“The picture by Holbein,” says Sir George, “could only have been a drawing or a painting on rather a small scale, inasmuch as it had at once to be conveyed by a messenger to England, and one of the objects of Hutton’s letter was to show the diligence with which the King’s commands were executed and to announce the coming of the picture. The scale and workmanship of the picture before us are exactly such as might have been expected from a first-rate painter and tactician under such circumstances. All essential points are observed with scrupulous fidelity, and, certainly, as far as internal evidence extends, without flattery. It is not to be supposed that Holbein did nothing to the picture beyond the term of the three hours’ sitting afforded by the Duchess. Having secured all the essential points of likeness, and given the general colouring, he doubtless spent some time in further finishings from memory. But time must have been given for the picture to dry.” Wornum, however, refuses to accept Sir George’s ascription. “The head is vigorously painted,” he says, “and very natural; it shows, however, no complete finish, which, if the picture referred to, is exactly what one would expect; but it lacks also the mastery one would expect to find in a free sketch by Holbein. The hands are inferior, but they appear to have been partly repainted; the background has also been entirely repainted.... In its present state, it looks much more like a clever study from the Arundel picture, than its pattern; anyhow the distance between them is immense, but this does not prove much, for a very inferior master to Holbein could elaborate a magical effect from a mere rough sketch, provided this possessed the real germs of truth in it.”[268] Footnote 268: Wornum, p. 313. [Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF THE DUCHESS AT WINDSOR]