*18 HISTORY OF MARINE ARCHITECTURE.

ence, but that a successor, of equal rank and dignity, had been provided tosupply its place.

It is an opinion which, it must be confessed has, though very strangely,obtained considerable degree of credit, that the print, published by Allen, that hasafforded so much argument for inquisitive men, is a copy from the picturepainted, according to report, by Holbein, and now said to be in the castle atWindsor. That it may have been painted by him is most probable, but itis certainly not in Windsor castle. One of the paintings, there preserved, is therepresentation of the Regent * : the other, which is in the picture intended tocommemorate the embarkation of the king at Dover, in 1520, bears so strong asimilitude to the former, and allowing for the difference of skill in the artists,to that in the drawing belonging to the Pepysian collection, that very littlepersuasion becomes necessary to induce a belief, even from a wary and cau-tious inquirer, that they were all intended as portraits of one and the sameship.

The dispute and doubt has been, in no small degree, promoted by the wantof accurate information as to the identity of Allen’s original. Owing to thatdefect, some critics have been harsh enough to suppose the whole a fancifulforgery, intended to mislead and impose upon the unwary. This argument,which has been so forcibly urged in disproof of its authenticity, is really of littleor no weight, for reasons already given'}-. On the other hand, in addition to whathas been before urged, supposing the print really not a forgery, (and to call itone is at least a very bold assertion) it must be the copy of some picturepainted in the reign of Henry the Eighth which may consequently be fairlyconsidered as the portrait, or representation, of some ship then existing. None

* Which appears not to have been painted by Holbein.

•f See pages 33 and 34.

J The portrait of Henry himself, who is seen standing on the deck, is certainly some argument infavour of its authenticity ; but there are many more proofs which are still stronger. The introductionof the jointed top-masts, an improvement which is known to have taken place towards the end of thatmonarch’s reign, is singularly marked ; and, according to the best information that can now be collected,in regard to the original contrivance, is very accurately delineated. The prow, or beak, the forecastle,the gallery, and ornaments of the after part, bear so strong a similitude to a multitude of other repre •gentations, which are universally allowed to be nearly cotemporary, that, taking the whole mass oftvidence together, and throwing the alleged date of the portrait into the scale, it certainly argues noinconsiderable degree of scepticism to dispute its authenticity, or to insist that it conveys no idea ofthis memorable vessel, modernised, (if the term be allowed) and altered from its first form, as itmost probably might be, towards the end of Henry’s reign.

other