The Dance of Death

Had Mr. Hegner written with a becoming diffidence in his opinions, his work might have commanded and deserved respect, though greatly abounding in error and false conceit. He has undertaken a task for which he has shown himself wholly unqualified, and with much unseemly arrogance, and its usual concomitant, ignorance, has assumed to himself a monopoly of information on the subject which he discusses. His arguments, if worthy of the name, are, generally speaking, of a most weak and flimsy texture. In support of his dogmatical opinion that the original designs for the Lyons Dance of Death exclusively belong to Holbein he has not adduced a single fact. He has not been in possession of a tenth part of the materials that were necessary for the proper investigation of his subject, nor does he appear to have even seen them. The very best judges of whatever relates to the history and art of engraving are quite satisfied that most of the persons who have written on them, with the exception of Mr. Ottley, and of the modest and urbane Monsieur Peignot, are liable to the charge of extreme inaccuracy and imperfection in their treatment of the Dance of Death, and the list of such writers may now be closed with the addition of Herr Hegner.

Some of his positions are now to be stated and examined.

He makes Holbein the author of a new Dance of Death in the Crozat or Gallitzin drawings in Indian ink which have been already described in the present dissertation, adding that he also engraved them, and suppressing any mention in this place of the monogram on one of the cuts which he elsewhere admits not to belong to Holbein. Soon afterwards, and with very good reason, he doubts the originality of the drawings, which he says M. de Mechel caused to be copied by Rudolph Schellenberg, a skilful artist, already mentioned as the author of a Dance of Death of his own invention; and proceeds to state, that from these copies De Mechel employed some inferior persons in his service to make engravings; advancing all this without the accompaniment of any proof whatever, and in direct contradiction to De Mechel’s authority of having himself engraved them. An apparently bitter enemy to De Mechel, whose posthumous materials, now in the library at Basle, he nevertheless admits to have used for his work, he invidiously enlarges on the discrepancies between his engravings and the Lyons wood-cuts, both in size and manner; and then concludes that they were copied from the wood-cuts, the copyist allowing himself the privilege of making arbitrary variations, especially in the figure of the Eve in the second cut, which, he says, is of the family of Boucher, who, in spite of Hegner’s opinion, is regarded by better judges as a clever painter. Whether the remarks on any deviations of De Mechel’s prints from the Crozat drawings are just or otherwise can now be decided by comparison only, and Hegner does not appear to have seen them, or at least does not tell us so. His criticisms on the merit of the engravings in De Mechel’s work cannot be justified, for though they may occasionally be faulty, they are very neatly, and many will think beautifully executed.

What Hegner has said respecting the alphabets of initial letters, is at once futile and inaccurate; but his comment on Hans Lutzenberger deserves the severest censure. Adverting to the inscription with the name of this fine artist on one of the sets of the initials, he terms him “an itinerant bookseller, who had bought the blocks and put his name on them;” and this after having himself referred to a print on which Lutzenberger is called FORMSCHNEIDER, i. e. woodcutter: making in this instance a clumsy and dishonest effort to get rid of an excellent engraver, who stands so recorded in opposition to his own untenable system.

The very important and indelible expressions in the dedication to the first known edition of the Lyons wood-cuts, he very modestly terms “a play upon words,” and endeavours to account for the death of the painter by supposing Holbein’s absence in England would warrant the language of the dedication. This is indeed a most desperate argument. Frellon, the publisher and proprietor of the work, must have known better than to have permitted the dedication to accompany his edition had it been susceptible of so silly a construction.

He again adheres to the improbable notion that Holbein engraved the cuts to the Lyons book, and this in defiance of the mark or monogram which this painter never used; nor will a single print with Holbein’s accredited name be found to bear the slightest resemblance to the style of the wood-cuts. Even those in Cranmer’s catechism, which approach the nearest to them, are in a different manner. His earlier engravings on wood, whether in design only, or as the engraver, resemble those by Urs Graaf, who, as well as Holbein, decorated the frontispieces or titles to many of the books printed at Basle. It is not improbable that Urs Graaf was at that time a pupil of Holbein.

