15. A long-shaped picture of a tournament by Baldinucci Pisano, 1410.

This picture exhibits the Lombardic fashion in costume, which spread over Europe about fifteen or twenty years after. It is more valuable as an object of curiosity than as a work of art.

16. Portrait of a lady with what may be termed the Cauchoise head-dress. Painted about the year 1450.

On the frame are the words "Marie d'Anjou, fille de Louis II. Roi de Naples, mariée en 1416 à Charles VII. morte en 1463;" which corresponds very well with the costume: but not so what follows, "peint par Jean de Bruges premier peintre á l'huile." On a paper at the back is "Portrait authentique de Marie d'Anjou, femme de Charles 7, peint par Jean Van Eyck (dit Jean de Bruges), inventeur de la peinture à l'huile, né à Mareyck, vers l'an 1370, mort 1441. Lé Monogram du Maitre semble être un ornement fixé sur la coiffe de la prinThe monogram is certainly a B, but the costume is later than the

cesse.

above date. The lady has a superb necklace, in which are alternately placed white and red cinquefoils, and pendant from it the letters C and V alternately. Mr. Douce has added in his own handwriting "F. Douce, the gift of his friend the Rev. Dr. Dibdin. See pl. 28 in Johnes's Froissard. See Mezeray, ii. 94. But it seems imaginary, though said to be from Fontainbleau. See Montfaucon, iii. Pl. 47, as in Monstrelet."

17. Altar-piece in two parts, with hinges; on one the Virgin and Child, with curtains supported by angels; on the other a lady aged 60, her son aged 30, and her daughter aged 23; and above, the date 1486.

Outside, on one cover, is the crucified Saviour, and the date 1486; on the other the sacramental cup and wafer, with the same date repeated. The faces are very good, but the figure of the Virgin, and especially that of the Child, are out of drawing.

18. Portrait of a lady in a costume certainly not older than the last; and therefore the earliest date that can be assigned to it is 1490.

The eyes squint a little, otherwise the face is pretty good. At the back

are the words" Johannes Van Eych, M,iiii,XXV."

19. Two folding doors of an altarpiece; outside of one, Christ bearing his cross, much in the position of that at Magdalen College, Oxford; on the other Each the Virgin Mary on her knees. have labels above, with portions of Scripture in German text. Inside the former is a religious person on his knees, praying, attended by our Saviour, bearing the Lamb and the Virgin, with alabaster box. In the background a landscape, in the style of Breughel, and Christ_receiving baptism in the river Jordan. Inside the other, a priest with the clerical tonsure, kneeling, attended by a Saint in her splendid regal habit, holding the Gospels in one hand, and a sword in the other, with Christ holding a plank of wood. At the back a landscape as before, and St. Christopher crossing the river with the young Christ on his shoulders, 1500.

These are most exquisitely painted, and offer a very fine specimen of the German school.

20. The Virgin and Child, 1500.

This is carefully painted, and also by a German artist.

21. St. Ursula, a German portrait, three quarters length, and half the size of life, 1510.

This is very good. The background, where a castle is introduced, is in the style of Albert Durer. The peculiar costume of the figure gives the date.

22. Two circular portraits in one frame, each on a green ground, and by the same artist, whose mark is on each, and the date 1525.

These represent Martin Luther and Catherine à Boria, a nun of noble family, who abjured the vows in 1523, and became his wife in 1524. There is no beauty in her appearance, but both heads are very well painted.

23. Marguerite de Navarre, an original portrait, as proved by the inscription, which has, besides her name as above, the words" Soeur du roi François," and not "du roi Francois 1er," 1528.

24. Old man, Folly, female and Death, 1530.

This was imagined by Mr. Douce to have been painted by Holbein, but it is totally devoid of his delicacy of touch. It appears to be a Dutch painting of the above period.

25. A most exquisite miniature by Holbein, of Henry VIII. painted for and presented to Anne of Cleves in the year 1539.

26. A beautiful miniature by Holbein, like the last, in an ivory box, but the cover elaborately carved so as to imitate the English rose, 1539.

