Maria of Austria, Holy Roman Empress (1528-1603): Dynastic Networker 0367646595, 9780367646592

Citation preview

MARIA OF AUSTRIA, HOLY ROMAN EMPRESS (1528–1603)

Maria of Austria was one of the longest surviving Renaissance Empresses but until now has received little attention by biographers. This book explores her life, actions, and management of domestic affairs, which became a feared example of how an Empress could control alternative spheres of power. The volume traces the path of a Castilian orphan infanta, raised among her mother’s Portuguese ladies-in-waiting and who spent thirty years of marriage between the imperial courts of Prague and Vienna. Empress Maria encapsulates the complex dynastic functioning of the Habsburgs: devotedly married to her cousin Maximilian II, Maria had constant communication with her father Charles V and her brother Philip II while preserving her Spanish background. Her unique intertwining of roles and positions allows a fresh approach to female agency and the discussion of current issues: the rules of dynastic entente, the negotiation of discreet political roles for royal women, the reassessment of informal diplomacy, and the creation of dynastic networks parallel to the embassies. With chronological chapters discussing Empress Maria’s roles such as infanta, regent, Empress, and a widow, this volume is the perfect resource for scholars and students interested in the history of gender, court culture, and early modern Central Europe. Rubén González Cuerva is Permanent Scientist at the CSIC, Madrid. He has published on the diplomacy and courts of the Habsburgs, including Baltasar de Zúñiga, una encrucijada de la Monarquía hispana (2012) and (with Alexander Koller) A Europe of Courts, a Europe of Factions (2017).

Lives of Royal Women Series Editors:- Elena Woodacre, [email protected] Louise Wilkinson, [email protected]

This series features academic, yet accessible biographies of royal women – consorts, dowagers, royal mothers, and female sovereigns – inclusive of all periods, cultures and geographic regions. These biographies include a deep engagement with the premise of queenship studies and the exercise of the queen’s office (or equivalent), in addition to covering the lives of particular women. The series is divided into three sub-strands: Queens of England (blue), Queens and Empresses of Europe (purple), and Royal Women of the World (red). Maria of Austria, Holy Roman Empress (1528–1603) Dynastic Networker Rubén González Cuerva

MARIA OF AUSTRIA, HOLY ROMAN EMPRESS (1528–1603) Dynastic Networker Rubén González Cuerva

Project supported by a 2018 Leonardo Grant for Researchers and Cultural Creators, BBVA Foundation

First published 2022 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2022 Rubén González Cuerva The right of Rubén González Cuerva to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record has been requested for this book ISBN: 978-0-367-64660-8 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-367-64659-2 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-12569-3 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003125693 Typeset in Bembo by codeMantra

CONTENTS

List of figures Preface List of abbreviations Introduction

ix xi xiii 1

1

Infanta Maria: a discreet childhood (1528–1539)

12

2

The orphan learning at court (1539–1548)

21

2.1 Places and people 21 2.2 Education and spirituality 26 2.3 Authority and its limits 32

3

The exercise of authority: marriage and the Iberian regency (1548–1551)

41

3.1 Negotiating a life in common 41 3.2 A household of her own 44 3.3 Maria of Austria, sole governor 54

4

The Queen of Bohemia fighting for her own space (1552–1564)

67

vi

Contents

4.1 Failed cultural adaptation 68 4.2 A household of her own 71 4.3 Ambassadors, ladies, and chaplains 77 4.4 A space for decisions: forming a Catholic family 84

5

Empress consort, discreet mediator (1564–1576)

97

5.1 Communications: spaces, agents, modalities 98 5.2 The family: dynasty and confession 106 5.3 Negotiating activity 122

6

The uncertain role of the dowager empress (1576–1581)

148

6.1 Widowhood, hope, and melancholy 148 6.2 Solitude and crisis 156 6.3 Maria and the ambassador Borja: politics and patronage 160

7

Establishing an imperial household in Madrid (1581–1587)

172

7.1 The return journey 172 7.2 To govern or to retire? 178 7.3 The palace in the monastery 182 7.4 The establishment of the imperial household 186

8

The empress without an empire and the dynastic turn (1587–1598) 8.1 An alternative patroness? Court and piety 196 8.2 The problems of Matthias, Maximilian, and Rudolf 201 8.3 The dynastic turn 206

196

Contents vii

9

New opportunities? The reign of Philip III (1598–1603)

221

9.1 High expectations (1598–1599) 221 9.2 The itinerant court and the move to Valladolid 226 9.3 The empress’s household and council: the last stronghold 231 9.4 Death, heritage, posterity 236

Conclusions

247

Dynastic mediator 251 Confessional agent 255 Cultural and social transfer 258

Sources and bibliography

267

Unprinted primary sources 267 Printed primary sources 269 Secondary sources 273

Index

299

FIGURES

3.1

4.1

4.2

7.1 7.2

8.1

8.2

Antonio Moro, La emperatriz María de Austria, esposa de Maximiliano II (Prado Museum, Madrid, 1551) © Archivo Fotográfico Museo Nacional del Prado Arcimboldo, Maximilian II (1527–1576) und seine Gemahlin Maria von Spanien (1528–1603) und seine Kinder Anna (1549–1580), Rudolf (1552–1612) und Ernst (1553–1595) (Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, 1553–1554) © KHM-Museumsverband Anonymous, Infantin Maria (1528–1603), Kaiserin, Bildnis in halber Figur (Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, 1557) © KHM-Museumsverband Coat of arms of Empress Maria (Descalzas Reales, Madrid) © Patrimonio Nacional Blas de Prado, La emperatriz María y Felipe III príncipe (Museo de Santa Cruz, Toledo, 1586) © David Blázquez Antonio González Velázquez, Emperatriz María de Austria (Descalzas Reales, Madrid, 1770) © Patrimonio Nacional Pedro Pardo, Emperatriz María de Austria (Descalzas Reales, Madrid, 1863) © Patrimonio Nacional

56

69

79 182

184

197

210

x

Figures

9.1

Imperial Crown from Empress Maria’s catafalque (Descalzas Reales, Madrid) © Patrimonio Nacional 9.2 Sepulchre of Empress Maria (Descalzas Reales, Madrid) © Patrimonio Nacional C.1 Pompeo Leoni, Cenotafio de Carlos V y su familia (Basílica de San Lorenzo de El Escorial, 1592– 1598) © Patrimonio Nacional

237 238

251

PREFACE

Most of this book was written in 2020, the year of the pandemic. This situation allowed me to return to the public library of Sotillo de la Adrada, my village, where I began to read. The process of documentation started a decade ago when I finished my PhD. The support of Guillermo Nieva in Salta and Alexander Koller in Rome was essential for this study to take shape. The wonderful time I spent at the German Historical Institute of Rome as a Marie Curie Fellow was in great part thanks to Professor Koller’s mentorship and the help of Martin Baumeister, the director, and Sandra Heisel, the office manager. My current position in CSIC has provided me with the perfect conditions for research; I thank Miguel Bunes for being a model colleague, friend, and daily reference. Without the generous support of a Leonardo grant from BBVA, this work would have simply been impossible. Elena Woodacre and Louise Wilkinson, the editors of the series, have been incredibly supportive and helpful throughout the process, as well as the editorial assistant Isabel Voice. I wish to express my gratitude to the archivists and librarians for their discreet and invaluable assistance, especially those of the Archivo General de Simancas, ARSI, and Thomas Cernusak in Brno. During my research stays, I remember with the greatest appreciation Maria Antonietta Visceglia, Gerard Delille, Stefano Andretta, José Ramón Urquijo, and Rafael Valladares in Rome; Pierpaolo Merlin and Alice Raviola in Turin; Friedrich Edelmayer,

xii Preface

Julia Gebke, Lothar Höbelt, and the indispensable Luis Tercero in Vienna; Luc Duerloo and René Vermeir in Brussels; and María Villanueva and her sons in Simancas. I have learnt and enjoyed thanks to the conversations and help of Jeroen Duindam, Liesbeth Geevers, Jonathan Spangler, Tracey Sowerby, Guido Braun, Hillard von Thiessen, Étienne Bourdeu, Ezequiel Borgognoni, Victoria Bosch, Tibor Martí, Géza Palffy, Almudena Pérez de Tudela, Mia Rodríguez Salgado, Carlos de Carlos, Ángel Alloza, César Olivera, Miguel Conde Pazos, Francesco Caprioli, Javier Revilla, Gloria Alonso, Blanca de la Válgoma, Natalia González Heras, and my magistri Feliciano Páez, José Martínez Millán, and Manuel Rivero. Patrimonio Nacional and Museo de Santa Cruz have kindly given permission for the use of their images free of charge. Petros Tsagkaropoulos has painstakingly translated the text risking his mental health. I have kept mine with the invaluable support of my parents, brother, sister-in-law, and adorable niece Laia, as well as my colleagues and friends Susana Gala, Juan Luis Simal, María Migueláñez, and especially Irene Arizmendi and Julián Vadillo. Pavel Marek was to be the co-author of this book, which is not better, since I lack his fine expertise, but not worse, since he has revised the entire manuscript with his admirable friendship and bigheartedness. I dedicate this book to my wife Patricia, the second (and most enthusiastic) reader of this text. I first met her while I was presenting a poster full of castles and princesses. Since then, her generosity for sharing our lives with an old empress and the unconditional and great love she has shown are beyond words. Maiora tibi! Ripagaina, December 2020

ABBREVIATIONS

AAV Add. Mss. AGI AGN AGR AGS AHN APA ARSI ASFi ASMo ASTo ASVe Aust. Barb. lat. BAV BayHStA BFZ BGe BL BNE CDCV CODOIN

Archivio Apostolico Vaticano Additional Manuscripts Archivo General de Indias, Seville Archivo General y Real de Navarra, Pamplona Archives Générales du Royaume, Brussels Archivo General de Simancas Archivo Histórico Nacional, Madrid Alte Prager Akten Archivum Romanum Societatis Iesu, Rome Archivio di Stato di Firenze Archivio di Stato di Modena Archivio di Stato di Torino Archivio di Stato di Venezia Assistentia Germaniae Provincia Austriaca Barberiniani Latini Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, Munich Biblioteca Francisco de Zabálburu, Madrid Bibliothèque de Genève British Library, London Biblioteca Nacional de España, Madrid Corpus documental de Carlos V Colección de Documentos Inéditos para la Historia de España

xiv Abbreviations

CSR CSyC DS E Ep. Ext. FA FB FK HA HHStA IVDJ LM LPF MP Mss. MZA NBD

Casa y Sitios Reales Colección Salazar y Castro Dispacci Senato Estado Epistolae Externorum Familienakten Fondo Borghese Familienkorrespondenz Hausarchiv Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv, Vienna Instituto Valencia de Don Juan, Madrid Lettere Ministri Lettere Principi Forestieri Mediceo del Principato Manuscritos Moravský zemský archiv, Brno Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland nebst ergänzenden Aktenstücken OMeA/SR Obersthofmeisteramt/Sonderreihen des Obersthofmeisteramtes PR Patronato Real R Raros RADM Rodinný archive Ditrichštejnů Mikulov RAH Real Academia de la Historia, Madrid RB Real Biblioteca, Madrid RHR Reichshofrat SDK Spanien, Diplomatische Korrespondenz SECCe Sociedad Estatal para la Conmemoración de los Centenarios de Felipe II y Carlos V SEG Secrétairerie d’état et de guerre SHK Spanien, Hof korrespondenz Sp. Spagna SS Segreteria di Stato Tol. Assistentia Hispaniae Provincia Toletana UR/FUK Urkundenreihen Familienurkunden VÖAW Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften

INTRODUCTION

In October 1600, Rochepot, the new French ambassador to Madrid, “was very happy to speak to the greatest woman in the world,” Empress Maria of Austria.1 The old empress was praised in her last days for holding the highest dignity in Christendom for a long time and in the most pious fashion. Her merits appeared to be merely relational and religious, according to the traditional account created soon after her death in the funeral orations for her and in the first two (and nearly hagiographic) biographies by Juan Carrillo (1616) and Rodrigo Mendes de Silva (1655).2 For centuries, Maria has played the role of a supporting actress in the general histories of the Habsburgs, in both Iberia and Central Europe. In the twentieth century, four researchers devoted their doctoral theses to offering new data and making visible her role in political affairs, but the four primarily addressed female and religious audiences and their work did not enjoy wide diffusion: the Austrian Helga Widorn and the Spaniards María de Blas Díaz-Jiménez, Rafaela Rodríguez Raso, and Rafael Ceñal SJ.3 Since the 1990s, the renewed thematic agenda of new political history has emphasised the importance of court studies and gender roles. Royal women in medieval and early modern times, DOI: 10.4324/9781003125693-1

2 Introduction

in both the Iberian and Central European theatres, have attracted more attention through the notions of queenship/gynaecocracy, a model of rule based on partnership with the king and greater access to government and power. In the early modern period, there were only a few cases of women holding direct power as proprietary queens or regents. The majority belonged to the category of “political consorts,” as Empress Maria, operating through discreet recourse to intercession, mediation, and negotiation with the male members of their families, while building their own network.4 This change of focus has enhanced our understanding of Empress Maria as a political player, as in recent studies by Friedrich Edelmayer, José Martínez Millán, Joseph Patrouch, Alexander Koller, Alfredo Alvar, and especially Magdalena Sánchez, whose works on Empress Maria’s last period are among the most remarkable pieces on Habsburg queenship.5 The general impression given by these works is that of a melancholic, idle, and not particularly intelligent empress, but a loving wife, a caring mother, and a woman interested in politics and increasingly participant in dynastic and religious affairs.6 This shift of attention can be clearly witnessed in popular culture by comparing José Saramago’s novel The Elephant’s Journey (2008) with the Spanish TV series Carlos, Rey Emperador (2015). After being awarded the Nobel Prize, Saramago novelised the real story of Suleiman, the Indian elephant which escorted Maria and her husband Maximilian from Valladolid to Vienna in 1551–1552. Although the role of Queen Catarina of Portugal is well represented in the novel, Maria is not even mentioned by name and the elephant appears as a wedding gift… only to her husband! By contrast, Maria is a clearly identifiable character in Charles, a shy but intelligent young woman fully aware of the subtleties of dynastic power. Nevertheless, we still lack a comprehensive vision of the empress, as the aforementioned studies are limited to short time spans of Maria’s life and a full biography is not yet available, despite her being “the greatest woman in the world” in the Renaissance (she was the only Holy Roman empress between 1539 and 1613). There is, by contrast, an extensive and up-to-date bibliography on her

Introduction  3

closest female relatives, which testifies to the vigour of recent female Habsburg studies.7 Several biographical approaches are possible for Maria: that of the spiritual reformer, the art collector, or the aristocratic patroness. Previous scholars have convincingly demonstrated that behind Maria’s pious portrait lay a woman who exercised “political power.” The aim of this study, therefore, is to examine how “political power” in the sixteenth century should be understood and identify Maria’s roles and limitations in that framework. In this regard, the key element to her role was her reputation as “the true solution to every difficulty,”8 as the glue which kept united (and purely Catholic) both branches of the House of Austria for half a century. By mediating with the princes of the dynasty, she also established relations with royals in France, Poland, and Italy, thus revealing the society of princes at work and the oeconomic foundations for ruling early modern Europe. The dynastic framework applied in this book naturalises the space of action reserved for Maria in line with current moves to “de-exceptionalise” the political activity and agency of elite women and in contrast to the misleading image of exceptional figures outside the boundaries that society imposed.9 There is a certain risk of lapsing into a new positivism of “great women” in studies dedicated to shedding light on these female agents while retaining the dominant male-centred model of power.10 Maria was not a unique case, but she still deserves attention as a discreet and persistent woman who took full advantage (and tested the limits) of the several roles allowed to her as Holy Roman empress. Furthermore, through an analysis in dynastic terms, it is possible to transcend (without denying) national viewpoints and study her interests and actions without seeing her as a Spanish proto-nationalist figure that fought for the grandeur of her homeland. In fact, I argue that she did not defend “Spain” or “the Empire,” but her brother, husband, and children.11 This study, therefore, departs from a micropolitical approach or akteurszentrierte Perspektive (“perspective centred on actors”).12 As the focus is on actors and the pursuit of their interests through personal contacts, clientelist relations, and network building, political power is interpreted as a “space of action (Handlungsraum)

4 Introduction

in which it is a matter of making and implementing collectively binding decisions.”13 According to communication theory, “power is not a property of the powerful, but rather a relation which arises from communication processes,” so that the institutional paradigm is blurred.14 In order to explore agency in terms of communication and decisions, I look into the possibilities and techniques of communicative interchanges and the space of action for decision-making (or influencing and conditioning someone else’s decisions).15 Following these principles, Empress Maria of Austria had a rich relational capital, which stemmed from a century of imperial rule: she was the daughter of Emperor Charles V (1519–1556), wife of Maximilian II (1564–1576) – and therefore daughter-inlaw of Ferdinand I (1556–1564) – and mother of fifteen children, among whom were Emperors Rudolf II (1576–1612) and Matthias I (1612–1619). Historiography, however, has mainly emphasised her relationship with her brother Philip II (1556–1598). Maria remained in close contact with him throughout her life, especially during the three decades of marriage she spent at the Imperial court (1551–1581). During that time, she has been seen by modern scholars almost as her brother’s “mole” in the Empire; although she is acknowledged as a loving and faithful wife, she acted in politics according to Philip II’s interests.16 After becoming a widow, she imposed her decision to return to her native Spain and retire to the Descalzas Reales monastery of Madrid for the rest of her life. Her case is unique in two ways. On the one hand, she took a lifelong journey from the Spanish to the Imperial court and back again, adapting herself to different power settings. These three clear-cut phases of her life are reflected in the tripartite structure of the book: the young Maria in Spain (as daughter, orphan, and wife), the adult Maria in the Empire (as Queen of Bohemia, empress consort, and dowager empress), and the old Maria back in Spain (as sister, mother, and grandmother). On the other hand, thanks to her influential connections, she built an extensive and long-standing dynastic network whose nature is still debated among historians. The Protestant humanist Johannes Crato von Krafftheim commented that he faced strong opposition at the Imperial court from the “Imperial Gynaecium,” which was supported by “wise

Introduction  5

priests”  – an elegant way of identifying the empress’s entourage without naming it.17 Since Bohdan Chudoba in the 1940s, the label “Spanish faction” has been employed to describe this group of imperial courtiers, which consisted of staunch Catholics close to the Spanish crown.18 This emphasis on national characterisations with regard to the empress’s clientele has been reiterated by recent authors with regard to her return to Spain. There she transformed from a supporter of Spanish interests in the Empire into a protector of the imperial ones in Spain, becoming the leader of an “Austrian Party” or “pro-Austrian group.”19 It will be argued that Maria engaged in a complex game of dynastic communication which cannot be reduced to national dichotomies between factions, as several layers of action and polarisation intertwined in court politics. Moreover, her political activity fell into two distinct spheres, whose meticulous differentiation was crucial to her success. Thus, throughout the book, I make a clear distinction between interceding/mediating and negotiating. As a royal woman without specific duties as a regent or vicereine, Maria could legitimately intercede with her relatives but not negotiate with them, as the latter was considered an intrusion and a disruption of the established order: Weiberhandlung (female dealings) was a derogatory notion.20 It was a commonplace among Venetian ambassadors to praise her conscious disinterest in negotij: “she never meddles in negotiations” and “her greatest merit was that she did not want to interfere in negotiations.”21 Maria also deliberately prevented her female entourage from getting involved in such matters, since “there is nothing to be said on negotiations.” For example, one of her candidates for a court position won her approval because “she does not negotiate as much as Ana María [Laso de Castilla].” However, she did expect Philip II to integrate her children Rudolf and Ernst into deliberative assemblies, since “they need to learn to negotiate.”22 Despite these obstacles, Maria followed biblical models in mediating with her male relatives (and the ecclesiastical authorities) in the domestic context: Susanne, Esther, and especially the Virgin Mary provided clear examples. She was expected to emulate the Mother of God, in an Imitatio Mariae which created a gendered semantic field with regard to advocating, mediating, interceding, and

6 Introduction

advising. This type of language largely depended on the manipulation of emotions and was employed in various situations, from pleas to admonitions and from peace-making to arranging marriages.23 Maria cultivated this knowledge throughout her life: since her childhood, she had drinking cups decorated with the stories of Susanne and Esther.24 When she was widowed, two books on model women were dedicated to her, providing further examples of religious and domestic virtues.25 Despite several early modern Iberian peculiarities, these roles were generally accepted throughout the premodern world, even beyond Europe.26 The Aristotelian distinction between the male public and political spheres and the female private and domestic spheres was as functional as it was porous. Cosimo I de’ Medici advised his daughter-in-law, Giovanna of Austria (Empress Maria’s sister-inlaw), to “dedicate herself to the care of the house, leaving the reins of government to him.”27 However, behind this dichotomy, the domestic and the political were inextricably linked and, according to Bodin, the republic did not rule over individuals but was the “right government of several families.”28 Maria’s participation in public affairs originated in the domestic realm and reflected her dynastic and religious concerns. She could legitimately express her opinion and mediate without overstepping her boundaries as a royal woman. Having a voice in the matrimonial and confessional politics of the Habsburgs, however, involved the establishment of relations with the main European royal families and the Papacy and a series of actions which would currently be understood as international politics. These actions depended on the dichotomy of present vs absent. In a “face-to-face society” such as early modern Europe, Maria heavily relied on personal interaction and a frequent correspondence across Europe.29 Her letters were a powerful means of mediation and an acknowledgement of her authority to keep her information and patronage networks in motion.30 It is true that her holograph letters, in poor cursive handwriting, are only a minority compared to those written by her secretaries due to the serious gap in the available sources. This is also partly responsible for the difficulty in writing her biography. Empress Maria’s extensive

Introduction 7

personal correspondence is now largely lost, as she did not keep a personal archive and her female relatives used to destroy their letters.31 These were considered private and were rarely meant to enter the royal archives. Furthermore, it was necessary to avoid exposing details which could put female modesty in doubt. As one of Maria’s acquaintances – who ordered her correspondents to destroy her own letters – explained, “I take particular care that no one understands; I do not enter into or touch upon such serious matters.”32 For this reason, I have followed the traces of every possible personal document by Maria to her relatives and servants, as well as the rich diplomatic sources related to her in a substantial selection of archives in Spain, Italy, the Vatican City, Austria, the Czech Republic, Belgium, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. The union of the pieces of the puzzle offers – I expect – a more nuanced vision of “the most accomplished, the holiest, and the greatest princess that ever was in the world.”33

Notes 1 Juan de Borja to the Duke of Lerma, Madrid, 08/10/1600, BL, Add. Mss., 28423, 251r. 2 A good analysis of the creation of the “myth of the correct widow” in Alfredo Alvar Ezquerra, “Intercambios culturales tangibles e intangibles: algunos datos sobre la Emperatriz viuda María en Madrid, 1582– 1603,” in Carolus: Homenaje a Friedrich Edelmayer, ed. Francisco Toro Ceballos (Alcalá la Real: Ayuntamiento, 2017), 31–35 and especially Magdalena Sánchez, The Empress, the Queen, and the Nun. Women and Power at the Court of Philip III of Spain (Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 1998), 63–71. 3 Helga Widorn, “Die spanischen Gemahlinnen der Kaiser Maximilian II., Ferdinand III. und Leopold II.” (PhD diss., Universität Wien, 1959), 1–51; María del Camino de Blas y Díaz-Jiménez, “La Emperatriz Doña María de Austria” (PhD diss., Universidad de Madrid, 1950); Rafaela Rodríguez Raso, “Maximiliano y María de Austria, gobernadores de España 1548–1551: estudio a través de su correspondencia con Carlos V” (PhD diss., Universidad de Madrid, 1957); Rafael Ceñal Lorente, “La emperatriz María de Austria, su personalidad política y religiosa” (PhD diss., Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 1991). 4 Heide Wunder, “Gynäkokratie. Auf der Suche nach einem verloren gegangenen Begriff der frühneuzeitlichen politischen Sprache,” Zeitenblicke 8(2) (2009), http://www.zeitenblicke.de/2009/2/wunder; Elena Woodacre, ed., Queenship in the Mediterranean. Negotiating the

8

5

6

7

8

Introduction

Role of the Queen in the Medieval and Early Modern Eras (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), 1–5; Matthias Schnettger, “Weibliche Herrschaft in der Frühen Neuzeit. Einige Beobachtungen aus verfassungs- und politikgeschichtlicher Sicht,” Zeitenblicke 8(2) (2009): § 28; Julia Hodapp, Habsburgerinnen und Konfessionalisierung im späten 16. Jahrhundert (Münster: Aschendorff, 2018), 11–16. Friedrich Edelmayer, “Maria de Austria,” Neue Deutsche Biographie 16 (1990): 174–175; José Martínez Millán, “La emperatriz María y las pugnas cortesanas en tiempos de Felipe II,” in Felipe II y el Mediterráneo, ed. Ernest Belenguer Cebrià (Madrid: SECCe, 1999), 3:143–162; Joseph Patrouch, Queen’s Apprentice: Archduchess Elizabeth, Empress María, the Habsburgs, and the Holy Roman Empire, 1554–1569 (Leiden: Brill, 2010); Alexander Koller, “Maria von Spanien, die katholische Kaiserin,” in Nur die Frau des Kaisers? Kaiserinnen in der Frühen Neuzeit, eds. Bettina Braun, Katrin Keller, and Matthias Schnettger (Wien: Böhlau, 2016), 85–97; Alvar Ezquerra, “Intercambios culturales”; Sánchez, The Empress. Andreas Edel, Der Kaiser und Kurpfalz: eine Studie zu den Grundelementen politischen Handelns bei Maximilian II. (1564–1576) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), 157; Paula Fichtner, Emperor Maximilian II (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001), 19–20, 116–118. For her mother Isabel of Portugal, see Antonio Villacorta BañosGarcía, La Emperatriz Isabel: su vida al lado de Carlos V, su mundo, su época (Madrid: Actas, 2009) and Alfredo Alvar Ezquerra, La emperatriz. Isabel y Carlos V: Amor y gobierno en la corte española del Renacimiento (1503–1539) (Madrid: La esfera de los libros, 2012). For her daughter Ana of Austria, see Elisa García Prieto, Una corte en femenino. Servicio áulico y carrera cortesana en tiempos de Felipe II (Madrid: Marcial Pons Historia, 2018); for her nieces Isabel Clara Eugenia and Catalina Micaela, see Cordula van Wyhe, ed., Isabel Clara Eugenia. Female Sovereignty in the Courts of Madrid and Brussels (Madrid: CEEH, 2011) and Blythe Alice Raviola and Franca Varallo, eds., L'infanta: Caterina d'Austria, duchessa di Savoia (1567–1597) (Roma: Carocci, 2013). General overviews are also available in Anne Cruz and Maria Galli Stampino, eds., Early Modern Habsburg Women: Transnational Contexts, Cultural Conflicts, Dynastic Continuities (Farnham: Ashgate, 2013); María Leticia Sánchez Hernández, ed., Mujeres en la Corte de los Austrias: una red social, cultural, religiosa y política (Madrid: Polifemo, 2019); Fernando Checa Cremades, ed., La otra Corte. Mujeres de la Casa de Austria en los Monasterios Reales de las Descalzas y la Encarnación (Madrid: Patrimonio Nacional, 2019), the catalogue of the 2019–2021 exhibition at the Royal Palace of Madrid. Guillén de San Clemente to Juan de Zúñiga, Prague, 25/07/1581, in Marqués de Ayerbe, ed., Correspondencia de Guillén de San Clemente, embajador en Alemania de Felipe II y III (Zaragoza: La Derecha, 1892), 292.

Introduction 9

9 Amy Livingstone, “Recalculating the Equation: Powerful Woman = Extraordinary,” Medieval Feminist Forum 51(2) (2016): 17–21. Dynasty is understood as an optimal manifestation of the family, with heightened sense of identity; a collection of assets (territories, rank, rights and offices); marriages and inheritance practices that are intended to pass on the patrimony undiminished or enhanced; and an increased sense of historical continuity.

10 11

12

13

14

15

Wolfgang E.J. Weber, “Dynastiesicherung and Staatsbildung. Die Entfaltung des frühmodernen Fürstenstaates,” in Der Fürst. Ideen und Wirklichkeiten in der europäischen Geschichte, ed. Wolfgang E.J. Weber (Köln: Böhlau, 1998), 95. See also Jeroen Duindam, Dynasties: A Global History of Power, 1300–1800 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 286–296. Mary Beard, Women & Power: A Manifesto (London: Profile Books, 2017), 81–84. Blas y Díaz-Jiménez, “La Emperatriz Doña María,” 9; Ceñal Lorente, “La emperatriz María,” iv–ix; José Martínez Millán and Esther Jiménez Pablo, “La Casa de Austria: una justificación político-religiosa,” in La dinastía de los Austria: las relaciones entre la Monarquía Católica y el Imperio, eds. José Martínez Millán and Rubén González Cuerva (Madrid: Polifemo, 2011), 1:12. Hillard von Thiessen, Diplomatie und Patronage. Die spanisch-römischen Beziehungen 1605–1621 in akteurszentrierter Perspektive (Epfendorf: bibliotheca academica Verlag, 2010), 22–24, 36–38; Wolfgang Reinhard, “Die Nase der Kleopatra. Geschichte im Lichte mikropolitischer Forschung. Ein Versuch,” Historische Zeitschrift 293(3) (2011): 631–641. Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger, “Was heißt Kulturgeschichte des Politischen?,” Zeitschrift für Historische Forschung 35 (2005): 13. The central notion of space of action follows Luttenberger’s definition: “structurally delineated area of possibilities [including] all spiritual dispositions, mental barriers and impulses, normative ideas, personal constellations and individual impulses.” Albrecht P. Luttenberger, “Reichspolitik und Reichstag unter Karl V. Formen zentralen politischen Handelns,” in Aus der Arbeit an den Reichstagen unter Kaiser Karl V., eds. Heinrich Lutz and Alfred Kohler (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 20. Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger, “The Impact of Communication Theory on the Analysis of the Early Modern Statebuilding Processes,” in Empowering Interactions. Political Culture and the Emergence of the State in Europe 1300–1900, eds. Wim Blockmans et al. (Farnham: Ashgate, 2009), 315. Philip Hoffmann-Rehnitz, André Krischer, and Matthias Pohlig, “Entscheiden als Problem der Geschichtswissenschaft,” Zeitschrift für Historische Forschung 45 (2018): 234.

10

Introduction

16 Magdalena Sánchez, “Los vínculos de sangre: la emperatriz María, Felipe II y las relaciones entre España y Europa central,” in Felipe II (1527–1598): Europa y la monarquía católica, ed. José Martínez Millán (Madrid: Parteluz, 1998), 1/2:778–783; Martínez Millán, “La emperatriz María,” 145. 17 J.F.A. Gillet, Crato von Crafftheim und seine Freunde: ein Beitrag zur Kirchengeschichte: nach handschriftlichen Quellen (Frankfurt am Main: Brönner, 1861), 2:4, 32. 18 Pavel Marek, “Španělská strana na císařském dvoře? K problematice jednoho pojmu z politických dějin,” Český časopis historický 113(4) (2015): 965–990; Robert J.W. Evans, Rudolf II and His World: A Study in Intellectual History, 1576–1612 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973), 69; Patrouch, Queen’s Apprentice, 33. 19 Sánchez, The Empress, 36–38; Alfredo Alvar Ezquerra, ed. El Embajador Imperial Hans Khevenhüller (1538–1606) en España (Madrid: BOE, 2015), 109–111. 20 Julia Gebke, “Auf den Spuren der ‘weiberhandlung’. Gender, Space und Agency in der Casa de Austria im 16. Jahrhundert,” L’Homme 30(2) (2019): 37. 21 Relatione del nob. huomo S. Zuan Michiel, 24/11/1571, in Joseph Fiedler, ed., Relationen venetianischer Botschafter über Deutschland und Österreich im sechzehnten Jahrhundert (Wien: Kaiserlich-Königlichen Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, 1870), 283 and Relatione delli Clarissimi m. Zuan Michiel… ritornati ambasciatori dalla ser.ma Imperatrice, 18/11/1581, in ibid., 395. 22 The Count of Monteagudo to the Duke of Alba, Speyer, 26/08/1570, AGS, E, 664, n. 17, 7v; Maria of Austria to Philip II, Prague, 29/05/1570, in Juan Carlos Galende and Manuel Salamanca, eds., Epistolario de la emperatriz María de Austria (Madrid: Nuevos Escritores, 2004), 187 and 189. 23 Catherine M. Mooney, “Imitatio Christi or ‘Imitatio Mariae’? Clare of Assisi and Her Interpreters,” in Gendered Voices: Medieval Saints and Their Interpreters, ed. Catherine M. Mooney (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999), 66–69; Ángela Muñoz Fernández, “La mediación femenina como forma de acción política. Tiempos, contextos y transformaciones de un rol político (Castilla, siglos xiv y xv),” e-Spania 20 (2015), https://doi.org/10.4000/e-spania.24146; Natalia González Heras, “Sor Margarita de la Cruz, ¿un modelo de mujer ortodoxo?,” in Sánchez Hernández, Mujeres en la Corte de los Austrias, 611. 24 Fernando Checa Cremades, ed., Los inventarios de Carlos V y la familia imperial (Madrid: Fernando Villaverde, 2010), 2:2217. 25 Juan de Espinosa, Diálogo en laude de las mugeres intitulado Ginaecepaenos en V partes (Milán: Michel Tini, 1580), a2 and 97v; Juan Pérez de Moya, Varia historia de sanctas e illustres mugeres en todo genero de virtudes (Madrid: por Francisco Sanchez, 1583), dedication.