Hegner next endeavours to annihilate the painting at Whitehall recorded in Nieuhoff’s etchings and dedications, but still by arguments of an entirely negative kind. He lays much stress on this painting not being specifically mentioned by Sandrart or Van Mander, who were in England; but where does it appear that the latter, during his short stay in this country, had visited Whitehall? Even admitting that both these persons had seen that palace, it is most probable that the fresco painting of the Dance of Death, would, from length of time, dampness of the walls, and neglect, have been in a condition that would not warrant the exhibition of it, and it was, moreover, placed in a gallery which scarcely formed, at that time, a part of Whitehall, and which was, probably, not shown to visitors. It must not, however, be omitted to mention that Sandrart, in p. 239 of his Acad. Pict. states, though ambiguously, that “there was still remaining at Whitehall a work by Holbein that would constitute him the Apelles of his time,” an expression which we may remember had been also applied to Holbein by his friend Borbonius in the complimentary lines on a Dance of Death.

The Herr Hegner has thought fit to speak of Mr. T. Nieuhoff in terms of indecorous and unjust contempt, describing him as “an unknown and unimportant Dutch copper-plate engraver,” and arraigning his evidence as being in manuscript only; as if manuscripts that have never been printed were of no authority. But where has Hegner discovered that Nieuhoff was a Dutch copper-plate engraver, by which is meant a professed artist; or even though he had been such, would that circumstance vitiate his testimony? In his dedication to Lord William Benting the expressions allusive to his ardent love of the arts, seem to constitute him an amateur attempter of etching; for what he has left us in that way is indeed of a very subordinate character, and unworthy of a professed artist. He appears to have been one of the Dutchmen who accompanied King William to England, and to have had apartments assigned to him at Whitehall. At the end of his dedication to Lord W. Benting, he calls himself an old servant of that person’s father, and subscribes himself “your and your illustrious family’s most obedient and humble servant.”

The identification of William Benting must be left to the sagacity of others. He could not have been the Earl of Portland created in 1689, or he would have been addressed accordingly. He is, moreover, described as a youth born at Whitehall, and then residing there, and whose dwelling consisted of nearly the whole of the palace that remained after the fire.

Again, – We have before us a person living in the palace of Whitehall anterior to its destruction, testifying what he had himself seen, and addressing one who could not be imposed upon, as residing also in the palace. There seems to be no possible motive on the part of Nieuhoff for stating an untruth, and his most clear and unimpeachable testimony is opposed by Hegner’s wild and weak conjectures, and chiefly by the negative argument that a few strangers who visited England in a hasty manner have not mentioned the painting in question at Whitehall, amidst those inaccurate and superficial accounts of England which, with little exception, have been given by foreign travellers. Among these Hegner has selected Patin and Sandrart. Before adducing the former, he would have done well to have looked at his very imperfect and erroneous account of Holbein’s works, in his edition of the ΜΩΡΙΑΣ ΕΓΚΩΜΙΟΝ of Erasmus; and, with respect to the latter, the stamp of inaccuracy has been long affixed to most of the works he has published. He has mentioned, that being in company with Rubens in a Dutch passage boat “the conversation fell upon Holbein’s book of cuts, representing the Dance of Death; that Rubens gave them the highest encomiums, advising him, who was then a young man, to set the highest value upon them, informing him, at the same time, that he in his youth had copied them.”¹³⁹ On this passage Mr. Warton has well remarked that if Rubens styled these prints Holbein’s, in familiar conversation, it was but calling them by the name which the world had given them, and by which they were generally known; and that Sandrart has, in another place, confounded them with the Basle painting.¹⁴⁰

To conclude, – Juvenal’s “hoc volo, sic jubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas,” may be regarded as Herr Hegner’s literary motto. He has advocated the vague traditions of unauthenticated Dances of Death by Holbein, and has made a most unjustifiable attempt to deprive that truly great artist of the only painting on the subject which really appears to belong to him. Yet, if by fair and candid argument, supported by the necessary proofs, the usual and long standing claim on the part of Holbein can be substantiated, no one will thereby be more highly gratified than the author of this dissertation.

ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS

P. 59. After No. 17 add “La Danse Macabre.” Paris, Nicole de la Barre, 1523, 4to. with very different cuts, and some characters omitted in former editions.

P. 77, last line of the text. There is a German work intitled “The process or law-suit of Death,” printed, and perhaps written, by Conrad Fyner in 1477; but as it is not noticed in Panzer’s list of German books, no further account of it can be given than that it is briefly mentioned by Joseph Heller, in a German work on the subject of engraving on wood, in which one cut from it is introduced, that exhibits Death conversing with a husbandman who holds a flail in one of his hands. It is probable that the book would be found to contain other figures relating to a Macaber Dance.

P. 112, l. ult. There is another work by Glissenti, intitled “La Morte innamorata.” Venet. 1608, 24mo. with a dedication to Sir Henry Wotton, the English ambassador at Venice, by Elisabetta Glissenti Serenella, the author’s niece; in which, after stating that Sir Henry had seen it represented, she adds, that she had ventured to have it printed for the purpose of offering it to him as a very humble donation, &c. It is a moral, dramatic, and allegorical fable of five acts, in which Man, to avoid Death, who has fallen in love with him, retires with his family to the country of Long Life, where he takes up his abode in the house of the World, by whom and his wife Fraud, who is in strict friendship with Fortune, he is apparently made much of, and calculates on being very happy. Death follows the Man, and being unknown in the above region, contrives, with the aid of Infirmity, the Man’s nurse, to make him fall sick. The World being tired of his guest, and very desirous to get rid of, and plunder him of his property, under pretence of introducing him to Fortune, and consequent happiness, enters into a plot with Time to disguise Death, who is lodged in the same house with him, as Fortune, and thus to give him possession of the Man, who imagines that he is just about to secure Fortune. Each act of this piece is ornamented with some wood-cut that had been already introduced into the other work of Glissenti.

P. 118, line 32. Ebert, in his “Bibliographisches Lexicon,” Leipsig. 1821, 4to. has mentioned some later editions of Denneker’s engravings. See the article Denecker, p. 972.

P. 126, l. 14. It is not impossible that Hollar may have copied a bust carved in wood, or some other material, by Holbein, as Albert Durer and other great artists are known to have practised sculpture in this manner.

P. 135, l. 25. These four prints are in the author’s possession.

P. 137, l. ult. Other imitations of the Lyons cuts are, 1. A wood engraving of Adam digging and Eve spinning, by Corn. Van Sichem in the “Bibel’s tresor,” Amst. 1646, 4to. 2. The Astrologer, a small circular print on copper by Le Blond. 3. The Bridegroom, an anonymous modern engraving on wood. 4. The Miser, a small modern and anonymous print on copper.

P. 147, l. 19. In the library at Lambeth palace, No. 1049, there is a copy of this book in Greek, Latin, Italian, Spanish, English, and French, printed by J. Day, 1569, 8vo. It was given by Archb. Tillotson, and from a memorandum in it supposed to have been the Queen’s own copy. The cut of the Queen kneeling was used so late as 1652, in Benlowes’ Theophila. Some of the cuts have the unexplained mark .

P. 164, Article xii. This print is a copy, with a few variations, of a much older one engraved on wood, and probably unique, in the very curious collection of single sheets and black letter ballads, belonging to George Daniel, Esquire, of Islington. The figures are executed in a style of considerable merit, and each of them is described in a stanza of four lines. It may probably be the same as No. 1 or No. 2, mentioned in p. 76, or either of Nos. x. or xi. described in p. 163.

P. 226, line 12. Another drawing by Rowlandson, intitled “Death and the Drunkards.” Five topers are sitting at a table and enjoying their punch. Death suddenly enters and violently seizes one of them. Another perceives the unwelcome and terrific intruder, whilst the rest are too intent on their liquor to be disturbed at the moment. It is a very spirited and masterly performance. 11 by 9. In the author’s possession.

P. 239, l. 12. There is likewise in the “Biographie Universelle” an article intitled “Macaber, poete Allemand” by M. Weiss, and it is to be regretted that a writer whose learning and research are so eminently conspicuous in many of the best lives in the work, should have permitted himself to be misled in much that he has said, by the errors of Champollion Figeac in the Magazin Encyclopedique. He certainly doubts the existence of Macaber as a writer, but inclines to M. Van Praet’s Arabic Magbarah. He states, that the English version of the Macaber Dance belongs to John Porey, a poet who remains unknown even to his countrymen, and is inserted in the Monasticon Anglicanum. Now this unknown poet, who is likewise adopted by M. Peignot, is merely the person who contributed Hollar’s plate in the Monasticon, already mentioned in p. 52, and whose coat of arms is at the top of that plate, with the following inscription, “Quo præsentes et posteri Mortis, ut vidimus, omni Ordini comunis, sint magis memores, posuit IOHANNES POREY.” Mr. Weiss has likewise inadvertently adopted the error that Holbein painted the old Dance of Macaber in the convent of the Augustines at Basle.

Two recently published Dances of Death have come to hand too late to have been noticed in their proper places.

1. “Der Todtentantz. Ein Gedicht von Ludwig Bechstein, mit 48 kupfern in treuen Conturen nach H. Holbein. Leipzig bei Friedrich August Leo, 1831.” 8vo. These prints are executed in a faithful and elegant outline, and accompanied with modern German verses.

2. “Hans Holbein’s Todtentanz in 53 getreu nach den Holz schnitten lithographirten Blattern. Heraus gegeben von J. Schlotthaver k. Professor Mit erklärendem Texte. Munchen, 1832, Auf Rosten des Heraus gegebers.” 12mo. The prints are most accurately and elegantly lithographed in imitation of wood engraving. The descriptions are in German verse, and accompanied with some brief prefatory matter by Dr. H. F. Massmann, which is said to have been amplified in one of the German journals or reviews.

DESCRIPTION OF THE CUTS GIVEN IN THE DISSERTATION

I. The frontispiece is a design for the sheath of a dagger, probably made by Holbein for the use of a goldsmith or chaser. The original drawing is in the public library at Basle. See some remarks on it in p. 133.

II. These circular engravings by Israel Van Meckenen are mentioned in p. 160.

III. Copy of an ancient drawing, 1454, of Death and the Beggar. See p. 223.

IV. Figures of Death and the Lady, sculptured on a monument of the Delawars, in Boxgrove church, Sussex. See p. 226.

V. A fac-simile of one of the cuts to a very early edition, printed without date at Troyes by Nicolas le Rouge. It represents the story of the trois morts et trois vifs, and the vision of Saint Macarius. See pp. 33, 34, and 59.

VI. A fac-simile of another cut from the edition of a Danse Macabre, mentioned in No. V.

DESCRIPTION OF THE LYONS WOOD-CUTS
OF THE
DANCE OF DEATH

The Copies have been made by Mr. Bonner from the Cuts belonging to the “Imagines Mortis, Lugduni sub scuto Coloniensi, 1547,” 12mo. and which have been usually ascribed to Holbein.

1. THE CREATION OF ALL THINGS. The Deity is seen taking Eve from the side of Adam. “Formavit Dominus Deus hominem de limo terræ, &c.” Gen. i.

2. THE TEMPTATION. Eve has just received the forbidden fruit from the serpent, who, on the authority of venerable Bede, is here, as well as in most ancient representations of the subject, depicted with a female human face. She holds it up to Adam, and entices him to gather more of it from the tree. “Quia audisti vocem uxoris tuæ, et comedisti de ligno, &c.” Gen. iii.

3. THE EXPULSION FROM PARADISE. Adam and Eve are preceded by Death, who plays on a vielle, or beggar’s lyre, as if demonstrating his joy at the victory he has obtained over man. “Emisit eum Dominum Deus de Paradiso voluptatis, ut operaretur terram de qua sumptus est.” Gen. iii.

4. THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE FALL OF MAN. Adam is digging the ground, assisted by Death. In the distance Eve is suckling her first-born and holding a distaff. Whence the proverb in many languages:

 
When Adam delv’d and Eve span
Where was then the gentleman?
 

“Maledicta terra in opere tuo, in laboribus comedes cunctis diebus vitæ tuæ, donec revertaris, &c.” Gen. iii.

5. A CEMETERY, in which several Deaths are assembled, most of whom are playing on noisy instruments of music, as a general summons to mortals to attend them. “Væ, væ, væ habitantibus in terra.” Apoc. viii.

6. THE POPE. He is crowning an Emperor, who kneels before him, two Cardinals attending, one of whom is ludicrously personated by Death. In the back-ground are bishops, &c. Death embraces the Pope with one hand, and with the other leans on a crutch. Two grotesque Devils are introduced into the cut, one of whom hovers over the Pope, the other in the air holds a diploma, to which several seals are appended. “Moriatur sacerdos magnus.” Josue xx.

7. THE EMPEROR. Seated on a throne, and attended by his courtiers, he seems to be listening to, or deciding, the complaint of a poor man who is kneeling before him, against his rich oppressor, whom the Emperor, holding the sword of justice, seems to regard with an angry countenance. Behind him Death lays hands upon his crown. “Dispone domui tuæ, morieris, enim tu, et non vives.” Isaiæ xxxviii.

8. THE KING. He is sitting at his repast before a well-covered table, under a canopy studded with fleurs-de-lis. Death intrudes himself as a cupbearer, and presents the King with probably his last draught. The figure of the King seems intended as a portrait of Francis I. “Sicut et Rex hodie est, et cras morietur; nemo enim ex regibus aliud habuit.” Ecclesiast. x. et Sapient. vii.

9. THE CARDINAL. There is some difficulty in ascertaining the real meaning of the designer of this subject. It has been described as the Cardinal receiving the bull of his appointment, or as a rich man making a purchase of indulgences. The latter interpretation seems warranted by the Latin motto. Death is twisting off the Cardinal’s hat. “Væ qui justificatis impium pro muneribus, et justitiam justi aufertis ab eo.” Isaiæ v.

10. THE EMPRESS. Gorgeously attired and attended by her maids of honour, she is intercepted in her walk by Death in the character of a shrivelled old woman, who points to an open grave, and seems to say, “to this you must come at last.” “Gradientes in superbia potest Deus humiliare.” Dan. iv.

11. THE QUEEN. She has just issued from her palace, when Death unexpectedly appears and forcibly drags her away. Her jester, in whose habiliments Death has ludicrously attired himself, endeavours in vain to protect his mistress. A female attendant is violently screaming. Death holds up his hour-glass to indicate the arrival of the fatal hour. “Mulieres opulentæ surgite, et audite vocem meam: post dies et annum, et vos conturbemini.” Isaiæ xxxii.

12. THE BISHOP. Quietly resigned to his fate he is led away by Death, whilst the loss of the worthy Pastor is symbolically deplored by the flight and terror of several shepherds in the distance amidst their flocks. The setting sun is very judiciously introduced. “Percutiam pastorem, et dispergentur oves gregis.” Mat. xxvi. Mar. xiv.

13. THE DUKE. Attended by his courtiers, he is accosted in the street for charity by a poor beggar woman with her child. He disdainfully turns aside from her supplication, whilst Death, fantastically crowned with leaves, unexpectedly lays violent hands upon him. “Princeps induetur moerore, et quiescere faciam superbiam potentium.” Ezech. viii.

14. THE ABBOT. Death having despoiled him of his mitre and crosier, drags him away. The Abbot resists with all his might, and is about to throw his breviary at his adversary. “Ipse morietur, quia non habuit disciplinam, et in multitudine stultitiæ suæ decipietur.”

15. THE ABBESS. Death, grotesquely crowned with flags, seizes the poor Abbess by her scapulary. A Nun at the convent gate, with uplifted hands, bewails the fate of her superior. “Laudavi magis mortuos quam viventes.” Eccles. iv.

16. THE GENTLEMAN. He vainly, with uplifted sword, endeavours to liberate himself from the grasp of Death. The hour-glass is placed on his bier. “Quis est homo qui vivet, et non videbit mortem, eruet animam suam de manu inferi?”

17. THE CANON. Death holds up his hour-glass to him as he is entering a cathedral. They are followed by a noble person with a hawk on his fist, his buffoon or jester, and a little boy. “Ecce appropinquat hora.” Mat. xxvi.

18. THE JUDGE. He is deciding a cause between a rich and a poor man. From the former he is about to receive a bribe. Death behind him snatches his staff of office from one of his hands. “Disperdam judicem de medio ejus.” Amos ii.

19. THE ADVOCATE. The rich client is putting a fee into the hands of the dishonest lawyer, to which Death also contributes, but reminds him at the same time that his glass is run out. To this admonition he seems to pay little regard, fully occupied in counting the money. Behind this group is the poor suitor, wringing his hands, and lamenting that his poverty disables him from coping with his wealthy adversary. “Callidus vidit malum, et abscondit se: innocens pertransiit, et afflictus est damno.” Prover. xxii.

20. THE MAGISTRATE. A Demon is blowing corruption into the ear of a magistrate, who has turned his back on a poor man, whilst he is in close conversation with another person, to whose story he seems emphatically attentive. Death at his feet with an hour-glass and spade. “Qui obturat aurem suam ad clamorem pauperis, et ipse clamabit, et non exaudietur.” Prover. xxi.

21. THE PREACHER. Death with a stole about his neck stands behind the preacher, and holds a jaw-bone over his head, typifying perhaps thereby that he is the best preacher of the two. “Væ qui dicitis malum bonum, et bonum malum: ponentes tenebras lucem, et lucem tenebras: ponentes amarum in dulce, et dulce in amarum.” Isaiæ v.

22. THE PRIEST. He is carrying the viaticum, or sacrament, to some dying person. Attendants follow with tapers and holy water. Death strides on before, with bell and lanthern, to announce the coming of the priest. “Sum quidem et ego mortalis homo.” Sap. vii.

23. THE MENDICANT FRIAR. He is just entering his convent with his money box and wallet. Death seizes him by the cowl, and forcibly drags him away. “Sedentes in tenebris, et in umbra mortis, vinctos in mendicitate.” Psal. cvi.

24. THE NUN. Here is a mixture of gallantry and religion. The young lady has admitted her lover into her apartment. She is kneeling before an altar, and hesitates whether to persist in her devotions or listen to the amorous music of the young man, who, seated on a bed, touches a theorbo lute. Death extinguishes the candles on the altar, by which the designer of the subject probably intimates the punishment of unlawful love. “Est via quæ videtur homini justa: novissima autem ejus deducunt hominem ad mortem.” Prover. iv.

25. THE OLD WOMAN. She is accompanied by two Deaths, one of whom, playing on a stickado, or wooden psalter, precedes her. She seems more attentive to her rosary of bones than to the music, whilst the other Death impatiently urges her forward with blows. “Melior est mors quam vita.” Eccle. xxx.

26. THE PHYSICIAN. He holds out his hand to receive, for inspection, a urinal which Death presents to him, and which contains the water of a decrepid old man whom he introduces, and seems to say to the physician, “Canst thou cure this man who is already in my power?” “Medice cura te ipsum.” Luc. iv.

27. THE ASTROLOGER. He is seen in his study, looking attentively at a suspended sphere. Death holds out a skull to him, and seems, in mockery, to say, “Here is a better subject for your contemplation.” “Indica mihi si nosti omnia. Sciebas quod nasciturus esses, et numerum dierum tuorum noveras?” Job xxxviii.

28. THE MISER. Death has burst into his strong room, where he is sitting among his chests and bags of gold, and, seated on a stool, deliberately collects into a large dish the money on the table which the Miser had been counting. In an agony of terror and despair, the poor man seems to implore forbearance on the part of his unwelcome visitor. “Stulte, hac nocte repetunt animam tuam: et quæ parasti, cujus erunt?” Lucæ xii.

29. THE MERCHANT. After having escaped the perils of the sea, and happily reached the wished-for shore with his bales of merchandize; this too secure adventurer, whilst contemplating his riches, is surprised by Death. One of his companions holds up his hands in despair. “Qui congregat thesauros lingua mendacii, vanus et excors est, et impingetur ad laqueos mortis.” Proverb. xxi.

30. THE SHIP IN A TEMPEST. Death is vigorously employed in breaking the mast. The owner of the vessel is wringing his hands in despair. One man seems perfectly resigned to his impending fate. “Qui volunt ditescere, incidunt in tentationem et laqueum, et cupiditates multas, stultas ac noxias, quæ demergunt homines in exitium et interitum.” 1 ad Tim. vi.

31. THE KNIGHT. After escaping the perils in his numerous combats, he is vanquished by Death, whom he ineffectually resists. “Subito morientur, et in media nocte turbabuntur populi, et auferent violentum absque manu.” Job xxxiv.

32. THE COUNT. Death, in the character of a ragged peasant, revenges himself against his proud oppressor by crushing him with his own armour. On the ground lie a helmet, crest, and flail. “Quoniam cum interierit non sumet secum omnia, neque cum eo descendet gloria ejus.” Psal. xlviii.

33. THE OLD MAN. Death leads his aged victim to the grave, beguiling him with the music of a dulcimer. “Spiritus meus attenuabitur, dies mei breviabuntur, et solum mihi superest sepulchrum.” Job xvii.

34. THE COUNTESS. She receives from an attendant the splendid dress and ornaments with which she is about to equip herself. On a chest are seen a mirror, a brush, and the hour-glass of Death, who, standing behind her, places on her neck a collar of bones. “Ducunt in bonis dies suos, et in puncto ad inferna descendant.” Job xxi.

35. THE NEW-MARRIED LADY. She is accompanied by her husband, who endeavours to divert her attention from Death, who is insidiously dancing before them and beating a tambour. “Me et te sola mors separabit.” Ruth i.

36. THE DUCHESS. She is sitting up, dressed, in her bed, at the foot of which are two Deaths, one of whom plays on a violin, the other is pulling the clothes from the bed. “De lectulo, super quem ascendisti, non descendes, sed morte morieris.” 4 Reg. i.

37. THE PEDLAR. Accompanied by his dog, and heavily laden, he is proceeding on his way, when he is intercepted by Death, who forcibly pulls him back. Another Death is playing on a trump-marine. “Venite ad me omnes qui laboratis, et onerati estis.” Matth. xi.

38. THE HUSBANDMAN. He is assisted by Death, who conducts the horses of his plough. “In sudore vultus tui vesceris pane tuo.” Gen. iii.

39. THE CHILD. A female cottager is preparing her family mess, when Death enters and carries off the youngest of her children. “Homo natus de muliere, brevi vivens tempore, repletur multis miseriis: qui quasi flos egreditur, et conteritur, et fugit velut umbra.” Job xiv.

40. THE SOLDIER. He is engaged in unequal combat with Death, who simply attacks him with a bone. On the ground lie some of his demolished companions. In the distance, Death is beating a drum, and leading on a company of soldiers to battle. “Cum fortis armatus custodit atrium suum, &c. Si autem fortior eo superveniens vicerit eum, universa ejus arma aufert, in quibus confidebat.” Luc. xi.

41. THE GAMESTERS. Death and the Devil are disputing the possession of one of the gamesters, whom both have seized. Another seems to be interceding with the Devil on behalf of his companion, whilst a third is scraping together all the money on the table. “Quid prodest homini, si universum mundum lucretur, animæ autem suæ detrimentum patiatur?” Mat. xvi.