While in the possession of Charles I, or more probably Le Blond,[375] these two portraits were “restored,” and by no means improved. Four inches were added to the top of the “Frobenius” in order to make it a pendant to the “Erasmus,” and the backgrounds were repainted and altered by Von Steenwyck. The original background of the “Frobenius” was either plain or a simple room with a window, but has been changed to a lofty apartment with pillars and a paved floor, part of the original blue-green ground being left behind the head; in the “Erasmus” it has been turned into an elaborate arrangement of stone pillars and arches, resembling the gloomy interior of a church. Walpole states that Von Steenwyck’s name and the date 1629 are on the “Frobenius,” but this inscription cannot now be discovered. The latter is by far the finer work of the two. The portrait of Froben, which most modern critics do not admit to be an original work, is described below. The companion portrait of Erasmus—No. 597 (324)—is certainly only a copy, and not a very good copy, of some original by Holbein, possibly the Longford “Erasmus,” to which it bears a close resemblance. It was accepted by Wornum as a genuine work of the early Basel period,[376] but modern criticism is unanimous in condemning its authenticity. Its only claim, and a very slight one, to genuineness is that it was formerly hinged to the portrait of Froben; but Mr. Ernest Law[377] throws doubt on the story that Erasmus himself had the two joined together, which he regards as a myth, and suggests that the joining was done by some picture-dealer in Basel after Erasmus’ death, or by Le Blond himself when he purchased them. In the Hampton Court picture[378] the scholar is represented at half-length, less than life, turned slightly to the left. He is dressed in the usual black coat trimmed with fur, and a black cap. The hands, excellently drawn, rest on a closed red-bound book in front of him. The original plain background, as already stated, has been elaborated and spoilt by Von Steenwyck. It is probable that the double portrait spoken of by Faesch, of which he had a copy, was not the original work of Holbein, and in that case the supposition, based on his manuscript, that at some unknown period in the history of the diptych the “Erasmus” was removed, and a copy substituted for it, is equally incorrect.[379] Most possibly the picture now at Hampton Court was the one actually purchased by Le Blond in Basel, to whom it would be sold as a genuine work by Holbein. A still less probable supposition is that a change took place after the sale of the royal collection in 1650, when the picture was in the possession of Mr. Milburne, who, it is suggested, at the Restoration returned a copy in place of the original. [Sidenote: PORTRAITS OF ERASMUS]