Introduction 11

26 Comparing eight premodern states without contact among them, Sabloff has found patterns which are applicable to Maria of Austria: they influenced policy, influenced the behaviour of those above and below them in rank, acted as go-betweens (usually for their kinsmen or spouses), and passed information to their kinsmen, their affines, or both. Royal women of either status acted as patrons to various clients.

27 28 29 30

31

32

33

Paula L.W. Sablof, “The Political Agency of Royal Women: A Comparative Analysis of Eight Premodern States According to Societal Rules and Roles,” Journal of Archaeological Research 28 (2020): 86. Catherine Ferrari, “Kinship and the Marginalized Consort: Giovanna d’Austria at the Medici Court,” Early Modern Women: An Interdisciplinary Journal 11(1) (2016): 62. Anna Becker, “Der Haushalt in der politischen Theorie der Frühen Neuzeit,” in Haus im Kontext, eds. Joachim Eibach and Inken Schmidt-Voges (München: De Gruyter, 2015), 679–683. Rudolf Schlögl, Anwesende und Abwesende. Grundriss für eine Gesellschaftsgeschichte der Frühen Neuzeit (Konstanz: Konstanz University Press, 2014), 13. Nieves Romero-Díaz, “On Female Political Alliances: Sor María de Ágreda's Communities of Letters,” Hispanic Review 86(1) (2018): 94. The parallel – and clumsier – case of her sister-in-law Isabel of Valois, Queen of Spain, in María José Rodríguez-Salgado, “‘Una perfecta princesa’: casa y vida de la reina Isabel de Valois (1559–1568). Segunda parte,” Cuadernos de Historia Moderna 28 (2003): 72. Juan Carlos Galende and Manuel Salamanca, “Las misivas reales durante la segunda mitad del siglo XVI: historia, diplomática y cultura escrita a través de la correspondencia de la emperatriz María de Austria,” in IV Jornadas Científicas sobre Documentación de Castilla e Indias en el siglo XVI, eds. Juan Carlos Galende et al. (Madrid: UCM, 2005), 195–197. The Prioress of La Encarnación to Franz Christoph Khevenhüller, Madrid, 13/04/1619, HHStA, SDK, 16/9, 364r. The same happened with contemporary German princesses: Jill Bepler, “Dynastic Positioning and Political Newsgathering: Hedwig Eleonora of Schleswig-Gottorf, Queen of Sweden, and Her Correspondence,” in Queens Consort, Cultural Transfer and European Politics, c.1500-1800, eds. Helen Watanabe-O’Kelly and Adam Morton (London: Routledge, 2017), 136. Vincenzo Tron to the Doge of Venice, Vienna, 10/12/1575, ASVe, DS, Germania, 5, 116r.

1 INFANTA MARIA A discreet childhood (1528–1539)

I found in the Lady Infanta Dona Maria, the eldest one, another prince, her brother, both in person and disposition; […] blessed will be he, […] who will take her as his wife.1

Maria represented the most lasting and parallel of all of Philip II’s female relations, both in terms of chronology (they were born and died within a few years of each other) and in terms of their temperaments and activities. Throughout her life, Maria was repeatedly compared to her powerful elder brother, whose work she complemented in the dynastic sphere. She inherited and embodied the German legacy of her father Charles V, while her sister Juana took over the Portuguese connection from her mother Isabel of Portugal and Philip II remained essentially a Spanish monarch. As second in line of succession, Maria was destined for an illustrious marriage in which she was expected to have many offspring and prove her piety and prudence. Her first twenty years as an unmarried infanta were a period of preparation but also a testing ground for her ability to communicate and intercede, qualities which would later define her role as a dynastic agent. With whom and how did Maria DOI: 10.4324/9781003125693-2

Infanta Maria  13

relate during her residence in Castile? In what kind of political culture was she educated in terms of areas of action and room for manoeuvre? Maria was born in the old Alcázar of Madrid at noon on 21 June 1528 and was immediately baptised, probably in the Palace parish (then the church of San Miguel de Sagra). Her father Charles V was at the Courts of Monzón at the time (in the current province of Huesca), and it therefore seems that it was through the initiative of her mother, Isabel of Portugal, that she was named after her maternal grandmother, María of Trastámara. Although her name connected her with the Iberian legacy of the dynasty, the choice of her godparents, possibly her father’s idea, linked her to the Central European side of the family: these were the future Emperor Ferdinand I and the Governor of the Netherlands, Marguerite of Austria, brother and aunt, respectively, of Charles V.2 Maria’s birth took place during the first lengthy separation of the couple. Before his departure, Charles V was careful to leave his wife “a household that was in many respects organised in a Castilian manner.”3 Domestic service in Isabel of Portugal’s household was conducted in a typically Portuguese fashion, which prominent Castilian ministers in the imperial circle tried to counterbalance with the customs of Castile, the land which gradually established itself as the governing centre of Charles V’s inheritance.4 Thus, from the moment of her birth, Maria found herself at the crossroads of various overlapping, and occasionally subtly competing, European cultural legacies (Portuguese, Castilian, and Austro-Burgundian), which would eventually define her personal style. Indirect testimonies of Maria’s upbringing and development reiterated the traditional commonplaces about the health and beauty of the child.5 Her personality was scrutinised over time for signs of her ability to fulfil what was expected of her in the future, namely to influence her relatives and promote a climate of understanding among them: “the lady infanta has already begun to win her mother’s favour, and rightly so, and in concord with the prince, which is no small thing.”6 As was usually the case with royal children, Maria and her brother Philip II were attached to the household of their mother,

14  Infanta Maria

Isabel of Portugal, which was characterised by its limited size and organisational weaknesses. This was due to the children’s young age and the itinerant nature of the court, whose movements were often dictated by the presence of disease or famine in the regions through which it passed. The siblings spent their first years in different towns and cities of Old Castile and the Kingdom of Toledo with the exception of a journey to the Crown of Aragon in 1533 to meet Charles V in Barcelona on his return to Spain.7 Particularly notable among the small number of servants that accompanied them were the strong Portuguese element and the considerable presence of Catalans and Valencians through the Requesens and Borja lineages.8 The children never lived with other members of the dynasty except with their cousin Louis of Savoy, Prince of Piedmont, who died prematurely in 1536, and with their grandmother Juana of Castile (the so-called “Mad queen”) during their brief stays in Tordesillas (1532, 1536, 1538), whose impact on young Maria is open to debate.9 The Portuguese female entourage of Isabel of Portugal therefore provided the primary context of sociability for Maria, benefiting from the long family ties and the common Iberian cultural framework shared with the Portuguese dynasty of Avis.10 Moreover, the Habsburg-Avis marriage agreement had been twofold, as the marriage of Charles V to Isabel in 1526 was preceded in 1525 by that of John III of Portugal, Isabel’s brother, to Catarina of Austria, Charles’ younger sister. This reciprocity and relative family trust (in both cases the spouses were first cousins) opened possibilities for greater flexibility in the dynastic relations. In Lisbon, Catarina of Austria kept her first lady of the bedchamber, the Castilian María de Velasco, as her favourite and enjoyed a close relationship with the ambassador of her brother Charles V, Lope Hurtado.11 In the delicate disagreements between the two crowns, as in the dispute about the allocation of the Moluccas in 1529, Catarina played a discreet but effective intermediary role between her husband and her brother, employing a language of friendship and familiarity.12 The undisguised zeal with which Catarina served her brother Charles V in Lisbon found no parallel in Castile, since Isabel of Portugal exhibited a more reserved attitude

Infanta Maria  15

and Charles V had to ask her to write to her brother John III in order to promote his interests.13 In fact, the princesses always had to negotiate several roles simultaneously, and it would be a mistake to see them as fifth columnists of a foreign government. The court texts which scrutinise the actions of these women are concerned with their ability to win over their husbands’ will, a type of influence which was by nature changeable and conditioned.14 Unlike her sister-in-law Catarina of Austria, Isabel did not directly attract comment for supporting her brother and home country. Attention was primarily drawn to her household and ladies-in-waiting, a sphere which was vulnerable to accusations of isolation and exclusivity. The clash of national identities contributed to the image of those Portuguese women as pretentious and uncouth.15 Concerns about the composition of this close-knit and markedly Portuguese circle did not only stem from xenophobic fears but also involved an important political dimension. The royal household constituted a natural framework of sociability for Charles V’s progeny, and even more so for his daughters, who were to be raised with these women until the time of their wedding. This experience proved decisive for Maria’s later development in two ways. On the one hand, growing up in a house which was relatively isolated and culturally distinct from the rest of courtly society may explain why she was able to retain her household in the Empire in the same remarkable way in which her mother had preserved hers in Castile. On the other hand, young Maria’s horizon of expectations was more directed towards the West than the North, as she was quite unfamiliar with the Central European part of the dynasty. From the moment of her birth, which was celebrated in Lisbon “more than I could say,”16 Isabel had intended her first-born daughter to weave stronger bonds with the Avis. This was her request to Charles V in her will in 1529: marrying in Portugal “will be much better for her [Maria] than elsewhere.”17 In one of the earliest testimonies to Maria’s behaviour during an audience, on the occasion of the reception of the French envoy Brissac in 1538, it was pointed out that Prince Philip embraced him, whereas Maria neither did so nor shook his hand. By contrast, she showed great poise at the

16  Infanta Maria

hearings with Portuguese representatives.18 For the princess, the Portuguese court, which she only knew from hearsay, served as a standard of comparison with her experience in Castile: during the refurbishment of the Alcázar of Madrid in 1545, Maria asked one of her Portuguese servants whether this new palace was better than the one in Sintra.19 In daily life, Isabel was affectionate in private but strict in public, admonishing Maria and Philip and even punishing them if they failed to keep to their schedules and tasks. A Portuguese wet nurse, Maria de Leite, was in charge of nursing Infanta Maria, whose daily care was the responsibility of the most trusted ladies-in-waiting, particularly of the Portuguese Leonor de Mascarenhas and, to a lesser extent, the Castilian Inés Manrique and Isabel de Quiñones, all under the supervision of the first lady of the bedchamber, also the Portuguese Guiomar de Melo.20 The daily routine followed a model which had been established by Isabel of Portugal and was based on a “Portuguese-style” service. It was never recorded in writing but was sufficiently well known for Charles V to order that it should continue unchanged after his wife’s death.21 In this apparently peaceful family setting, Maria and Philip spent a loving and harmonious childhood sharing lodgings, retinue, and rules. He entertained her “as a courteous gentleman,” and she planned to organise a soirée when she turned twenty years old. At the age of seven Philip was already able to ride and gave his mules to Maria as a present; all their arguments seemed to revolve around settling who had more clothes, although their mother had forbidden them those of gold cloth.22 As the two children grew up, the gender roles which they learned also became more differentiated, and their beginnings in gallantry, horse riding, and modes of dress were noted by court sources with satisfaction. Although they continued to live together under maternal supervision, domestic service in Prince Philip’s household was separated after 1535, and on important occasions, such as the birth of Infanta Juana in Madrid in 1535, the prince and the women were housed in different buildings.23 The most crucial issue was obviously that of the education which Philip and Maria should receive in preparation for the duties that awaited them in adult life. While Philip II’s humanist education

Infanta Maria  17

has been studied in depth, that of Maria can only be gleaned from indirect testimonies and in the shadow of her brother. Ambitious plans, which were never implemented, were made for her. In 1534 Isabel de Josa, a highly educated and free-spirited lady from Lleida, was summoned to court as a possible tutor. Josa, who was one of the three women who moved to Rome in 1545 in an unsuccessful attempt to become Jesuit nuns, was known for questioning the exclusion of women from preaching in the presence of Pope Paul III.24 However, for reasons unknown, Isabel de Josa’s stay at court was fruitless, leaving Maria without a tutor of her own. Instead, she was assigned the future Cardinal Silíceo, the teacher who was already instructing her brother Philip.25 This pattern of brother and sister sharing the same tutor originated in the immediate tradition of the Portuguese court, as Empress Isabel and her brother John III had been educated by the same clergyman, Father Álvaro Rodrigues. Rodrigues had accompanied Isabel to Castile and later appeared as a teacher to Infanta Maria. It is therefore unclear whether it was this Portuguese priest who initiated her in grammar before Silíceo’s employment.26 It is recorded that Silíceo began to teach Maria the rudiments of Spanish language in August 1535, when she was barely seven years old, and that he made good predictions about her progress.27 Whether with Silíceo or Rodrigues, one thing is certain, that two books of Nebrija’s Arte Nuevo de Gramática were used as teaching manuals.28 Silíceo’s reports to Charles V reflect the gradual divergence of Philip’s and Maria’s education. While he was fond of reading and enjoyed the complexities of grammar, she was not as “enthusiastic” or “devoted to letters as her brother.”29 By the end of 1535 Maria could read Spanish and by mid-1536 she could write adequately. Silíceo did not venture to teach her Latin without first consolidating her knowledge of Spanish, and it seems that she was content with the fundamentals which she had learned, while Philip had already begun to study Cato. Apart from their different tastes and temperaments, questions of rigorousness and training for their future roles were also at play. While a certain mastery of language was expected from Philip, Silíceo noted that Maria was filled “with all the grace, honesty and virtue that her figure requires.”30

18 Infanta Maria

Although Maria had no particular interest in grammar, she appears as a music and dance enthusiast during her childhood. In her mother’s dazzling musical court, in which the masters Antonio de Cabezón and Francisco de Soto stood out, she learned the French style of dance along with the Spanish or Moorish, and displayed her skills on special court occasions, as before the Infante Luis of Portugal in 1537 or before Juana of Castile in 1538. 31 Court dances demonstrated the control of the body and the elegance and harmony of someone called to attract attention and assert with their gestures the established order at court. 32 These public appearances were tangible proof of Maria’s education and maturity more than her knowledge of Latin. The ladies who gathered in the secluded domain of Empress Isabel’s household also enjoyed certain freedom of initiative in organising cultural leisure activities such as theatrical performances. A generation earlier, the playwrights Gil Vicente and Juan del Encina had achieved great success with their palace performances, the first in the Portuguese court and the latter in the Spanish. 33 Young Maria may have participated in, or witnessed first-hand, a theatrical performance, very likely a Comedia de Panfilo in Portuguese adapted from Terencio’s Andria, which required the fabrication of costumes and wigs for the acting ladies-in-waiting. 34 Maria’s childhood was protected, quiet, and, in contrast to her later life, seemingly happy. The domestic balance and stable family life she enjoyed marked a model she attempted to follow when she formed her own family. Growing into a culturally distinct household with strong Portuguese traits, Maria learnt to live at court keeping female autonomy and national traditions. The overwhelming presence of her mother was the keystone of a domestic and affective regime which collapsed due to Empress Isabel’s sudden death in May 1539. For Maria, the age of innocence had ended.

Notes 1 Alonso Enríquez, Libro de la vida y costumbres de Don Alonso Enriquez Caballero, Noble Desbaratado, vol. 85 of CODOIN (Madrid: Imprenta de Miguel Ginesta, 1886), 401. 2 Doctor Alfaro to Charles V, Madrid, 22/06/1528, AGS, E, 16, 427r; Javier Vales Failde, La emperatriz Isabel (Madrid: Tip. de la Revista

Infanta Maria 19

3 4

5 6 7

8 9

10

11

12 13 14 15 16

de Arch. Bibl. y Museos, 1917), 185; Ceñal Lorente, “La emperatriz María,” 6–7. Martín de Salinas to Ferdinand I, Monzón, 08/07/1528, in Antonio Rodríguez Villa, ed., El emperador Carlos V y su corte según las cartas de don Martin de Salinas (Madrid: Fortanet, 1905), 408. Antonio de Guevara to the Marquis of Vélez, Medina del Campo, 18/07/1532, in Colección de cartas de españoles ilustres antiguos y modernos, ed. Eugenio de Ochoa (Madrid: Atlas, 1945), 97. On the slow triumph of the Castilian ministers at the imperial court, see Manuel Rivero Rodríguez and José Martínez Millán, “La coronación imperial de Bolonia y el final de la vía flamenca (1526–1530),” in Carlos V y la quiebra del humanismo político en Europa (1530–1558), ed. José Martínez Millán (Madrid: SECCe, 2001), 131–150. José María March, Niñez y juventud de Felipe II (Madrid: Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores, 1942), 1:121; Alvar Ezquerra, La emperatriz, 405. The Count of Miranda to Charles V, Ocaña, 14/04/1531, CDCV, 1:284. Pedro Girón, Crónica del emperador Carlos V (Madrid: CSIC, 1962), 82, 102; Ceñal Lorente, “La emperatriz María,” 18–21; María José Redondo Cantera, “Palacios para una Emperatriz itinerante. Usos residenciales de Isabel de Portugal (1526–1539),” in Matronazgo y Arquitectura. De la Antigüedad a la Edad Moderna, eds. Cándida Martínez López and Felipe Serrano Estrella (Granada: Universidad de Granada, 2016), 249–299. Ignacio Ezquerra, “La Casa de las infantas doña María y doña Juana,” in La corte de Carlos V, ed. José Martínez Millán (Madrid: SECCe, 2000), 1/2:127. Luis Fernández de Retana, Juana de Austria (Madrid: El Perpetuo Socorro, 1955), 34–36; Girón, Crónica del emperador, 82; José Luis Gonzalo Sánchez-Molero, Felipe II: la mirada de un rey (1527–1598) (Madrid: CSIC, 2014), 80. Maria Helena da Cruz Coelho, “O protagonismo da mulher na politica da dinastía de Avis,” in Las mujeres en la Edad Media, eds. M.ª Isabel del Val Valdivieso and Francisco Javier Jiménez Alcázar (Murcia: Sociedad Española de Estudios Medievales, 2013), 243–258. Aude Viaud, ed., Lettres des souverains portugais à Charles Quint et à l’impératrice (1528–1532): suivies en annexe de lettres de D. Maria de Velasco et du Duc de Bragance: conservées aux archives de Simancas (Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, 1994), 38–39, 68–69, 214. Catarina of Austria to Charles V, Lisbon, 19/10/1528, Viaud, Lettres, 116; see also 76–77. Charles V to Isabel of Portugal, Regensburg, 11/06/1532, CDCV, 1:362. Viaud, Lettres, 54. The ambassador Sarmiento de Mendoza to Charles V, Lisbon, 04/09/1541, Viaud, Lettres, 79. José Menéndez Pidal, “Don Francesillo de Zúñiga, bufón de Carlos V. Cartas inéditas,” Revista de Bibliotecas, Archivos y Museos 21 (1909): 83. Lope Hurtado de Mendoza to Charles V, Lisbon, 03/07/1528, in Alvar Ezquerra, La emperatriz, 420.

20 Infanta Maria

17 Ibid., 181–182. 18 Villacorta Baños-García, La Emperatriz Isabel, 509; on the Portuguese visit, holographic note by the Count of Cifuentes, ca. 09/1539, AGS, E, 45, n. 172. 19 Jorge Díaz to Charles V, Madrid, 15/03/1545, AGS, E, 72, n. 113. Ceñal Lorente, “La emperatriz María,” 228. 20 Ezquerra, “La Casa de las infantas,” 126; Villacorta Baños-García, La Emperatriz Isabel, 259–260. 21 Document of the Count of Cifuentes, AGS, E, 45, n. 277. 22 Pedro González de Mendoza to Charles V, Ocaña, 15/04/1531, March, Niñez, 1:46; Estefanía de Requesens to the Countess of Palamós, Madrid, 25/02/1535, ibid., 2:218; Leonor de Castro to Charles V, Ocaña, 15/11/1530, ibid., 1:122–123. 23 Villacorta Baños-García, La Emperatriz Isabel, 417. 24 Peter Faber to Ignatius of Loyola, Lyon, 22/03/1542, in Petrus Faber, Beati Petri Fabri epistolae, memoriale et processus… (Matriti: Lopez del Horno, 1914), 155; Petro de Ribadeneyra, Vita Ignatii Loyolae, ed. Candidus de Dalmases (Romae: Monumenta Historica Societatis Iesu, 1965), 436; María Ángeles Sáez García, “Isabel de Josa y de Cardona. Una ‘puella docta’ predicadora del siglo XVI,” Boletín de la Real Academia de la Historia 213 (2016): 189–215. 25 Estefania de Requesens to Hipòlita Rois de Liori, Madrid, 23/11/1534, March, Niñez, 2:201; María Ángeles Sáez García, “Isabel de Josa, una insòlita dona catalana del segle XVI” (MA diss., Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 2015), 37. 26 Gonzalo Sánchez-Molero, Felipe II: la educación, 297. 27 Juan de Zúñiga to Charles V, Madrid, 25/08/1535, March, Niñez, 1:227. 28 Checa Cremades, Los inventarios de Carlos V, 2:1229. 29 Cardinal Silíceo to Charles V, Valladolid, 16/11/1535 and 27/09/1536, March, Niñez, 1:68–69 and 72. 30 Cardinal Silíceo to Charles V, Valladolid, 10/07/1536, March, Niñez, 1:71. For an overview, Ceñal Lorente, “La emperatriz María,” 26–30. 31 For the three teachers of Moorish dance of the infantas, see Los oficiales que se rreciven para las señoras infantes de los criados que q[ue]daron de la emperatriz que aya gloria, 1539, AGS, E, 45, n. 280. Henry Kamen, Philip of Spain (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997), 4; Ezquerra, “La Casa de las infantas,” 133; Gonzalo Sánchez-Molero, Felipe II: la mirada, 80. 32 Jennifer Nevile, “Dance and Society in Quattrocento Italy,” in Dance, Spectacle, and the Body Politic, 1250–1750, ed. Jennifer Nevile (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2008), 85–87; Susan Leigh Foster, “Pygmalion’s no-Body and the Body of Dance,” in Performance and Cultural Politics, ed. E. Diamond (London: Routledge, 1996), 140–142. 33 Pablo Jauralde Pou, “El teatro en los palacios,” Teatro: revista de estudios teatrales 1 (1992): 33–56. 34 Checa Cremades, Los inventarios de Carlos V, 2:1230, 2193.

2 THE ORPHAN LEARNING AT COURT (1539–1548)

2.1 Places and people Empress Isabel’s death in Toledo on 1 May 1539, as a result of complications from her seventh childbirth, completely disrupted the tranquil family life that Infanta Maria had enjoyed until then. Charles V was mostly an absent and travelling father, and the princesses Maria and Juana were put under the care of trusted aristocrats as the separation of Prince Philip’s household was being completed. This sudden watershed moment forged many of the later traits of Maria’s personality: a withdrawn character, a special attachment to her sister and brother, and the awakening of a sometimes pliable and sometimes authoritarian attitude through which she asserted her will. Until her marriage with her cousin Archduke Maximilian in 1548, it seems that Charles V’s main concern was to isolate his first-born daughter from undesirable influences and excessive contact with the elites of the monarchy. Once the ceremonies for the death of Empress Isabel had concluded, Charles V took an important decision: he sent Maria and her sister Juana to live in Arévalo under the stewardship of the Count of Cifuentes (who had already been Empress Isabel’s high DOI: 10.4324/9781003125693-3

22  The orphan learning at court

steward), while the future Philip II remained between Madrid and Toledo with his own household.1 The emperor thus attempted to enforce the assignment of dynastic roles and keep his daughters in a quasi-monastic retreat, away from the channels of political communication, while he was absent from Castile. This was in fact a common practice among the privileged of the time with regard to orphaned daughters: in 1528 Teresa of Avila was also sent to be raised in a convent as, in her words, “to be left alone without a mother, was not good.”2 Arévalo and later Ocaña were moderately sized royal towns in the heart of Castile and without residences belonging to great noble houses. Moreover, less than twenty years after the Revolt of the Comuneros, it was still difficult to choose a place which was both loyal to the Crown and had access to a fortified stronghold in the event of a new crisis. Despite offering better palatial and supply conditions, Madrid was rejected due to “the communication and visits of the gentlemen and ladies who were there, which could not be avoided.”3 The city would have been an even worse choice, had Prince Philip resumed his residence there, since Charles V had clearly ordered that “communication between His Highness and his sisters’ household must be prevented.”4 Although Arévalo met the conditions necessary to become the residence of the infantas according to their father’s orders, the shortcomings of the “ruined lodgings” in town soon became evident.5 Maria, who was barely eleven years old at the time, began to express her opinion and needs by employing two devices which would be recurrent in her adult life: pleading with the male members of her family and drawing attention to the risks to her health. Charles V visited his daughters in Arévalo for the first time in November 1539 and Maria was quick to express her discontent and that of the entire household with their residence there. The traumatic changes which she had experienced in recent months had also driven her into a state of melancholy which was even reflected in “fantasies” (perhaps hallucinations) and was attributed to the fact that “the Count [of Cifuentes] and the women are there reluctantly.”6 These circumstances were decisive in sparking off a debate about the change of residence. Since Madrid had been rejected as an option, the town of Ocaña was chosen both because of its proximity

The orphan learning at court  23

to the Count of Cifuentes’s possessions, “away from all conversation,” and because the area had proved its loyalty to the Crown. In the summer of 1540, only a year after their arrival in Arévalo, the infantas moved to New Castile.7 Ocaña also proved to be an unsuitable destination for the girls, especially for Maria, who suffered from a visually striking, but presumably not serious, skin condition, possibly dermatitis.8 Their need for a change of scenery and Prince Philip’s final move from Madrid to Valladolid opened the way for a third change of residence. Charles V finally relented and allowed his daughters to live in Madrid, where they arrived in March 1542. When Philip moved to New Castile and took residence in Madrid, they moved to Alcalá de Henares, and even to Guadalajara, in order to comply strictly with the prohibition according to which the siblings should not share a common life. Charles V’s adamant attitude derived partly from the dynastic tradition of separating teenage boys and girls to prevent sexual temptations and partly from his personal – and intense – fear that sexual activity could weaken or even kill his young son.9 Charles V’s concern about his daughters’ surroundings was complemented by his interest in the household staff, since he required obedient and unadventurous individuals to act as guardians to the girls. As high steward, the Count of Cifuentes was the undisputed head of the infantas’ household, although he had to settle the terms of his duties while being sensitive to gender and national issues. He learned to negotiate and live with the female entourage, and keep at bay and reduce the Portuguese influence, for which he might have received secret instructions. The hasty organisation of the domestic service of the infantas and the existence of several court traditions (in particular the Spanish, Portuguese, and Burgundian) resulted in ambiguities and problems of order, which were no less serious for being concealed. Charles V took these factors into account when he designed the household of the infantas after the death of Empress Isabel of Portugal. The latter’s first lady of the bedchamber, the Portuguese Leonor de Castro (Duchess Consort of Gandía), was unceremoniously removed from her position, as she was “a very daring woman, who corresponded with foreign kings.”10 Charles instead relied on three other Portuguese women

24  The orphan learning at court

of guaranteed loyalty: Guiomar de Melo, the Countess of Faro, and Leonor de Mascarenhas.11 Cifuentes was entrusted with the delicate task of reporting and regulating the contacts of the infantas, especially with their Portuguese family. He was concerned about the excessive Portuguese influence over his protégés and the efforts of the Avis to keep constant communication with them. The King and Queen of Portugal, John III and Catarina of Austria, as well as their eldest daughter Maria Manuela of Portugal, corresponded with their niece and cousin, Infanta Maria, in a familiar tone about health issues and exchanged small gifts.12 After this first contact, the Chief Auditor of Lisbon, Dinis de Almeida, was sent to Arévalo in February 1540. He arrived in the name of Queen Catarina and her daughter Maria, carrying letters from both of them in order to dispel the impression of a diplomatic mission for that of a family visit between the Habsburg-Avis women.13 This alternative female channel of dynastic communication did nothing but increase Cifuentes’ precautions. His opinion had prevailed a month earlier, in January 1540, when he decided against the dispatch of a representative to Portugal on the part of Infanta Maria to express her condolences for the death of her uncle Infante Antonio. Shortly afterwards, the Duke of Aveiro, illegitimate grandson of King John II of Portugal, also appeared in Arévalo. From that moment on, Cifuentes made every effort to apply Charles V’s order against any such visits in the future. He did not, however, prevent the princesses from writing to their paternal aunts in France, Portugal, or Flanders.14 Enrique de Toledo’s visit with letters from their uncle Ferdinand I, King of the Romans and future emperor, did not cause tensions, since the court of Vienna was too distant.15 The closest and most obvious dynastic contact was that between Prince Philip and his sisters. The brief visits exchanged during those years increased Maria’s desire to live with her brother. The location of Ocaña facilitated the meetings with Prince Philip when he was in Toledo or Madrid. On several occasions, the royal site of Aranjuez was chosen as a midpoint for the young siblings to spend time together for a few days, always under strict surveillance and with Cifuentes trying to obstruct or shorten these meetings as

The orphan learning at court  25

much as possible.16 The main concern was not the political contacts which could be established so much as the adolescent Philip’s familiarity with the “beautiful and generous ladies-in-waiting” of his sisters, especially in view of his imminent wedding with his cousin Maria Manuela of Portugal.17 The wedding of Philip and Maria Manuela fulfilled the plans of dynastic rapprochement that had been underway since the death of Empress Isabel of Portugal in 1539. Cifuentes maintained a firm hand in this new phase of relations with the Portuguese court, since his son Juan represented the Infantas Maria and Juana at the wedding of Maria Manuela and Philip, which took place in Salamanca on 14 November 1543. The absence of the sisters from the wedding must have been due to a direct order from Charles V, who was once again adamant about preventing the meeting of two groups of adolescents of the opposite sex. Instead of attending the wedding, Cifuentes organised a pilgrimage for the infantas from Madrid to the monastery of Guadalupe.18 The situation changed in the summer of 1545 in a sorrowful direction. In July Princess Maria Manuela of Portugal lost her life in childbirth. An important part of the late princess’s entourage, including several Portuguese ladies-in-waiting, remained in Castile and went into the service of the infantas. The Infante Carlos, fruit of this fatal childbirth, was also taken care of in the household of his aunts and had Leonor de Mascarenhas as his dry-nurse, who had previously raised Philip, Maria, and Juana.19 With his only son living with Maria and Juana, Prince Philip became a more frequent visitor to his sisters’ house. The death of the Count of Cifuentes in September 1545 plunged the household of the infantas into a deeper state of instability and disorder. Until Charles V appointed the Marquis of Távara as successor almost a year after Cifuentes’ demise, the management of the household had been undertaken by Pedro Álvarez de Acosta, Bishop of Osma, and high chaplain of the infantas. The prelate, who had received no written instructions, soon found himself overwhelmed by the authoritative ladies and the ever-growing number of servants. The siblings seemed out of control. The imperial secretary Cobos was worried about Maria “because the freedom that

26  The orphan learning at court

the Lady Infante enjoyed after the illness and death of the Count of Cifuentes was great and this caused harm to the youngsters.”20 In Philip’s case, the fears about the risks of living with his sisters proved grounded. The young widower began a relationship, well known to the whole court, with Isabel de Osorio, a lady-in-waiting of the infantas.21 When the Marquis of Távara took over the administration of the household in mid-1546, the situation demanded a clearly defined leadership. Charles V asked the new high steward not to bring with him his wife Constanza de Bazán in order to eliminate a potential new source of disruption among the important ladies of the household and reduce the risk of confrontation with the First Lady of the Bedchamber Melo, the Countess of Faro, and the Governess Leonor de Mascarenhas. Távara therefore asked to be given written instructions concerning the assignment of roles, but to no avail.22

2.2 Education and spirituality Maria’s education during the crucial years of her adolescence prepared her to be a perfect wife, mother, and princess of the House of Austria. As far as her intellectual education is concerned, the testimonies of her teachers agree on her lack of interest in grammar and language. There is no evidence that Silíceo taught Maria after 1536, and it is very likely that he focused on Prince Philip, while the Infanta was placed under the supervision of the Portuguese priest Álvaro Rodrigues. When the princesses’ household was moved to Arévalo, Rodrigues continued his mission to “accustom the said infantas to reading and praying” until his death in the summer of 1540.23 Rodrigues was replaced in May 1541 by the Bachelor Juan López de la Cuadra, as no chaplain was found to teach the simple curriculum which Maria had to follow: “accustom the Lady Infantes to reading and writing and to praying with modest Latin, so that she understands the mass.”24 Cuadra belonged to the same palace circle, as he had already collaborated with Silíceo in 1535 in the education of the Infante Louis of Savoy.25 Cuadra admitted in 1543 that Maria possessed enough skills, but progress was limited amid

The orphan learning at court  27

the changes of residence, her illnesses, and her obvious lack of interest. The infanta had managed to reduce the duration of the daily lessons from an hour and a half to one hour. Cuadra requested from Charles V to order his daughter to take those classes more seriously. The teacher was content if she could at least understand some Latin, since writing and speaking it seemed unattainable, and improve her poor handwriting, a weakness which would become apparent in her adult life. By the following year Cuadra had given up all hope: Maria attended class for half an hour a day only in obedience to her father and without the slightest consciousness of the need to study. Juana, however, had already started to make the most out of her grammar lessons at the age of nine showing considerable skill.26 As had been apparent while her mother was still alive, Maria had greater curiosity about music and dance, and even a monochord was bought for her in 1540. She had a dance teacher and a musical chapel of exceptional quality, which was formed by her mother’s musicians and included the famous polyphonic composers Antonio de Cabezón and Francisco de Soto.27 Among the singers was the Portuguese poet Jorge de Montemayor (1520–1561), who in 1548 dedicated to Infanta Maria one of his first works, the Exposición moral sobre el salmo LXXXVI del real profeta David [Moral Exposition on David’s Salm 86]. Montemayor did not prosper in the service of Maria but in that of her sister Juana, whom he followed in Portugal and with whom he had a fruitful relationship. However, both sisters are acclaimed in his Diana, the first pastoral novel in Spanish.28 Her old teacher Silíceo, by now Archbishop of Toledo, also dedicated to her a didactic religious work, the Declaración del Ave María [Declaration of the Hail Mary], to reinforce her Marian piety.29 Another leisure activity which Maria pursued with great enthusiasm was embroidery. It was one of the daily occupations of the ladies-in-waiting of her household, who made and repaired many of their garments and liturgical ornaments.30 Maria would also use her evening leisure time at the imperial court to embroider sacred ornaments with her ladies for the churches of the Holy Land, thus combining a context of female sociability with the creation of religious luxury objects intended for gift-giving.31

