APPENDIX A: TERRA-COTTA BUSTS SAID TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM THE HOLBEIN GATE
In Plate 146 are reproduced photographs (full-face and profile) of
three terra-cotta busts, which are commonly stated to have been originally
on the front of the Holbein Gate, and to have been preserved when that
Gate was destroyed in 1759. As, however, these busts certainly never
formed part of the exterior decoration of the Gate, and possibly had no
connection at all with that building, it has been thought well to deal with
them, not in the main part of the volume, but in an appendix.
The busts in question measure about 2 feet across at the base (one
of them, however, being somewhat in excess of this), and project about
14 inches. They are hollow, and are cut away at the back vertically to
permit of their standing against a flat surface. The heads stand out quite
free. They are formed of a fine-grained terra-cotta, which has a coating
on the outer surface to receive colours and gilding in imitation of nature,
and have a dull finish. They show signs of having been damaged, but have
been carefully restored and stiffened with plaster.
The busts are at the present time in the possession of the Hon.
Mrs. Wilson-Filmer at Leeds Castle, Kent, but until recently were preserved
at Hatfield Priory, Hatfield Peverell, Essex. The only account we possess
of how they came to be at Hatfield Peverell is that given by J. T. Smith in
his Antiquities of Westminster (pp. 22–23), as follows: "Intelligence was
obtained that after the gate was taken down, three of the busts were in the
possession of a man who kept an old iron shop in Belton Street, St. Giles's;
and that the busts were supposed to have been stolen (when the gate was
taken down), and were afterwards sold to this man, who had them three
or four years. Mr. Wright, the coachmaker, who then lived in Long Acre,
seeing them in the shop, bought them, and employed Mr. Flaxman the
sculptor, then a boy, to repair them. … Mr. Flaxman repaired them for
Mr. Wright the purchaser, about thirty-four years ago; which, as this account
was given in or about the year 1803, would be about 1769. On mentioning
these particulars to another gentleman [Henry Hoare, Esq.], he recollected
that the Mr. Wright above mentioned, had lived in an house called Hatfield
Priory, at Hatfield Peverell, near Witham in Essex, and suggested the
probability of these busts being in the possession of his descendant, who
still lived there; and on writing to a friend in that neighbourhood [the
Rev. Foote Gower], it was learned that they were actually there … in
the possession of Peter Luard Wright, Esq."
In the account of the Holbein Gate given by Pennant in his Account
of London (1790) is a reference to the preservation of the busts. "On each
front were four busts in baked clay, in proper colours, which resisted to the
last every attack of the weather; possibly the artificial stone revived in this
century. These, I have been lately informed, are preserved in a private hand."
It would appear therefore that Pennant was of opinion that the
busts preserved had formed part of the external decorative features of the
Gate, and J. T. Smith refers to Pennant's account in such terms as to leave
no doubt that he, too, regarded the three busts then at Hatfield Peverell as
three of the eight roundels shown in views of the Gate. In this, both writers
were certainly mistaken.
In the first place, the busts show no signs of having been curved
at the bottom as would have been necessary had they been fitted into the
round borders, and the present form and character of the busts makes it
in other respects quite inconceivable that they should ever have formed
part of the roundels. Secondly, it is evident that they bear no resemblance
whatever to the figures shown within the roundels on such representations
of the Gate as we possess. The latter, on the other hand, strikingly correspond in certain features to the busts of Roman emperors on the gateways at
Hampton Court. These are full-face, in high relief, showing the imperial
cuirass, and with streamers occupying part of the field, while the raised
border contains martial emblems, with a lion's head both at the top and
at the bottom of the circle. In all these details, so far as can be seen, they
agree with the figures within the roundels shown in illustrations of the
Holbein Gate. It is possible therefore that the latter figures, like those at
Hampton Court, represented Roman emperors. In any case, they did not
include the three busts which have been preserved. While Smith's account
of the history of the latter after 1769 is quite satisfactory, the same cannot be
said for the previous ten years. And yet it seems hardly likely that the busts
could have come from anywhere in London but Whitehall, and the demolition
of the Holbein Gate only a few years before their first appearance undoubtedly suggests that they came thence. Perhaps they formed the
internal decorations of the main room above the Gate, or possibly they
had previously been in the Tiltyard Gallery, and had been removed and
stored in the Gate when the Gallery passed into private hands in 1716
(see p. 59).
Figure 33:
One of the roundels at Hampton Court Palace.
According to J. T. Smith, Mr. Wright, the purchaser of the busts,
repeatedly said that they represented Henry VII, Henry VIII when sixteen,
and Fisher, Bishop of Rochester. Sir Cecil Harcourt Smith has vigorously
supported these identifications. "That of Henry VIII speaks for itself,
and that of Henry VII is by comparison with other portraits of him, particularly that in Westminster, unmistakable, though the terra-cotta clearly
represents him at an earlier age. The same remark applies to the Bishop,
of whom the Holbein portrait at Windsor and that at Christ Church, Oxford,
give us an evidently accurate presentment." (fn. 1) The busts are evidently by
the same artist, and were probably made at the same time. If therefore the
identifications are correct, the busts were probably executed in the year 1507,
when Henry VIII (then Prince of Wales) was sixteen, Henry VII was still
alive, and Fisher was in his prime. The suggestion is rather attractive, but
if it is correct the busts could not possibly have been made for the Holbein
Gate or the Tiltyard Gallery, which were not built until 1531–2, (fn. 2) but must
have been executed for some other purpose, and have been utilised subsequently in one of those buildings. This may perhaps be thought improbable;
but if the busts are correctly identified, it is difficult to conceive of them being
made in 1531–2. Why in that case was Henry VIII, who was 40 years of
age, depicted as a youth of sixteen; and why was Fisher, who was by that
time quite out of favour owing to his attitude towards the King's divorce,
included at all?
In any case, a bust of Fisher, whether executed for the purpose or
not, in any scheme of decoration of the Royal Palace in 1531–2 seems rather
unlikely, and this fact tends to suggest that the usually-accepted identifications are not beyond dispute, a view which has been strongly urged by Mr.
Charles R. Beard. (fn. 3) According to the latter only one of the identifications,
that of Henry VII, is correct. The other two busts are in his opinion
unidentifiable.
On the whole the question of identification must be regarded as
still open.
As regards when the busts were executed, the choice lies chiefly
(though certainly not exclusively) between two dates: (a) 1507, if the usuallyaccepted identifications are correct; (b) 1531–2, if not.
Even more doubt attends the question of the artist by whom the
busts were executed. The names of Pietro Torrigiano, Giovanni da Maiano
and Benedetto da Rovezzano have been suggested, but all that can be definitely
stated on the point is that the busts are the work of some artist of the Florentine
School.
In the Council's Collection are:—
(fn. 4) Three terra-cotta busts said to have been taken from the Holbein Gate (six photographs).
(fn. 4) Plaster cast of roundel at Hampton Court Palace (photograph of cast preserved at the
Geffrye Museum).