Of this latter miniature Walpole says: (Anecdotes of Painting in England) Holbein was next dispatched by Cromwell to draw the Lady Anne of Cleve, and by practising the common flattery of his profession, was the immediate cause of the destruction of that great subject, and of the disgrace that fell on the princess herself. He drew so favourable a likeness, that Henry was content to wed her; but

when he found her so inferior to the

miniature, the storm which really should have been directed at the painter, burst on the minister; and Cromwell lost his head because Anne was a Flanders mare, not a Venus, as Holbein had represented her." The picture itself is, however, anything but a Venus. It is not absolutely ugly, but what a man might, from other circumstances, rather make up his mind to than love. That it was flattered there is no doubt, but that it was a resemblance, the drawing of her by the same master, engraved and published by Chamberlayne, from the collection found in Queen Caroline's library, satisfactorily proves. The background of both these miniatures, which are circular, is sky-blue, Had Walpole seen this miniature, instead of forming his judgment from "the print among the 'Illustrious Heads' taken from it," he would not have said "he should doubt of its being the very portrait in question;" and though he with some reason thinks "the King was not nice, if from that picture he concluded her handsome enough," yet there would be no inducement for "Holbein to

How these miniatures got into the possession of the Barrets, of Kent, I have not had the means of ascertaining, but it is far from improbable that the King sent back the likeness of Anne of Cleves to herself. The marriage was celebrated on the 6th Jan. 1540, and these pictures, most carefully painted, were most likely finished at the close of the preceding year. Both must doubtless have been given by her, at the close of her life, to some favourite attendant, and thus passed into that family. When Mr. Walpole did see it, which, after printing the first edition of his work before cited, was the case, in the possession of Mr. Barrett, of Lee, he thought them "the most exquisitely perfect of all Holbein's works, as well as in the highest preservation." He also regarded "the ivory box in which that of Anne of Cleves came over, and which represents a rose, so delicately carved, as to be worthy of the jewel it contains." Mr. Barrett afterwards sold these valuable historic jewels, and the purchaser again sold them to Francis Douce, Esq. for fifty guineas, many years ago. This part of my worthy friend's bequest I consider as beyond all price.

27. A head of Folly probably, 1545. This is well painted, and no doubt a portrait.

28. A copy of the above of smaller size. 29. The portrait of a female, with the inscription Marie, reine d'Ecosse,

1558.

66

This is a French picture, pretty well painted, but very difficult to identify. Mr. Douce has pasted at the back the print of a miniature by G.Vertue, from the original in the Royal Collection, said to have been painted in 1558, when Mary was 16 years of age. It bears a very close resemblance in every respect to the above portrait. He has also put the following memoranda in his own handwriting:"There is a miniature picture of Mary preserved in the medal room at the British Museum, which, though painted at the latter period of her life, bears a very strong resemblance to the present portrait. It is kept in a small box, on the inside of which is the following uncouth inscription: -The original portrait of Mary queen of Scots, painted

by Zucchero, in oil and on metal (shape round, 2 inches 5-8ths diameter.) Memm. that this portrait was given, on the 21 day of May 1792, by the Countess Dowager Brooke and Countess Dowager of Warwick, to the trustees of the British Museum (Montague House, Bloomsbury), in order and for the purpose that this said portrait shall be kept and safely preserved in the said Museum, as likewise to have it on record to have been her gift, having desire to leave testimony from this instance of her sentiments, by the value she attaches to the portrait above specified, and the more especially as it was bestowed by her Majesty on one of the ancestors of the present donor of it, to the trustees of the British Museum, by Eliz. Dowager Douglas Hamilton, Countess Dowager Brooke, and Countess Dowager Warwick.' On the back of the picture is written, 'An original portrait of Mary Queen of Scotland (painted by Zucchero), given by her Majesty to Lord John Hamilton, her cousin, son to the Earl of Arran, Duke of Chatelleraud, who in the year 1543 was declared by the three estates of the realm tutor to Queen Mary, regent of the kingdom, and next heir to the crown.' Then follows a repetition of this inscription in the French language. See Walpole, iii. 282. 19th June, 1804, copied from the original, F. Douce. The print of Mary, by Elstracke, in his Series of Kings and Queens, is very like this portrait.