28  The orphan learning at court

Apart from music and embroidery, the most essential and successful aspect of Maria of Austria’s learning was her Christian education. In fact, her training in writing was enough for her to be able to write legible letters, since maintaining correspondence would prove crucial for the future, and as for her knowledge of Latin, being able to follow the religious services was considered sufficient. However, the first command of her mother Isabel of Portugal when she was on her deathbed was that her husband Charles V should ensure that their three children “would be brought up and taught in the fear of God and made so Christian and virtuous that they would be worthy of governing the kingdoms and lordships in which God would place them.”32 Although the female company of the empress and the infantas had modest humanist tastes, it was imbued with a deep spiritual sensitivity which was framed within a context of renewal and broke away from the traditional vision of a pietistic and routine faith, as Isabel de Josa’s candidacy for preceptress had demonstrated. It was through this female milieu that the emerging Society of Jesus was introduced into the Spanish court, and before that the influential ladies Leonor de Mascarenhas and Ines Manrique had already showed their sympathy for the Devotio moderna movement and the Beguinage.33 Spiritual service to the empress and later to the infantas was entrusted to a particular section of the household, the chapel. It was directed by the high chaplain and usually included a confessor, an almoner, ordinary chaplains, and a group of musicians consisting of an organist, singers, and instrumentalists.34 When the household of the infantas was formed, the appointment of the Portuguese Pedro Álvarez de Acosta, Bishop of Osma and formerly of Porto, as high chaplain emphasised the continuity with the household of Isabel of Portugal. The Portuguese component was further reinforced by the role of Álvaro Rodrigues as teacher of the infantas.35 However, the Castilian Franciscan Francisco de Orduña, who had been Empress Isabel’s spiritual father and had also presumably been in charge of her daughters, was assigned as their confessor. According to common practice in the peninsular courts, men normally had Dominican confessors, while women turned to the services of

The orphan learning at court  29

Franciscans, as did Maria throughout her life.36 When Orduña died in July 1543, he was succeeded by Hernando Cano from Cuenca. Cano was the father of the famous theologian Melchor Cano and later accompanied Maria to the Empire until his death in 1553.37 During Maria’s gloomy retreat to Arévalo in 1539–1540, the visits to the nearby convents were among the few experiences that gave her some comfort. These first opportunities for amusement were particularly important for independent communication, some early patronage initiatives, and the development of a distinctive personal taste. The infantas, always served by a Franciscan confessor, visited the male and female convents of the Seraphic Order: St Francis of Arévalo and St Clare of Rapariegos (Segovia), respectively. Thanks to these visits we have the first payment orders of Infanta Maria, who gave generous alms to both convents.38 It was also in Arévalo, in the spring of 1540, that Infanta Maria made contact with the nascent Society of Jesus, whose statutes were approved by Pope Paul III a few months later. In those early days of the Society, Ignatius of Loyola and his companions strove to consolidate their position in Rome, Paris, and Spain, and the female environment of the House of Austria was fundamental to their establishment in the Iberian palace circles. Despite Charles V’s mistrust of the new religious order, both his sister Catarina of Austria in Lisbon and his daughters Maria and Juana in Castile were among the first protectors of the Society. Infanta Juana even took the unprecedented step of secretly taking vows as a Jesuit, the only female case known in history, while Maria provided strong support to the Society in Vienna and Prague.39 Once again, the Portuguese ladies Beatriz de Melo, niece of the first lady of the bedchamber, and Leonor de Mascarenhas, governess of the princesses, played a crucial role as intermediaries.40 The Jesuits arrived in Arévalo through Father Antonio de Araoz, one of Ignatius’ first collaborators, in the summer of 1540. Leonor de Mascarenhas was the mediator of the meeting, and thus Araoz was well received and was able to speak with the infantas.41 The meeting was repeated in Ocaña, but this time with greater intensity due to the visit of Father [St] Peter Faber for three days in January 1542, which was celebrated as a particularly promising occasion.42

30  The orphan learning at court

The overflowing charisma of renewal and spiritual purity which the Jesuits emphatically championed found great acceptance in the household of the infantas both with the two sisters and with the female servants (especially with the Countess of Faro and Leonor de Mascarenhas), as well as with the family of the Count of Cifuentes and the members of the chapel.43 These visits did not only inaugurate a fluid and privileged relationship with the Jesuits but also a life-long bond of reciprocal service, as they were often viewed as an extension of the household service of the infantas (and of the future Empress Maria). This tendency became more pronounced in the following decades, especially during Maria’s time in the Empire. There she used the services of some Jesuit fathers with such authority that she called in question the hierarchy of the Society of Jesus, although those in charge of the new order tried to adapt to these irregularities in order to preserve the privileged relationship with the empress. The brief contact with Father Faber in Ocaña was a profound experience of holiness, almost a conversion. The intensity of the affective bonds which were forged was effectively channelled and maintained for the rest of Maria’s life. The traditional image of her as a protector of the Jesuits, with all its nuances, allowed her to establish relations with a wide European network of devoted sons of the Society and align herself spiritually with the most upto-date confessional tendencies of the time. From the moment of Father Faber’s departure, Maria, unable to see him because she was lying ill in bed, sought to preserve and continue his teachings. She commissioned him to celebrate masses for her mother through Leonor de Mascarenhas and write to her long spiritual letters. Faber began by sending her the topics which he had treated in Ocaña and “we all made a copy of it, and the Infanta Doña Maria” too, even though she disliked writing. In addition, several of her ladies began to exchange letters with the Jesuit inspired by a share enthusiasm.44 Two of the chaplains of the infantas, Juan de Aragón and the Portuguese Álvaro Alfonso, also accompanied Father Faber to Germany to perform spiritual exercises with him. Without delay they received authorisation from the Count of Cifuentes, as well as from “the ladies.” However, they were not given permission to

The orphan learning at court  31

become Jesuits, but only to learn how to conduct spiritual exercises, and they were expected to return after one or two years in order to apply them to the household of the infantas.45 Eventually, both chaplains joined the Society in Germany in 1543, although they did not break relations with the household from which they had come. Father Alfonso returned to Spain in 1546 and stayed in the palace of the infantas in Alcalá rather than with his own companions. Father Faber feared that Alfonso would be tempted to return to his previous position, and he was not mistaken: in 1548 Álvaro Alfonso appears again as Maria’s chaplain. As for Father Juan de Aragón, he left Germany for Portugal, from where he kept close contact with the infanta to the point of remarking with confidence that “The house of the Lady Infanta Doña Maria is all ours, as always.”46 The links with the Jesuits were deepened with the infantas’ move to Madrid and Alcalá. Contacts became annual from 1544 onwards, especially during the liturgical periods of Lent and Easter. In 1546, Father Araoz delivered seven sermons in Alcalá during Lent. One of them was given at the residence of the Infantas and made such an impression on Maria that it was said that “they had never seen the Infanta Doña María so attentive to a sermon.”47 Contrary to the marked indifference with which Maria approached her grammar lessons, she showed a pronounced interest in spiritual learning, engaging in keen conversations with Fathers Faber and Araoz. She even ordered them to submit to her, in writing, these talks “for her reform, or rather, instruction.”48 In the course of these meetings with Fathers Araoz and Faber and thanks again to the mediation of Leonor de Mascarenhas, the seeds of what would later become the Colegio Máximo of the Jesuits in Alcalá were sown between mid-1545 and spring 1546. Infanta Maria, the Count of Cifuentes, Mascarenhas, and María de Velasco (the favourite of the Portuguese Queen Catarina of Austria) each gave a scholarship to a student from Alcalá in order to profess in the Society. Once more, it can be seen that the household of the infantas was much more than a structured system of service, as it functioned as a dynamic and joint centre of patronage with many protagonists. The adolescent Maria was determined not to be left behind as a patroness among the aristocrats of her immediate circle

32  The orphan learning at court

and prioritised pious projects over economic constraints. She therefore tactfully ignored the difficulties through which the household was going and ordered the treasurer Francisco Pessoa to make the promised payments.49

2.3 Authority and its limits Apart from these pious initiatives for which Maria was given some room for manoeuvre, the young infanta also tried to make her voice heard in other domestic and patronage affairs, by taking advantage of the flexibility which she was allowed as an unmarried orphaned girl placed under a somewhat lax guardianship. Thus, although her status associated her with the virtues of modesty and humility, Maria was distinguished for her authoritarian and firm character.50 Several of the dominant traits of Maria’s personality can already be discerned in her adolescent years: strong bonds with her family, a resolute disposition to favour her close servants, and a generosity bordering on extravagance. Maria became increasingly worried about the movements and health of her father and brother after the death of Isabel of Portugal. She insisted on receiving updated news from them and, in the case of her brother, on seeing him as often as possible. Among the means of pressure which she had at her command, her “severity” (her harsh attitude) was not as effective as the concerns she raised about her poor health. The physical absence of close family members affected her so deeply that she suffered from melancholy, and her skin condition deteriorated to such a degree that her alarmed high steward, Cifuentes, suggested that Philip and Maria should be allowed to live together rather than lament another relapse of the infanta.51 Maria used her ill health as leverage to impose her will and influence decision-making as regards the abandonment of Arévalo (which Maria declared to detest) or the move from Madrid to Alcalá de Henares, which she also rejected (although this time in vain).52 Maria tried to maintain a steady correspondence with her father and her brother. She was anxious about the delays in mail delivery and considered herself entitled to sending messengers and organising small missions. She was, furthermore, as much concerned

The orphan learning at court  33

“about the health of His Majesty as about the progress of business,” and wished to have reliable information about the European events in which Charles V was involved.53 The infanta did not face limitations in seeking news or sending servants in search of Charles and Philip, but she did in terms of patronage and the recommendation of household servants. Maria was free to show generosity in alms-giving and financially support religious works, but as an unmarried orphan she did not yet belong to the ranks of efficient patrons to be able to seek favours. When she recommended her teacher Cuadra for an ecclesiastical office, the infanta eschewed intermediaries and wrote directly to Charles V, in what is her first known holograph letter. However, there is no record of a response from her father, and at any rate Cuadra was not promoted.54 There were other, probably more fruitful, avenues of patronage apart from the emperor, such as her Portuguese family. In this case too, there is evidence as to who conditioned the actions of the infanta in the context of a loosely structured household with empowered women. For example, Maria’s former governess, Leonor de Mascarenhas, urged her and Philip to write to King John III of Portugal in 1546 asking him to lend a Jesuit who was at his court.55 Charles V showed greater tact in the question of Maria’s marriage. As the emperor’s eldest daughter, Maria was destined to marry the best candidate in Christendom, and although the final decision lay with her father, he preferred to sound her out by sending Alonso de Idiáquez in 1544. According to her high steward, Cifuentes, she was not particularly inclined to marry but knew how to be obedient.56 Maria could not refuse with respect to such a fundamental issue, which hovered over the European chanceries since her birth. After the death of Empress Isabel, an active promoter of a Portuguese match, the French scenario was considered as Charles V’s global ambitions dictated the need for a stable peace with Francis I of France after two decades of intermittent war. The most suitable candidate was the second-born son of the French King, Charles, Duke of Orleans (1522–1545). At the end of 1539, the two parties began discussions on an agreement, with the proposal of the duchy

34  The orphan learning at court

of Milan as a dowry.57 Such a tempting lure was intended to bring a definitive end to the numerous territorial disputes between the Habsburgs and the Valois. Charles V sought to pacify Christendom before convening an ecumenical council to reform the Church and end the schism in the West.58 Maria became an unwitting pawn in this grand game, and between 1539 and 1545 she seemed to be the best candidate to marry the Duke of Orleans. Prince Philip travelled from Valladolid to Madrid in November 1544 to find out his sister’s “inclination and disposition,” knowing that she would only be sincere with him.59 In the end, Maria’s inclinations were only a minor factor in view of the scale of the geopolitical issues involved. The debate among the authorities of the House of Austria about the cession of the Netherlands or Milan as dowry was as lively as it was strategic. The newly acquired Duchy of Milan was finally considered more dispensable and, in March 1545, Maria was informed that she would marry the Duke of Orleans and have her dowry in Milan, which she dutifully accepted.60 The marriage negotiations, however, were interrupted by the sudden death of the Duke of Orleans on 9 September 1545. The plans to marry Infanta Maria were not postponed, but now the way lay open for alternative candidates which had been maintained discreetly: João Manuel of Portugal, son of John III, and Archduke Maximilian of Austria, first-born son of Ferdinand I.61 Maximilian seemed the most suitable choice for Maria for strictly dynastic reasons: while the distribution of Charles V’s inheritance had not been decided yet, nor to what extent the descendants of Ferdinand I would found their own branch in the Empire, marrying the eldest daughter of the former to the heir of the latter would strengthen the bond between the two families and prevent their dangerous separation, a task to which Maria would devote the rest of her life. Furthermore, the young Archduke Maximilian had never visited the Iberian Peninsula and his education and horizons were purely German and very different from those of his father Ferdinand I, who was born in Alcalá de Henares and was strongly attached to his native land.62 Regardless of whether the marriage between Maximilian and Maria would take place after all, the Count of Cifuentes insisted

The orphan learning at court  35

that Charles V should call his nephew Maximilian to Spain for a few years “for his upbringing and experience.”63 The emperor finally invited him between 1544 and 1548. Under his supervision Maximilian became familiar with the imperial court and the arms race, participating in the Schmalkaldic War. Charles V soon recognised his nephew’s abilities and talents, although given his habits with drink and women, his attitude as a capricious young man seriously worried his father until the critical moment of January 1547. Maximilian then learned that his mother Anna of Hungary had died, and he tried to escape secretly from Ulm to attend the funeral without the emperor’s permission. Ferdinand I was also troubled by his son’s indifferent denominational stance, as he displayed his Germanness through a light-hearted approach to Catholicism and through Protestant sympathies which were unacceptable for a prince of the House of Austria.64 His marriage and stay in Spain were therefore seen as an ideal opportunity to rectify these shortcomings. The talks finally made progress at the Diet of Augsburg in 1548, in which Charles V took part after his victory over the rebellious Schmalkaldic League of Protestant princes, recently defeated at the Battle of Mühlberg. Taking advantage of the participation of his brother Ferdinand I, the two agreed on the marriage and a plan of dynastic succession, according to which Prince Philip would leave Spain to familiarise himself with his future possessions in Italy and with the imperial and Flemish territories which he would likely inherit.65 Charles V knew that Philip’s court, and possibly Maria’s entourage too, were in favour of the Portuguese marriage. He therefore sent the Duke of Alba to Castile with clear instructions to ensure the unquestionable acceptance of the Austrian wedding.66 Alba arrived in Alcalá de Henares at the beginning of March 1548, where the infantas and Prince Philip lived. Philip wished to communicate their father’s plan to Maria personally. As an obedient daughter, Maria emulated the Virgin by unconditionally accepting the announcement and submitting to the emperor’s will.67 While the terms of the marriage contract were being negotiated, it was decided that Maximilian would travel to Spain, where the wedding would take place and the two would remain as Governors of the Iberian kingdoms. Charles V was reluctant to leave

36

The orphan learning at court

the regency in the hands of the Grandees after the Revolt of the Comuneros, since although they were under the authority of Infanta Juana, she was only thirteen years at the time. The emperor also did not conceive of leaving the regency of the Iberian kingdoms to Maria, as she was a young unmarried woman. He did not oppose female exercise of power but, in his view, it required further prerequisites, “since it is in no way good for business, nor can I ever argue that it is possible for a woman to have a grasp of government without being married and being of age.”68 Maximilian’s coming to Spain would also accomplish two important objectives: his necessary Hispanization, as he would “adopt the local speech and customs,” and the possible friendship with his cousin Prince Philip. The marriage agreements were finally signed in Augsburg on 24 April 1548.69 Maria’s single life had ended. In her first twenty years, she did not show broad cultural interests, but she did show a firm and exigent Catholic faith. With her mix of authoritarianism and obedience, Maria fulfilled the expected model of the good princess and proved her virtue through the absence of scandals or mundane activities. Her problems seemed to be of a different nature. Several witnesses noted her melancholic and suffering character after she became an orphan, with recurrent illness of probably somatic origin. Although Maria lacked a proper political education and worldly experiences, her pious and modest formation was enough for a princely marriage and the governance of the Iberian realms.

Notes 1 Martín de Salinas to Ferdinand I, Madrid, 11/07/1539, en Rodríguez Villa, El emperador Carlos V, 920. 2 Santa Teresa de Jesús, Libro de la Vida, ed. Fidel Sebastián Mediavilla (Madrid: RAE, 2014), 12. 3 Cardinal Juan Pardo de Tavera to Charles V, Madrid, 08/07/1540, AGS, E, 50, n. 94. 4 Consultation of the Council of State, Madrid, 24/12/1539, AGS, E, 45, n. 304–305. 5 Ceñal Lorente, “La emperatriz María,” 110. 6 Cifuentes to Charles V, Arévalo, 21/11/1539, AGS, E, 45, 309r; Francisco de los Cobos to Charles V, 19/03/1540, AGS, E, 49, n. 162; Ezquerra, “La Casa de las infantas,” 135. On melancholy as a door

The orphan learning at court

7 8 9

10

11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

37

for madness in early modern Spain, see Elena Carrera, “Madness and Melancholy in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Spain: New Evidence, New Approaches,” Bulletin of Spanish Studies 87(8) (2010): 4–6. Cifuentes to Cobos, AGS, E, 34, n. 311; Cardinal Juan Pardo de Tavera to Charles V, Madrid, 08/07/1540, AGS, E, 50, n. 94, 1r–1v; Ceñal Lorente, “La emperatriz María,” 163–166. Cifuentes to Cobos, Arévalo, 11/09/1539, AGS, E, 45, 176r and Cifuentes to Charles V, Madrid, 05/11/1541, AGS, E, 51, n. 145. March, Niñez, 1:156–160, 162–168; Ezquerra, “La Casa de las infantas,” 145. Charles V’s household was separated from that of his sisters when he was nine years old. Fear of harm to the health of young men due to sexual activity was a common belief among Renaissance elites. Charles V also had the vivid memory of the case of his uncle Prince Juan of Spain, who died in 1497 at the age of 19 after six months of passionate marriage. Geoffrey Parker, Emperor: A New Life of Charles V (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2019), 23, 40, 405. Leonor de Mascarenhas to Philip II, ca. 1571, IVDJ, 109, n. 29; Jorge Sebastián Lozano, “Francisco de Borja, de criado a maestro espiritual de las mujeres Habsburgo,” in San Francisco de Borja, Grande de España, Arte y espiritualidad en la cultura de los siglos XVI y XVII, eds. Ximo Company and Joan Aliaga (Catarroja: Afers, 2010), 69–71. A staff list of the infantas’ household by 1539 in AGS, E, 45, n. 254. Summary of letters of Cifuentes to Charles V, 1539, AGS, E, 45, n. 252–253. Holographic note of Cifuentes, ca. 09/1539, AGS, E, 45, n. 172; Ezquerra, “La Casa de las infantas,” 132. On Dinis de Almeida, Hermann Kellenbenz, Los Fugger en España y Portugal hasta 1560 (Salamanca: Junta de Castilla y León, 2000), 55. Cifuentes to Charles V, Arévalo, 31/01/1540 and 01/03/1540, AGS, E, 50, n. 321 and 308; Las cosas que el Conde de Cifuentes pide que se le ordene, lo que en ellas se ha de hacer, AGS, E, 45, n. 275. Maria’s response was in her first known letter, of 05/1540, HHStA, SHK, 1/3, 85r. Cifuentes to Charles V, 27/01/1541, Ocaña, 06/06/1541, and Madrid, 05/11/1541, AGS, E, 54, n. 82; 51, n. 66, and 145. Enríquez, Libro de la vida, 408. March, Niñez, 2:17. Cifuentes to Charles V, Cifuentes, 18/07/1543, AGS, E, 60, n. 218; Ezquerra, “La Casa de las infantas,” 144–145. Damas que fueron de la dicha serenisyma princesa, AGS, CSR, 63, 376r–378v; Ezquerra, “La Casa de las infantas,” 146–148. Cobos to Charles V, Madrid, 24/08/1546, AGS, E, 73, n. 196. Ezquerra, “La Casa de las infantas,” 148–149. Gonzalo Sánchez-Molero, Felipe II: la mirada, 143–144. Minute of the appointment of the Marquis of Távara, ca. 09/1546, AGS, E, 73, n. 88; Ceñal Lorente, “La emperatriz María,” 262–263; Ezquerra, “La Casa de las infantas,” 148. Ezquerra, “La Casa de las infantas,” 128 and 131.

38

The orphan learning at court

24 Cifuentes to Charles V, 27/01/1541, AGS, E, 54, n. 82. 25 Ezquerra, “La Casa de las infantas,” 140; Annemarie Jordan Gschwend, “Las dos águilas del emperador Carlos V. Las colecciones y el mecenazgo de Juana y María de Austria en la corte de Felipe II,” in La monarquía de Felipe II a debate, ed. Luis Ribot (Madrid: SECCe, 2000), 433. 26 Juan López de Cuadra to Charles V, ca. 1543 and Madrid, 21/04/1544, AGS, E, 60, n. 90 and 50. 27 Ezquerra, “La Casa de las infantas,” 133. 28 They appear in the Orpheus’s song, vv. 25–32, in Jorge de Montemayor, Los siete libros de la Diana (Madrid: Cátedra, 1991 [1561]), book IV. On the dedication of the Exposición moral and Juana’s patronage, see Jordan Gschwend, “Las dos águilas,” 433. 29 Juan Martínez Silíceo, “Salutationis Angelicae ad Deiparam Virginem expositio,” in his De diuino nomine Iesus (Toledo: Juan Ferrer, 1550), modern edition by Jesús Pérez Mimbrero in Helmántica 197 (2016): 250–271. 30 Guiomar de Melo to Cobos, Arévalo, 15/09/1539, AGS, E, 45, n. 175. 31 Ceñal Lorente, “La emperatriz María,” 127. 32 Alvar Ezquerra, La emperatriz, 385. 33 Juan de Zúñiga to Charles V, Madrid, 11/02/1536, March, Niñez, 1:230. See Gonzalo Sánchez-Molero, Felipe II: la mirada, 53; Gregorio de Andrés, “Leonor Mascareñas, Aya de Felipe II y fundadora del Convento de los Ángeles de Madrid,” Anales del Instituto de Estudios Madrileños 34 (1994): 355–368. 34 Eloy Hortal Muñoz and Félix Labrador Arroyo, eds., La Casa de Borgoña: la Casa del Rey de España (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2014), 177–218. 35 General wage list of the household of the infantas, AGS, E, 45, n. 259; Fernando Rodríguez de la Torre, “Pedro Álvarez de Acosta (o Dacosta),” Diccionario Biográfico Español, Real Academia de la Historia, http://dbe.rah.es/biografias/46241/pedro-alvarez-de-acosta-odacosta. Besides, the only works of art that the infantas brought to Arévalo on which the author is mentioned were two Portuguese altarpieces by the court painter of the Avis, Antonio de Holanda. Memorial de lo que lleva Bartolomé Conejo para servicio de las señoras infantas, 1539, AGS, E, 45, 246r. 36 Manuel Castro, “Confesores franciscanos de la Emperatriz María de Austria,” Archivo Ibero-Americano 45 (1985): 113–152. 37 His appointment in AGS, CSR, 103, n. 55; his death in Maria of Austria to Charles V, Vienna, 18/07/1553, AGS, E, 649, n. 68. Castro, “Confesores franciscanos,” 117–122. On the problem of royal confessors as advisers Nicole Reinhardt, Voices of Conscience: Royal Confessors and Political Counsel in Seventeenth-Century Spain and France (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016). 38 Three thousand seven hundred and fifty maravedies were given to the abbess of Rapariegos, 500 ducats to the guardian and convent of San Francisco, and 2,625 maravedies to buy fish for Advent of 1539. Ceñal

The orphan learning at court

39 40

41 42 43 44 45 46 47

48 49

50 51 52 53 54

39

Lorente, “La emperatriz María,” 128–129. Charles V to Cifuentes, Madrid, 11/09/1539, AGS, E, 45, n. 254–255. Sebastián Lozano, “Francisco de Borja,” 73. Letter of Juan Sagristà Pasqual, Barcelona, 09/03/1582, in Monumenta Ignatiana, ex autographis vel ex antiquioribus exemplis collecta. Series quarta. Scripta de sancto Ignatio de Loyola, vol. 2 (Madrid: Typis G. López del Horno, 1918), 93–94; Enrique García Hernán, Ignacio de Loyola (Madrid: Taurus, 2013), 171–172, 185, 233, 282. Antonio de Araoz SJ to Ignatius of Loyola SJ and Pietro Codazzi SJ, Vergara, 04/07/1540, in Epistolae mixtae ex variis Europae locis ab anno 1537 ad 1556 scriptae… (Matriti: A. Avrial, 1898), 45. Peter Faber SJ to Ignatius of Loyola SJ, Barcelona, 01/03/1542, Faber, Epistolae, 150. Ibid., 151. Leonor de Mascarenhas to Peter Faber SJ, Ocaña, 01/02/1542, Faber, Epistolae, 144. Cifuentes to Peter Faber SJ, Ocaña, 04/02/1542, Faber, Epistolae, 141; Peter Faber SJ to Ignatius of Loyola SJ, Barcelona, 01/03/1542 and Speyer, 27/04/1542, Faber, Epistolae, 151–153 and 164. Epistolae mixtae, 122; Peter Faber SJ to Ignatius of Loyola SJ, Madrid, 06/03/1546, Faber, Epistolae, 398; Juan de Aragón to Father Martín de Santacruz, Lisbon, 28/10/1548, in Epistolae mixtae, 561. Antonio de Araoz SJ to Ignatius of Loyola SJ, Almeirim, 26/04/1544, in Epistolae mixtae, 161; Cristóbal de Mendoza SJ to Ignatius of Loyola SJ, Alcalá de Henares, 15/04/1549 [sic: 1546], in Litterae quadrimestres ex universis… (Matriti: excudebat Augustinus Avrial, 1894), 148; Ceñal Lorente, “La emperatriz María,” 257. Antonio de Araoz SJ to Ignatius of Loyola SJ, Valladolid, 29/06/1545 and Madrid, 21/06/1546, Epistolae mixtae, 224 and 289. Antonio de Araoz SJ to Ignatius of Loyola SJ, Valladolid, 29/06/1545, Epistolae mixtae, 228–229; Peter Faber SJ to Ignatius of Loyola SJ, Madrid, 06/03/1546, Faber, Epistolae, 398; Antonio Astrain, Historia de la Compañía de Jesús en la asistencia de España (Madrid: Razón y Fe, 1905), 1:262–266; Ezquerra, “La Casa de las infantas,” 149. Juan López de Cuadra to Charles V, ca. 1543, AGS, E, 60, n. 90. Cifuentes to Charles V, Ocaña, 17/03/1541 and 06/06/1541, and Alcalá de Henares, 04/04/1543, AGS, E, 54, n. 78; 51, n. 66; and 60, n. 86; Blas y Díaz-Jiménez, “La Emperatriz Doña María,” 20–21. Cifuentes to Charles V, Madrid, 07/07/1540, AGS, E, 50, n. 305; Pedro Álvarez de Acosta, Bishop of Osma, to Philip II, Madrid, 12/09/1544, March, Niñez, 1:167. Cifuentes to Cobos, Madrid, 02/12/1543, 22/12/1543, and 15/01/1544, AGS, E, 67, n. 41, 42 (quote from this document), and 57. Ceñal Lorente, “La emperatriz María,” 236. After serving the infantas, Cuadra continued in the 1550s as a friar of the Order of Santiago. Luis Salazar y Castro, Los comendadores de la orden de Santiago (Madrid: Patronato de la Biblioteca Nacional, 1949), 2:499.

40 The orphan learning at court

55 Antonio de Araoz SJ to Ignatius of Loyola SJ, Vergara, 19/11/1546, in Epistolae mixtae, 330. 56 Charles V to Alonso de Idiáquez, Brussels, 18/10/1544, AGS, PR, 26, n. 89; Cifuentes to Cobos, Madrid, 01/10/1544, AGS, E, 67, 93r–94r. 57 Consultation of Charles V to Isabel of Portugal regarding Maria’s marriage to the Dauphin of France, AGS, E, 20, 623r–624v; Charles V to François Bonvalot, his Ambassador in France, Ghent, 24/03/1540, in Charles Weiss, ed., Papiers d’État du Cardinal de Granvelle (Paris: Imprimerie Royale, 1841), 2:562. 58 Rainer Babel, “Francia y Carlos V (1519–1559),” in Carlos V/Karl V. 1500–2000, ed. Alfred Kohler (Madrid-Wien: SECCe-VÖAW, 2001), 411–441. 59 Philip II to Charles V, 14/12/1544, AGS, E, 64, 80r. 60 Cifuentes to Philip II, Madrid, 13/03/1545, AGS, E, 70, 29r; Charles V to Gómez Suárez de Figueroa, ca. 1545, AGS, E, 1377, n. 36. Overall, the classic study remains Federico Chabod, “¿Milán o los Países Bajos? Las discusiones en España sobre la ‘alternativa’ de 1544,” in Carlos V (1500–1558): homenaje de la Universidad de Granada (Granada: Universidad de Granada, 1958), 333–337. 61 Charles V to Alba, ca. 19/01/1548, CDCV, 2:564; Luis Cabrera de Córdoba, Historia de Felipe II, rey de España (Valladolid: Junta de Castilla y León, 1998 [1619]), 1:12; Cifuentes to Charles V, Cifuentes, 18/07/1543, AGS, E, 60, n. 218. 62 Christopher Laferl, Die Kultur der Spanier in Österreich unter Ferdinand I. 1522–1564 (Wien, Köln, Weimar: Böhlau, 1997), 66–76; Fichtner, Emperor Maximilian II, 9. 63 Cifuentes to Cobos, Madrid, 01/10/1544, AGS, E, 67, 93r–94v. 64 Robert Holtzmann, Kaiser Maximilian II. bis zu seiner Thronbesteigung (1527–1564). Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Übergangs von der Reformation zur Gegenreformation (Berlin: C. A. Schwetschke und sohn, 1903), 53–58. 65 Étienne Bourdeu, “Redéfinition du projet impérial ou construction d’un réseau de clients? Les étapes allemandes du voyage du prince Philippe aux Pays-Bas (1548–1552),” Mélanges de la Casa de Velázquez 42(2) (2012): 183–200. 66 Charles V to Alba, ca. 19/01/1548, CDCV, 2:564. 67 Philip II to Charles V, Alcalá de Henares, 03/03/1548, in Rafaela Rodríguez Raso, ed., Maximiliano de Austria gobernador de Carlos V en España: cartas al emperador (Madrid: CSIC, 1963), 18. 68 Charles V to Philip II, Augsburg, 09/04/1548, CDCV, 2:612. 69 Ibid., 612–613; Charles V to the procurators of the Courts of Castile, Augsburg, 31/05/1548, AGS, E, 76, n. 27.

