Double Take: Versions and Copies of Tudor Portraits

Demand for painted portraits increased throughout the sixteenth century. They adorned both private homes and civic institutions, serving as a visual record of family members, patrons and holders of public office. Portraits were also used to situate monarchs and courtiers within an historical context and their display could demonstrate allegiance to the Crown or political allies.

Artists had little opportunity to take a direct likeness of important sitters and as a result they made portrait patterns, which would often circulate between artists’ workshops. These patterns could be copied from existing paintings or be based on pre-existing drawings from the life. Occasionally the demand for images of certain sitters meant that many versions of a portrait were produced by a workshop at the same time, either for patrons or for general sale stock.

Today, surviving versions and copies of portraits can often appear quite different because of variations in the condition of the works. Recent research undertaken as part of the Making Art in Tudor Britain project has used a variety of scientific techniques to analyse the Gallery’s sixteenth-century paintings, and also comparative works from other collections, in order to explore the way in which these versions and copies were produced.

Production for stock
The uses of patterns
Holbein’s legacy
Multiple versions
Workshop production

Production for stock

 

Many portraits of Henry VIII were produced during his lifetime. The development of portraiture in early sixteenth-century England and its use as a means of projecting power meant that his likeness was far more widely replicated than that of his predecessors. These two portraits depict Henry in his mid-forties, shortly before the artist Hans Holbein the Younger painted the Whitehall mural and produced what is now the most familiar likeness of the king.

It is possible that both of these portraits derive from the same English workshop and, although there is limited documentary evidence, they could have been produced for general sale stock rather than at the request of an individual patron. They show the influence of Netherlandish painting techniques, copied from foreign artists who settled in London. A pattern was used to mark out the king’s likeness, which was copied freehand for the smaller version owned by the Society of Antiquaries. Photomicroscopy reveals similarities in technique, which suggest that parts of the paintings may have been by the same person. For example, both feature a ‘dab and twist’ technique in the collar, where thick paint was dabbed on with a brush and then the brush was twisted in order to create the ruff, and the pointed hairs of the fur collar are flicked over the background in a comparable manner. In the Gallery’s painting the orange/brown area around the head, the hat and along the top of the shoulders seems to be the result of discolouration in the paint medium.

Photomicrograph details of the collar, showing the ‘dab and twist’ technique.

Photomicrograph details of the fine hairs of the edge of the beard and the top of the fur collar, showing wet-in-wet blending.

---

The uses of patterns

As the mother of Elizabeth I, Anne Boleyn’s image was often included in portrait sets of English monarchs, however only a few versions survive today. Portrait sets became increasingly popular in the late sixteenth century and were used to decorate long galleries and great halls.

Although these two portraits vary in quality they are based on the same pattern, demonstrating the way in which established face patterns of prominent individuals could be used for many years. Using infrared reflectography it is possible to examine the preparatory underdrawing beneath the paint layers.

Infrared reflectogram mosaic details of the two paintings

The underdrawing in NPG 4980(15) is much more heavy handed than that in NPG 668, however, close comparison of the patterns using melinex tracings shows that they match quite closely. The use of patterns meant that artists could produce sets of portraits quite rapidly and cheaply. In NPG 4980(15) the artist’s extreme reliance on a pattern is demonstrated by the unusual painting technique in which the eyes, lips and eyebrows were painted in full and then the flesh was painted around these features. By contrast, the painting technique in NPG 668 is far more subtle, with fine brushwork and wet-in-wet blending.

Photomicrograph images of the eye on the left in each painting and also of the lips in NPG 668, showing the difference in painting technique between the two paintings.

---

Holbein’s legacy

An influential churchman and statesman, Warham was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury and Lord Chancellor in 1504. In 1527 Hans Holbein the Younger painted his portrait as a gift to send to the Dutch humanist Erasmus. This painting does not survive but the preparatory study made by the artist is in the Royal Collection and it has faint indentations marking the contours of the face, which suggests that it may have been used to make a pattern. Holbein occasionally produced multiple versions of his portraits, and there is a version of this painting in the Louvre that was probably made by the artist for Warham.

Tree-ring dating has shown that the portrait of Warham from Lambeth Palace and NPG 2094 were produced long after Holbein’s death: the former in the late sixteenth century, and the latter in the first quarter of the seventeenth century. The demand for portraits of prominent sitters could often extend long after their death. However, it is possible that the paintings were made in order to satisfy demand for copies of compositions by Holbein, whose skill was greatly appreciated by collectors.

The paintings would once have appeared much more similar, because the green background in the Lambeth painting has discoloured to brown. The high degree of similarity between the paintings and the Louvre version suggest that, rather than being taken from Holbein’s original drawing, the pattern for these portraits was taken from Holbein’s painting. Infrared reflectography reveals the detailed underdrawing in both paintings and the level of care that the artists took to imitate the details of Holbein’s work.

Nonetheless, different painting techniques were used in each portrait, as is evident from close examination of the paint surface.

Detail images of the face, showing the differences in painting technique.

 

In the Lambeth portrait the paint is applied more thinly, with fine brushstrokes and more fluid paint. It is also notable that when the two paintings are compared closely not all of the features match up exactly, particularly the hands and the crucifix. This suggests that the pattern for the composition was transferred in several pieces and slipped during the transfer.

---

Multiple versions

Sir Thomas Gresham was an important international merchant who divided his time between England and Antwerp. He was the founder of the Royal Exchange and played a vital role in the management of the finances of Elizabethan England.