16 December 1949 (lot 167) and(505 by 359mm), as are several other surviving por- 11 November 1983 (lot 136); see note 10 above,traits from the workshop. I am grateful to M r J . 44 Hepburn 1986, 47-8 , 76-8 (on the authen-Cowell for enabling me to examine the Mary of deity of the spandrels in the royal collectionHungary at Hampton Court . Henry VI and Richard III), 53 and pis. 35, 40 (on the

42 The differences between the Cast Shadow purpose of the original Henry VI, in view of itsworkshop portrait and the miniature also go similarity to Fouquet 's Charles VII).against Strong's suggestion that the master of the 45 There is good reason to suppose that the smallCast Shadow workshop may actually have been portrait of Bishop William Elphinstone which sur-Lucas Horenbout (Strong 1983b, 42-4) . The two vives in the possession of Aberdeen University wasimages are certainly similar, even stylistically, but cut out and adapted from a larger donor painting,the differences are also significant. Bishop Elphinstone founded King's College,

43 For photographs of late sixteenth-century Aberdeen, in 1495. For his portrait see Macfarlanecopies of the s tandard portrait of Richard I I I as 1985, frontispiece and 334-5. I am grateful to M rcompared with the royal collection original see Charles Hun t for drawing my attention to thisTudor-Cra ig 1977, pis. 26-9. Other portraits of publication.Lady Margaret which are similar to the one from

BIBLIOGRAPHYAUERBACH, E. 1954. Tudor Artists, LondonBACKHOUSE, J. 1989. 'Illuminated manuscripts and the early development of the portrait miniature' in

Early Tudor England: Proceedings of the ig8y Harlaxton Symposium (ed. D. Williams), 1-17, Woodbridge, 1991. 'Illuminated manuscripts and the development of the portrait miniature' in Henry VIII. A

European Court in England (ed. D. Starkey), 88-92, LondonBAKER, C. H. COLLINS, 1937. Catalogue of the Principal Pictures in the Royal Collection at Windsor Castle, LondonCAMPBELL, L. 1985. The Early Flemish Pictures in the Collection of Her Majesty The Queen, Cambridge

, 1990. Renaissance Portraits. European Portrait-Painting in the Fourteenth, Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries,New Haven and London

CAMPBELL, L. and FOISTER, S. 1986. 'Gerard, Lucas and Susanna Horenbout', Burlington Mag., 128,7I9-27

C O O P E R , C. H. 1874. Memoir of Margaret, Countess of Richmond and Derby, CambridgeDESCARGUES, P. 1958. German Painting from the Fourteenth to the Sixteenth Centuries, LondonFLETCHER, J. 1974. 'Tree ring dates for some panel paintings in England', Burlington Mag., 116, 250-8

, 1983. 'A portrait of Henry VII with a pomegranate incised on its panel', Antiq.J., 63, 373-4FRIEDLANDER, M.J. 1967-76. Early Netherlandish Painting (trans. H. Norden), 14V0IS., Leiden and BrusselsG O O D I S O N , J . W. 1985. Catalogue of portraits in Christ's, Clare and Sidney Sussex Colleges, Cambridge Antiq. Rec.

Soc, 7H E P B U R N , F. 1986. Portraits of the Later Plantagenets, WoodbridgeIVES, E. W. 1986. Anne Boleyn, OxfordK I P L I N G , G. 1977. The Triumph of Honour. Burgundian Origins of the Elizabethan Renaissance, Sir Thomas

Browne Institute, LeidenLINDLEY, P. 1990.' "Una grande opera al mio Re": gilt-bronze effigies in England from the Middle Ages to

the Renaissance',,/. Brit. Archaeol. Ass., 143, 112-30MACFARLANE, L. J . 1985. William Elphinstone and the Kingdom of Scotland 1431-1514. The Struggle for Order,

AberdeenM I L L A R , O . 1963. The Tudor, Stuart and Early Georgian Pictures in the Collection of Her Majesty The Queen, 2 vols.,

LondonO S T E N , G. VON DER and V E Y , H. 1969. Painting and Sculpture in Germany and the Netherlands 1500-1600, T h e

Pelican History of Art, HarmondsworthSCOTT, M. 1980. Late Gothic Europe, 1400-1500, The History of Dress Series, London and New Jersey

, 1986.^4 Visual History of Costume: The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, London


SCOTT, R. F. 1915. 'On the contracts for the tomb of the Lady Margaret Beaufort . . . ' , Archaeologia, 66,365-72

STRIEDER, P. 1980. Diirer: The Complete Paintings, LondonSTRONG, R. 1969. Tudor and Jacobean Portraits, 2 vols., London

, 1983a. Artists of the Tudor Court. The Portrait Miniature Rediscovered 1520-1620 (exhibition catalogue,Victoria and Albert Museum), London

1983 b. The English Renaissance Miniature, LondonSTRUTT, J. 1842. A Complete View of the Dress and Habits of the People of England, 2 vols., LondonTAYLOR, L. 1983. Mourning Dress. A Costume and Social History. LondonTUDOR-CRAIG, P. 1977. Richard III (exhibition catalogue, National Portrait Gallery, 1973), 2nd edition,

LondonVAN ORLEY, 1981. Van Orley et les Artistes de la Cour de Marguerite d'Autriche (exhibition catalogue, Musee de

l'Ain, Bourg-en-Bresse)WILLIAMS, N. 1973. The Life and Times of Henry VII, London