3 THE EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY Marriage and the Iberian regency (1548–1551)

3.1 Negotiating a life in common The formulation of the marriage contract represented the conclusion of a detailed negotiation which regulated a marriage as full of specificities as that of the two cousins, the Archduke of Austria and the Spanish Infanta. During the talks in Augsburg in the spring of 1548, many of the social and economic responsibilities of Maria of Austria were established, in which, however, the spouses had no say. Three main questions are of interest here: which law and tradition was used as a reference point, the Iberian or the imperial? What economic status would be guaranteed to Maria and who would be responsible for providing the necessary funds? Finally, what kind of household service and retinue would she be allowed to maintain? A certain tendency towards generalities and vagueness can be observed in the collection of documents, agreements, and proceedings concerning the marriage.1 Only the title of the spouses, the amount of the dowry and other relevant payments, and the conditions in which Maria would find herself in case of widowhood are established. Overall, the German use of Heiratsgut and Morgengabe DOI: 10.4324/9781003125693-4

42  The exercise of authority

paralleled that of the Iberian dowry and arras (“bride wealth”).2 Economic resources from Bohemia, Naples, and Castile were gathered for Maria’s marriage, with contributions from merchants, rent administrators, and the Courts. It was an improvised system through which it was possible to respond to the various challenges. That is why no detailed description of Maria’s future status, household, and rights at the imperial court was made: given the lack of established precedents and the familiarity between the spouses, it seemed that everything could be resolved later depending on the circumstances. The situation would change in the following decades: the marriage contract, for example, between Maria’s niece Catalina Micaela and Charles Emmanuel I of Savoy in 1585 detailed the rank, etiquette, and modes of treatment which her servants had to observe at the court of Turin.3 Particularly noteworthy was the rise in status which the marriage implied for the couple. As was customary among the Habsburgs to safeguard their reputation, the marriage was granted a royal status. Ferdinand I gave his son the title of King of Bohemia, although not the right to wield authority, as Maximilian’s middle brother Ferdinand of Tyrol would continue as Governor of Bohemia in the absence of Ferdinand I.4 In addition to Maria’s accession as Queen of Bohemia, a signature she used until she became empress in 1564, her future father-in-law Ferdinand I offered 25,000 crowns for her maintenance during the first year of marriage.5 On the anniversary of the consummation, Charles V paid the dowry, providing 200,000 ducats and 100,000 crowns from the inheritance of Empress Isabel of Portugal. Provision had been made in her will for her jewels and other assets to be divided among her daughters, which was fulfilled almost ten years later, when Maria entered adult life through marriage.6 The dowry was used to pay the income which Ferdinand the Catholic had left to Ferdinand I in the Kingdom of Naples. This inheritance later passed to Maria, yielding around 30,000 ducats a year, and encouraged her to maintain lifelong contacts with agents in the Regno for the collection of these funds.7 Ferdinand I also guaranteed a sufficient Heiratsgut for her maintenance in the event of widowhood: an annual pension of 20,000

The exercise of authority  43

crowns for life from the revenues of Silesia and Lusatia, and if she did not remarry, the usufruct of the castles of Breslau and Bautzen as residences, capitals of Silesia and Upper Lusatia respectively.8 As Maximilian had no territories of his own at the time of his marriage, his father guaranteed his maintenance by assigning him an income of up to 60,000 florins per year in Lusatia and Silesia. Maximilian also promised to cover his wife with jewels valued at 40,000 florins. In order to conclude the agreement, Maria also had to renounce all her rights to her parents’ inheritance and succession in favour of her brother Philip II and his descendants.9 The agreement was moderate and mutual. Maximilian was not satisfied with the small dowry, especially since the ceding of the Netherlands or Milan had been contemplated for Maria’s marriage to the Duke of Orleans; he had at least expected the Governorship of the Netherlands.10 Moreover, after years of war in Germany, neither the imperial treasury nor Ferdinand I was able to gather the necessary funds for the marriage. While the terms were being negotiated in Augsburg, Charles V instructed Philip II to ask the Courts of Castile for the provision of extraordinary aid for the wedding. Eventually, the Courts provided financial support for the imperial wars but were unwilling to bear the burden of extraordinary expenses.11 Maximilian’s departure for Spain in his quality as governor also required the financing of his stay in Valladolid. Charles V was responsible for his expenses, but the Council of Finance insisted that it was impossible to collect the 65,000 ducats that were required per year.12 As a result of this situation, the dowry could not be paid at the agreed time. Charles V and Philip II tested patience of Ferdinand I and Maximilian II, while discussions took place about the distribution of Charles V’s imperial inheritance, exacerbating tensions between the two branches. The Spanish side adopted an informal and overly familiar attitude: it did not consider the commitments expressed in the capitulations obligatory and occasionally even tampered with the figures.13 The interpretation given to this attitude by the Austrian side was that their Spanish relatives manipulated the situation to their advantage, according to their economic and strategic priorities.

44  The exercise of authority

Maria began to display her proverbial generosity as soon as she gained access to the inheritance of her mother on the eve of the wedding celebration. Until then, the payment of alms and pious works had been tolerated as part of her duties as a devout woman. Whenever she desired any particular goods, such as some silver items from the auction of her late sister-in-law, Princess Maria Manuela of Portugal, first wife of Philip II, she had to request them from Charles V through his ministers.14 Enjoying somewhat greater freedom, she was now authorised to make some gifts in 1548 on the occasion of the wedding, even though she had no access to the maternal inheritance until she left Spain in 1551. Those who received a formal gift were few and included, on the one hand, the papal legate Cardinal Madruzzo – who would officiate the nuptial mass– her husband Maximilian, and her sisters-in-law, and, on the other, her close friends and servants, both Castilian and Portuguese.15

3.2 A household of her own Once the marriage contract was signed in Augsburg in April 1548, the ritual process of the wedding ceremony began. Thomas Perrenot de Chantonnay, brother of the future Cardinal Granvelle, departed immediately from the imperial court for Spain to perform a proxy betrothal. This took place in Aranjuez on 4 June 1548, where Philip, Maria, and Juana would finally live together for a certain period. Maria invested Cardinal Granvelle with the power to repeat the ceremony in the Empire.16 In the meantime, Maximilian prepared for his departure from Augsburg to celebrate the wedding and take up his position as Governor of the Iberian Kingdoms. The journey was fairly quick by the standards of the time, since Maximilian disembarked in Barcelona on August 5, although he fell seriously ill for several days due to the hardships of the sea voyage. He entered Valladolid after a precarious recovery on September 13. The couple were betrothed that same night and on the following day the nuptial mass took place in the presence of the Archbishop of Toledo and the Cardinal of Trent, Cristoforo Madruzzo.17 Maria’s new position as wife and governor brought some painful changes to her personal life. As it was not advisable for the

The exercise of authority  45

fourteen-year-old Juana to remain at court, she retired to Aranda de Duero, accompanied by a small number of servants and the young Infante Don Carlos, Prince Philip’s first-born son.18 Philip could not take care of the Infante, as he was going to leave Spain and set out on a long journey which would take him through the lands of Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands during the following three years. Thus, barely a month after her wedding, Maria was left alone in Valladolid without the company of her family, facing a new life for which she had been preparing for years. Her status as a Bohemian Consort Queen and, above all, as a Governor of the Iberian kingdoms suddenly increased her importance in the court game. Until then, the two sisters had lived relatively withdrawn from court, and the factional struggles took place primarily around Prince Philip, who apart from ruling in Iberia intermittently between 1541 and 1548 was also called to succeed Charles V. Meanwhile, the Portuguese predominance in the household of the infantas and the strong influence of the Jesuits, still absent from the male households, were particularly apparent. In a way, the household of the infantas was a satellite of that of Prince Philip and was connected with it through several individuals, such as Leonor de Mascarenhas, whom the prince recognised as a maternal figure, or Juan de Zúñiga, Philip’s high steward, who had female relatives in the entourage of the infantas.19 The marriage terms of 1548 involved an aspect which directly affected Maria: what kind of household would serve her and accompany her to the Empire? Would she preserve the entourage of her adolescence or would she have to introduce new players? And more importantly, would she be able to employ Iberians in her service or would Central Europeans surround her? The famous Duke of Alba was put in charge of restructuring the Spanish court service in 1548, by order of Charles V. The key point of Charles’ instructions to the Duke of Alba was the introduction of the Burgundian etiquette into Philip’s household as opposed to the Castilian-Aragonese tradition which the Spanish royal households had inherited from the Catholic Kings and had followed until then. The adoption of the Burgundian ceremonial would become a symbol of dynastic identity until the eighteenth century. It came

46  The exercise of authority

to be identified with that rigorous, refined, and solemn style which has been associated with the Spanish monarchy and offered clear advantages: an efficient control of the access to the court, the protection of the royals from undesirable contacts, and an exalted image of the royal family.20 As far as Maria was concerned, there was no well-defined plan for her new household as Queen of Bohemia. Charles V limited himself to instructing Alba on five main points. The duke had to carefully select the profile “of individuals and officials,” so that “they are useful and adequate and have the intention of remaining here”; in other words, they should be able to adapt to the distinct Austrian context, which was always a serious obstacle, and should be well paid. Maria could choose her ladies-in-waiting, as it seemed that their role would not be particularly important, although her proximity to them did matter. These ladies should not be more than ten, since “it would be embarrassing to bring many of them.” Only the Countess of Faro was explicitly mentioned, who would continue to serve as the head of the female servants; the High Steward Marquis of Távara preferred to stay with Juana in Castile. Charles V also emphasised the need to restore the stricter order which prevailed in the time of the Count of Cifuentes (he insisted that “there should be no more open doors than there used to be,” which probably alludes to Prince Philip’s well-known love affair with Isabel de Osorio, the lady-in-waiting of his sisters) and, of course, to find a suitable confessor.21 Philip II did not have the opportunity to participate in this process, as it was entrusted directly to the Duke of Alba. By September 1548 the new structure of the separate household services of Maria and Juana was ready.22 No relevant document survives; it is only known that the majority of the infantas’ servants opted to stay with Juana in Castile rather than make the hazardous journey to the Holy Roman Empire. The arrival of Archduke Maximilian, however, disrupted their original plans and several remained with Maria, at least for some time. The complications involved in creating Maximilian’s household led to a chaotic situation with a provisional household service, until Charles V finally approved the list presented by Alba and Vázquez de Molina in June 1549, which is also

The exercise of authority  47

now lost. The nucleus was preserved, since the Marquis of Távara continued as high steward and the Countess of Faro as first lady of the bedchamber. In contrast to the household of Philip II, there is no evidence that the Burgundian model was ever implemented in the household of Maria, who was the custodian of the traditional Castilian-Aragonese style for many decades, even though it gradually fell into disuse in Spain.23 Archduke Maximilian arrived in Spain with an entourage which primarily consisted of imperial Catholic nobles, most of whom had shared with him the recent experience of the Schmalkaldic War.24 Not all of them settled in the Castilian court and therefore they did not form part of his household. As for the Spaniards, they constituted a small but select minority. Since the formation of Maximilian’s household in June 1544 (distinct from that of his brother Ferdinand), Pedro Laso de Castilla had been his high steward. This measure was part of Ferdinand I’s efforts for the Hispanization of his son, although Maximilian was not satisfied with Laso de Castilla’s supervision.25 His brother, Francisco Laso de Castilla, acted as master of the horse, so that the family controlled two of the four major offices in the household, which was set up in Valladolid according to German custom.26 The Laso de Castilla were a lineage from Madrid which traced its origins to King Alfonso X of Castile and had a firm foothold at the court of Ferdinand I since the 1520s as one of the few Castilian families which had gone with him to Vienna. For this reason, they offered their services to both branches of the dynasty for half a century through a fruitful circulation of people between the different courts of the House of Austria. The High Steward Pedro Laso de Castilla married a noblewoman of the Fernandine court, Polyxena Ungnad zu Sonnegg; his brother-in-law Ludwig Ungnad zu Sonneck also participated in the entourage and retained his position as cupbearer of Maximilian.27 On the Spanish side, most of Maximilian’s officials had not previously worked in his service but came from the court of Charles V as gentlemen of the chamber.28 In other cases, they were former servants (or their descendants) of Ferdinand I from his youth in Castile, as the economy of favour meant that the bonds of personal

48  The exercise of authority

service could lie dormant without disappearing.29 This mobility facilitated Maximilian’s acceptance as a member of the ruling family rather than as a foreign prince. However, recourse to the patronage of the distant Ferdinand I often revealed the missing connection of these individuals with the more active and powerful court networks of the time and presented an opportunity for them to regain their influence with the court.30 Juan Alonso de Gámiz, almoner to Maximilian and former chaplain to Charles V since 1537, was quite a different case. Gámiz used his position as cousin of Martín de Salinas, Fernando I’s ambassador to Charles V for almost two decades (1522–1539), in order to succeed him in this office.31 He was more of a secretary than an ordinary ambassador, a correspondent who kept the dialogue open among the princes of the House and served Maximilian in various missions, although without clear instructions. He mediated, for example, Maximilian’s visit to his grandmother Juana of Castile in Tordesillas in July 1550.32 This role of family diplomat was taken up by Luis Venegas de Figueroa, the only Castilian who entered Maximilian’s service in 1548 (in his case, as a steward) and developed a lifelong career alternating his services between Maximilian’s and Philip II’s families.33 On the German side, the dominant profile was that of Catholic noblemen who were related to the courts of Ferdinand or Maximilian, or were linked by marriage to Spanish servants, as in the case of Ludwig Ungnad. Others, such as Adam von Dietrichstein and Vratislav von Pernstein, took advantage of their stay in Castile to familiarise themselves with the Iberian kingdoms and take Spanish wives.34 No notable problems of confession or coexistence arose at the court of Valladolid in this early period. There were only rumours against Maximilian, who hardly appeared in public, as he still suffered from quartan fever and was weak until the beginning of 1549, although he might well have been displeased by the regulated life in Valladolid. He was accused of neglecting his wife (there were fears that he had not consummated the marriage) and of avoiding relations with the local aristocracy, as he did not “provide room or entry to the grandees and gentlemen.” High Steward

The exercise of authority  49

Laso de Castilla and the secretary Gámiz tried to shed this negative image and the situation did not deteriorate further.35 The couple must have maintained a satisfactory relationship after Maximilian’s recovery, and from the beginning of 1549, it projected an image of harmony.36 On 2 November 1549, their first child was born in Cigales, a daughter who was named Ana after Maximilian’s mother and would later become Philip II’s fourth wife. Due to her positive experience in Cigales, Maria chose the same location on 17 April 1551 to give birth to Archduke Ferdinand, whose name was a tribute to the father of her husband. However, the child died a few months later.37 Maria gave birth approximately every year and a half for almost two decades, putting her physical and mental limits to the test. While the lives of the spouses seemed to run a peaceful course, the tranquillity which prevailed in Maria’s household under the stewardship of the Marquis of Távara contrasted with the growing problems which Pedro Laso de Castilla faced in Maximilian’s household. At first, Laso boasted to Ferdinand I that he knew how to control the humours of his son Maximilian and incite his interest in the governance of the Iberian kingdoms. Everything changed, however, with the arrival of Count Sigismund zu Lodron in the summer of 1549. According to Pedro Laso, with his talk and advice he has set his Highness and all these Germans so far back that I believe it will be difficult to restore him to the order and tranquillity in which he was – blessed be our Lord, I had everything as finely tuned as a clock.38 Lodron soon returned to the Empire, but Laso’s sway over Maximilian caused resentment. Ferdinand I continued to rely on Laso to advise his son on serious matters, but also sought the services of the better informed imperial secretary, Juan Vázquez de Molina.39 The underlying hostility of Maximilian towards anything Spanish became increasingly evident. It derived from a notion of cultural and religious distance, as well as from political rivalries in the close circle of his father Ferdinand I.40 Although the creation of

50  The exercise of authority

stereotypes among the different European nations was rooted in the late Middle Ages, the imperial image of Spain in those years was becoming one of religious bigotry and military brutality.41 Maximilian’s departure for Spain a few months later was viewed with reservation: the archduke had earned a good reputation among the German princes and it was feared that he would fall victim “to the deception and incredulity of Spain.”42 The attempts of Ferdinand I and Charles V to Hispanize Maximilian clashed not only with his unfriendly feelings towards Spain and his nostalgia for Germany, but also with his frustration at the limitations which the regency of Valladolid had imposed on the authority of the married couple.43 Maria had no previous political training, but Maximilian did consider himself qualified to govern effectively. Nevertheless, no sooner had the wedding taken place than the instructions of Charles V to his governors arrived, causing extreme disappointment to Maximilian. Although the couple nominally possessed the same powers which Empress Isabel and Prince Philip had enjoyed before, the list of restrictions was long and the private instructions clearly stated that almost no important affairs, including the granting of prestigious offices, would depend solely on them. On the contrary, the emperor specified that these matters should be dealt with in collaboration with the triumvirate of ministers on whom the bureaucratic machinery of the Iberian Kingdoms relied: the secretary Juan Vázquez de Molina (nephew and political heir of the recently deceased Francisco de los Cobos), the president of the Royal Council and Bishop of Sigüenza, Hernando Niño de Guevara, and the General Inquisitor and Archbishop of Seville, Fernando de Valdés.44 Charles V followed one of Cobos’ last pieces of advice in choosing this structure: Valdés and Niño de Guevara, mutual enemies, were not considered competent ministers, but by keeping them high in the hierarchy and with Vázquez de Molina acting as a balancing force, Charles hoped to achieve a relative peace among the court patrons. The triumvirate was complemented by a State Council which functioned as the main decision-making organ. The assembly was formed by the principal authorities, which included the presidents of the councils and the high steward of Maria

The exercise of authority  51

of Austria, the Marquis of Távara, despite his limited political experience. Charles V, however, did not follow Vázquez de Molina’s suggestion to invite Pedro Laso, Maximilian’s high steward, to the Council of State, presumably because of doubts about his loyalty. This collegial system aimed at achieving a balance between the major political players, all placed under the authority and prestige of the King and Queen of Bohemia.45 Previous scholarship has provided a rather inaccurate picture of the rule of Maria and Maximilian. First, it has been interpreted as regency in name only, in which effective government was in the hands of the main Castilian ministers, while the spouses were limited to signing and acting as representatives, as in the case of certain constitutional monarchs.46 This point will be addressed below. Second, and more surprisingly, although power was shared and equally distributed between the two, Maria’s reactions and attitudes as a governor have not been recorded, and overall reference is made to Maximilian’s reign, in the singular.47 This is particularly problematic with regard to the last phase of their rule, between October 1550 and May 1551, when Maria served as the sole governor in the absence of her husband and with absolute continuity. The appointment of regents and governors from within the royal circle was a common practice in the Iberian Kingdoms during the first half of the sixteenth century, but this was the first time that a model of rule was based on a couple and it would only occur again under different circumstances with the government of the Netherlands under Archduke Albert and Archduchess Isabel (1598– 1621).48 In both cases, the wife was not a passive appendage of her husband, but enjoyed rights of her own which were, in fact, superior to those of her spouse: Maria was the emperor’s eldest daughter and had been brought up all her life in Castile, while Maximilian, who had recently been appointed King of Bohemia to avoid being underrated, was clearly a foreigner. Maria and Maximilian were given the right to attend public masses together, visit churches and convents on feast days, eat in public, and “arrange a few hours every day so that together they may hear those who wish to speak to them and receive the petitions and appeals given to them.”49 Thus, in Valladolid, both would be

52  The exercise of authority

publicly seen as governors and on equal footing. When on one occasion their title and quality as governors were questioned by other kingdoms, an eyewitness at court assured that he saw the king and queen in Valladolid, and that they convened in council the judges of Castile in their palace by name and as governors, which, rest assured, they would not have done, had they not had enough power for it nor would they have otherwise granted offices or documents.50 This testimony from Navarre reflects the doubts of the local authorities about the true power of the new governors, after years of dealing with Prince Philip in the absence of Charles V. In 1548 the Kingdom of Navarre sent a messenger to Valladolid to present Prince Philip with the grievances presented in the Navarran Courts, and in 1549 it sought contact with Charles V, who was not in the Peninsula, and not with the King and Queen of Bohemia at the court of Valladolid.51 These attempts to circumvent the authority of the governors were not impeded by the circle of Charles V, who had the last word in most of the important decisions and appointments and, occasionally, kept Maria and Maximilian uninformed about the key developments on the international stage. The limitations to the powers of the governors were aggravated by the independent attitude of the ministers of Valladolid, who, unable to coordinate among themselves or recognise the leadership of the King and Queen of Bohemia, functioned as autonomous units in their jurisdictions.52 Frustrated with the disregard in which they were held (nothing indicates that this was only Maximilian’s complaint), the King and Queen of Bohemia sent a family diplomatic mission to the imperial court in Brussels in October 1549. It was entrusted to Luis Venegas de Figueroa, Maximilian’s steward, who, as mentioned, would serve both branches of the dynasty in the following decades. Between then and the summer of 1550, Venegas led three missions to Brussels to protest, either in general or in particular (against the Council of the Indies), the indifference towards the governors’ authority.53 It can be assumed that rather than travelling every few

The exercise of authority  53

months with new orders, Venegas remained in Flanders as the governors’ unofficial ambassador to the emperor, as Gámiz did in Valladolid on behalf of Ferdinand I. In this game of family relations, Venegas corresponded openly with Ferdinand I, probably by order of Maximilian. Ferdinand I himself would also later send instructions to Venegas as his man of confidence in Valladolid.54 However, Venegas’ mission to secure more room for manoeuvre for the King and Queen of Bohemia met with resounding failure. Charles V was unwilling to extend their powers, claiming that they were the same as those which Empress Isabel and Prince Philip had enjoyed. This was not entirely true, as Charles had treated Isabel and Philip as partners in government, while he dismissed the Bohemian sovereigns as temporary officials. He also implicitly criticised them for exceeding their authority in several decisions which he concealed in order not to strip them of their powers.55 This situation, however, which verged on humiliation, did not seem to affect the couple’s cohesion, which appeared united and like-minded according to court servants.56 Meanwhile, the secretary Vázquez de Molina praised Maximilian for being so well versed in all things Spanish in a way that seemed more characteristic of Maria: without a doubt, such merit should be attributed to the efforts of his wife.57 Outside this more official circle, one witness who was less committed to dynastic praise assured that “it is impossible to describe the exceptional qualities of Her Highness, exceedingly wise and prudent that she governs alone the whole kingdom; truly the Most Serene [Maximilian] could not have found a more convenient company.”58 In this way, from the beginning of their life together, Maria acted as an adviser and counsellor to her husband, at a time when her better knowledge of the local nuances was of fundamental help to Maximilian. The recommendations they put forward, the favours they requested, and the success of these initiatives can be seen as indicators of their abilities during their rule, along with the question of whether certain groups of people or patterns can be distinguished through their policies. Given the autonomy of the great court patrons, Maria and Maximilian sought the support of the secretary Vázquez de Molina. Almost everyone they recommended was a

54  The exercise of authority

creature of the secretary and of his uncle before him, the imperial secretary Francisco de los Cobos.59 With such ministers, as a rule, Maria’s and Maximilian’s recommendations were not particularly successful, as they lacked the capacity to impose themselves among the different voices that reached the emperor from Spain. Nevertheless, the King and Queen of Bohemia had more power for patronage in the domestic sphere and were allowed greater freedom to favour their direct servants. The most obvious proof, in the radius of action that was exclusive to both, was that the administrators of Maria’s household, the High Steward Marquis of Távara and the First Lady of the Bedchamber Countess of Faro, were chosen as godparents of the first-born child of the royal couple, Archduchess Ana, in October 1549.60 At a different level, close servants of both the king and queen were promoted and the requests of Maria’s trusted ladies-in-waiting were met.61 The most heated encounter that the royal couple had with the Iberian administration was with the Council of the Indies, an area in which they were especially interested in intervening, though with little success since Charles V showed great zeal in stopping innovations that could further upset the delicate balance involved in the governance of distant territories. The governors managed to appoint a chamberlain of Maximilian, Pedro Sarmiento, and his wife (and lady-in-waiting of Maria) Mencía de Figueroa, to the Peruvian Revenue Office (escribanía de rentas), an anomalous situation which took several years of proceedings to become effective.62 Thanks to the modest size of the Revenue Office, Maria took advantage of the penalties of the Chamber of the Indies (fines and confiscations) to the benefit of her royal household servants.63 On the contrary, nothing was asked on behalf of Maximilian’s German servants, given his status as a foreigner in Valladolid, so the dominant presence was that of Maria of Austria, who was much better acquainted with the local elites.

3.3 Maria of Austria, sole governor As Giovanni Betta claimed, Maria had governed the whole kingdom alone. Therefore, Maximilian’s departure from Spain in September 1550 did not result in any visible changes in governance.

The exercise of authority  55

While Maria and Maximilian worked to acquire more authority in Valladolid, the greater dynastic power struggle played out in Augsburg in the debates about Charles V’s successor. To a large extent, Maximilian’s exasperation at his stagnant situation in Castile was due to a sense of isolation in a foreign land. At the same time, his uncle Charles V and his cousin Philip II were, in his opinion, trying to rob him of his legitimate inheritance as King of the Romans and future successor to the Holy Roman Empire in view of the inactivity and pusillanimity of his father Ferdinand I. Maximilian projected onto Charles V and Philip II his own feelings of rejection of all things Spanish, which he identified with a selfish and destructive style of government at odds with his German identity and his preference for compromise and friendly negotiation.64 The succession plan that Charles V presented in 1550 was regarded as unacceptable by his brother Ferdinand I. According to it, on his death, Charles V would be succeeded in the Empire by Ferdinand, and he by Philip II, who would in turn have Maximilian II as his heir. This kind of cross-succession between both family lines, in addition to its evident problems of application in a linear dynastic model, barely concealed the intention to disinherit de facto Maximilian II. Only through the mediation of Marie of Hungary, sister of Charles V and Ferdinand I, were the two monarchs even able to sit down together during the Augsburg talks at the end of 1550.65 In this acrimonious context, Ferdinand I finally obtained permission from Charles V to call Maximilian II to his side, so that he could defend his succession rights in person. As soon as Maximilian II received the much-desired invitation, he immediately left Valladolid in October 1550, leaving his wife Maria behind. Undertaking such a risky journey was not advisable for her, both because she was three months pregnant and because of the need for someone to head the government.66 Provision had already been made in the instructions of 1548 for the possibility of one of the two spouses being left alone in charge of the government. Charles V therefore provided power of attorney to his daughter which did not involve any further changes in the governance of the Iberian kingdoms.67 As a loving father, he also added some brief advice, not on governance but rather on feelings:

56  The exercise of authority

FIGURE 3.1

Antonio Moro, La emperatriz María de Austria, esposa de Maximiliano II (Prado Museum, Madrid, 1551) © Archivo Fotográfico Museo Nacional del Prado

she should bear with “moderation and temperance” the absence of her husband (Charles knew all too well his daughter’s melancholy crises during family separations) and should trust that the affairs of state would run smoothly. The official correspondence of that period between father and daughter as sovereign and governor has survived. There are also mentions of an earlier correspondence between the two, perhaps of a more personal nature, which, however, has not been preserved.68 The general impression with regard to Maria’s rule is that problems of coordination persisted and that she maintained authority regardless of the presence of her husband. For this reason, the Castilian elites asked Charles V for the prompt return of Prince Philip, under whom political communication flowed more naturally than under the interim rule of the King and Queen of Bohemia.69

The exercise of authority  57

Once Maria was free to exercise authority without restrictions from her husband, she made her first personal decision: to spend Christmas of 1550 in Toro with her sister Juana and her nephew Carlos, explaining that she did not abandon her government duties “because, being a holiday, there was no need for business.” 70 She otherwise continued to be informed about the main issues that were being discussed at the Castilian court: the progress of the war in Morocco between the Sharif of Fez and the King of Vélez, privateering in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic, the arrival of American silver, and the defence of the Navarre border.71 In these secretarial and formulaic letters, it is difficult to hear the governor’s own voice, who appears in the role of giving warnings and receiving letters. There is no personal and direct involvement in the matters she raises, nor does she take decisions, offer advice, or intercede on behalf of others. Thus, for example, while the Viceroy of Valencia claimed that he had made every effort to entrust Maria with the defence against privateering in the Mediterranean after the sacking of Cullera by Dragut in 1550, the conflict with the Ottomans was not seen as a priority in the court of Valladolid but as subject to the availability of surplus money.72 Maria had no experience of the world beyond her short travels through the towns and cities of Castile, surrounded as she was by a small retinue and unaware of the great issues which preoccupied Christendom. At least, she did have some practical or economic experience in the administration of her small patrimony and the collection of as many resources as possible for the maintenance of her household and patronage activity. She therefore showed greater self-confidence and strength of character when dealing with economic and domestic matters. On one occasion, she firmly defended the management of the delivery of silver from America to Valladolid which Charles V was expecting in Central Europe at the beginning of 1551.73 Her intervention in the affairs of the Indies was characterised by an insatiable appetite for wealth for herself and her servants. Through the need to marry off her ladies-in-waiting and ladies of the bedchamber, she meddled without a second thought in thorny matters such as the purchase of the office of tax collector ( factor) and overseer

58  The exercise of authority

of Nuevo Toledo by the controversial Juan de Turuégano, one of Francisco Pizarro’s companions in the civil wars in Peru. Maria of Austria granted him the appointment on behalf of Charles V, despite the strong opposition of the Council of the Indies against its sale or lease and asked her father to dispatch and legitimise the title. At the heart of the matter was the legalisation of the office, which was crucial for Turuégano’s marriage to María de Abreu, a member of Maria of Austria’s chamber.74 It was in the organisation and financing of her royal household that Maria of Austria seemed to have a clearer understanding of the existing needs; besides, her father had allowed her more room for self-management in this area. In the first half of 1551, the Queen of Bohemia prepared the retinue that would accompany her to her future possessions in Central Europe. The reunification of the family was approaching as Maximilian II’s stay in the Empire had come to an end after he had sworn on 9 March 1551 before his relatives, reluctantly and in Spanish, to accept Charles V’s succession plan. This cross-succession agreement was annulled a few months later, thus sanctioning the definitive separation of the two lines of the House of Austria. Maximilian was never again going to return to governing the Kingdoms of Spain and would only briefly visit Valladolid to fetch his wife, children, and household and leave definitively for the Holy Roman Empire.75 Maria began to plan the reform of her household and the journey to the Empire in April 1551, shortly after giving birth to Archduke Ferdinand. She sounded out the prelates and knights who would accompany her on the journey, organised the household service, and, above all, calculated with precision the cost of her retinue against the small income she had available, all of which she presented to Charles V through detailed reports. Maria’s generosity and largesse did not contradict her full awareness of the economic mechanisms and the need to secure sufficient funds to maintain her authority.76 Maria was personally involved in this process and was helped by the new powerful man around her, her husband’s high steward, Pedro Laso de Castilla, while among the patriarchal authorities Charles V was giving up his influence as a father in favour of

The exercise of authority  59

her father-in-law Ferdinand I. It was evident that the Marquis of Távara, Maria’s high steward, had no intention of undertaking the journey to the Empire, but only wished to retire permanently to his domains, which he achieved in May 1551.77 The promotion of Pedro Laso de Castilla to de facto high steward of Maria contrasted with his fall from grace with Maximilian II. Crucially, however, the high steward always enjoyed the confidence of Ferdinand I. In this way, Ferdinand ensured that a Spaniard like Laso, but loyal to him and with experience in Vienna, would be in charge of managing his daughter-in-law’s entourage.78 Charles V approved his candidacy and progressively distanced himself from these issues of domestic management so that Ferdinand I would take care of them.79 Two things are notable about the restructuring of the household that Laso de Castilla directed for Maria, both of which are summarised in the lack of funds for its adequate maintenance: the lack of knights and prominent persons in her entourage and the refusal of most of her servants to leave Castile for Austria. The Marquis of Távara resigned from his position as high steward. In addition, the Countess of Faro, first lady of the bedchamber, retired, along with the Duke of Escalona, who had offered to lead Maria’s retinue to Barcelona.80 Although Charles V increased his daughter’s subsidy from 25,000 to 40,000 ducats, the household’s financial situation was too precarious to appear as an attractive destination. The provisional nature of the court of the King and Queen of Bohemia in Valladolid in 1548–1549 remained unresolved because Charles V did not make it a priority to finance powerful royal houses for the governors. The lack of suitable household service was a recurrent complaint and was reflected in the fact that, although lower officials abounded in number, prominent people were scarce. When the households of Maria and Maximilian were set up in April 1551 in preparation for the trip to Germany, Charles V was shocked at the debt that had accumulated and had to boost his contributions.81 During this delicate transition, Maria did not hide her irritation at the fact that her decisions were neither respected nor obeyed.

60

The exercise of authority

In these circumstances, her authority was seriously put to the test. She fell out with the Duke of Escalona when he went to Valladolid with the intention of leading her entourage to the port and then withdrawing from the mission, thus calling her into question and leaving no margin for finding someone of rank willing to replace him. She was no less upset with the Council of State, which ordered her to remain in Valladolid to await definitive instructions for her journey from her male relatives (Charles V, Philip II, or Maximilian II) instead of letting her follow her plan to leave immediately for Barcelona at the beginning of July 1551. Maria appears dutiful in her correspondence with her father, brother, or husband, but with respect to the Council of State she grumbled that “I have restrained myself more in order to follow your judgement than out of willingness.”82 Meanwhile, Maximilian II embarked in Genoa for Barcelona, sharing the journey with his cousin and brother-in-law Philip II, with whom he shared a strained relationship after the crisis of the imperial succession. After a quick trip from the Catalan coast, the couple met again in Valladolid and immediately set off for Barcelona. The most unusual element of the entourage was an Asian elephant, named Suleiman, a wedding gift from John III of Portugal to the couple.83 They stayed in Barcelona for almost two months due to the uncontrolled corsair threat and the difficulty of securing a safe passage to Genoa. Although finally the Ottoman ships headed for other latitudes, French corsairs looted some of the boats prepared for the royal couple’s journey on the beach of Barcelona itself, a humiliating blow before their very eyes. Once the galleys of Admiral Doria arrived, they were able to take to the sea on 20 October 1551.84 It would be more than thirty years before Maria would see the Spanish coast again.

Notes 1 Marriage capitulations in AHN, E, 2033; further copies are available in Simancas and Vienna. 2 Beatrix Bastl, Tugend, Liebe, Ehre: die adelige Frau in der frühen Neuzeit (Wien: Böhlau, 2000), 34–75; Paula Fichtner, “Dynastic Marriage in Sixteenth-Century Habsburg Diplomacy and Statecraft: An Interdisciplinary Approach,” American Historical Review 81(2) (1976): 251.