"Ah! pleasant land of France, farewell, My country dear,

Where many a year

Of infant youth I lov'd to dwell.
Farewell for ever, happy days;

The ship which parts our loves, conveys
But half of me. The half behind

I leave with thee, dear France, to proove
A token of our endless love,

And bring the other to my mind.
John Baynes's Translation of Mary's
French Verses.'

the greatest care from time immemorial in the mansion of Dalmahoy, the principal seat in Scotland of the Earl of Morton. On the upper part of it is inscribed, with a modesty of assertion which tends to favour the report of its originality, Mary Queen of Scots, said to have been painted during her confinement in Lochleven castle.' According to invariable tradition it was once the property of Geo. Douglas, the liberator of Mary, and passed from him, together with other curious relics of that unhappy princess, to his eminent relation, James fourth Earl of Morton, in whose posterity it has remained to the present day."

The most authentic portrait we can rely on, is that of her effigy in Westminster Abbey, for although sculptured long after her death; yet being intended by her son to perpetuate her likeness, it was no doubt taken from the best authority. With due allowances for age and events, the resemblance is sufficiently strong to become testimony in favour of Mr. Douce's picture.

30. The Incantation, by Bassano,

1580.

This is a very cleverly painted picture; and though it contains but few figures, they are extremely well arranged.

31. The Incantation, supposed by Peter Paul Brueghel, jun. 1615.

The costume fixes the date of this

painting to the time of James I. It is extremely well executed; the groups are well conceived; and, although the canvas is covered with figures, the perspective is admirable.

32. Interior of a Barber's Shop, 1620.

The costume of this picture points out the date, but the style of execution is very inferior to the last.

33. Interior of a Surgery; by no means well painted though curious, 1623.

34. Christ's Descent into Hell, 1625.

Pasted on the back is this inscription: "P. P. Brueghel; A curious and rare production representing the salvation of mankind by the death and resurrection of Christ. In the centre of the further distance Adam and Eve are represented tasting the forbidden fruit. To the left is discovered the ark by which Noah and his family were saved. Beneath, is the sepulchre, and the soldiers terrified at the olling away of the stone, &c.

The

castle in the centre is supposed to refer to the castle of religion, and the volcano behind to imply that it must continually burn in the Christian's heart. On the right is the destruction of Jerusalem, and the torments inIflicted on the inhabitants. The middle ground is occupied with the colossal head of an old man with a voracious mouth, our Saviour delivering the souls engulphed therein. Evil spirits in the form of toads, and other poisonous reptiles, oppose his power. St. John with Adam and Eve are first delivered. The devil appears chained. Various figures are in the foreground; one appears to represent a female miser, another a warrior; they are marching into hell escorted by a drummer and fifer;"— -or rather by a grotesque figure with the kettle-drum, and two others, one in armour with a two-handed sword, the other bearing the target.

35. Rich Man and Death, by Otto Van Veen, 1625.

This is an extremely clever picture by the master of Rubens; the arrangement, draperies, and figures in the background admirable.

36. The same subject by another artist, of about the same date, judging from the costume in the background, 1626.

The old man, however, wears a hat and shoes of Henry VIIIth's time. It is well done, but by no means equal to the last, and has been falsely attributed to Old Franks.

a

37. Christ's Descent into Hell; much larger picture than that before described, and of an oblong shape, by Michael Cross, 1630.

There is a similar picture at Hampton Court, by the same artist.

38. Portrait of the Fool of Lewis Count of Egmond and Prince of Gavre, 1635.

Whoever be the artist, this picture does him infinite credit. It is a half length, and the Fool is represented sitting by a table, on which are his pipes and a paper of tobacco. His dress, which is party-coloured and ornamented with the bells of folly, has in front the armorial bearings of his master. Near him is his one-stringed musical instrument surmounted by a puppet of Folly, and on his other side a placard, on which is an inimitable sketch of a head. This highly curious, inter

esting, and excellent painting I have added to Mr. Douce's collection.

39. A grotesque musical assemblage of the skeletons of Birds and Animals, by David Teniers, jun. 1650.

This astonishing picture is well calculated to show the great powers of conception and execution which this master possessed. It is so well handled, that, notwithstanding its being ideal, nothing seems at variance with nature; and the light and shade so exquisitely managed, that, together with the bold and judicious touches for effect, it is difficult to withdraw the eyes from so fascinating a performance.

40. A miniature portrait in oil, 1660. 41. A pair of small pictures on copper, representing two epochs in the legend of an Asiatic Saint, with the Church in the back ground which had been dedicated to him, 1665.

