its wood panel, makes a somewhat repellent impression at the
first glance. And this is in no way dispersed by studying Elsbeth's
traits. But the painting itself is a tour-de-force. By sheer Quality
Holbein has invested these portraits,--a middle-aged, coarse-figured,
unamiable-looking woman, a very commonplace infant, and a bright-faced
boy,--with the prestige inseparable from an achievement of a high
order.

Illustration: PLATE 25
ELSBETH, HOLBEIN'S WIFE, WITH THEIR TWO ELDEST CHILDREN
_Oils. Basel Museum_

Clearly Elsbeth Holbein was not one to give up the costume of her youth
simply because she would have been well advised to do so; and the cut
and fashion of her dress remains almost identical with the drawing in
the Louvre. Her lustreless light-brown hair is covered with a gauzy veil
and a reddish-brown cap. Her brown stuff upper garment, trimmed with
thin fur, shows a dark-green dress beneath it. The baby wears a gown of
undyed woollen material, and the boy a jacket of dark bluish green.

Out of such unpromising materials has the painter made a picture that
would challenge attention among any. If we knew nothing as to the
identity of this woman, sitting oblivious of the children at her knee,
wrapped in her own dark thoughts, we should certainly want to know
something of her story and of the story of the little fellow whose eyes
are breathlessly intent upon some purer, sweeter vision. There is at
Cologne, in a private collection, a deeply interesting duplicate of
this work; also on paper afterwards mounted on wood, but not cut out.
Unfortunately this latter has suffered such irremediable injuries that
it is quite impossible now to pronounce upon its claim to be either the
earlier example or a replica; but good judges have believed it to be by
Holbein. Its chief interest, however, from a biographical point of view,
may be said to lie in the sixteenth-century writing pasted on at the
top. Literally translated, this runs--

"Love towards God consists in Charity.
Who hath this love can feel no hate."[5]

It is difficult to see on what grounds Woltmann, who was inclined to
accept the picture as genuine, should hold the inscription to have
been added by someone desirous of increasing the value of the work by
representing it to be an allegorical picture of Charity. There was never
a time when the allegory, if accepted, could have carried the same value
as the portraits. And surely the second line is utterly