The exercise of authority

61

3 Capitulación original del casamiento de la Infanta Doña Catalina con el Señor Duque de Saboya, 23/09/1584, AGS, PR, 46, n. 13; La orden que es nuestra voluntad que guarden los criados y criadas de la serenísima infanta doña Catalina, Barcelona, 13/06/1585, RB, II/3127, 59r–155v. 4 Marriage capitulations, AHN, E, 2033. Ferdinand of Tyrol was appointed governor of Bohemia after the Protestant revolt of 1547 to curtail the local aristocracy autonomy. Petr Vorel, ed., Stavovský odboj roku 1547 – první krize habsburské monarchie (Pardubice: Východočeské museum, 1999). 5 Royal decree of Ferdinand, King of the Romans, Augsburg, 25/04/1548, AGS, PR, 56, doc. 12. 6 Charles V to Philip II, Augsburg, 19/01/1548, in Fray Prudencio de Sandoval, Historia del Emperador Carlos V, Rey de España (Madrid: Atlas, 1956 [1634]), book XXX, ch. V, § 60; Charles V to Alba, ca. 19/01/1548, CDCV, 2:567. 7 Maria of Austria to Juan de Zúñiga, Prague, 13/01/1580, BGe, Favre, XXI, 13r. 8 Royal decree of Ferdinand, King of the Romans, Augsburg, 25/04/1548, AGS, PR, 56, doc. 11. 9 Concordia entre Fernando Rey de Romanos y Carlos V sobre el matrimonio del Archiduque Maximiliano y la Infanta María, 1548, AGS, PR, 56, doc. 13; Renunciation by Maria of Austria of her rights to the inheritance of her parents, Charles V and Empress Isabel, 17/09/1548, AGS, PR, 50, doc. 102; Peter Rassow, “Karls V. Tochter Maria als Eventual-Erbin der spanischen Reiche,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 49 (1959): 161–168. 10 Sandoval, Historia del Emperador, book XXX, ch. V, § 62; Holtzmann, Kaiser Maximilian II., 72. 11 Philip II to Charles V, Alcalá de Henares, 03/03/1548, CDCV, 2:605; Charles V to Philip II, Augsburg, 09/04/1548, CDCV, 2:609; Philip II to Charles V, Valladolid, 05/09/1548, CDCV, 2:651. 12 Charles V to Philip II, Augsburg, 28/04/1548, CDCV, 2:624; Philip II to Charles V, Madrid, 12/06/1548, CDCV, 2:625. 13 They do not clarify, for example, whether Maximilian had to be paid 60,000 or 65,000 escudos a year, and whether each escudo was equivalent to sixty or ninety kreutzers, the currency of reference in Germany. Charles V to Philip II, Augsburg, 28/04/1548, CDCV, 2:624. 14 Cobos to Charles V, Madrid, 30/03/1546, in March, Niñez, 1:210. 15 Checa Cremades, Los inventarios de Carlos V, 2:2209–2212; Cerbonio Besozzi, El archiduque Maximiliano, gobernador de España: su viaje a Valladolid en 1548 y su boda con la infanta María (Barcelona: Argos, 1946), 56. 16 Philip II to Charles V, Madrid, 12/06/1548, CDCV, 2:625–626; Gómez Suárez de Figueroa to Philip II, Genoa, 23/07/1548, AGS, E, 1380, n. 12; Philip II to Charles V, Valladolid, 05/09/1548, CDCV, 2:650. 17 Philip II to Charles V, Valladolid, 25/09/1548, CDCV, 2:662; Besozzi, El archiduque Maximiliano, 57–66.

62

The exercise of authority

18 Ceñal Lorente, “La emperatriz María,” 334. 19 José Martínez Millán, “Factions and Political Groups at Philip II’s Court: Albists vs Ebolists,” in A Europe of Courts, a Europe of Factions: Political Groups at Early Modern Centres of Power (1550–1700), eds. Rubén González Cuerva and Alexander Koller (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 109–129. 20 Mark Hengerer, “Access at the Court of the Austrian Habsburg Dynasty (Mid-Sixteenth to Mid-Eighteenth Century): A Highway from Presence to Politics?” in The Key to Power? The Culture of Access in Princely Courts, 1400–1750, eds. Dries Raeymaekers and Sebastiaan Derks (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 125–127; Santiago Fernández Conti, “La introducción de la etiqueta borgoñona y el viaje de 1548–1551,” in Martínez Millán, La corte de Carlos V, 1/2:216–219. 21 Charles V to Alba, ca. 19/01/1548, CDCV, 2:566–567. 22 Charles V to Philip II, Augsburg, 09/04/1548 and 08/07/1548, CDCV, 2:615 and 638–639; Philip II to Charles V, Valladolid, 25/09/1548, CDCV, 2:66. 23 Ignacio Ezquerra, “La asistencia doméstica del resto de miembros de la familia imperial,” in Martínez Millán, La corte de Carlos V, 1/2:233– 234. The staff’s list is reconstructed through indirect testimonies in ibid., 4:127–130. 24 Duke Erich II von Braunschweig-Kalenberg, Count Hans Hoyer von Mansfeld, Ludwig Ungnad zu Sonnegg, Vratislav von Pernstein, Maximilian von Polheim… Holtzmann, Kaiser Maximilian II., 79–80. See Rodríguez Raso, “Maximiliano y María de Austria,” 49. 25 Fichtner, Emperor Maximilian II, 14. 26 The other two were the grand chamberlain, Georg von Thun, and the court marshal, Kaspar von Hoberg. Ezquerra, “La Casa de las infantas,” 231. In the German tradition, there were four sections of the royal household under the authority of the high steward. Jakob Wührer and Martin Scheutz, Zu Diensten Ihrer Majestät. Hofordnungen und Instruktionsbücher am frühneuzeitlichen Wiener Hof (Wien: Böhlau, 2011), 18–36. 27 Ezquerra, “La Casa de las infantas,” 231; Patrouch, Queen’s Apprentice, 22. 28 Rodríguez Raso, Maximiliano de Austria, 119–120; Laferl, Die Kultur der Spanier, 126–127. 29 Isabel Aguirre Landa, “La correspondencia de Fernando de Austria conservada en el Archivo General de Simancas,” in Fernando I, 1503–1564: socialización, vida privada y actividad pública de un Emperador del Renacimiento, eds. Friedrich Edelmayer and Alfredo Alvar Ezquerra (Madrid: Sociedad Estatal de Conmemoraciones Culturales, 2004), 306. 30 Even the former wet nurse of Ferdinand I sent her son-in-law to Valladolid to seek Maximilian’s protection. Catalina de Guzmán to Ferdinand I, ca. 1549–1550, HHStA, SDK, 3/16.

The exercise of authority

63

31 Ferdinand I’s correspondence with Gámiz in HHStA, SDK, 3/5 and in José Ramón Cuesta Astobiza, ed., Epistolario político de Juan Alonso de Gámiz, secretario destacado a la Corte del emperador Carlos V, en el Archivo Histórico Provincial de Álava (Vitoria: Diputación Foral de Álava, 2002). Also, Alfonso Ladrón de Guevara, “El embajador Juan Alonso de Gámiz. Aportación al estudio de su figura y legado material,” in Estudios de historia del arte en memoria de la profesora Micaela Portilla, eds. José Javier Vélez Chaurri et al. (Vitoria: Diputación Foral de Álava, 2008), 143. 32 Bethany Aram, Juana the Mad. Sovereignty and Dynasty in Renaissance Europe (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005), 144–146. 33 Pruebas para la concesión del Título de Caballero de la Orden de Santiago de Luis Venegas y Venegas de Figueroa, 1545, AHN, Órdenes Militares, Caballeros de Santiago, exp. 8782; Maximilian II and Maria of Austria to Charles V, Valladolid, 04/07/1550, in Rodríguez Raso, Maximiliano de Austria, 191–201; Ferdinand I to Luis Venegas, Vienna, 11/07/1552, HHStA, SDK, 4/2, 56r. 34 Maximilian II to Adam von Dietrichstein, Augsburg, 10/06/1548, in Johann Loserth ed., Die Registratur Erzherzog Maximilians (Maximilians II.) aus den Jahren 1547–1551 (Wien: Gerold’s Sohn, 1896), 422–423. Pernstein met his future wife María Manrique later, in Milan in autumn 1551. Pavel Marek, Pernštejnské ženy: Marie Manrique de Lara a její dcery ve službách habsburské dynastie (Praha: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny, 2018), 21–22. 35 Wilhelm Maurenbrecher, “Beiträge zur Geschichte Maximilians II.,” Historische Zeitschrift 32 (1874): 230. 36 Fichtner, Emperor Maximilian II, 20–21. 37 The Marquis of Aguilar to Antoine Perrenot de Granvelle, Barcelona, 10/04/1551, RB, II/2250, 68r–69v. 38 Pedro Laso de Castilla to Ferdinand I, Valladolid, 30/09/1549, in Maurenbrecher, “Beiträge zur Geschichte,” 234. Ludwig Pfandl, Felipe II: bosquejo de una vida y de una época (Madrid: Cultura Española, 1942), 214. 39 Juan Vázquez de Molina to Ferdinand I, Valladolid, 11/09/1549, HHStA, SDK, 3/8, 279r; Maurenbrecher, “Beiträge zur Geschichte,” 237; Holtzmann, Kaiser Maximilian II., 92; Franz Bernhard von Bucholtz, Geschichte der Regierung Ferdinand des Ersten (Wien: bei Schaumburg und Compagnie, 1835), 6:459–460. 40 A few years later, Maximilian confessed to the Venetian ambassador his mistrust of his father’s Iberian advisers: “those few Spaniards in his court are so devils that they do lots of misleadings.” Paolo Tiepolo to the Senate of Venice, Vienna, 23/11/1556, in Heinrich Lutz, Christianitas afflicta: Europa, das Reich und die päpstliche Politik im Niedergang der Hegemonie Kaiser Karls V. (1552–1556) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964), 499.

64

The exercise of authority

41 Laferl, Die Kultur der Spanier, 123–124; Xavier Sellés-Ferrando, Spanisches Österreich (Wien: Böhlau, 2004), 225–229. 42 Carl Ludwig Philipp Tross, ed., Des Grafen Wolrad von Waldeck Tagebuch während des Reichstages zu Augsburg 1548 (Stuttgart: Litterarischer Verein, 1861), 157. 43 Maximilian II to the Elector of Brandenburg, Valladolid, 09/01/1550, in Loserth, Die Registratur Erzherzog Maximilians, 492; Ana Díaz Medina, “El gobierno en España de Maximiliano II (1548–1551),” in Kaiser Maximilian II. Kultur und Politik im 16. Jahrhundert, eds. Friedrich Edelmayer and Alfred Kohler (Wien: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik, 1992), 49–50; Fichtner, Maximilian II, 23. 44 Instructions of Charles V to Maximilian and Maria on the governance of Castile, Brussels, 29/09/1548, CDCV, 3:32; Díaz Medina, “El gobierno en España,” 45–46. 45 Instructions on the governance of the kingdoms of Castile, Brussels, 29/09/1548, in Besozzi, El archiduque Maximiliano, 232–233; Vázquez de Molina to Charles V, AGS, E, 77, n. 11. In general, Santiago Fernández Conti, Los Consejos de Estado y Guerra de la monarquía hispana durante la época de Felipe II (1548–1598) (Valladolid: Junta de Castilla y León, 1998), 32–37. 46 For example, Maria was a “nominal” queen according to Manuel Fernández Álvarez, La España del Emperador Carlos V, vol. 18 of Historia de España, ed. Ramón Menéndez Pidal (Madrid: Espasa Calpe, 1966), 744. 47 Proxy of the emperor to the King and Queen of Bohemia regarding the governance of these kingdoms, Brussels, 29/09/1548, in Besozzi, El archiduque Maximiliano, 229. See, in general, Rodríguez Raso, Maximiliano de Austria and Díaz Medina, “El gobierno en España.” 48 Miguel Ángel Echevarría Bacigalupe, “Isabel Clara Eugenia, el archiduque Alberto y el gobierno de Flandes (1599–1621),” Torre de los Lujanes 66 (2010): 111–124. 49 Instructions on the governance of the kingdoms of Castile, Brussels, 29/09/1548, in Besozzi, El archiduque Maximiliano, 233. 50 Testimony of the royal procurator Juan de Villanueva, Pamplona, 04/05/1551, AGN, Tribunales Reales, F017/095976, 1v. 51 Testimony of the scrivener Pedro de Berbinzana, Peralta, 16/05/1548, AGN, Diputados y agentes, 1, carp. 4; Credentials for the king given by the Courts of Navarre, Tudela, 26/09/1549, AGN, Diputados y agentes, 1, carp. 6. 52 Maximilian II and Maria of Austria to Charles V, Valladolid, 01/10/1549, Rodríguez Raso, Maximiliano de Austria, 135; Fernández Conti, Los Consejos de Estado, 33–34. 53 Charles V to Maximilian II and Maria of Austria, Brussels, 29/01/1550, CDCV, 3:182–186; Maximilian II and Maria of Austria to Charles V, Valladolid, 04/07/1550, Rodríguez Raso, Maximiliano de Austria, 191–201.

The exercise of authority

65

54 Venegas to Ferdinand I, Brussels, 28/01/1550, HHStA, SDK, 3/8, 285r–286r; Ferdinand I to Venegas, Augsburg, 20/09/1550, HHStA, SDK, 3/4, 230r. 55 Charles V to Maximilian II and Maria of Austria, Brussels, 29/01/1550, CDCV, 3:182–184. 56 The Marquis of Távara to Philip II, Valladolid, 07/07/1550, AGS, E, 81, 257r. 57 Vázquez de Molina to Ferdinand I, Valladolid, 11/09/1549, HHStA, SDK, 3/8, 279r–279v. 58 Giovanni Betta to Cardinal Cristoforo Madruzzo, Valladolid (?), 17/12/1548 (?), Rodríguez Raso, “Maximiliano y María de Austria,” 114; Besozzi, El archiduque Maximiliano, 21. 59 Maximilian II and Maria of Austria to Charles V, Valladolid, 04/07/1550, Rodríguez Raso, Maximiliano de Austria, 191–201. 60 The Countess of Faro to Ferdinand I, Cigales, 02/11/1549, HHStA, SDK, 3/8, 281r; Maximilian II to Charles V, Cigales, 07/11/1549, Rodríguez Raso, Maximiliano de Austria, 191–201. 61 Maximilian II and Maria of Austria to Charles V, Valladolid, 20/04/1550, Rodríguez Raso, Maximiliano de Austria, 182–183. 62 Confirmation Record, 06/1552, AGI, Lima, 177, n. 16; Royal decree, Valladolid, 25/04/1558, AGI, Lima, 567–568, 337v–338r. 63 Royal decree to the Audience of México, Valladolid, 07/05/1550, AGI, México, 1089-4, 227v and Royal decree to Cristóbal Núñez, Cigales, 09/12/1549, AGI, Indiferente, 424–22, 43v. 64 Walter Friedensburg, “Karl V. und Maximilian II. (1551). Ein venetianischer Bericht über vertrauliche Äußerungen des letzteren,” Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 4 (1902): 72–81. In general, Holtzmann, Kaiser Maximilian II., 92–93. 65 Holtzmann, Kaiser Maximilian II., 91–93; María José Rodríguez-Salgado, Un imperio en transición: Carlos V, Felipe II y su mundo (Barcelona: Crítica, 1992), 66–71, 76–79; José Martínez Millán, “La sucesión en el imperio y el reajuste de los intereses religiosos y dinásticos,” in Martínez Millán, La corte de Carlos V, 1/2:267–277. 66 Ferdinand I to Venegas, Augsburg, 20/09/1550 and 22/11/1550, HHStA, SDK, 3/4, 230r and 232r. 67 Proxy of Charles V to the Queen of Bohemia, Doña Maria, on governing Castile, Augsburg, 20/09/1550, AGS, PR, 26, n. 113. 68 Charles V to Maria of Austria, Augsburg, 26/11/1550, AGS, E, 645, n. 50; Ceñal Lorente, “La emperatriz María,” 356. 69 Domenico Morosini and Federigo Badoer to the Doge of Venice, Augsburg, 27/02/1551, in Gustav Turba, ed., Venetianische Depeschen vom Kaiserhofe, vol. 2 (Wien: F. Tempsky, 1892), 513. 70 Maria of Austria to Charles V, Toro, 23/12/1550, Rodríguez Raso, Maximiliano de Austria, 234. 71 Ibid., 42–49.

66

The exercise of authority

72 Juan Lorenzo de Villarrasa to Granvelle, Valencia, 20/01/1551, RB, II/2250, 14r. 73 Maria of Austria to Charles V, Cigales, 16/03/1551, in Rodríguez Raso, Maximiliano de Austria, 261. 74 Appointment of factor of New Toledo to Juan de Turuégano, Valladolid, 10/11/1550, AGI, Lima, 566-6, 314r–315v; Consultation of the Council of the Indies, after 08/11/1550, AGI, Indiferente, 737, n. 63, 1v; Maria of Austria to Charles V, Toro, 23/12/1550, Rodríguez Raso, Maximiliano de Austria, 250. Turuégano obtained a dispensation from Charles V and was married to María de Abreu until his death in 1559. María Abreu contra los herederos de Juan de Turuégano, 1574–1582, AGI, Justicia, 811, n. 4, bloque 3, 1r–6r. 75 Holtzmann, Kaiser Maximilian II., 135–137. 76 Maria of Austria to Charles V, Cigales, 27/04/1551, Rodríguez Raso, Maximiliano de Austria, 266–269. 77 Fernández Conti, Los Consejos de Estado, 38. 78 Ferdinand I to Venegas, Augsburg, 20/09/1550, HHStA, SDK, 3/4, 230r. 79 Pedro Laso de Castilla to Charles V, Valladolid, 26/04/1551, HHStA, SDK, 4/10, 320r; Charles V to Pedro Laso de Castilla, Augsburg, 16/05/1551, HHStA, SDK, 4/4, 61r. 80 In lieu of Faro, the new first lady of the bedchamber was María Manrique de Lara, daughter of the Duke of Nájera. Pedro Laso de Castilla to Ferdinand I, Valladolid, 20/01/1551, HHStA, SDK, 4/10, 318r–318v; Maria of Austria to Charles V, Valladolid, 04/06/1551, Rodríguez Raso, Maximiliano de Austria, 276–277; Marek, Pernštejnské ženy, 28. 81 Rodríguez Raso, Maximiliano de Austria, 30, 69 and 271–272. 82 Maria of Austria to Charles V, Valladolid, 12/07/1551, Rodríguez Raso, Maximiliano de Austria, 282–283. 83 Fichtner, Emperor Maximilian II, 27; Annemarie Jordan Gschwend, The Story of Süleyman. Celebrity Elephants and Other Exotica in Renaissance Portugal (Zurich: Pachyderm Productions, 2010), 19–27. 84 Gómez Suárez de Figueroa to Granvelle, Genoa, 18/07/1551, RB, II/2250, 176r–177v; Philip II to Charles V, Toro, 27/09/1551, CDCV, 3:36.

4 THE QUEEN OF BOHEMIA FIGHTING FOR HER OWN SPACE (1552–1564)

Until the death of her father-in-law, Ferdinand I, in July 1564, Maria did not play a particularly active role in the diplomatic relations of the imperial court, nor did the ambassadors count her among their primary agents. For twelve years the young and melancholic Queen of Bohemia painstakingly consolidated her own sphere through the control of her royal household, facing substantial financial difficulties and the resistance of her husband Maximilian  II. Thanks to the financial and diplomatic support of her Spanish relatives, Maria managed to keep a large number of Spanish servants and thus isolate herself from the prevailing German cultural atmosphere, maintain an impeccably Catholic chapel, and arrange the marriages of her ladies to prominent imperial nobles. Thanks to this policy, she achieved her most important success, the Catholic and Hispanicized education of her children, which she promoted with fierce determination and perseverance against the confessional laxity of Maximilian II’s entourage. Whereas her daughters always remained at home under her direct control, she succeeded in sending most of her sons to the court of Madrid to be raised by their orthodox uncle, Philip II. DOI: 10.4324/9781003125693-5

68  Queen of Bohemia

4.1 Failed cultural adaptation After their hasty departure from Barcelona in October 1551, Maria and Maximilian arrived in Genoa the following month in such a precarious economic state that they had no funds to pay their entourage or continue on their way to Vienna. A sumptuous retinue of Bohemian, Austrian, and Hungarian aristocrats waited for them in Genoa, but her father-in-law, Ferdinand I, had to provide them with urgent assistance to carry on with their journey.1 At Christmas, Maria was reunited with her father Charles V in Innsbruck and met Ferdinand I. Given the bad weather and her emotional needs, Maria stayed with her father for a longer time than expected (she had not seen him for nine years), while her husband travelled ahead of her. Finally, Maria travelled to Linz in February 1552 to recover from an indisposition. The couple and their children made their solemn entry into Vienna on 7 May, with an ostentatious entourage in which the elephant Suleiman stood out, which had been given to them as a present by the King and Queen of Portugal. Maria was the first Spanish bride to the Habsburg court, inaugurating an interchange of women which became a defining element of the dynasty. From the moment she presented herself to her future subjects, Maria projected an image of power and exoticism.2 In the following years, Maria and her children alternated their residence between Vienna and the nearby Wiener Neustadt with shorter stays in Prague, Linz, and Innsbruck. In the Viennese Hof burg palace, Ferdinand I renovated the Frauenzimmer for his daughter-in-law, the quarters which had been occupied by his wife Anna of Hungary in the northwest wing, and in 1562 he added a beautiful arcaded gallery.3 The Italian ambassadors concur in the image they convey about Maria during those years: not particularly attractive, very much in love with her husband, with whom she led an intense and domestic life, deeply concerned about religious matters, prudent, shy, and without interfering in public affairs.4 It was the conventional image of the virtuous queen, a pious and devoted matriarch in whom the signs of melancholy could be detected. Since the beginning of his marriage, Maximilian II expressed concern

Queen of Bohemia  69

about his wife’s depressive tendencies, which Charles V diminished “because it is always like that,” and which intensified as childbirth approached.5 Maximilian II appeared as a loving and attentive husband, who took refuge in his harmonious marriage to escape from court intrigues. Maria also had a good personal relationship with her father-in-law Ferdinand I, who became an irreplaceable personal protector. They spent time together, two hours a day, and enjoyed conversing in their native Spanish, along with Ferdinand’s eldest grandson, Archduke Rudolf.6

FIGURE 4.1

Arcimboldo, Maximilian II (1527–1576) und seine Gemahlin Maria von Spanien (1528–1603) und seine Kinder Anna (1549–1580), Rudolf (1552–1612) und Ernst (1553–1595) (Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, 1553–1554) © KHM-Museumsverband

70  Queen of Bohemia

Meanwhile, Maria’s epistolary relationship with her father Charles V and her brother Philip II was presumably intense and close, although it is only known through indirect testimonies, as it is lost almost in its entirety. The correspondence, however, between the two men and Maximilian II has been preserved, but was much more sporadic and formal than the correspondence with Maria: Philip II addressed his brother-in-law generically and referred “to Your Highness, who receives a good deal of what I write to my sister, which, it is true, I say very plainly.” 7 In this way, she informed her husband of the affairs of her relatives and proved herself a trusted dynastic mediator. We know something of the correspondence between the Queen of Bohemia and her aunt Marie of Hungary in these years, as the latter ignored her niece’s request to tear her letters after reading them. Although they had not met in person, Maria treated her as her mother and sought her advice on how to act correctly in defence of her husband and father-in-law without disturbing or mistrusting her father Charles V.8 In the same letter, Maria revealed to her aunt that she only wrote to her after she had made sure that they would communicate in Spanish, as she feared that she would not understand her in French, given that these messages could not be shared or translated. Maria clearly expressed the significant cultural limitations that she faced during the three decades she spent in Central Europe, which contrasted with the abilities of her aunts. Maria never felt comfortable outside the Spanish language and the Iberian courtly customs. This handicap, which verged on narrow-mindedness, greatly reduced her communicative possibilities and consolidated the Spanish presence at the imperial court. Despite the assumptions of some modern scholars, Maria never managed to express herself in German or even follow simple conversations. Even in the 1570s, Maximilian II would explain to her the content of the German sermons to which they listened, and she was unable to understand her husband’s feverish ravings in his mother tongue.9 As the couple often shared their suppers and leisure time in the same chamber, Maximilian II’s servants would switch to German when they wanted to communicate messages in Maria’s presence which she was not supposed to know. In her

Queen of Bohemia  71

conversations with imperial courtiers and princesses, Maria needed the help of translators, especially of some of her trusted ladies of German origin, such as Sofia Mager von Fuchsstatt and Margarita Laso de Castilla. When the latter left for Spain in 1570, Maria lamented that she was left without reliable interpreters.10 Her neglect of her studies during her youth in Castile meant that she also lacked sufficient skills in Latin. When the Polish ambassador spoke to her in an audience in the common language of Christianity, the empress resorted to the Bishop of Eger as an interpreter.11 Apart from Spanish and probably Portuguese, the only other language in which she was able to interact was Italian, which she understood due to linguistic proximity. This allowed her to communicate with her sister-in-law Katharina of Austria, Queen of Poland, or hold audiences with Italian ambassadors and papal nuncios. When they delivered important speeches to her, however, she used to ask afterwards for the written text, if possible in Spanish, in order to understand it better.12

4.2 A household of her own Against this background, an extensive household that functioned in Spanish was indispensable for Maria of Austria to be able to cope with life at the imperial court, even if this caused basic problems of communication with the local authorities.13 It was well known, and she had witnessed it personally in the case of her grandmother Juana of Castile, that without a well-stocked and well-financed household it was impossible to enjoy personal authority, opportunities for mediation, and availability of agents.14 However, since the couple’s time in Valladolid, Maria’s entourage faced structural underfunding, as neither Charles V nor Philip II had indicated sufficient funds for the maintenance of her retinue as stipulated in the marriage agreement. In addition, the household lacked a clear male authority that would be responsible for its management, since this also required funds. At the family meeting in Innsbruck in January 1552, Ferdinand I took the opportunity to negotiate with Charles V some issues relating to Maria’s service, pointing out that the final decision and the supply of funds rested with the father and not with

72  Queen of Bohemia

the husband or father-in-law, and that the queen’s household was in serious need of a trustworthy confessor, preachers, and knights of quality.15 Charles V advanced 10,000 ducats, which were due from the dowry, but Pedro Laso de Castilla, Maria’s high steward, estimated that 43,000 ducats were needed for the annual maintenance of the household.16 In the discussions about the upkeep of Maria’s household, a radical disagreement between Maximilian II, on the one hand, and Ferdinand I and Charles V, on the other, began to emerge. Maximilian tried to assert his prerogatives as a husband but without success. Although his relationship with Maria was excellent, the same was not true of the Spanish servants that accompanied her. After his negative experience in Castile and his open opposition to the dynastic plans of Charles V and Philip II, Maximilian attempted to limit the presence of Spaniards at court as much as possible, as he doubted their loyalty, and openly revealed to the Venetian ambassadors how much he disliked his father Ferdinand I’s compromising attitude towards Charles V and the harmful influence of the Spaniards.17 Since his return to the Empire, Maximilian II systematically dismissed the Spaniards who formed part of his household and showed himself an “undisguised enemy of the Spanish nation.”18 The few Spaniards that had accompanied Maria had scarce opportunities for promotion at court (or even for receiving their salaries), as Maximilian II viewed them with animosity. Their only hope was the announced arrival of Prince Philip in the Empire, who was expected to deal with the disputes and take many of them into his service. The suspension of his journey, however, and his marriage to Queen Mary Tudor in late 1553 caused a major domestic crisis. The first lady of the bedchamber, María Manrique de Lara, daughter of the Duke of Nájera, asked for permission to retire to Spain, while others preferred to move to England and enter into Philip’s service rather than remain in Austria.19 These developments in the early months of 1554 served as a warning for Charles V and Philip II to pay more attention to the household of Maria of Austria. They had already held consultations in the previous months to fill the vacancies of the chapel, as

Queen of Bohemia  73

the confessor Hernando Cano was old and sick, and he eventually died in the summer of 1553. Maria only trusted Spanish confessors and over the course of three decades her brother Philip II was responsible for providing her with the most suitable preachers and confessors, an area over which neither Ferdinand I nor Maximilian II had any influence. Following the Castilian tradition, the decision about the new confessor was taken in a meeting of theologians in which the renowned Dominican Melchor Cano and Master Juan Gallo participated. The candidates were priors with extensive experience and a high theological level. The chosen one was Pedro Maldonado, who travelled to Vienna accompanied by a preacher.20 Once the problem of the confessor was solved, next was that of the female servants. Charles V was concerned that without the first lady of the bedchamber, María Manrique de Lara, his daughter would lack “a person of quality in her place with whom she could deal and to whom she could communicate her affairs.” While Maria needed old and experienced counsellors to guide her prudently, the ladies of her entourage were mostly young women. Charles therefore ordered Philip II to find a good substitute and two widows for her entourage.21 This triangular pattern of communication from Vienna to Brussels and then to Castile was as slow as it was ineffective: almost two years had passed between the first petitions for a new confessor for Maria and his appointment. Given the need for a more stable order, Ferdinand I sent Pedro Laso de Castilla, Maria’s high steward, to Brussels on an extraordinary mission in June 1554 to congratulate Philip on his imminent marriage with the English Queen Mary Tudor and with concrete requests from Ferdinand I and Maria of Austria to finance the household and fill its vacancies.22 Pedro Laso accompanied Philip to his wedding in Winchester (25 July 1554) as Ferdinand I’s ambassador.23 Through this relationship, a solution was finally reached which took the form of a commitment between Charles V and Philip II in the autumn of 1554: both promised to deliver Maria’s dowry at the beginning of 1555 (whose full payment had been pending since her wedding in 1548) and the legítima (reserved portion) that corresponded to her

74  Queen of Bohemia

from the inheritance of her mother Isabel of Portugal. She was also to be given a juro (sale of annuities from the royal treasury) of two million maravedíes from the Castilian income for the expenses of her household and the employment of Spaniards into her service. It was established that the two widows, as well as the confessor and the preacher who had been under consideration would be sent to her. Finally, she would be given a subsidy of 40,000 ducats paid in equal parts from money from Castile and the Indies.24 In the chronicle of the reign of Philip II by Diego Cabrera de Córdoba, this episode was recorded as a remarkable political event and a demonstration of the vigilance of Charles V and Philip II against the impulses of Maximilian II.25 Mistrust and ill-will dominated relations within the dynasty around 1554–1555, as Charles V had not yet abdicated and devised plans for Ferdinand I to be succeeded as King of the Romans not by his son Maximilian II but by his nephew Philip II. The underlying message was that Charles V and Philip II paid Spaniards in Maria’s service and protected them; they should therefore remain unaffected by abuses and dismissals. These servants, in turn, frequently resorted to this argument in their petitions to the Spanish court for favours: they were not working for a foreign monarch but were obeying the Spanish King by serving Maria, an unrewarding and risky mission that deserved greater access to royal grace. Maximilian II also used this as an excuse to reject them and instead refer them to Philip II and emphasised that he and his wife would be discredited if their courtiers were not recompensed, since this would indicate that Philip II did not sufficiently value their service.26 The compromise reached at the end of 1554 had no immediate effect at the imperial court. The secretary Mazuelo insisted on obtaining a leave and wrote that “the ladies […] look very disconsolate.”27 The Grand Sacristan, Íñigo Manrique, requested his retirement in April 1555, leaving Maria with only two Spanish nobles, the master of the horse, Fadrique de Portugal, and the high steward, Pedro Laso de Castilla.28 The latter pointed out how distressing the situation was: the servants were unpaid for almost a year, Maximilian II had forbidden his wife to pawn any of her

Queen of Bohemia  75

goods to support the household, and, without anyone in Vienna granting them a credit, Laso himself and his friends had maintained the stores of provisions and the stables at their own expense for five months, spending up to 13,000 florins.29 The dispatch of a diplomatic mission in the summer of 1555 was deemed necessary to resolve the situation. Philip II chose the agent Luis Venegas de Figueroa, as he was one of the few Spaniards with experience in serving both courts. Venegas carried powers of attorney from Charles V and Philip II, as well as instructions from Ferdinand I that Maximilian II should allow his wife to have the Spanish women and friars that had been decided.30 Maximilian initially refused, highlighting the enormous debts his wife had accumulated since their wedding and the inability to meet any more expenses with the available income. Venegas read him the clear imperial instructions and advanced as an argument the linguistic limitations of his consort.31 Maximilian avoided an open confrontation and accepted the demands, although he required that the minor offices be covered by imperial subjects. Ferdinand I’s harsh appeal in his codicil to Maximilian further increased the pressure exerted by Venegas’ mission: You should not grieve or sadden my beloved daughter, your holy, conjugal, and pious wife, for it is not right that you should do so, among other things, by discharging the servants whom she has brought from Spain and from other nations and whom she loves.32 In this crisis, Maria played the role of the suffering victim, but by no means remained passive. The indirect testimonies from Philip II’s correspondence reveal that she accurately informed him of Maximilian’s duplicity in this matter, which she blamed on the harmful influence of his high steward, Christoph von Eitzing, “an utterly wicked man and a Lutheran.”33 This time Maria had let the men speak without openly expressing her opinion but waited for the arrival of her father-in-law Ferdinand I, who was a reliable ally, to speak clearly with her husband and state her position unambiguously.34

76  Queen of Bohemia

In the end, the key to the success of Venegas’ mission was the express commitment to pay Maria’s accumulated debts since she had left Castile, which amounted to the astronomical figure of some 100,000 ducats for the maintenance of her household, the payment of dowries and alms.35 Of the promised subsidy of 60,000 ducats, 40,000 were immediately paid, giving some relief to the bankrupt treasury of Queen Maria, and in the following months Philip II sent the rest.36 The income from the Castilian juros arrived every four months, although it was always subject to delays and obstacles, leading to financial difficulties for the maintenance of the bedchamber and to the pawning of gold and silver objects. Ferdinand I promised to finance her with 30,000 escudos a year, but he found it even more difficult to raise the money.37 Despite these complaints and hardships, common in the financing of Renaissance royal households,38 Maria’s household gradually acquired, if not splendour, then at least certain functionality and autonomy. The Venetian ambassador Tiepolo commented in 1557 that she had a separate court from her husband, with her own gentlemen of the bedchamber, pages, and even independent stables and kitchen, thus projecting a powerful image.39 After the sensitive events of 1555, Philip II made the commitment to grant favours to his sister’s Spanish servants.40 Despite this Hispanized image, the presence of Iberian courtiers was most notable in terms of quality, since they occupied the positions closest to Maria; in 1554 they barely constituted 26.6% of her servants, still far ahead of the 4.7% of Spaniards in the household of Ferdinand I.41 As a sign of the restored dynastic harmony, Charles V summoned his family to Brussels at the end of 1555 to abdicate his throne and bid them farewell. There were no surprises in the distribution of his vast inheritance: the Spanish Monarchy and the imperial fiefs of Milan and the Netherlands passed to Philip II, while the imperial dignity was reserved for Ferdinand I, along with the Patrimonial States (Erblande), which he already governed in Austria.42 Charles V and Philip II insisted that Maximilian and Maria should attend the family reunion, which seemed to excite everyone but Maximilian II. He caused delays and put forward excuses, trying to prevent his wife from accompanying him on the trip, when in fact this was

