DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.73058#0052
Bartolozzi and his IVorks.
Roper, then we have many of Bartolozzi's conceits, and not Holbein's truths, in the volume
under consideration." Notwithstanding these strictures, in another portion of the same
work,* Dr. Dibdin speaks of Bartolozzi's " peculiar and unrivalled powers."
* Fide Preface to vol. i. p. 22.
By the courtesy of Mr. Holmes, the Queen's Librarian, the writer has had an op-
portunity of carefully examining and comparing at Windsor Castle many of Holbein's
Original Drawings with Bartolozzi's reproductions. It may be stated at once, that
the engravings, except in general outline, are not what Chamberlaine,* their publisher,
* Chamberlaine was preceded in his office of Keeper of the King's Drawings and Medals by Richard Dalton, who
brought Bartolozzi over to this country. Dalton is said to have been the first Englishman who devoted any considerable
attention to the drawing and engraving of Greek and Egyptian monuments. In addition to the post mentioned, he held
the appointment of Antiquarian to His Majesty, and his brother, Dr. Dalton, was Rector of St. Mary-at-Hill, Eastcheap,
London. Richard Dalton was elected F.A.S. in 1767, and wrote several works, the more important being “ Remarks
on the Pyramids of Egypt," " A Short Dissertation on the Ancient Musical Instruments used in Egypt," “ Remarks on
Prints intended to be published relative to the Manners, Costumes, etc., of the Inhabitants of Egypt, from drawings
on the spot, 1749." He died Feb. 6th, 1791, at his apartments in St. James's Palace.
professes them to be in his introduction to the collection—facsimiles. To begin with,
Bartolozzi has, broadly speaking, put into his work three times over what appears in the
original drawings, which in their details are of the sketchiest, their evident truthfulness
being due to the wonderful vigour and intensity of outline, the dress, jewellery, and ad-
juncts generally being indicated in the slightest possible manner. It will be observed that
Dr. Dibdin draws special attention to an anonymous female portrait which has been
thought to be that of Margaret Roper, Sir T. More's eldest daughter (though it really
represents Cicely Heron,* her sister), and the copy from which he says is not the portrait
* A fine engraving—an absolute facsimile of Holbein's drawing of Cicely Heron—was presented by Sir A. W. Call-
cott, who was appointed Surveyor of the Royal Pictures in that year, to the Queen's Library in 1844; it bears the
following inscription at foot, signed by him: "When Bartolozzi's prints after the Holbein drawings in the Royal
Collection were nearly completed, Chamberlaine, their publisher, thought it might answer his purpose to give the public
a smaller edition, if he could find any engraver of less celebrity, at a smaller price, to supply Bartolozzi's place in this
second series. His first and only application was to Frederick Lewis, the engraver of this print, and in order to more
clearly test his power he gave him the original drawing, requiring it to be rendered the full size of the original. When
Lewis had completed his task he took an impression to Chamberlaine, who, on seeing its truthfulness when compared
with Bartolozzi's print, felt convinced that the reputation of the great work would be inevitably destroyed if the public
ever had a chance of comparing the faithful rendering of Lewis with the false and mannered prints of Bartolozzi. He
therefore desired Lewis to let him have the plate; as there have been no impressions seen but these few proofs which
Lewis had taken for him, there is no doubt Chamberlaine had the plate destroyed. This impression is one of those
proofs Lewis kindly gave me about twenty-five years ago."
as drawn by Hans Holbein. If the learned Doctor had gone a little farther, and stated that
the whole of the portraits as engraved by Bartolozzi are not the portraits as drawn by
Hans Holbein, he would simply have been stating the exact fact. As regards the details
of the portrait in question, which aroused the Doctor's ire, the shape of the bead or pearl
double-necklet in the original is only faintly indicated ; ten only of the beads are shown-
a curve made by a single stroke indicating the continuation ;—but Bartolozzi has completed
and elaborated the necklet. Further, a locket in the original, with a smudge of colour
in the middle which might mean anything, is suspended by a ribbon. Bartolozzi has
34 transformed
Roper, then we have many of Bartolozzi's conceits, and not Holbein's truths, in the volume
under consideration." Notwithstanding these strictures, in another portion of the same
work,* Dr. Dibdin speaks of Bartolozzi's " peculiar and unrivalled powers."
