Opinion, so far, is divided as to whether this fine work is by Holbein or not. The first impression received is that it is certainly not by him, from the flatness of the modelling of the face, a certain hardness in the execution, and the rather unpleasant red tone of the complexion; but further examination considerably modifies this opinion. It is difficult, if the attribution to Holbein is rejected, to suggest the name of any other artist then practising in England, who possessed the ability to produce a portrait as fine and as remarkable as this one is. To Sir Martin Conway “it appears to be obviously and all over Holbein.”[176] Mr. Roger E. Fry says that “opinion is so divided that it would be rash to dogmatize. The picture is in wonderful condition and is entirely in Holbein’s manner. Indeed, it must in any case be derived directly from a drawing by Holbein. The only question to be settled is whether the master himself ever became so entirely the craftsman absorbed in the technical perfection of his work to the exclusion of the larger issues of expression; whether he could have ever so far lost his sense of relief, treated line so entirely as a matter of edge with so little sense of the mass it should define. Such questions can only be decided by a gradual consensus of opinion. My own belief is that it will be decided ultimately against Holbein’s having actually executed the painting, though I am bound to admit no other known imitator comes as near to Holbein himself as does the author of this.”[177] Dr. Ganz regards it as a genuine work by Holbein, and dates it 1540, drawing attention to the similarity of the enamelled rose fastened to her dress to the one worn by Lady Butts, who was painted by Holbein at about that date.[178] It will be seen that the critics are divided; and it is certainly by no means easy to arrive at a definite conclusion. It is interesting to note, as a minor point, that the gold tags with which Lady Lee’s dress is decorated are very similar to those on the surcoat of Sir Thomas Wyat in the Lucas Cornelisz portrait, and are arranged in much the same manner. Footnote 176: _Burlington Magazine_, vol. xvi., December 1909, p. 159. Footnote 177: _Ibid._, vol. xv., May 1909, pp. 74-5. Footnote 178: See Ganz, _Holbein_, p. 245.