Queen of Bohemia  77

the greatest desire of Charles V and Philip II, both for well-founded sentimental reasons and because of the need to “communicate.”43 In Brussels, in the summer of 1556, Maria visited the Netherlands for the first and only time in her life, where she met at last her aunt Marie of Hungary and said goodbye forever to her father Charles V. She would not see Philip II again for twenty-six years. The extent of their conversations is not known because the longed-for meeting was personal. At least the agreement concerning the payment of the dowry was finally concluded and Maria strengthened her position as head of her household.44 As a young queen, Maria faced clashes and limitations similar to those her grandmother Juana and Catherine of Aragon, Juana’s sister, had experienced fifty years before in Burgundy and England. But, by sharp contrast to her predecessors, she was more successful in securing positions for her Spanish courtiers and overcoming the issues of financing her household autonomously.45

4.3 Ambassadors, ladies, and chaplains The main example of the new order established by Philip II in the dynastic relations after inheriting his father’s throne in 1556 was the creation of an ordinary embassy at the imperial court. Until then, the different members of the House of Austria dispersed throughout Europe came into contact in personal meetings (like the one in Brussels in 1556), exchanged personal correspondence, and used agents for specific missions, as in the cases of Pedro Laso de Castilla and Luis Venegas de Figueroa. It is true that Martín de Salinas and Juan Alonso de Gámiz represented Ferdinand I before Charles V, but more as secretaries than as official diplomats. Personal correspondence continued to be exchanged, but the constant mediation of an authorised ambassador signalled the end of Charles V’s travelling style of governance and the air of mistrust in dynastic relations. Compared to the sense of familiarity, more often imposed than real, that had dominated negotiations under the unquestionable authority of Charles V, the members of the dynasty now shifted to a more equal and impersonal channel of communication. Edelmayer saw in this process the transition from chaos to normality, although

78  Queen of Bohemia

it is also possible to detect the failure of dynastic harmony as a political project.46 In 1556 Claudio Vigil de Quiñones, Count of Luna, was appointed first ordinary ambassador of Philip II to Ferdinand I, although he did not reach his destination until the end of 1558.47 His instructions are not known, but as can be seen from the orders he subsequently received from the king, the mission with which he was entrusted, and without whose conclusion his return would not be allowed, was to bring order to the household of Maria of Austria.48 Cabrera de Córdoba is once again clear about the function of this new embassy: in face of Maximilian II’s resistance to the existence of a Spanish cell at his court and his lack of interest in maintaining a militant Catholic line, “they decided to reinforce the chamber and the queen’s household with more Spanish ladies and gentlemen of great satisfaction, assisted by a prudent, courageous, and zealous ambassador for the preservation of the Catholic religion.”49 It seems, therefore, that the purpose of the Spanish embassy in the Empire during the first two decades of its existence was to assist and support Maria of Austria’s household. As an institution, the latter was more multifaceted, legitimised, and embroiled in decision-making circles than a diplomatic representation, which was always suspected of acting as an “honourable spy” and whose staff was incomparable in number: in contrast to the hundred or so servants that appear in the salary lists of the Queen of Bohemia’s household, the embassy barely included a dozen senior members.50 From the time of his arrival, the Count of Luna took advantage of his powers as ambassador to bring order to Maria’s household with Philip II’s authority, despite Maximilian II’s reservations, and in agreement with Maria herself. Although Emperor Ferdinand I was at the Diet of Augsburg, Philip II ordered his ambassador to leave for Vienna in order to deal personally with Maria and Maximilian on this matter.51 The queen demonstrated her leadership on this occasion and, as soon as she gave birth to Archduke Albert in November 1559 and was “in good condition to be able to deal with business,” she restored order in her household.52 In addition to the promise of favours to Maria’s Spanish servants, new staff was appointed. The new leading figures were the high steward, Francisco

Queen of Bohemia  79

FIGURE 4.2

Anonymous, Infantin Maria (1528–1603), Kaiserin, Bildnis in halber Figur (Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, 1557) © KHM-Museumsverband

Laso de Castilla (in place of his brother, Pedro, who died in 1558), and the master of the horse, Adam von Dietrichstein, who replaced Fadrique of Portugal. The latter had returned to Spain to occupy the same position under Queen Isabel of Valois.53 The Laso de Castilla family, whose men and women constituted the backbone of Queen Maria’s service, was joined at the top by the first generation of españolados (“Hispanized”) imperial nobles in the person of Adam von Dietrichstein, married since 1555 to one of Maria’s ladies-in-waiting, Margarita de Cardona. This bond shows the importance of Spanish women in Maria’s entourage, thanks to whom the queen expanded the scope of her influence through advantageous marriage alliances.54 Since Charles V’s advice in 1554

80  Queen of Bohemia

and the reform of 1555, it had been established that the service of clergymen and ladies from Spain was essential to the function of the household.55 By contrast, the presence of gentlemen was not regarded as urgent because of the difficulty of integrating them (it was more practical to use the husbands of the Spanish ladies) and because the arrival of an ordinary ambassador would complement this type of male authority. Maria searched for good marriage matches for her ladies, which served as excellent proof of the benefits of her patronage and constituted a key element of queenship that she had learnt from her mother Isabel of Portugal56. Oswald Maier was ordered to investigate what course of action Anna of Hungary, Ferdinand I’s wife, had taken with regard to her ladies, although Maria’s initiatives were not limited to the German tradition: she treated equally her ladies in Spain and in the Empire following the liberal Iberian customs, and was involved in the choice of husband and the payment of an attractive dowry as a sign of the queen’s commitment to patronage over the new couple.57 The eagerness of the ladies in 1553 to have German or Hungarian suitors gave way, after the agreements of 1554, to a resolute marriage policy by Maria, who dedicated more than 20,000 ducats for the dowry of seven of her ladies in the summer of 1555: in the Empire, Margarita de Cardona (with Adam von Dietrichstein), María Manrique de Lara (with Vratislav von Pernstein), and Ana María Laso de Castilla (with Diego de Córdoba); in Spain, Francisca de Silva, Leonor Manuel, María de Mendoza, and María de Aragón.58 However, due to the poor state of her treasury, this commitment could not be fulfilled and represented one of the most substantial debts she was burdened with; in the case of Margarita de Cardona, it was her husband Adam von Dietrichstein who advanced 4,000 florins for her Heiratsgut.59 These marriages established the new couples as protégées of the dynasty in a general sense and gave rise to families of personal servants to Maria (the Dietrichstein-Cardona and the Pernstein-Manrique de Lara), together with the Laso de Castilla.60 Eventually, Maria’s activism as reflected in the promotion of her ladies did not have continuity at the imperial court, both for financial reasons

Queen of Bohemia  81

and because of a desire to limit a sphere of female power that was as extensive as it was uncontrollable. Despite the aristocratic profile of these ladies, serving Maria was considered a secondary avenue of ascension at court, much less valued than remaining in Madrid with the Queen of Spain or in Portugal with Princess Juana. Among the most striking cases of people who ventured to live in Central Europe a generation earlier Laferl notes newly converted Christians and comuneros, who moved to Vienna in the 1520s in Ferdinand I’s service.61 Maria’s two most prominent ladies mentioned above, Margarita de Cardona and María Manrique de Lara, belonged to lineages of the ancestral nobility of Spain and their fathers held high offices in Italy (Viceroy of Sardinia and Governor of Parma and Piacenza, respectively). They also shared, however, the problems which their mothers had faced at the hands of the Inquisition. The former, María de Cardona y Requesens, had been a victim of the Sardinian factional struggles between the viceroy and the Aymerich lineage, and in 1542 she was accused of witchcraft. Although the case was shown to have been staged, it was kept open due to factional interests, and even though she was officially acquitted in 1547, her honour had been blemished. She and her husband, Antonio Folch de Cardona, entered Maria’s service in Vienna, where he died in 1553 and she held the post of dueña de honor and later first lady of the bedchamber after María Manrique de Lara’s retirement.62 Much more serious was the case of María Manrique de Lara’s mother, Isabel de Briceño, better known in Italian as Isabella Bressegna and in Spanish as “the Calvinist.” An educated and restless woman who spent most of her life in Italy, her heterodoxy evolved to include even Zwinglian positions. Her situation in Milan became untenable due to growing inquisitorial pressure and in 1557 she moved to Vienna to serve Maria of Austria. Maria was unwilling to accept “the Calvinist,” who was advised by Maximilian to retire to Tubingen. She spent the rest of her life in exile.63 Although Maria’s household had gained a reputation for Catholic orthodoxy, she could not lower her guard, as the 1550s were critical for the establishment of the various confessions, with

82  Queen of Bohemia

Protestant nuclei in Valladolid and Seville which were intricately connected with the court. Among those condemned in the famous Auto-da-fe of Valladolid in 1559 were Maria’s former lady, Mencía de Figueroa, and her husband, Pedro Sarmiento, who were imprisoned for life and deprived of their honours.64 The situation was even more delicate in the mostly Protestant Vienna. The city’s Catholic minority lacked the zeal expected by Maria, who was distressed at the infiltration of heretics into her household. Thus, when it was discovered in 1575 that the wife of her master of the horse, Peter von Mollard, had embraced Utraquist positions (which, in reality, were not heretical), she was summarily expelled. With her favoured servants, María and Juan Manrique de Lara, children of “the Calvinist,” she was more compromising and in 1569 she asserted her authority before Pope Pius V to protect them from an inquisitorial interrogation.65 Against this precarious backdrop and the ambiguous confessional stance of her husband Maximilian II, it was imperative for Maria to rely on a powerful chapel, which stood out compared to those of her predecessor Anna of Hungary and her contemporary Isabel of Valois in Madrid.66 Maria trusted Spanish, and to a lesser extent Italian, clerics for linguistic reasons and because of the low theological level and the confessional mistrust that the German Catholic clergy inspired.67 Her chapel consisted, in accordance with the Burgundian tradition, of a lord almoner, a confessor, preachers, and grooms of the chapel. In addition to the preachers in the wage lists of the household, there were Spanish ecclesiastics serving at the imperial court, which implied some risks: a Dominican who preached publicly in Vienna was persecuted by the Protestants, raising fears for his safety.68 Her confessors played a decisive role both as representatives to the papal nuncios and other male authorities, and as religious advisers to Ferdinand I and Maximilian II. As was common among Castilian princesses, these confessors were always Franciscans. As has already been mentioned, on the death of Hernando Cano in 1553, Pedro Maldonado was summoned from Spain, but it soon became clear that he did not fit the required activist profile. For this reason, the Dominican Juan Gallo, with whom Maximilian II

Queen of Bohemia  83

was apparently pleased during his regency in Valladolid, was also sent to Vienna. Gallo held discussions with Maximilian about confession and communion but did not succeed in moving him from his positions. He was more successful in the diplomatic field: he de facto replaced the Count of Luna as Philip II’s representative to Maria and Maximilian, and on numerous occasions took the initiative, together with the Jesuit Cristóbal Rodríguez (sent by Princess Juana of Austria), to deal with the complex confessional issues of the imperial court. In 1558, after barely four years in service, Maldonado was discharged, and Philip II honoured him with the Bishopric of Mondoñedo.69 His successor, Francisco de Córdoba, fulfilled the expectations and quickly gained authority at the imperial court by holding more rigorous views than the Spanish ambassador Luna and Ferdinand I himself. Even the nuncio Delfino considered him particularly severe and too free with his words, and therefore tried unsuccessfully to bribe him and bring him over to his side.70 Eventually, Ferdinand I relied on Córdoba as a consulting theologian during the third session of the Council of Trent in 1562–1563, while he maintained a continuous correspondence with Philip II.71 Father Córdoba wrote a treatise on the occasion of the Council, De offitio Praelatorum (Prague, 1562), which adopted positions closer to those of Philip II regarding the reform of the clergy and the requisite of episcopal residence (that bishops should remain in their sees and not delegate their functions). The Spanish ambassador, Count of Luna, who also played a double role in the council as a simultaneous representative of Philip II and Ferdinand I, brought eighteen copies of the book, no doubt to be distributed among the attendees as a modest influence campaign.72 With regard to the most pressing concerns of Maria’s household, Father Córdoba also wrote two practical treatises for the detection and refutation of Protestant doctrines which were re-edited in the Empire.73 Father Córdoba, therefore, had the theological prestige and consultative competence which Maria lacked in order to persuade Ferdinand I to support a demanding conclusion to the Council of Trent through a thorough reform of the clergy and to pressure Maximilian II to show public signs of Catholic practice. Although

84  Queen of Bohemia

Córdoba failed in both goals, he managed to become an important player in confessional decision-making during the last period of Ferdinand I’s reign. Maria of Austria’s role in this process was secondary: Ferdinand I only wrote to her to authorise the participation of her confessor in theological consultations.74 However, without her presence and the structure created around her, it would have been impossible for Father Córdoba to occupy an undisputed position at the imperial court.

4.4 A space for decisions: forming a Catholic family Philip II trusted his agents, ambassadors, and religious to present his affairs to Ferdinand I, but not his sister Maria, whom, for example, he deliberately kept out of the mission of Álvaro de la Cuadra in 1558.75 It is not until the beginning of 1561 that Maria appears as an active mediator in the correspondence of the ambassador Luna. This was due to the intense nature of two interrelated affairs in which Maria and Maximilian were protagonists: the need for Maximilian to profess the Catholic faith in order to present his candidacy as King of the Romans (to be elected de facto heir of the emperor) and the Catholic education of their children, the archdukes. After her hard-won success in the domestic sphere with the organisation of her royal household in the previous years, Maria would also have the opportunity from 1561 onwards to show her ability to mediate between her male relatives in the dynastic field and achieve the desired goal of a Catholic shaping of her husband and children. The clash over Maximilian’s religious convictions involved his father, relatives, and all the Catholic theologians who were sent to convince him.76 The debate was as fierce as it was dangerous: it was unacceptable to the Papacy and a good number of Catholic princes that the emperor’s successor would be a crypto-Protestant. There was even discussion of annulling Maximilian and Maria’s marriage and disinheriting him in favour of his brother Ferdinand, an impeccably Catholic archduke. The piety of Maria of Austria and her chapel was a key factor in giving some credibility to the hopes of conversion without the need for drastic actions. She “offered

Queen of Bohemia  85

to do everything in her power” and closely monitored her husband’s spiritual contacts with Ferdinand I’s help. Maria strived to present partial fruits of her husband’s efforts, which kept the issue open for years.77 The papal representatives also turned to her for the same issue and suggested a compelling reason for insisting, of which Maximilian was well aware: as Prince Don Carlos, whose mental health was increasingly doubted, was Philip II’s only heir, Maximilian and his children could succeed to the Spanish Monarchy, but only if there was strong Catholic commitment.78 Maria, an irreplaceable observer of her husband, indicated to Luna and Philip II the directions to be followed in this respect, securing her reputation. She knew that pressure from Philip II would be more effective, so she gave him her approval to write to his brother-inlaw expressing his concerns, but always “treating him with love and tenderness through friendship and advice.” 79 This was more or less the approach of the Spanish King in the following years. In addition to Maria’s close eye on Maximilian, another key factor was the guarantee that her children would be raised in the Catholic faith, which Maximilian accepted in September 1561 after intense pressure from all interested parties.80 As was typical at modern courts, the education of the children in their early years depended on the mother’s household, even if the preceptors were chosen by the father.81 While Maria’s daughters always lived with her in her household, the boys spent less time in direct contact with their mother. For this reason, the former had Spanish as their mother tongue, while the latter were less comfortable with the language of their mother, as they grew up.82 Maria was more inflexible as regards the catechism which her children received, as she introduced them to the custom of prayer and public masses and instilled in them the Eucharistic devotion and the participation in Corpus Christi processions, which distinguished practicing Catholics.83 However, in view of the uncertainty at the court of Vienna in general and in Maximilian’s entourage in particular concerning the orthodox education of the children, Maria and Ferdinand I agreed, with Maximilian II’s passive resistance, that at least their first-born son Rudolf should grow up in Spain with his uncle Philip II. The plan was put forward in early 1561. Ferdinand I wanted to ensure

86  Queen of Bohemia

with this trip at a tender age (Rudolf was nine years old) that the Hispanization of his grandson would be more successful than that of his son. According to dynastic logic, Rudolf ’s upbringing would nurture “the love and friendship” between both branches, although, frankly put, the Archduke would serve almost as a hostage (“pledge and guarantor”), so that Maximilian would not continue his flirtation with Protestantism.84 Maximilian also saw this as a plan of action for the future in view of Prince Carlos’ sickly character, hoping that he would be able to turn the tables and that his children would one day inherit Charles V’s entire patrimony. In order to ensure this, he gladly accepted Maria’s negotiations over the marriage of their first-born daughter, Archduchess Ana, to Prince Carlos. Thanks to this convergence of interests, not only was the much-feared dynastic fracture avoided, but a period of relative harmony ensued.85 In September 1561, Maximilian made a real commitment to send not only Rudolf to be raised in Spain, but also his second-born son Ernst.86 The organisation of their household took more than a year and exposed the tensions between Philip II and Maximilian II regarding the appointment of a purely Spanish staff or of one with a significant Central European presence. Maria kept a balanced position between the two, supporting those of Maximilian’s claims which seemed more acceptable to her. Thus, the couple approved the departure, along with the archdukes, of Adam von Dietrichstein, who would act as their high steward and would also assume duties as the new ordinary imperial ambassador. Maria thus deprived herself of her master of the horse and one of the pillars of her household, revealing the scarcity of cosmopolitan knights capable of serving the dynasty; the only alternative was Vratislav von Pernstein, husband of her lady María Manrique de Lara.87 This educational journey, which was a common practice of late medieval and Renaissance chivalry, was a tacit acknowledgement of Philip II’s patriarchal role and of the greater confessional security of the Spanish court. The four remaining brothers (Matthias, Maximilian, Albert, and Wenzel) were separated from their mother’s household in June 1564 and settled with a small entourage in a nearby house. From then on, monitoring their orthodoxy was

Queen of Bohemia  87

a constant concern for Maria and although she managed to have them raised by suitable preceptors, it was impossible to isolate them completely from the surrounding confessional diversity.88 Thanks to this process of negotiation, Maria exercised her ability to observe, combine moderation and resoluteness in her marriage, and gain support for her views, especially from the ambassador Luna and her father-in-law, Ferdinand I. As a result, Luna advised Philip II to use his sister as a mediator with the emperor in a wider range of issues, for example, of confessional nature, as she “has great authority with the emperor and treats him very prudently.”89 Maria’s efforts in the religious field were also recognised by Pope Pius IV, who in 1561 awarded her the Golden Rose, the pontifical prize for those Catholic princes and princesses who excelled in the defence of the faith.90 The conferment of the Golden Rose preluded a ceremonial period of transition through which Maria and Maximilian symbolically took possession of Ferdinand I’s inheritance. Between September 1562 and 1563, Maximilian was successively crowned King of Bohemia (in Prague), King of the Romans (in Frankfurt), and King of Hungary (in Bratislava). Maria was also crowned queen consort in Prague and Bratislava. In coordination with the ambassador Luna, she had to urgently solve the shortage of funds that prevented her from celebrating these events with the proper grandeur.91 In the ceremony in Prague, Maria sent a clear message about her identity, dressed in her ordinary white headdress and costume, which was typical of the old Spanish style. Both in the ceremony in Prague and Bratislava, a symmetrical parallelism between the male and female spheres was sought. Maria’s coronations took place a day after those of her husband, replicating their ceremonial and giving a banquet to the ladies and wives of the dignitaries who had been invited by her husband the day before.92 In the ceremonies in Frankfurt, however, Maria had no prominent role. The coronation of the empresses and Queens of the Romans was not clearly stipulated, since the new rank they acquired was ipso facto that of consorts, and it was not celebrated between 1452 and 1612.93 By 1564, Maria had become a respected agent in the eyes of papal and Spanish diplomacy, thanks to her influence over Ferdinand

88

Queen of Bohemia

I and Maximilian II, with whom she had cultivated relations of affection and loyalty, earning for herself a certain position of authority within the dynasty. Her main success was maintaining and managing a financially unsustainable royal household, which she defended as her own sphere against her husband’s failed opposition. There she preserved as much as possible the fiction of living in a Spanish court environment with its own ceremonial, spirituality, and language. Maria’s household was also a legitimate imperial institution in which ambassadors, confessors, and ladies fulfilled various functions which in the end would strengthen dynastic collaboration. On a personal level, Maria went beyond her role as a patroness within this structure by acting as a dynastic mediator in matters related, in principle, to the progress of her family and the defence of Catholic orthodoxy. Under these circumstances, on 25 July 1564, she found herself in the small entourage that accompanied her father-in-law, Ferdinand I, at his deathbed. The old emperor died lucid in an emotionally charged atmosphere. He kissed the portrait of his beloved late wife, whom he hoped to meet again soon, and defined himself as an Infante of Spain above any other title.94 Maria was deprived of a paternal figure, a political ally, and a man with whom she shared a feeling of homesickness. After that point, she came to the fore as empress.

Notes 1 Fichtner, Emperor Maximilian II, 27; Jaroslav Pánek, Výprava české šlechty do Itálie v letech 1551–1552 (Praha: Veduta, 1987). 2 Ferdinand I to Pedro Laso de Castilla, Vienna, 22/02/1552, HHStA, SDK, 4/4, 62r; Arno Strohmeyer, ed., Der Briefwechsel zwischen Ferdinand I., Maximilian II. und Adam von Dietrichstein 1563–1565 (Wien: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik, 1997), 35; Ferdinand Opll and Karl Rudolf, España y Austria (Madrid: Cátedra, 1997), 65–69. 3 Herbert Karner, ed., Die Wiener Hofburg 1521–1705: Baugeschichte, Funktion und Etablierung als Kaiserresidenz (Wien: VÖAW, 2014), 88–90, 96–101, 124. 4 Relazione di Leonardo Mocenigo tornato ambasciatore da Ferdinando I nel 1559, in Eugenio Albèri, ed., Relazioni degli ambasciatori veneti al Senato durante il secolo decimosesto, vol. 1/6 (Firenze: a spese dell’editore, 1862), 119; Relatione di Giovan Michele (Giacomo Soranzo) ritornato Ambasc.or dall’Imperator Ferdinando d’Austria l’anno 1563, Fiedler, Relationen, 218;

Queen of Bohemia 89

5

6

7 8 9 10

11 12 13

14 15 16 17

Mario Colonna and Giulio Ricasoli to Cosimo I de Medici, Vienna, 28/09/1564, ASFi, MP, 4324, 561r. Charles V to Maximilian II, Brussels, 12/07/1549, HHStA, SHK, 1/3, 140r; Maximilian II to Charles V, Vienna, 07/07/1552, Cuesta Astobiza, Epistolario político, 98; Edel, Der Kaiser und Kurpfalz, 158. Regarding the mental state of Maria of Austria, see Julia Gebke, “Frühneuzeitliche Politik und weibliche Melancholie: Kaiserin Maria von Spanien (1528–1603) im Spiegel diplomatischer Korrespondenz,” Frühneuzeit Info 29 (2018): 98–115. Pedro Laso de Castilla to Ferdinand I, Mildorf, 02/1552, HHStA, SDK, 4/10, 323r; Relazione di Giovanni Cappello ambasciatore straordinario con Bernardo Navagero a Ferdinando I nel 1558, Albèri, Relazioni, Appendice (Firenze: Società editrice fiorentina, 1863), 31; Alfonso Ulloa, Vita del potentissimo, e christianiss. imperatore Ferdinando Primo (Venetia: Appresso Camilo, Francesco Franceschini Fratelli, 1565), 449; Paula Fichtner, Ferdinand I of Austria: The Politics of Dynasticism in the Age of the Reformation (Boulder, CO: East European Quarterly, 1982), 237. Philip II to Maximilian II, Brussels, 16/05/1556, HHStA, SHK, 1/5, 12v. Maria of Austria to Marie of Hungary, Vienna, 12/11/1554, HHStA, FK A, 31–2-1, 7r–7v. Monteagudo to Philip II, Vienna, 19/01/1572 and 18/10/1573, CODOIN, 110:342 and 111:324; Fichtner, Emperor Maximilian II, 19. Maria of Austria to Philip II, Prague, 29/05/1570, Galende and Salamanca, Epistolario de la emperatriz, 180; Katrin Keller, “Les réseaux féminins: Anne de Saxe et la cour de Vienne,” in Femmes & pouvoir politique. Les princesses d’Europe, eds. Isabelle Poutrin and Marie-Karine Schaub (Rosny-sous-Bois: Bréal, 2007), 173. Nuncio Dolfin to Cardinal Gallio, Vienna, 18/01/1576, NBD, 3/8:456. The Lord of Chantonnay to Philip II, Vienna, 02/11/1566, AGS, E, 655, n. 67; Nuncio Santacroce to Cardinal Gallio, Prague, 11/07/1581, NBD, 3/10:499. In 1562, Maximilian II rejected the successive harbingers that were recommended to be sent to Prague to prepare his wife’s accommodation because they spoke neither German nor Czech and therefore could not effectively organise their stay. Maximilian II to Francisco Laso de Castilla, Vienna, 18/07/1562 and 23/07/1562, HHStA, HA, Sammelbände, 1/1, 189v and 190v. Aram, Juana the Mad, 30. Ferdinand I to Charles V, Passau, 27/06/1552, in Cuesta Astobiza, Epistolario político, 91–92; Maximilian II to Juan Alonso de Gámiz, Graz, 03/03/1553, AGS, E, 641bis, n. 215. Pedro Laso de Castilla to Ferdinand I, Mildorf, 19/02/1552, HHStA, SDK, 4/10, 325r–v. Michelle Suriano to the Senate of Venice, Venice, 18/01/1555, in Helmut Goetz, “Die Finalrelation des venezianischen Gesandten

90

18 19

20 21 22 23

24 25 26

27 28

29 30 31 32 33 34

Queen of Bohemia

Michele Suriano von 1555,” Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 41 (1961): 297; Rodríguez-Salgado, Un imperio en transición, 76–77. Relation del Nobile homo S. Zuan Michiel Cavallier ritornato Ambassador dall’Imperator letta nell’eccellentissimo Senato alli 22 di Luglio 1564, Fiedler, Relationen, 260; Fichtner, Ferdinand I, 246. Lesmes Mazuelo to Granvelle, Sopron, 13/05/1553 and Vienna, 20/08/1553, RB, II/2258, 117r–118v and II/2302, 180r–181v; María Manrique de Lara to Granvelle, Vienna, 09/01/1554, RB, II/2251, 46r–47v. Ezquerra, “La asistencia doméstica,” 236–237. Charles V to Philip II, Brussels, 16/02/1554, CDCV, 4:653. Ferdinand I to Pedro Laso de Castilla, Vienna, 24/06/1554, HHStA, SDK, 4/4, 65r; Michelle Suriano to the Senate of Venice, Venice, 18/01/1555, in Goetz, “Die Finalrelation,” 305. Maximilian and Maria were represented at the wedding by Hernando de Gamboa and Vratislav von Pernstein. John Edwards, Mary I: England’s Catholic Queen (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2011), 186–188; Marek, Pernštejnské ženy, 53–54. Lo que Su Md. e el Sermo. rey de Inglaterra han determinado de haçer con la Srma. Reyna de Bohemia, 1554, HHStA, SDK, 4/14, 20r–20v. Cabrera de Córdoba, Historia de Felipe II, I, 24. Maximilian II to Gámiz, Vienna, 11/10/1552, Cuesta Astobiza, Epistolario político, 123–124; Diego Manrique to Ferdinand I, Vienna, 30/11/1558, HHStA, SDK, 5/15, 314r; Maximilian II to Philip II, Bratislava, 26/02/1559, AGS, E, 650, n. 22. Lesmes Mazuelo to Granvelle, Vienna, 13/12/1554, RB, II/2286, 287r–288v. Pedro Laso de Castilla to Ferdinand I, Vienna, 27/04/1555, HHStA, SDK, 4/14, 23r. Fadrique was son of the Countess of Faro, Maria’s first lady of the bedchamber while residing in Castile. Meanwhile, in Maximilian’s household, only Juan Manrique, brother of María Manrique de Lara, remained as gentleman of the bedchamber. Bohdan Chudoba, Španělé na Bílé hoře (Praha: Vyšehrad, 1945), 61–62. Pedro Laso de Castilla to Ferdinand I, Vienna, 25/07/1555 and 03/09/1555, HHStA, SDK, 4/14, 29r and 35r. Comisión que llevó Luis de Venegas de Figueroa a Alemania, 14/08/1555, AGS, PR, 57, n. 143. Venegas to Charles V and Philip II, Vienna, 10/10/1555, AGS, E, 649, n. 38, 1v. Codicil of Ferdinand I, Augsburg, 10/08/1555, Bucholtz, Geschichte der Regierung Ferdinand, 8:754; Patrouch, Queen’s Apprentice, 32–33; Fichtner, Emperor Maximilian II, 117–118. Venegas to Charles V and Philip II, Vienna, 10/10/1555, AGS, E, 649, n. 38, 2v. Ibid., 2r–2v.

Queen of Bohemia 91

35 Maximilian II to Charles V, Vienna, 09/10/1555, AGS, E, 649, n. 45; Venegas to Charles V and Philip II, Vienna, 10/10/1555, AGS, E, 649, n. 38, 1v; Memorial de las deudas que la señora reina de Bohemia hizo en España y después en Alemaña y de lo que ha pagado, ca. 1555, AGS, E, 649, n. 40. 36 Maria of Austria to Philip II, after 1555, AGS, E, 649, n. 2; Charles V to Maximilian II, Brussels, 06/05/1556, HHStA, SHK, 1/5, 11r. 37 The Count of Luna to Philip II, Vienna, 13/03/1560 and 24/04/1561, CODOIN, 98:135 and AGS, E, 650, n. 98; Relazione di Giovanni Cappello ambasciatore straordinario con Bernardo Navagero a Ferdinando I nel 1558, Albèri, Relazioni, Appendice, 28. 38 Carlos de Carlos Morales, El precio del dinero dinástico: endeudamiento y crisis financieras en la España de los Austrias, 1557–1647 (Madrid: Banco de España, 2016), 149–155. Maria and Maximilian had other concerns; in 1559, they asked Philip II for 100,000 ducats from her dowry to buy a hunting estate near Vienna (possibly the Wiener Prater). Luna to Philip II, Vienna, 24/11/1559, AGS, E, 650, n. 69. 39 Relazione di Ferdinando Re de’ Romani letta in senato da Paolo Tiepolo il 12 Ottobre 1557, Albèri, Relazioni, vol. 1/3 (Firenze: Società editrice fiorentina, 1853), 153. Maria of Austria’s independent kitchen was located in Vienna in front of the Hof burg palace, in the Casa Guzmán. Ernst Birk, Materialien zur Topographie der Stadt Wien in den Jahren 1563 bis 1587 (Wien: A. Pichler, 1867), 21; Karner, Die Wiener Hofburg, 320, 327. 40 Venegas to Ferdinand I, Brussels, 21/03/1556, HHStA, SDK, 5/16, 321v. 41 Laferl, Die Kultur der Spanier, 123–124. 42 Rodríguez-Salgado, The Changing Face, 126–131; Martínez Millán, “La sucesión en el imperio,” 267–277. 43 Charles V to Maximilian II, Brussels, 02/06/1556, HHStA, SHK, 1/5, 16r; Venegas to Philip II, Vienna, 10/10/1555, AGS, E, 649, n. 37v; Philip II to Maximilian II, Brussels, 18/03/1556, HHStA, SHK, 1/5, 4v; Maximilian II to Gámiz, Vienna, 24/05/1556, AGS, E, 641bis, n. 225. 44 Strohmeyer, Der Briefwechsel, 36. 45 Aram, Juana the Mad, 35–36, 41–47; Theresa Earenfight, “A Precarious Household: Catherine of Aragon in England, 1501–1504,” in Royal and Elite Households in Medieval and Early Modern Europe: More than Just a Castle, ed. Theresa Earenfight (Leiden: Brill, 2018), 339–340, 344–354. 46 Friedrich Edelmayer and José Rueda Fernández, “Del caos a la normalidad: los inicios de la diplomacia moderna entre el Sacro Imperio y la Monarquía Hispánica,” in Disidencias y exilios en la España moderna, ed. Pablo Fernández Albaladejo (Alicante: Caja de Ahorros del Mediterráneo, 1997), 1:631–640; Christopher Laferl, “…y en la corte donde están se tienen por peregrinos. Zu den konfessionellen Differenzerfahrungen spanischer Hofleute und Diplomaten im Umfeld Karls V. und Ferdinands I.,” in Wahrnehmungen des Fremden. Differenzerfahrungen von Diplomaten im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert, ed. Arno Strohmeyer (Münster: Aschendorff, 2007), 147–151.

