It is, however, impossible that the portrait can have been painted in that year, when Henry was not forty. He appears to be at least fifteen years older than this. The head and hands are good, but the style of painting has little in common with that of Holbein, while the details of the dress lack the beauty, delicacy, and truth of draughtsmanship which are to be found in his work. There is a portrait in the collection of the Marquis of Bute, which, according to Dr. Waagen, is “exactly like the picture by Holbein at Warwick Castle, only less finished.”[226] When he saw it, as far back as 1854, it was ascribed to “Gerard Horebout,” and there is every probability that this attribution is the correct one, for it is not to be expected that the almost forgotten name of Hornebolt would have been substituted for the much better known one of Holbein, and the fact that the former name has clung to the picture for so long is strong evidence in favour of the contention that Hornebolt was the painter of it. For this reason the Warwick portrait, and others like it, are now tentatively attributed by most modern writers to the workshop of Gerard and Luke Hornebolt. Footnote 226: _Ibid._, vol. iii. p. 482. [Illustration: VOL. II., PLATE 19 HENRY VIII NATIONAL GALLERY, ROME ] [Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF HENRY VIII AT ROME] The portrait in the National Gallery, Rome (Pl. 19),[227] which was formerly in the Corsini Collection, is a three-quarter length, and is inscribed across the plain background, on either side of the head, “ANNO · ÆTATIS · SVÆ · XLIX,” and was, therefore, painted in 1539 or 1540. In dress and position it closely follows Van Leemput’s copy, and the Windsor and other versions, in which the left hand holds the dagger-cord. With the exception of the substitution of brown fur for ermine, and different embroidery on the upper sleeves, the Rome and the Windsor portraits are in exact agreement as to the costume. The face in the Rome portrait is decidedly younger than in the Warwick and Windsor versions, as the date would indicate, so that it is possibly one of the earliest of the contemporary copies, taken directly from the wall-painting under Holbein’s own supervision. It is undoubtedly the best of the later portraits of the King, the face being full of character finely rendered, and it is regarded by a number of modern critics, including Dr. Ganz, as a work from Holbein’s own brush. Footnote 227: Reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 125.