Walpole, _Anecdotes_, ed. Wornum, i. pp. 94-5. Hollar’s etching (Parthey, 1546) is reproduced by Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 198 (3); and by Cust, _Burlington Magazine_, July 1910, p. 195. Footnote 412: _Archæologia_, vol. xl. p. 87. Reproduced in _Burlington Fine Arts Club Catalogue_, Pl. xxxiv. The Windsor drawing[413] bears no inscription, and the sitter is turned to the right, as in Hollar’s engraving, instead of to the left, but otherwise it shows the same type of features, smooth auburn hair, and French cap or hood, as in the miniature. The dress, however, in Holbein’s usual fashion, is merely indicated with a few lines, showing a plain bodice cut square, filled in with white cambric, with a diamond-shaped opening revealing neck and bosom. It agrees in the same way with the newly-discovered portrait, of which, though reversed, it is evidently one of the preliminary studies. The identity with Catherine Howard is further proved, as Mr. Lionel Cust points out, by the family resemblance, plainly visible, in certain of the features, such as the over-accentuated lower jaw, to the portraits of her uncle, the Duke of Norfolk, and of his son, the ill-fated Earl of Surrey. Footnote 413: Woltmann, 329; Wornum, ii. 9; Holmes, i. 42. Reproduced in _Burlington Magazine_, vol. xvii., July 1910, p. 195, together with the two miniatures and Hollar’s etching. [Sidenote: PORTRAIT OF CATHERINE HOWARD] In 1898 the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery acquired a portrait of Catherine Howard[414] at the sale of the Cholmondeley pictures at Condover Hall, Shropshire, which closely follows the Windsor drawing, although in the reverse position. The excellence of the painting of the hands, and of the details of the dress and jewels, led at first to the supposition that it might be a genuine work by Holbein which had undergone some damage and restoration, but closer examination proved that it was merely a careful contemporary school copy, or repetition of some lost original. It is inscribed “ETATIS SVÆ 21,” which corresponds with the known facts of Catherine Howard’s life. In the summer of 1909 the original picture of which it is a copy was submitted to Mr. Cust, who recognised it at once as not only a portrait of Catherine Howard, but as most possibly a genuine work of the great master, which proved to be the case on the removal of much dirty varnish and some repaints.[415] It came from a private collection in the west of England, where it had formed part of a series of historical portraits which had been in the possession of the same family for several generations, and had been regarded at one time as a portrait of Eleanor Brandon, Countess of Cumberland, and at another as Princess Mary Tudor. It is now in Canada, in the collection of Mr. James H. Dunn. Footnote 414: No. 1119. Reproduced by Pollard, _Henry VIII_, p. 268; and in the Illustrated Catalogue, National Portrait Gallery, vol. i. p. 25. Footnote 415: