Nature and Art, February 1, 1867.] 
HOLBEIN IN GERMANY. 
53 
Dresden Gallery appeals, as tlie fairest ideal of 
German womanhood. The face, all clearness and 
light, scarce perceptibly broken by the eyebrows ; 
the tenderly drooping eyelids, the graceful build of 
the neck, and the dimple in the chin ; all these 
are features to be gazed at and remembered with 
indescribable delight. Even Mrs. Jameson * 
admits that her half-deified Raphael has never 
surpassed this Virgin Mother. At her right hand 
kneel the Burgomaster and his youthful son, the 
hitter holding up a beautiful naked boy ; at her 
left is the Burgomaster’s mother ’or mother-in-law, 
his wife, and their daughter, a girl just entering her 
teens. This is the old-fashioned monumental 
arrangement.* It is not improbable that the 
elderly woman, though represented as living, was 
just dead when the picture was first designed, and 
that it was literally her epitaph, — intended, namely, 
to be placed above her tomb. 
Every visitor to the Dresden Gallery is struck by 
two things, — the loveliness of the Madonna and 
the sickliness of the child. The gossip will tell 
him that the child is not Christ at all, but a sick 
infant of Meyer’s ; an idea which seems to have 
originated with Ludwig Tieck. To this some will 
add, that she has set down her own beautiful boy 
in front of her. Another suggests, and the notion 
is at least more agreeable with the character of the 
age, that the design was made in memory of the 
naked standing boy, and that the infant in arms 
represents his soul. But the conjectures are all 
thrown away, for the infant is extending his hand 
in the act of blessing. Moreover, this picture must 
be compared with the original ; for, after all, the 
Dresden Madonna, though entirely designed, and 
partly executed by Holbein, is not a first original. 
At Darmstadt is the great treasure, the property 
of the Princess Charles of Hesse. And yet, per- 
haps, both treasures are equal ; for the enthralling- 
beauty of which we have spoken is not to be found 
in the Darmstadt picture. She is here painted 
from an entirely different model, with more 
decided features, more marked and darker eye- 
brows, and an expression of more forcible grandeur. 
No one could talk here of a sickly child, for the 
child is smiling brightly. Dr. Woltmann proves, 
we think conclusively, that this is entirely Holbein’s 
work, executed in his first period ; and that the 
Dresden picture is later, and only Holbein’s so far as 
the Madonna and child are concerned. These were 
new, and so was the plan of the architectural back- 
ground : the family figures were copied by an as- 
sistant. The latter are very fine ; still they are clumsy 
when compared with the originals. The Darmstadt 
picture was almost certainly placed in a church, 
and withdrawn by its owner when the tumults 
began. Its history is dark ; probably because it 
followed the dark fortunes of the Meyers. The 
males of the family are supposed to have quitted 
Basle soon after 1529, like many of their co- 
religionists. The mother accompanied them, no 
* “ Legends of the Madonna.” Second edition, p. 102. 
London, 1857. 
doubt ; but she left one member of the group 
behind her. The Dresden Madonna can be clearly 
traced back to the immediate descendants of her 
daughter Anna ; and Dr. Woltmann has adorned 
its history with a pretty episode, partly conjectural, 
but partly founded upon documentary evidence. 
We must premise by stating that Anna’s de- 
scendants possessed, besides the Madonna, two 
independent portraits of her parents ; fine old 
copies after the Holbeins, which were lithographed 
for our Christmas number. And now for Dr. 
Woltmann’s story. Anna, the demure little 
maiden of the picture, kneeling beside her mother, 
was just entering her teens when the Darmstadt 
original was painted : she was just leaving them, 
about the end of 1529, when she was married, and 
had a new household of her own at Basle. Her 
parents were on the point of migrating ; and her 
most precious wedding-gifts were their portraits 
and the Dresden Madonna. Here she could still 
see the old household, including her former self, all 
lovingly united. But for the central figure Holbein 
had chosen a fresh model. The Virgin no longer 
appeared as the sublime patroness of the dead : 
she was a spiritual being, but of a softer splendour, 
better suited for the home of a young wife. Such 
is the story of the two Madonnas. 
The second volume of Dr. Woltmann’s work 
may be expected before long ; and it may possibly 
tempt us to give a short abstract of his views (a 
couple of papers, perhaps), on Holbein in England. 
Of Holbein in Germany we have little more to say. 
At the close of 1522 the town-hall frescoes were sus- 
pended, and nearly all important works of art came 
to a stand-still. The Church and State authorities 
were hoarding their funds, with grim forebodings 
of civil war. Holbein could find few private 
patrons like Meyer or Amerbach ; and he was not 
the sort of man to live quietly upon the mere alms 
of friendship. He could earn his own bread by 
designing for publishers and goldsmiths ; but it 
was not enough to feed his family. His father died 
in 1524 : his own home was unhappy, and he 
began to turn his thoughts towards foreign 
countries. It is probable that his uncle Sigmund 
at Berne, and his other German friends, could offer 
him very poor prospects of employment. Erasmus 
urged him to try England, and sent one of his 
own portraits to Sir Thomas More, with a letter 
commending the painter to his notice. The letter 
is lost ; but More’s reply, dated the 18 th of 
December, 1525, runs thus: — “Thy painter is 
a wonderful artist, but I fear that England will 
not prove as fertile as he hopes. Yet I will take 
care that he shall not find it utterly barren.” 
Holbein still hesitated. But matters did not 
mend at Basle. After 1522, there is no entry of 
payments made to him by the State, till March, 
1526, and that is for painting two heraldic shields ! 
At length the important moment arrived. A letter 
from Erasmus to a friend at Antwerp, dated 29th 
August, 1526, contains the following passage. 
“ The bearer of this is the man who has painted me. I 
will not burthen thee with his praises, though ho is an 