42. A large painting of an Incantation, 1696.

Some parts of this picture are well and carefully painted.

43. Another picture of the Incantation, very clever, said to be by Egbert Hemskirk, Jun., in which his own portrait is introduced. If so, it must have been painted just before, as the costume will not allow of an earlier date than 1703. On a monk's sleeve, however, is the letter T.

44. Portrait of Joseph Nollekins the celebrated sculptor; painted by his friend James Barry just after his marriage; small, but three-quarters length, 1771.

45. An oval picture by Angelica Kauffman the Swiss artist, painted in England, 1775.

46. A miniature of the Hon. Horace Walpole, by D. Humphrey, 1780.

TAPESTRY.

A fine head of Christ, in the style of Raphael, on which are the words,—' Vera Salvatoris nostri effigies ad imitationem imaginis smaragdo incisæ jussu Tiberii Cæsaris quo smaragdo postea ex thesauro Constantinopolitano Turcarum Imperator Innocentiam VIII. Pont: Max: Rom: donavit pro redimendo fratre Christianis captivo.'

The next portion of this Catalogue will comprise the Drawings, Engravings, and Engraved Tablets; followed by the unique collection of Sculpture's in ivory and those in wood.

Yours, &c.

SAMUEL R. MEYRICK, K.H.

MR. URBAN, Dec. 20. IT having been considered worth while, as it undoubtedly was, to extract this portion of Wace's work from the MS. in the British Museum, and to publish it in the " General Introduction to Domesday Book," 2 vols. 8vo, 1833, it may be useful, after rather a hasty collation, to put on record some obvious corrections necessary to be made by those who possess the volume, in order to render it a more

accurate representation of the MS. it purports to be printed from.

The Introduction, by the bye, states it never to have been printed; though the publication is subsequent to the date of M. Pluquet's edition of the whole Chronicle in 1827.

Page XII." Caitrai," should be "Cartrait" (Carteret).

XIII.-After "Hue de Gornai" a line is omitted containing a great name:" Engerran de laigle ivint."

XIV." Reiners" should be "Reuiers" (Reviers or Redvers).

The following lines are omitted after Robert Bertrun :

"Cels de Sols, et cels d' oirieval

De Saunt Johan, et de Brehul
Cel de Brius e [cels, interlined] de
Homez."

These lines should certainly have been inserted. The extractor perhaps passed them over as a supposed continuation of the list of archers from Vaudreuil. If he did, it was a great mistake. As far as can be judged (considering the great inaccuracy in grammar of all these MSS.), we should most likely (except in the case of Brius-Bruce; which is expressly Cil, like other single lords) in strictness read, not the LORDS of Sols, Orval, St. Jean, Brehul, and Houmet, but the MEN; and on this account, probably, the transcriber omitted them. The omission, however, is not judicious in any such cases: but especially here; because (independent of the Lord of Brius,) the poet, in speaking of the men of such fiefs as those before us, can hardly, on the most prosaic construction of his language, be supposed to have excluded the leaders of those men.

XIV. Before the "Sire de Semillie," two lords are omitted, viz.: "Cil de Saint Sever e de Quaillie' (Caillie).

***The present opportunity may be taken to point out that the Christian names of Wace's Roll are not to be de

pended upon. Mr. J. G. Nichols, in his "illustrations of the Pedigree of Romara," printed in Bowles's History of Lacock Abbey, after remarking that the

name of Walter le Eurus in the Book of Lacock, was fabricated from that of his grandson, Walter of Sarisbury, adds:

66

The William de Romara of the poet Wace is also a fictitious personage, having a similar origin. Wace thought only

of the heads of those Norman Houses who were his own contemporaries, quite heedless of anachronism, and attentive only to his rhymes. Hence he set down the name of William in his couplet

E dam Guill. de Romare,

E li sire de Litehare. and these were two distinct personagesnot one, as Holinshed made them, by dropping the conjunction 'E'. The lord of Lithare was Eudo cum Capello, the Eudo Dapifer of Domesday." The first William de Romara, Earl of Lincoln temp. Steph. was the son of Robert Fitz Girold of Domesday Book, whose father Girold, the Dapifer of Normandy, was the lord of Romara living in 1064, only two years before the conquest of England. Wace should therefore have written GI