* Fide Preface to vol. i. p. 22.
By the courtesy of Mr. Holmes, the Queen's Librarian, the writer has had an op-
portunity of carefully examining and comparing at Windsor Castle many of Holbein's
Original Drawings with Bartolozzi's reproductions. It may be stated at once, that
the engravings, except in general outline, are not what Chamberlaine,* their publisher,
* Chamberlaine was preceded in his office of Keeper of the King's Drawings and Medals by Richard Dalton, who
brought Bartolozzi over to this country. Dalton is said to have been the first Englishman who devoted any considerable
attention to the drawing and engraving of Greek and Egyptian monuments. In addition to the post mentioned, he held
the appointment of Antiquarian to His Majesty, and his brother, Dr. Dalton, was Rector of St. Mary-at-Hill, Eastcheap,
London. Richard Dalton was elected F.A.S. in 1767, and wrote several works, the more important being “ Remarks
on the Pyramids of Egypt," " A Short Dissertation on the Ancient Musical Instruments used in Egypt," “ Remarks on
Prints intended to be published relative to the Manners, Costumes, etc., of the Inhabitants of Egypt, from drawings
on the spot, 1749." He died Feb. 6th, 1791, at his apartments in St. James's Palace.
professes them to be in his introduction to the collection—facsimiles. To begin with,
Bartolozzi has, broadly speaking, put into his work three times over what appears in the
original drawings, which in their details are of the sketchiest, their evident truthfulness
being due to the wonderful vigour and intensity of outline, the dress, jewellery, and ad-
juncts generally being indicated in the slightest possible manner. It will be observed that
Dr. Dibdin draws special attention to an anonymous female portrait which has been
thought to be that of Margaret Roper, Sir T. More's eldest daughter (though it really
represents Cicely Heron,* her sister), and the copy from which he says is not the portrait
* A fine engraving—an absolute facsimile of Holbein's drawing of Cicely Heron—was presented by Sir A. W. Call-
cott, who was appointed Surveyor of the Royal Pictures in that year, to the Queen's Library in 1844; it bears the
following inscription at foot, signed by him: "When Bartolozzi's prints after the Holbein drawings in the Royal
Collection were nearly completed, Chamberlaine, their publisher, thought it might answer his purpose to give the public
a smaller edition, if he could find any engraver of less celebrity, at a smaller price, to supply Bartolozzi's place in this
second series. His first and only application was to Frederick Lewis, the engraver of this print, and in order to more
clearly test his power he gave him the original drawing, requiring it to be rendered the full size of the original. When
Lewis had completed his task he took an impression to Chamberlaine, who, on seeing its truthfulness when compared
with Bartolozzi's print, felt convinced that the reputation of the great work would be inevitably destroyed if the public
ever had a chance of comparing the faithful rendering of Lewis with the false and mannered prints of Bartolozzi. He
therefore desired Lewis to let him have the plate; as there have been no impressions seen but these few proofs which
Lewis had taken for him, there is no doubt Chamberlaine had the plate destroyed. This impression is one of those
proofs Lewis kindly gave me about twenty-five years ago."
as drawn by Hans Holbein. If the learned Doctor had gone a little farther, and stated that
the whole of the portraits as engraved by Bartolozzi are not the portraits as drawn by
Hans Holbein, he would simply have been stating the exact fact. As regards the details
of the portrait in question, which aroused the Doctor's ire, the shape of the bead or pearl
double-necklet in the original is only faintly indicated ; ten only of the beads are shown-
a curve made by a single stroke indicating the continuation ;—but Bartolozzi has completed
and elaborated the necklet. Further, a locket in the original, with a smudge of colour
in the middle which might mean anything, is suspended by a ribbon. Bartolozzi has
34 transformed