92 Queen of Bohemia

47 On the imperial side, however, Ferdinand I did not see the need to name an ambassador until 1560. He finally appointed his former grand chamberlain, Martín de Guzmán, who was then retired in his native Leon and represented Ferdinand I before Philip II until 1562. Fulfilling the profile of the dynastic servant who intertwined his different roles, Martín de Guzmán returned to Vienna in 1563 as Philip II’s ambassador, before retiring to Spain the following year. Instruction to Martín de Guzmán, Madrid, 09/12/1562, AGS, E, 651, n. 102. Laferl, Die Kultur der Spanier, 233–234; Edelmayer and Rueda Fernández, “Del caos a la normalidad,” 636–639. 48 Philip II to Luna, Brussels, 27/05/1559 and Ghent, 09/08/1559, CODOIN, 98:81 and 94; Blas Casado Quintanilla, “Claudio Fernández Vigil de Quiñones, Conde de Luna, Embajador de Felipe II en el Imperio y en el Concilio de Trento (III etapa)” (PhD diss., Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 1982), 62–64. 49 Cabrera de Córdoba, Historia de Felipe II, 1:194. 50 Casa de la emperatriz doña María de Austria, in José Martínez Millán and Santiago Fernández Conti, eds., La monarquía de Felipe II: la casa del rey (Madrid: Fundación Mapfre Tavera, 2005), 2:699–703; Pavel Marek, La embajada española en la corte imperial 1558–1641. Figuras de los embajadores y estrategias clientelares (Praga: Karolinum, 2013), 53–55; Martina Bardoňová, “‘Por tener tantos y tan diversos gastos forçosos…’ La embajada y sus finanzas (La embajada española en Praga 1608–1617),” in Líneas recientes de investigación en Historia Moderna, ed. Félix Labrador Arroyo (Madrid: Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, 2015), 205–222. 51 Philip II to Luna, Brussels, 27/05/1559, CODOIN, 98:81. 52 Luna to Philip II, Vienna, 24/11/1559, AGS, E, 650, n. 69. 53 Luna to Philip II, Vienna, 12/01/1560 and 28/01/1560, CODOIN, 98:109 and AGS, E, 650, n. 92; Laferl, Die Kultur der Spanier, 71–72, 126–128; Patrouch, Queen’s Apprentice, 22; Eduardo Fernández Merino, La Virgen de Luto (Madrid: Visión Libros, 2012), 38. A staff list of the household was compiled in 1560, with copies in RB, II/2096, 304v–314v and HHStA, OMeA/SR, 182/40. 54 Friedrich Edelmayer, “Honor y dinero. Adán de Dietrichstein al servicio de la Casa de Austria,” Studia Historica. Historia Moderna 11 (1993): 93–97; Vanesa de Cruz Medina, “Margarita de Cardona y sus hijas, damas entre Madrid y el Imperio,” in Las relaciones discretas entre las Monarquías Hispana y Portuguesa: Las Casas de las Reinas (siglos XV-XIX), eds. José Martínez Millán and Maria Paula Marçal Lourenço (Madrid: Polifemo, 2009), 2:1267–1300. 55 Charles V to Maximilian II, Brussels, 21/03/1556, HHStA, SHK, 1/5, 6r; Laferl, Die Kultur der Spanier, 129–130. 56 For parallel examples in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries from the Castilian, Portuguese, and Scottish courts, see Diana Pelaz Flores, La casa de la reina en la Corona de Castilla (1418–1496) (Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid, 2017), 108–119; Manuela Santos Silva, “Philippa

Queen of Bohemia 93

57

58

59 60

61 62

63

64

of Lancaster, Queen of Portugal: educator and reformer,” in The Rituals and Rhetoric of Queenship. Medieval to Early Modern, eds. Louise Oakley-Brown and Louise J. Wilinson (Dublin: Four Court Press, 2012), 44–45; Rosalind K. Marshall, “In Search of the Ladies-in-Waiting and Maids of Honour of Mary, Queen of Scots: A Prosoprographical Analysis of the Female Household,” in The Politics of Female Households. Ladies-in-waiting across Early Modern Europe, eds. Nadine Akkerman and Birgit Houben (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 224–225. Beatrix Bastl, “Das österreichische Fraunzimmer: Zum Beruf der Hofdame in der Frühen Neuzeit,” in Frauenzimmer: Die Frau bei Hofe in Spätmittelalter und früher Neuzeit, eds. Jan Hirschbiegel and Werner Paravicini (Stuttgart: Jan Thorbecke, 2000), 360, n. 17; Patrouch, Queen’s Apprentice, 28. Lesmes Mazuelo to Granvelle, Sopron, 13/05/1553, RB, II/2258, 117v; Pedro Laso de Castilla to Ferdinand I, Vienna, 25/07/1555, HHStA, SDK, 4/14, 29r; Venegas to Charles V and Philip II, Vienna, 10/10/1555, AGS, E, 649, n. 38, 1v; Maximilian II to Pedro Laso, Vienna, 02/07/1557, HHStA, HA, Sammelbände, 1/1, 17r. Strohmeyer, Der Briefwechsel, 43. A few months after the wedding, Philip II appointed the young Pernstein Knight of the Golden Fleece despite the fact that he had not held major offices or had outstanding political experience; thus, he reinforced one of the few imperial nobles who would be close to him. Marek, Pernštejnské ženy, 57–60. Laferl, Die Kultur der Spanier, 71, 75–76. Maria of Austria to Granvelle, Vienna, 12/08/1554, RB, II/2285, 126r–127v. Gianfranco Tore, “Dare udienza ai sudditi, controllare i viceré. La visita generale di Pietro Vaguer nella Sardegna di Carlo V (1542–1546),” in Identità e frontiere: Politica, economia e società nel Mediterraneo (secc. XIV-XVIII), eds. Lluis Guía Marín et al. (Milano: Franco Angeli, 2015), 260–290; Vanesa de Cruz Medina, “In Service to My Lady, the Empress, as I Have Done Every Other Day of My Life: Margarita of Cardona, Baroness of Dietrichstein and Lady-in-Waiting of Maria of Austria,” in Akkerman and Houben, The Politics of Female Households, 103. Cabrera de Córdoba, Historia de Felipe II, 1:194; Susanna Peyronel Rambaldi, Una gentildonna irrequieta. Giulia Gonzaga fra reti familiari e relazioni eterodosse (Rome: Viella, 2012), 257–275 and, most importantly, Stefania Trentin, “Tra affetti familiari e idee eterodosse: profilo biografico di Isabella Bresegna (1510–1567)” (BA diss., Università degli Studi di Trento, 2001). Doris Moreno, “El protestantismo castellano revisitado: geografía y recepción,” in Reforma y disidencia religiosa: La recepción de las doctrinas reformadas en la península ibérica en el siglo XVI, eds. Michel Boeglin et al. (Madrid: Casa de Velázquez, 2018), 191–193. Pedro Sarmiento was released in 1569 and, in a situation of extreme distress, found no

94

65 66 67

68

69

70

71 72

73

74

Queen of Bohemia

support in Maria of Austria, but in Maximilian II, so reluctant to protect Spaniards, who granted him alms and a pension since 1572, verging on the scandalous. Pedro Sarmiento to Maximilian II, Valladolid, 19/07/1569 and 20/11/1574, HHStA, SDK, 8/12, 1r and 9/7, 19r. Monteagudo to Philip II, Vienna, 09/02/1575, CODOIN, 113:30; Trentin, “Tra affetti familiari,” 259–263; Marek, Pernštejnské ženy, 74–77. Anna of Hungary had no clergy in her charge while Maria had six. Laferl, Die Kultur der Spanier, 128–129; Patrouch, Queen’s Apprentice, 34–35, 97–98. Henry Louthan, The Quest for Compromise: Peacemakers in Counter-Reformation Vienna (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 127; Elaine Fulton, Catholic Belief and Survival in Late Sixteenth-Century Vienna: The Case of Georg Eder (1523–87) (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007). Nuncio Delfino to Cardinal Borromeo, Vienna, 25/09/1561, NBD, 2/1:309–311; Casa de la emperatriz doña María de Austria, in Martínez Millán and Fernández Conti, La monarquía de Felipe II, 2:699–703; Hortal Muñoz and Labrador Arroyo, La Casa de Borgoña, 177–228. Maria of Austria to Charles V, Vienna, 18/07/1553, AGS, E, 649, n. 68; Philip II to Luna, Brussels, 27/05/1559, CODOIN, 98:81; Maurenbrecher, “Beiträge zur Geschichte,” 232; Ceñal Lorente, “La emperatriz María,” 416–419, 484–503. Nuncio Hosius to Cardinal Borromeo, Vienna, 22/01/1561 and 06/02/1561, NBD, 2/1:201 and 209; Nuncio Delfino to the Papal legates, Innsbruck, 11/02/1563, NBD, 2/3:188; Cardinal Morone to Nuncio Delfino, Trent, 17/06/1563, NBD, 2/3:345–348. Francisco de Córdoba OFM to Philip II, Vienna, 20/07/1559, CODOIN, 98:92; Philip II to Martín [sic] de Córdoba, Madrid, 21/07/1563, AGS, E, 652, n. 93. Córdoba to Philip II, Linz, 21/08/1562, AGS, E, 651, n. 20; Manuel Castro, “Francisco de Córdoba OFM, censor de Trento,” Revista Española de Teología 44(2) (1984): 515; Klaus Ganzer, “Ein unbequemer Reformer am Rande des Konzils von Trient: Der Franziskaner Franziskus von Córdoba als Berater Kaiser Ferdinands I.,” Historisches Jahrbuch 104(2) (1984): 309–347; Ernst Laubach, Ferdinand I. als Kaiser: Politik und Herrscherauffassung des Nachfolgers Karls V. (Münster: Aschendorff, 2001), 502–507. Franciscus (Cordubensis), Sermo Habita Francofordiae in solenni Omnium Sanctorum festo… (Francofordiae: Egenolff, 1562 and Ingolstadii: Ederus, 1586); Franciscus (Cordubensis), Annotationes Catholicae, in Religionis articulos a Sectarijs controuersos (Viennæ: Casparus Stainhofer, 1567 and Colonia: Cholinus, 1572). Luna to Philip II, Prague, 19/02/1562, CODOIN, 98:290; Ferdinand I to Maria of Austria, Innsbruck, 04/02/1563, CODOIN, 2:583–584; Ignasi Fernández Terricabras, “Felipe II versus Fernando I y Maximiliano II. Divergencias sobre la Reforma en el Imperio durante el

Queen of Bohemia 95

75 76 77 78 79 80 81

82 83

84 85 86 87

88

pontificado de Pío IV (1559–1565),” in La dinastía de los Austria: las relaciones entre la Monarquía Católica y el Imperio, eds. José Martínez Millán and Rubén González Cuerva (Madrid: Polifemo, 2011), 1:83–108. Philip II to Álvaro de la Cuadra, Brussels, 21/05/1558, CODOIN, 98:11. Otto Helmut Hopfen, Kaiser Maximilian II. und der Kompromißkatholizismus (München: Rieger, 1895), 28. Pedro Laso de Castilla to Ferdinand I, Mechelen, 19/01/1555, H HStA, SDK, 4/14, 19r; Luna to Philip II, Linz, 06/12/1561, CODOIN, 98:260. Cardinal Borromeo to Nuncio Delfino, Rome, 30/08/1560, NBD, 2/1:107; Martín de Guzmán to Ferdinand I, Madrid, 10/03/1562, HHStA, SDK, 6/6, 104r. Luna to Philip II, Vienna, 29/01/1561, AGS, E, 650, n. 93, 1r; Philip II to Maria of Austria, Madrid, 08/12/1562, AGS, E, 651, n. 99; Fichtner, Emperor Maximilian II, 113–116. Luna to Philip II, Vienna, 15/09/1561, CODOIN, 98:245. Alejandra Franganillo Álvarez, “The Education of an Heir to the Throne: Isabel of Borbón and Her Influence on Prince Baltasar Carlos,” in The Formation of the Child in Early Modern Spain, ed. Grace Coodlige (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2014), 143–164. In 1569 “all of them speak German and no other language, and they understand some Spanish.” Venegas to Philip II, Vienna, 12/12/1569, AGS, E, 665, n. 81. Antonio degli Albizi to Cosimo I de Medici, Vienna, 10/08/1564, ASFi, MP, 4324, 470r; Venegas to Philip II, Vienna, 12/12/1569, AGS, E, 665, 81r; Rodrigo Mendes Silva, Admirable vida, y heroycas virtudes de… la esclarecida emperatriz María (Madrid: Diego Diaz de la Carrera, 1655), 33v. Luna to Philip II, Vienna, 29/01/1561, AGS, E, 650, n. 93, 3v. Martín de Guzmán to Ferdinand I, Toledo, 12/03/1561, HHStA, SDK, 6/5, 9v; Nuncio Delfino to the Papal legates, Innsbruck, 15/03/1563, NBD, II/3, 249–250; Relation… Zuan Michiel, Fiedler, Relationen, 261. Luna to Philip II, Vienna, 13/10/1561, CODOIN, 98:249; Patrouch, Queen’s Apprentice, 102–103. Martín de Guzmán to Ferdinand I, Toledo, 12/04/1561, HHStA, SDK, 6/5, 23r; Nuncio Commendone to Cardinal Borromeo, Brussels, 16/11/1561, NBD, 2/2:40; Maria of Austria to Philip II, Vienna, 16/11/1562 and Bratislava, 16/11/1563, AGS, E, 650, n. 93 and 652, n. 50. Ervin Mayer-Löwenschwerdt, “Der Aufenthalt der Erzherzöge Rudolf und Ernst in Spanien,” Sitzungsberichte der Wiener Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philos. hist. Klasse 206(5) (1927): 13–18. Chantonnay to Philip II, Vienna, 08/01/1567, AGS, E, 654, n. 92; Heinz Noflatscher, Glaube, Reich und Dynastie. Maximilian der Deutschmeister (1558–1618) (Marburg: N.G. Elwert, 1987), 39, 46, 65; María José Rodríguez-Salgado, “‘I loved him as a father loves a son…

96

89 90

91

92

93

94

Queen of Bohemia

Europe, damn me then, but I deserve his thanks’: Philip II’s relations with Rudolf II,” in Martínez Millán and González Cuerva, La dinastía de los Austria, 1:348–352. Luna to Philip II, Prague, 29/08/1562, AGS, E, 651, n. 54, 1v. Pius IV to Nuncio Stanislao Varmiensi, Rome, 25/05/1560, AAV, Epistolae ad Principes, 1, 277r; Cardinal Borromeo to Nuncio Hosius, Rome, 23/03/1561, NBD, 2/1:234. Maria kept the Golden Rose until her death. Autos originales de la partición de la hacienda de la Emperatriz, AGS, PR, 31, n. 28, 547v. Luna to Philip II, 16/08/1562, AGS, E, 651, 55r. In the end it was the kingdom of Bohemia itself that met Maria’s expenses with the help of 100,000 thalers. Relación sumaria de la coronación de Maximiliano II como Rey de Romanos y Bohemia en Praga…, BNE, Mss., 7413, 10v. Relación sumaria, 9r–10v; Friedrich Edelmayer, ed., Die Krönungen Maximilians II. zum König von Böhmen, Römischen König und König von Ungarn (1562/63) nach der Beschreibung des Hans Habersack, ediert nach CVP 7890 (Wien: VÖAW, 1990), 120–126; Patrouch, Queen’s Apprentice, 163; Géza Pálffy, “III. Károly 1712. évi koronázásának 16. századi gyökerei. Régi hagyományok és új szokások az első pozsonyi Habsburg-királykoronázáson 1563-ban [The Sixteenth Century Roots of the Coronation of Charles III in 1712. Old Traditions and New Customs at the First Habsburg Royal Coronation in Bratislava in 1563],” in Ius coronandi. Katalógus az Esztergom-Budapesti Főegyházmegye gyűjteményeinek koronázási emlékeiből rendezett kiállításhoz ( Esztergom: Esztergom-Budapesti Főegyházmegye Főszékesegyházának Kincstára, 2012), 15–26. Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger, The Emperor’s Old Clothes: Constitutional History and the Symbolic Language of the Holy Roman Empire (New York: Berghahn Books, 2015), 161; Katrin Keller, “Gender and Ritual: Crowning Empresses in the Holy Roman Empire,” German History 37(2) (2019): 173, 178–179. Antonio degli Albizi to Cosimo I de Medici, Vienna, 27/07/1564, ASFi, MP, 4324, 448r; Peer Schmidt, “Infans sum Hispaniarum: la difícil germanización de Fernando I,” in Edelmayer and Alvar Ezquerra, Fernando I, 282–284.

5 EMPRESS CONSORT, DISCREET MEDIATOR (1564–1576)

By the age of thirty-six, Maria had reached the highest rank in Christendom as Holy Roman empress. She did so with the weight of eight children on her shoulders and in charge of a powerful royal household, which, however, did not meet her new needs for representation.1 She also did not have the support of her late father-in-law, Ferdinand I, or of a Spanish ambassador: the Lord of Chantonnay, who succeeded the Count of Luna after his death in Trent in December 1563, would not arrive in Vienna until March 1565. We, therefore, lack sources close to Maria regarding her elevation to her new dignity. Nevertheless, her change of status was apparent from the outset, thanks to her rich dynastic capital. Both Philip II and Juana of Austria, and to a lesser extent the successive popes, requested her services as a mediator with her husband Maximilian II, with whom she led a harmonious conjugal life. The most distinctive feature of this period is Maria’s progressive involvement in “negotiations,” in matters understood as public, and in the ministers’ male sphere. Her determination and perseverance, as well as her husband’s love and tolerance, contributed to this achievement. Maximilian II needed the help or acquiescence of the Spanish king and the pope on various occasions and preferred to rely on DOI: 10.4324/9781003125693-6

98  Empress consort, discreet mediator

his wife’s effective representation, so “that she would make a great Embassy on her part and on mine.”2 Maria thus took part in a dynamic game in which she could communicate, exert pressure, and develop plans. Nevertheless, Maximilian had the final decision. As he said to a courtier, “if I wanted to do everything my wife […] wants, I would have a lot to do.”3 This kind of collaboration between (royal) spouses has been described in German historiography by the term Arbeitspaar or working couple. According to this principle, the consort is an active ally of her husband and complements his government work from an enlarged domestic perspective.4 This chapter, then, will delineate these issues according to the three Aristotelian categories (ethics, economics, and politics) within which Maria operated, first, on a personal level, through her management of spaces, communications, and interactions; second, on a familial level, through the dynastic and confessional control over her husband and children; and third, on a public level, through her participation in negotiations.

5.1 Communications: spaces, agents, modalities Maria’s daily life, like that of most women of her status, was relatively monotonous and repetitive. Her lack of knowledge of German or other Central European languages also seriously limited the communicative circle in which she moved. She enjoyed, of course, a leading role in court festivities, such as banquets, hunts, royal entrances, and princely weddings.5 However, ceremonial rigidity meant that she could only interact with her entourage, which consisted of her ladies, her brothers-in-law – Archdukes Ferdinand and Karl – and her sister-in-law, the Duchess of Bavaria, Anna of Austria. The latter, with whom she maintained a lively correspondence, was her closest companion in court celebrations and her main support at Maximilian’s deathbed.6 On journeys to imperial diets and other visits through the German lands, Maria also had the opportunity to meet other princesses, such as the Duchess of Saxony, Anna of Denmark, and the Electress of the Palatinate, Amalia von Neuenahr-Alpen. Unlike her Catholic sister-in-law, these two women were “heretics,” the

Empress consort, discreet mediator  99

first a Lutheran and the second a Calvinist. Denominational differences were an important limitation on the establishment of friendly relations, but the status of these women as consorts of imperial electors, the highest rank of German princes, ensured courteous communication. Nevertheless, Maria greatly reduced her contact with the Electress of the Palatinate, partly because both she and her husband, Frederick III, openly backed the Dutch rebels against Philip II.7 In the meantime, the empress had maintained a formalised friendship with the astute Anna of Denmark since 1570, which was strengthened over time with visits and gifts. The Duchess of Saxony produced an alcoholic beverage (aquavit), which Maria gladly received as a present, and in return she interceded with the emperor on behalf of the duchess. This cordial relationship, often mediated by the empress’s ladies, such as María Manrique de Lara, contributed to the Spanish diplomatic treatment of Saxony as a neutral and respected prince rather than a heretical enemy.8 Access to the empress and the members of the dynasty in their daily routine was largely restricted by ceremonial prescriptions and Maria was rarely seen in public.9 She was particularly noted for attending daily Mass with her household servants and children. In Vienna, she alternated the use of the palace chapel (Burgkapelle), the imperial oratory (the Kaiseroratorium in the church of St Augustine), and even her quarters; this versatile use of the spaces where one ate or danced appalled her husband.10 The predictability of these Masses afforded a favourable occasion for speaking to the empress or requesting an audience, contrary to Maximilian’s irregular attendance. Another daily habit was dining with her husband and then retiring together to the same chamber, where they shared their evening leisure time with some privacy. The Spanish ambassador was often invited to these evening meetings and enjoyed opportunities for unrestricted domestic communication which were denied to other diplomats, since he had a superior status as a servant of the dynasty.11 In the case of the other two accredited ambassadors at the imperial court (the papal nuncio and the Venetian ambassador), direct communication was less frequent and more ritualised. The few documented audiences between the Venetian ambassadors and the

100  Empress consort, discreet mediator

empress were occasions of courtesy, on which the two parts formally expressed their congratulations on a happy event (military victories, births, weddings) and exchanged cordial declarations of goodwill.12 Maria’s communication with the papal representatives was more effective, although generally mediated. The empress’s confessor was the usual interlocutor to the nuncio, both for linguistic convenience in the use of Latin and to ward off suspicions of intrusion. The audiences with the nuncios were therefore often reduced to formal occasions, such as the presentation of papal briefs, and even then the empress postponed them in order to show her discontent with the papal text when it did not conform to her demands.13 Despite the general lack of communicative flexibility, Spanish ambassadors enjoyed a domestic status which allowed them to present their cases with great ease. Thanks to the permeability of the empress’s household regarding contact with them, the billetes (holograph notes which had to be destroyed after reading) between the ambassadors and Maria easily passed outside the palace walls. Servants and ladies – and sometimes the ambassadors’ own wives – also supplied them with information about the life in the palace.14 Apart from the evenings that the ambassadors spent with the imperial couple, they also had access to Maria’s quarters and accompanied her to the chapel or country outings.15 An important part of this relationship was based on the empress’s good understanding with them, which largely explains the success or failure of some of her missions. Thomas Perrenot de Granvelle (1565–1570), Lord of Chantonnay and brother of Cardinal Granvelle, who replaced the Count of Luna, was a particularly unfortunate choice. Maximilian II, whom Chantonnay had served in his youth, detested him and clearly expressed to Philip II his annoyance at his nomination.16 Chantonnay’s appointment was meant to consolidate the powerful clientele of his brother Granvelle in the management of dynastic relations. The imperial vice-chancellor, Georg Sigismund Seld, was a distinguished servant of Philip II and had Granvelle as his courtly patron, as did his counterpart in Madrid, Philip II’s German secretary, Paul Pfintzing. The Mazuelo family, who were Maximilian II and Maria’s Spanish secretaries,

Empress consort, discreet mediator  101

and the secretary of the Spanish embassy, Flaminio Garnier, also had strong client ties with Granvelle.17 Chantonnay, however, did not reinforce this group. The vice-chancellor, Seld, died in 1565, shortly after Chantonnay’s arrival, and his brother, Granvelle, fell out of favour around the same time. Chantonnay was also unable to establish himself as an important interlocutor at court due to Maximilian II’s animosity. Although Philip II had instructed the ambassador that his first duty was “to try with all diligence and care to keep the love that the emperor and the empress have for me,”18 he does not appear to have been successful. In his letters to his brother, Cardinal Granvelle, Chantonnay harshly criticised the empress’s expenses on jewellery and dresses and the lack of control over the Spanish ladies, who had won her over.19 The reasons why he was not on friendly terms with the empress were not solely personal but also factional, and reflected her alignment with the group dynamics of the court of Madrid. From the beginning of his reign, Philip II’s entourage was loosely organised around two court factions led by the Prince of Eboli and the Duke of Alba. The Ebolists were generally closer to the Papacy and to a universalist and confessional policy, while the Albists advocated a more Castilian line and a more traditional spirituality. Maria, always in contact with her sister Juana and intimately familiar with Jesuit spirituality since her childhood, was more attuned to the Ebolist faction, which Juana protected, than with the Albist faction in which Granvelle’s clientele moved. In her own words, “no one, but Ruy Gómez [Éboli], took into account what I desire, which is the salvation of the emperor and his children.”20 Maria, therefore, resorted to her own channels of communication for her patronage initiatives without informing Chantonnay, who resented being bypassed.21 The estrangement between the empress and the ambassador became apparent in 1567 in the negotiations over the marriages of Maria and Maximilian’s two eldest daughters. The task was not entrusted to Chantonnay but to Luis Venegas de Figueroa, a particularly important agent in the relations between the two courts, who was sent from Madrid. In addition to his long closeness with Maria,

102  Empress consort, discreet mediator

Venegas was an Ebolist courtier, while Chantonnay’s patrons were absent from Madrid: Cardinal Granvelle in Rome and the Duke of Alba in Brussels.22 The confidence and deep understanding between the empress and Venegas stood in stark contrast to her relationship with Chantonnay, who felt resentful at the disrespect with which he was treated. He pointed this out in his correspondence and even denounced Maria’s strategic missteps in the presence of other royal ministers due to her narrow-minded policy of patronage.23 It seems that the empress and the ordinary ambassador had no direct dealings after 1569.24 The situation changed in June 1570 with the arrival of the new ambassador, the Count of Monteagudo (first Marquis of Almazán since 1576). Chantonnay had meanwhile retired to Besançon, where he died soon afterwards. Venegas also returned to Madrid after instructing Monteagudo on how to satisfy the expectations of the empress. Philip II wanted to ensure that the new ambassador was well received.25 Monteagudo was in line with Eboli’s party and was accompanied by the Jesuit Diego de Avellaneda, who was quickly integrated into the empress’s chapel where he served as an active confessional agent.26 Monteagudo had travelled with his entire family. Thus, his sons served as pages of the archdukes, his daughter as lady of the archduchesses, and his wife, Ana María de Cárdenas, was essentially a stewardess of the empress. Chantonnay, by contrast, had not allowed his wife, Helena van Brederode, to join the ladies of the palace and their spending habits.27 In this domestic context, the Countess of Monteagudo discreetly passed her husband’s messages to the empress and became a privileged informant of the ins and outs of the palace, although Maria forbade her to conduct business herself.28 The status of the Spanish embassy as a complement to the empress’s household becomes evident from the royal instructions: you must tell the empress, my sister, that I send you there mainly in order to serve her and please her in everything that presents itself and that she wishes to command you, […] and thus you must be very careful to do whatever she commands you, […] in all the businesses which take place, you must

Empress consort, discreet mediator  103

always use her favour and means and receive her orders and advice before you speak to the emperor about them, as she will tell you the manner and the timeline in which you must deal with them, so that they are successful.29 Maria’s credibility with the Spanish ambassadors had increased since the appointment of the Count of Luna to the point that she became the principal strategist of Philip II’s policies at the imperial court. She played an active role, distributing tasks alongside Monteagudo, indicating the right moment for an audience with the emperor, and even helping Monteagudo rehearse his speeches.30 Monteagudo admitted that thanks to her “I have laid my hands on very great public and secret things.”31 This division into clienteles represents a more suitable angle of approach than the national distinction between Spaniards and Austrians, since those diplomats conformed fully to the type ancien theorised by Thiessen, which was based on the switching of roles and the prioritisation of the personal service over the bureaucratic.32 Chantonnay did not fit into Maria’s entourage for being an Albist, while the imperial ambassador in Madrid, Dietrichstein (1564–1571), Maria’s former master of the horse and husband of her lady Margarita de Cardona, did serve her as an effective dynastic mediator. Dietrichstein joined the Ebolist faction during his service in Madrid and earned a solid position at court, thanks to the support of Princess Juana, the empress’s sister, of whom he stated: “we are very few in our party; everyone depends on the princess.”33 Maria established an intense correspondence with Dietrichstein, now lost, and Maximilian respected his wife’s “trifles” in Madrid without interfering, as long as Dietrichstein kept him informed.34 Maria advocated the dynastic policy of relying on the services of agents who were loyal to the House of Austria, regardless of their national origins or vassalage, in exchange for extensive and lavish patronage. In addition to her numerous intercessions with her husband, her brother, and the pope on behalf of her loyal servants, she attempted to make the imperial court more in line with her agenda by paying ministers who were inclined towards dynastic collaboration and Catholic confessionalism. The empress’s strategy clashed

104  Empress consort, discreet mediator

in this respect with the interests of the Spanish ambassadors. Maria wanted Philip II to maintain a broad base of pensioners who would receive a periodic payment in the same way that Philip financed her imperial household or several cardinals were paid in Rome.35 Meanwhile, both Chantonnay and Monteagudo tried to demonstrate that this system was costly and ineffective: since rewards were not associated with specific services, these pensioners were eventually either released from their duties or discredited as susceptible to bribery by Philip II. The debate intensified after the death of the imperial vice-chancellor, Johann Ulrich Zasius, in 1570, who replaced Seld as chief imperial minister. At that time, it seemed that Maximilian II’s new favourites, Johann Baptist Weber and Johann von Trautson, would be the new imperial vice-chancellor and high steward, respectively. Maria wanted to grant them a pension but, in the end, they were given a one-time reward of 2,000 escudos.36 Maria’s moves were dictated by practical considerations, since Weber was a well-known Protestant, while in the case of the Catholic Trautson, she only sought his friendship after she had assured herself that he would continue to enjoy the emperor’s grace and that the affairs of State would pass through his hands.37 Apart from these personal contacts with the imperial court society, it has been maintained that the key to Maria’s public position was her closeness to and cooperation with her brother Philip II. In fact, however, her primary point of reference in Madrid was her sister Juana of Austria, with whom she corresponded as frequently as with Philip II. Her communication with Juana was complemented with information provided by women who had served her as ladies-in-waiting and whom she used as “informants” to learn about her sister when the latter did not write to her. Maria also received information from her networks of ladies in Madrid and Italy.38 In addition to the letters to ambassadors and relatives in Madrid, the empress had her own agent at the Spanish court for the control of her finances outside the official diplomatic channels. Her treasurer, Bartolomé de Murga, was sent to Madrid in 1561 with orders to collect her tercias (quarterly payments). Eventually, he stayed for more than a decade, managing her accounts and, above all, negotiating the change of the unreliable and discontinuous system of

Empress consort, discreet mediator  105

the tercias for an income of 20,000 escudos per year from guaranteed sources. The consensus among Venegas, Dietrichstein, and Éboli after three years of pressure was crucial for Philip II to grant this favour to his sister.39 The empress used this combination of personal agents, representatives of Philip II, and dynastic servants with great authority in every European centre in which she required contacts, thus causing an interesting overlap of mediations. For example, communication with the papal court was frequent, since she was regarded as the most valuable ally at the imperial court. Her strong defence of Catholic confessionalist policies was rewarded with spiritual graces and patronage. She also had no particular difficulty receiving jubilees (1570, 1575, and 1580),40 dispensations, and papal indulgences, although without transgressing papal custom or enjoying favourable treatment compared to the Spanish and French queens.41 She was also quite successful in recommending like-minded ecclesiastics for papal graces and servants for indulgences. She used various mediators for this purpose: the ambassadors of Philip II and Maximilian II in Rome, the authorities of the Society of Jesus, and cardinal-nephews.42 Regarding her private business in Rome, she mainly used the services of the Spanish ambassador Juan de Zúñiga, but also employed Dietrichstein’s secretary, Juan Ruiz de Azagra, for her discreet correspondence with the Roman prelates.43 She also sent personal agents to the Eternal City, who acted as her representatives in specific matters. Adam von Dietrichstein departed for Rome in 1561 to ask for pardons and indulgences on her behalf, although he also carried a secret order from Maximilian II to obtain permission to receive communion in both species.44 Hans Khevenhüller and Gaspar de Santiago also travelled to Rome in her name in 1566 and 1576, respectively.45 This barely institutionalised overlap of mediators and activities had clear parallels in all the territories of the Spanish monarchy. The empress wrote to viceroys and governors with the same authority as her brother, since those officials did not have instructions to favour her, but obey her directly.46 Her relations with the representatives of Philip II focused on financial issues and patronage, such as the collection of the income which was owed to her and

106  Empress consort, discreet mediator

the recommendation of individuals. Her regular revenues were collected in the Kingdom of Naples, where she kept a financial agent and had correspondence with the viceroys to defend her interests.47 However, economic exchanges were more frequent with the Netherlands and Milan, which were fiefdoms of the Holy Roman Empire as well as Philip II’s possessions. The empress thus had more options for communication. Since her arrival in the Empire in 1552, Charles V had complemented his daughter’s income with an annual grant of 3,000 florins for the purchase of fabrics from the Netherlands for her and her ladies. Despite the revolt and war in Flanders, Maria adamantly demanded the prompt payment of her rightful annual grace. Maximilian, for his part, promised to pay some of her substantial debts in exchange for the contribution of the Netherlands to the Empire. In this way, he obligated the Spanish authorities to provide these sums, as they were intended for the maintenance of the empress.48 These transactions brought her into close contact with successive Governors of the Netherlands. Her relationship with her half-sister Margherita of Parma (1559–1567) was mutually beneficial but neutral. Margherita’s successor, the Duke of Alba (1567–1573), who did not share Maria’s factional positions, also had to show her his good will. Thanks to the good state of preservation of the Archives of the House of Alba, the empress’s correspondence with him is preserved in its entirety. Most of her letters are requests for the reallocation of Spanish and German soldiers who had fought in Hungary against the Turks to the Flemish army.49 In the Milanese case, she also wrote to the Governor-Duke of Alburquerque asking for favours on behalf of unemployed military officials.50 Thus, Maria’s correspondence as a patroness helped the circulation of elite servants among the different centres of power of the House of Austria.

5.2 The family: dynasty and confession The field in which the empress excelled most during those years was marriage, the primary focus of inter-dynastic relations. The male members of her family acknowledged the existence of a legitimate space for manoeuvre within which she could take part in the

Empress consort, discreet mediator  107

decisions about the marriages of her relatives, after demonstrating her matchmaking skills with her ladies. The Spanish ambassadors often pointed out that Maria was present in many of their conversations with Maximilian II but rarely intervened, rather occupying herself with female tasks, such as sewing and reading.51 The only exception was when matters of marriage were discussed: she would then participate without being asked and express her views with confidence and penetrating psychological insight. An example is the marriage between Archduke Karl, Maximilian II’s younger brother, and the English Queen, Elizabeth I. The main obstacle in the negotiations of 1567 was confessional: the English negotiator demanded that the archduke renounce his Catholic faith, while the imperial side expected him to conceal his religious identity at first and reveal himself once the marriage had been consummated. Maria rejected the idea, as Elizabeth I would not marry without settling the religious question and because feigning religion went against the principles of the dynasty: “I do not doubt that the French would try all these means to advance their interests, but this is not the manner of acting of the House of Austria.”52 The stakes were high for Maria’s two eldest daughters, Ana and Elisabeth. Maria had a clear strategy which was in line with that of her sister Juana and, to a lesser extent, her brother Philip II: to marry the first-born Ana to Carlos, Prince of Asturias and heir to Philip II; the second daughter, Elisabeth, to King Sebastian I of Portugal, the only son of her sister Juana; and the imperial heir Rudolf to Isabel Clara Eugenia, the eldest daughter of Philip II; thus, three marriages among first cousins. Philip II has been attributed with a less ambitious turn in marriage policy than his predecessors, as he focused on intra-dynastic rather than inter-dynastic alliances, and even with a “patrimonialist turn” towards the end of his reign.53 This is certainly true, but it was his sisters who had mostly pressed for the success of this model. Maximilian II agreed to the marriage between his first-born Ana and the Spanish prince Carlos, as it was the best available option and was expected to facilitate his relations with the court of Madrid.54 Maximilian (and Maria) had an obvious predilection for Ana, whom he confessed he loved “more than all the others

108  Empress consort, discreet mediator

together.”55 However, the emperor preferred a French candidate for Elisabeth, in order to diversify his contacts and not remain subordinated to the interests of Philip II. In this he followed in the footsteps of his father Ferdinand I, whose deft marriage policy allowed him the greatest possible autonomy from his elder brother Charles V.56 Although the final decisions rested with Philip II and Maximilian II, Juana and Maria tirelessly pursued their dynastic goals. Neither of them hid their preferences nor acted behind the back of their husband or brother, respectively. Maximilian considered Maria “very sympathetic to Portugal,” yet accepted her as the sole mediator with Philip II in the marriage negotiations through an intense correspondence which is now lost. The diplomats did not have access to these family letters but had to follow the empress’s instructions, although Maximilian did read them.57 Ultimately, the two sovereigns were conscious of the value of the sisters Maria and Juana as mediators between Lisbon, Madrid, and Vienna and empowered or restrained them according to their interests. The empress received recommendations rather than orders from Philip II, since they had similar goals and only needed to formulate their strategy, such as avoiding rapprochement with France or pointlessly prolonging communication with Portugal. She was, therefore, the supreme interpreter of her brother’s interests at the imperial court. She guided the actions of the Spanish ambassador, reserved for herself the most delicate negotiations with Maximilian, and measured out the information which came from Spain in order not to upset him.58 The marriage negotiations entered their final phase in the summer of 1567, with the dispatch of Luis Venegas to Vienna. While the engagement between the Spanish Prince Carlos and Archduchess Ana did not raise any concerns, the Portuguese and French alternatives were still open for Elisabeth, so that discussions were held among four courts. After the guarantees provided by Venegas in close consultation with Maria and in his constant correspondence with Juana and Eboli, Maximilian II decided on the two marriages in September 1567: between Ana and Prince Carlos and Elisabeth and Sebastian I of Portugal.59

Empress consort, discreet mediator  109

In these circumstances, Maria and Maximilian functioned as a model working couple, in which the two partners did not hide information from each other, despite their different goals (marriage with Portugal or France). Venegas openly told Maximilian that he worked closely with the empress, and Maria could read the correspondence which arrived from Rome regarding the French plan in the presence of her husband; she would reproach him and he would smile.60 Maria used the authority which Philip II gave her and her cooperation with Venegas to activate the Spanish embassy in Rome and abort the attempts of French diplomacy and its allies close to the pope.61 In addition to serving the interests of her family, Maria offered her husband arguments about the advantages of the Portuguese option in terms of cultures of female authority: Elisabeth would be of no use in Paris, as queens at the French court took no part in government, whereas in Lisbon they were guaranteed more room for manoeuvre.62 At the beginning of 1568, the double marriage agreement suffered a setback when Philip II had his heir Prince Carlos confined. The mental instability of the heir and his attacks of cruelty had been known for many years and by that time had deteriorated so much that his father considered him fully disabled and imprisoned him for life. The scandal swept across Europe and damaged Philip II’s reputation, which was already tarnished by his unyielding reaction to the outbreak of the rebellion in the Netherlands.63 Maximilian and Maria were sympathetic to Philip II’s harsh decision but did not accept his suggestion to move forward in the negotiations over the Portuguese wedding. Faced with this dilemma, Maria took her husband’s side, since her primary concern was the benefit of her daughters: the two weddings would be negotiated together, and Ana would not be left out of the deal with no alternatives in sight.64 In a way, destiny took care of untying the knot. After a few months of confinement, an intermittent hunger strike, and selfinflicted injuries, Prince Carlos died on 24 July 1568. Two months later, Queen Isabel of Valois suffered a premature birth and died a few hours later, on 3 October. Widowed and without an heir, Philip II seemed the right match for his niece Ana of Austria. He risked, however, offending Charles IX of France with whom he had

110  Empress consort, discreet mediator

broached the possibility of a wedding. Furthermore, the dynastic alliance between Philip II and the French King had entered a declining phase after the death of Isabel of Valois, and maintaining their friendship was an urgent need, while France was immersed in the Wars of Religion and the Valois faced the Huguenots, Calvinists who advocated intervention in the Netherlands against Philip II.65 In order to balance their interests, Maximilian II and Philip II reached a mutual agreement: the marriage of Ana to Philip II and of Elisabeth to Charles IX. Maria continued resisting the French plan and desperately offered an alternative: to maintain the original plan and marry Archduke Rudolf to the French Infanta Marguerite. Venegas was surprised at this proposal, which implied a bid for an even closer rapprochement with France, and suspected that the idea had been suggested to her by Maximilian: the ambassador did not doubt the empress’s activist attitude and even less so her loyalty to her husband. In any case, Maria followed closely the marriage negotiations, even though she had just given birth to her last daughter, Eleonore, and instead of resting in Vienna she accompanied Maximilian to Linz and Prague to advise him as new letters arrived from Spain.66 Maria’s precautions were in vain. When the decisive moment came in February 1569, Maximilian stood firm and imposed a patriarchal decision which reaffirmed her limitations. She also received no help from Madrid: the integration of the Valois into this new Catholic entente was also important for Philip II, who suggested as an alternative the marriage between Sebastian I of Portugal and Marguerite of Valois, the rejected candidates.67 In the end, the sisters Maria and Juana had failed in their goals, although they were now recognised as major players in the political arena. Both the deliberations of the Junta de Cinco (“Board of Five”) in Madrid and Philip II’s correspondence with Vienna paid particular attention to how he should communicate his decision to them and persuade them that this was the ideal solution and that they should contribute to its successful implementation in Vienna and Lisbon.68 The empress could not but accept Philip’s decision with Catholic resignation for the sake of the dynasty, since if it is “in the

Empress consort, discreet mediator  111

service of God and to Your Majesty’s satisfaction, she is also always satisfied.”69 Maria remained in close contact with Juana to ensure the success of the new marriage square among Vienna, Paris, Lisbon, and Madrid. She also rendered further services to the cause by requesting and receiving the papal dispensation for Ana’s wedding through her filial relationship with the pope and her direct access to Spanish diplomacy in Rome.70 Juana, however, did not manage to reach an agreement with the Portuguese side: the dowager queen Catarina of Austria, sister of Charles V, reluctantly accepted the solution, but no longer had sufficient control over the young Sebastian, who was greatly influenced by his favourites, the brothers Gonçalves da Câmara. Due to the postponement of the Austrian wedding, Sebastian refused to accept the French alternative, despite papal pressure, and remained unmarried.71 In this new phase, Maria did not lower her guard but was determined to negotiate the payment of Ana’s dowry satisfactorily, the arrangements for her journey, and the establishment of her new royal household.72 She was, nevertheless, allowed less room for action with respect to Elisabeth. Moreover, a little-known issue arose, which is telling of the dynastic dynamics of the time. Philip II attempted to convince his sister to accompany her daughters on their wedding journey. They would travel by land to Genoa, from whence they would embark to leave Elisabeth in Marseille and then Ana in Barcelona. There Maria would be able to meet again her siblings Philip and Juana.73 Philip II had planned to travel to the Netherlands in 1566–1568 to restore order in the rebellious provinces and personally meet with Maria and Maximilian. However, the deaths of his heir and his wife, and the repressive policy of the Duke of Alba in the Flemish government, had rendered his presence in Brussels useless, although not the need to meet in person with the imperial couple to settle several pending issues. For this reason, Maria’s coming to Spain was in his best interests: the happy family reunion would allow him to give instructions to Maria in the absence of Maximilian and resolve with his sister any issues concerning the future service of Ana of Austria.74 However, consenting to Maria’s long absence, from which she would return more

112  Empress consort, discreet mediator

authoritative, was a headache for Maximilian. The empress also did not welcome the plan with enthusiasm, either because she was unwilling to separate from her husband and risk her position at the imperial court or because she felt she had to obey him on a point on which he was uncompromising.75 When the wills of Maximilian and Philip clashed, Maria always took the side of her husband, thus fulfilling the duty of a Christian wife and, probably, making the wisest decision to keep her position at the imperial court.

5.2.1 Designing royal households in a Spanish fashion in Paris and Madrid Maria’s experience in organising royal households was undeniable and therefore she took the lead in designing the entourage which would accompany Ana to the Iberian Peninsula and Elisabeth to the French border.76 Once her daughters arrived at their destination, their husbands would be free to decide the members of their royal households, putting the harmony between their wives’ families and their own to the test.77 In the French case, the astute Dowager Queen Catherine de’ Medici put an immediate stop to Elisabeth’s attempts to retain a strong nucleus of personal servants. Maria of Austria interrupted her friendly correspondence with her daughter’s mother-in-law when she confirmed her intransigence: Catherine did not allow Elisabeth to keep her Spanish ladies or a Jesuit confessor of confidence, and instead introduced Protestants into her household.78 Maria, like her sister Juana, actively protected the Society of Jesus and perceived it as an extension of her domestic service. She was even allowed to dictate the actions and movements of some of its members, challenging their principles of obedience and the authority of the Jesuit generals, who used to compromise or negotiate moderately with their powerful benefactor.79 On this occasion, the empress ordered the Jesuit Provincial Lorenzo Maggio, who was then in Poland, to travel to France with Elisabeth. As he was unavailable, Maria sent the Spaniard Avellaneda with secret instructions written by her and the ambassador Monteagudo. Apart from setting the frequency of communions and confessions, Avellaneda was authorised

Empress consort, discreet mediator  113

to advise and negotiate with Elisabeth, but always with absolute discretion, “so that it does not seem that he is interested in any affairs other than the spiritual ones.”80 Despite these precautions, he was not allowed to establish contact with Queen Elisabeth in France and soon returned to Vienna.81 Maximilian II tolerated the desperate stratagems of his wife. She also had the sceptical support of Philip II and his ambassadors, whom however she did not allow to interfere in the choice of servants, as she “already worked on this issue.”82 Maria only recommended Spaniards or vassals of Philip II for Elisabeth, both because she trusted them more and because no one ventured to change court without her brother’s patronage.83 Seeing the imminent landing of the Spaniards at the French court, Catherine de’ Medici made no concessions, confirming the empress’s fears about the irrelevance of Elisabeth of Austria in France. Only the Spanish ambassador in Paris, Francés de Álava, was able to keep the channels of communication open with Elisabeth and offer his services to the empress.84 The French marriage was turbulent and short-lived. Elisabeth was widowed in May 1574, after giving birth to a girl, MarieElisabeth of Valois, who died in infancy. In her unusual status as a widowed queen without an heir to the throne, and after refusing to marry the new King Henry III, the two parties agreed that it was best for her to return to Vienna, a journey she finally undertook in 1576.85 In order to avoid the mistakes of the first journey and the menacing presence of Spaniards, the arrangements for the return were entrusted to the Flemish, as they were simultaneously Philip II’s vassals, imperial nobles, and French speakers. The most important among them were the seneschal Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq and the first lady of the bedchamber, Marguerite de La Marck, Countess of Arenberg.86 Busbecq was most likely Maximilian’s choice, as his wife had another candidate, while the Countess of Arenberg seems to have been the empress’s personal bet. Marguerite de La Marck had already served Elisabeth as first lady of the bedchamber on her journey in 1570, and Maria had long been trying to entice her with her marriage schemes: the empress intended to marry her first-born son, the Count of Arenberg, one of Philip II’s loyal

114  Empress consort, discreet mediator

Flemish nobles, to one of the daughters of Vratislav von Pernstein and María Manrique de Lara, the empress’s trusted partner. Maria conducted these negotiations under the mediation of the Governor of the Netherlands, Luis de Requesens. However, while she was waiting for Philip II’s patronage for the union, the countess deliberately delayed, as she had more ambitious expectations for her son which involved one of the daughters of the Duke of Cleves.87 The empress’s plan did not materialise, but it provides evidence of her matchmaking skills and casual style of negotiation. She easily resorted to the courtly constellation of the Habsburgs to create family ties among her servants and expand her network. In the end, her daughter Elisabeth of Austria stayed with her at the imperial court as Dowager Queen of France. Philip II, like his French counterpart, decided the composition of the household of his wife Ana of Austria on his own, although he agreed to listen to Maximilian II’s requests.88 Maria was more active than her husband in influencing the structure of her daughter’s household and relied on Juana’s cooperation for the choice of suitable Spanish servants. She did not recruit from her own household, as it was understaffed; as her ladies were getting married, she experienced great difficulties in obtaining substitutes from Spain. When she became empress in 1564, she asked to be sent two dueñas de honor (not young women but experienced widows) to assist her. However, the imperial court was not a desirable destination and it took three years of negotiations with Juana of Austria for Leonor de Guzmán and her mother Luisa de Ávalos to arrive in Vienna in 1567.89 Due to the deficiencies of her household, Maria was unwilling to let her Spanish servants accompany Ana to Madrid, fearing that many of them would not wish to return to Vienna, and begged her brother Philip II “to send them back to me later […] because I cannot think of myself without them.”90 The newly arrived ambassador Monteagudo, together with his wife and children, tried to address the pressing needs of the empress’s staff, which was small and poorly managed in the absence of the high steward, Laso de Castilla, and his family. The veteran secretary of the embassy, Miguel Bellido, took the opportunity to point out a secret which

Empress consort, discreet mediator  115

Philip II ignored: Laso had, in fact, acted as a mole for Maximilian II, who tried to control his wife’s household, and therefore Maria turned to her first lady of the bedchamber, María de Cardona, regarding court affairs which escaped male control. The king was thus confirmed in his suspicions “that there is dissension in that household,” and presumably this is the reason why he did not insist on the return of the high steward, for which Maximilian pressed more than Maria.91 In a few exceptional cases, the empress requested that certain of her servants remain with Ana to absorb the impact of the move to Madrid. These were Margarita Laso de Castilla, niece of her high steward, who, she assured Philip II, was not a plotter nor willing to control the queen; the loyal Luis Venegas de Figueroa, who would thus maintain his role as liaison between the two courts; and a Franciscan confessor, Francisco de Lillo. Maria also bragged to her brother about how Ana’s departure would open the way for the reinstitution of the Iberian style of female service which their mother, the empress Isabel of Portugal, had followed and which Maria had proudly preserved in her imperial household.92 Compared to the previous queen, Isabel of Valois, Ana guaranteed a quick transition and the recovery of the local spirit. Philip II wrote for her detailed Ordinances for the queen’s household, which imposed a more severe and controlled style. The new regulations were so well designed that they remained in force, with slight changes, until the eighteenth century.93 Maria’s aspirations met with moderate success. Only Venegas, with whom she maintained close contact, stayed in Madrid as the queen’s master of the horse to organise the stables with a certain degree of autonomy.94 As for Juana of Austria and the Ebolist group, they had no influence on the formation of Queen Ana’s household, contrary to her court rival, Cardinal Espinosa, who had the Marquis of La Adrada appointed as the queen’s high steward and the Marquise of Frómista as first lady of the bedchamber. In the disputes that arose in Ana of Austria’s entourage over offices and decisions, Maria constantly manoeuvred with the support of Juana and Venegas, but in general with little success. Philip II loved his sisters but did not allow any other authority than his own in his

116  Empress consort, discreet mediator

immediate domestic environment. After the death of the Prince of Eboli and Princess Juana, one quickly followed by the other in the summer of 1573, Maria sought the friendship of La Adrada to avoid being excluded from the new dynamic of relations.95 As he also died shortly afterwards (February 1574), Maria’s persistence and the change in court dynamics, with a greater presence of Ebolist courtiers, favoured a new approach: subsequent high stewards (the Duke of Medinaceli and the Marquis of Los Vélez) already had friendly relationships with Maximilian and Maria, and therefore communication between the two royal households was better.96

5.2.2 The children and the husband: confessional concerns Ana and Elisabeth’s move to Madrid and Paris in 1570 also affected their brothers, as it was the ideal occasion for Rudolf and Ernst to return to the Empire from Spain and for two other archdukes, Albert and Wenzel, to move to Philip II’s court. This mobility reflected a discreet struggle between Maria and Maximilian: while Maximilian had insisted on the return of his eldest sons since 1568, Maria did everything to postpone their return to a court which she viewed as heretical and where her control was more limited.97 In exchange for the return of the two eldest archdukes (Rudolf and Ernst), Maria pressed Maximilian II to allow the departure of another two of their sons. The emperor was not enthusiastic and only accepted because of Philip II’s commitment to raise them as his own children and provide them with promising careers. The decision was exclusively Maximilian’s. Maria did not know who would be selected, as her husband chose them by rolling dice. The chosen ones, Albert and Wenzel, started prosperous careers at the Spanish court and never returned to the Empire. Wenzel died prematurely in 1578 but had already succeeded to the Grand Priory of Castile of the Order of Malta. Albert became cardinal, Archbishop of Toledo, Viceroy of Portugal, and Sovereign of the Netherlands.98 Back in Vienna, Rudolf and Ernst were closely monitored by their mother and Philip II, so that the exceptional education which they had received in Spain would not be wasted. The emperor put

Empress consort, discreet mediator  117

himself in charge of designing his sons’ household, which remained under the high stewardship of Dietrichstein, Maria’s favourite candidate, although her husband was suspicious of him for being “Spanish.”99 The important issue of the confessor was also resolved to the satisfaction of Maria and Philip II. The empress’s former confessor, Francisco de Córdoba, had travelled in the entourage of Ana of Austria, when she left for Spain in 1570, seeking a quiet retreat in his native Castile. Maria asked her brother to send another Franciscan in his place, someone discreet who would not cause suspicions of political activism: “he should not ask me for news of what is happening in the world and nor want to know anything but what is necessary to serve God.”100 The successful candidate, Fray Juan de Espinosa, also obtained Maximilian’s permission to confess Rudolf and Ernst.101 It was clear that the emperor did not wish to dispute the education and entourage of their eldest sons with his wife; he accepted their firm Catholicism and that they would not have Protestant servants. The young archdukes adhered to a strictly Spanish style, causing resentment at the imperial court for their stiff manners and the observance of prayers and fasts.102 In addition, for Maria’s peace of mind, they became closely associated with Dietrichstein and agreed to receive evening lessons from the ambassador Monteagudo on how to distinguish Protestant courtiers by their actions.103 Maria had less direct access to and control over her sons than her daughters and attempted to control their confessional uprightness through the male mediation of Dietrichstein and Monteagudo. Both men acted under the orders of the empress, but on behalf of Philip II: Maria could neither circumvent her husband nor had the indisputable authority of her brother. She therefore discreetly arranged for Maximilian II to allow, for example, his two eldest sons to participate in the Corpus Christi procession, which he never attended.104 Maximilian II’s hopes rested on his two sons who had not travelled to Spain, Matthias (1557–1619) and Maximilian (1558–1618), so that at least they would follow his Utraquist customs (receiving communion with both bread and wine, like Protestants, for which he had a pontifical dispensation). His sons, however, did not reveal

118  Empress consort, discreet mediator

any signs of confessional divergence, as they had been raised with Central European Catholics under their mother’s and Monteagudo’s supervision.105 Regarding the spiritual edification of her children, Maria managed to appoint Lorenzo Maggio, the rector of the Jesuit College in Vienna, as their confessor. Matthias and Maximilian would later come under the tutelage of the imperial preacher, Lambert Gruter.106 This was a zealous Catholic and a Dutch subject of Philip II, and thus of a more acceptable origin for Maximilian II than the Spanish Juan de Espinosa. Nevertheless, the emperor hardly followed Gruter’s preaching and instead urged him to persuade the two archdukes to accept the Utraquist communion. Maria’s intervention in this contentious matter, which lasted between 1571 and 1575, had two phases. First, she stopped Maximilian II’s plans for his sons to receive Utraquist catechism before Christmas 1571. Instead, she followed a domestic strategy by assigning them a German Catholic teacher who would convince them to take communion according to the traditional rite. The role was given to Martin von Gerstmann, imperial secretary, canon of Breslau, and friend of the preacher Gruter and the tutor Busbecq. The empress’s move bore fruit in spring 1572.107 She also ordered Dietrichstein to dissuade the emperor from making them take communion according to the Utraquist rite and speak to him not in her name but in that of Philip II. Dietrichstein’s efforts, however, like those of the ambassador Monteagudo, had no effect on the emperor, nor did Maria’s more dramatic warning that she “would rather see them dead before her than commune in that fashion.”108 Maria realised that she did not need to ensure the domestic cooperation of Gerstmann and Gruter or diplomatic coordination between Dietrichstein and Monteagudo, but that the archdukes, now both in their sixteenth year, developed a strong will of their own. The empress abandoned her manoeuvres and limited herself to pressing her demands for Catholic communion for her children with Gerstmann’s help. Maximilian II noticed that his wife had ceased her campaign and, in a calmer atmosphere, asked Archduke Matthias how he wished to receive communion. When he saw the

Empress consort, discreet mediator  119

latter’s firm adherence to the Catholic rite, he compromised. The archdukes took their first communion on Holy Thursday 1575 in the cathedral of Prague, from the hands of their confessor Gruter and accompanied by the children of the ambassador Monteagudo. The Catholic communion of the archdukes was seen as a resounding triumph by the empress, the nunciature, and the Catholic portion of the court.109 However, these partial successes did not divert attention from the fact that the main problem, Maximilian II’s confession, remained unresolved. The emperor opted for a laborious irenicist middle way for the religious division in Christendom, which was interpreted by the Catholic side as dangerous complicity with the heretics. Although he never officially abandoned the Catholic Church, he confronted his preachers Martin Eisengrein and Lambert Gruter for their fiery sermons and preferred married confessors with a reputation as Lutherans who acted more like pastors; there is no record that Maximilian went to confession or took communion publicly. He also did not participate in processions, over which his wife used to preside, mocked her attempts to obtain papal jubilees, and rarely attended Mass, to Maria’s despair.110 In this respect, the empress’s concerns and movements were inversely proportional to her successes: Maximilian II counted on her for dynastic affairs, but was reticent about his inner life and rejected her pleas and warnings in a kindly mocking way.111 However, this matter transcended the conjugal sphere and called into question the dynastic and confessional relations with the Spanish Monarchy and the Papacy. Philip II took action because if the emperor could not hold to his confessionalist approach, the function of the House of Austria as guarantor of Catholicism would be seriously affected. The king had always trusted his sister as the best interpreter of the emperor’s mind and for a long time the issue was only privately discussed between the two of them and their sister Juana of Austria, who supported Maria’s position. An in-depth discussion was postponed to a personal meeting between the two sovereigns, which had been planned for 1567 or for the royal weddings of 1570. As it was a delicate family issue, Philip II only raised the

120  Empress consort, discreet mediator

matter with Archduke Karl, Maximilian’s brother, who travelled to Madrid in 1569, so that he would speak to the empress on his return to Vienna.112 The pressure increased as hopes for a personal meeting between Philip II and Maximilian II faded and the empress considered her husband lost, fearing that he would drag the Empire down with him. Faced with her own personal ineffectiveness after two decades of marriage, she relied on the pressure and authority of her brother. She sent him the model of a letter which the king should write to Maximilian, implicitly threatening him against changing religion. It is not known whether the text was a personal initiative of the empress or whether she acted on her confessor’s or someone else’s advice. In any case, the letter stands out for its clear argumentation: it presents the grounds for suspecting the emperor’s faith and the reasons for remaining faithful to Catholicism, a combination of historical commitment to his predecessors and political duty to his children, so that their subjects would obey them as upright Catholics.113 Due to the limited impact of these arguments in the negotiations conducted by Chantonnay, the new ambassador, Monteagudo, arrived in spring 1570 with the stern royal letter to Maximilian II concerning his deviations. Maria, the true instigator of the strategy, pretended to be surprised and pointed out to her husband with regret that he refused to touch on the matter and attributed everything to the machinations of family enemies who wanted to poison his brother-in-law with lies. The empress relied on Monteagudo, although she had reservations about him and even her confessor, and only confided the most intimate details of Maximilian’s alleged heresy to Philip II.114 There were also strategic differences with Monteagudo: she forbade him to discuss openly the issue with Maximilian without the express order of Philip II, while he accused her of “pusillanimity” and excess of prudence in her dealings with Maximilian. She was aware of this accusation and answered drily that she was less powerful than they believed.115 As on other occasions, the empress resorted to various male mediators, seeing that Philip II’s vibrant letters were ineffective, unless someone defended their content in person. In April 1571, she

Empress consort, discreet mediator  121

suggested that the king’s letters be sent to her to be delivered to the emperor’s high steward, Johann von Trautson, who should then receive a letter from Philip II entrusting him the defence of the case. Trautson had emerged in 1570 as one of the emperor’s favourites and with this move Maria sought to expand her base of faithful ministers under the prestigious promise of Philip II’s patronage. Trautson assisted in less compromising matters but refused to become involved in this one, as he had never discussed it with the emperor and would therefore immediately raise suspicions.116 These court contacts also took on a dynastic aspect. The efforts of Archduke Karl in 1569 had proved fruitless, but the empress still placed her hopes on Maximilian’s other brother, Archduke Ferdinand, as well as on his sister Anna and her husband, Albert V of Bavaria. From Innsbruck to Munich, these relatives also watched the emperor’s straying with concern, but did not intervene directly like Maria, who was not particularly successful in coordinating their actions.117 Asking the help of Ana of Austria, Queen of Spain and Maximilian’s favourite daughter, was also not an option: the empress did not take part in the plan proposed by Monteagudo, as it would be suspected that Ana acted at Philip II’s prompting. Ana wrote only one letter to her father on the subject, who made no comment on it.118 A far safer bet was Dietrichstein, who left the court of Madrid definitively at the beginning of 1573 with detailed instructions from Philip II to speak to Maximilian II on his behalf about the religious question. It was the first time that the debate extended beyond the family sphere, as the situation had become desperate. In November 1571, the emperor fell seriously ill and there were fears for his life, but even so he refused to be subjected to the Catholic rites. Maria’s only hope was for someone with authority to move her husband. The empress had to confront the cautious Spanish authorities, as she tried to overcome her impotence with her brother’s money: in order to convince Dietrichstein to come to her aid, she suggested that an outrageous gift of up to 100,000 ducats be promised to him. She also advised that her husband’s (Lutheran) confessor be bribed out of his service and be replaced by the preacher Gruter, a move against which Monteagudo also warned.119

122  Empress consort, discreet mediator

Dietrichstein arrived in Vienna in the summer of 1573 in a delicate position. His survival at the imperial court depended on the emperor’s favour, but his closest supporters (Maria and Philip II) compelled him to challenge the emperor to the point of defiance. The empress soon realised his limitations: Dietrichstein preferred to conceal Maximilian’s “little sins” and considered that a few public displays of Catholicism were sufficient. Maria’s criteria, however, were not political but strictly spiritual, “which is different from what I wish, that is, the salvation of his master [Maximilian], and let the States and everything else go as it will.”120 The question was, therefore, never really settled. Maximilian II refused to receive Fray Juan de Espinosa, the empress’s confessor, rightly fearing that he would speak to him with the ardour and firmness of his predecessor, Fray Francisco de Córdoba. An assembly of theologians met in Madrid at the beginning of 1574, which admitted that little more could be done. Maximilian II did not behave as a heretic, but as a “lax and careless Christian.” If he did not keep up appearances, dynastic communication would collapse, as Philip II would no longer be able to have contact with his brother-in-law.121 Maria buried the tension as much as she could, until it finally erupted with full force in Maximilian’s final moments in the autumn of 1576.

5.3 Negotiating activity Maria took advantage of the room for manoeuvre which was rightfully hers with regard to her household, family relations, and contacts as empress, although it was often subject to the interests of her relatives, who expanded or reduced it according to the circumstances. The third sphere, theoretically forbidden to her, was that of politics and decision-making, in which she had no legal role after the end of her rule over the Iberian Kingdoms in 1551. Her mediation and involvement in public affairs constituted an extension of her domestic role. The empress legitimately collaborated with her husband, her brother, and the pope, and watched the progress of her children and relatives.

Empress consort, discreet mediator  123

From the available sources, her participation in the government of the Holy Roman Empire and the Habsburg Monarchy was minimal. She had no assigned ceremonial role in the imperial diets and did not participate in their assemblies, although the Spanish ambassadors insisted on financing her trips, so that she would not lose sight of Maximilian and would always give him the right advice.122 She also regularly received pleas for favour from the emperor regarding litigation with the imperial law courts. Above all, she received letters from women and Catholic institutions, who counted on her support and traditional role as an intercessor.123 The empress had a somewhat greater political profile in Maximilian’s own estates. In Hungary, for example, the two spouses granted audiences together to the magnates of the kingdom in 1572.124 In Bohemia, from where most of her Central European income came, she was treated warmly. The Bohemian Diet used her financial needs to achieve a greater presence of the imperial court in Prague. In 1570, she was granted an annual payment of 40,000 florins in the hope that she would press Maximilian II to reside longer in Bohemia. As the operation failed, the payment was not renewed in 1574, damaging her always precarious financial situation. Upon the emperor’s death in 1576, the Crown again made her an offer to take residence in Prague, which she finally did. It is no surprise, then, that when Maria planned her return to Spain in 1581, the only estate which officially protested was Bohemia, begging its queen to remain.125 Apart from these isolated episodes, the empress’s activity in the political affairs of the Empire was focused on two particular areas: confessional matters, where the pressure of the pope and Philip II converged on the emperor’s decisions, and the jurisdictional disputes over titles and fiefdoms, where the different interests of the House of Austria competed.

5.3.1 Confessional affairs The imperial court of the third quarter of the sixteenth century reflected the tensions and limits of the second generation of the Protestant Reformation and sought to integrate the various religious

124  Empress consort, discreet mediator

groups by avoiding fracture and denominational isolation. This stance, defined as “irenicist,” had already begun in the reign of Ferdinand I, but reached its highest expression with Maximilian II. Unlike his father, Maximilian did not advocate a Catholicism which was more open to dialogue, but rather moved in an illdefined terrain shared by many of his courtiers which was characterised by an “aulic Catholicism” purportedly independent from the radical pressure of Rome and Madrid.126 Compared to this constructive approach, Empress Maria and her chapel constituted an incongruous element, with rigid perceptions of orthodoxy which fell on unfavourable soil in the Austrian territory. Since the 1520s, most of the monasteries had practically been abandoned and the few friars that remained did not set an edifying example; ten of thirteen parishes of Vienna were left without priests and a good number of them were married. On the contrary, the ecclesiastics that surrounded Maria were almost all Iberians and Italians, mostly regular friars and Jesuits.127 Maria’s fierce and tormented sense of duty to defend the true faith in a heretical city resulted in a combination of militant activism and profound disappointment. The misfortunes that plagued her family in 1573, such as the loss of the Polish throne on behalf of her son Ernst and the death of her sister Juana, were interpreted as divine punishment for her contemptible worldly concerns.128 At other times, she gave the impression of fighting on the war front, relying on the Jesuits to bring about the conversion of Viennese Protestants one by one. She used to spend some afternoons in the Kaiserspital, the hospital near the Hof burg Palace, where she attended the dying with anguish, imploring them to confess to the Jesuits and die as Catholics for the sake of their souls.129 Her conscience and the close support of both the Spanish and papal diplomacy empowered Empress Maria in the confessional arena in a way that would have been unthinkable a few decades earlier, and encouraged her to take initiatives that were legitimised by papal authority. These issues transcended the problem of her husband’s faith and the education of her children, as there were many imperial policies that constrained the continuation and advancement of the Catholic

Empress consort, discreet mediator  125

confession. Maximilian II’s powers in the Holy Empire were quite limited according to a relatively stable status quo reached with the Peace of Augsburg in 1555.130 The real struggle took place in his patrimonial territories, especially in Austria and Bohemia. Maximilian II found himself in an uncomfortable position. As an imperial prince, he had the right to establish Catholicism as the only confession across his possessions and forbid the practice of other cults. However, a large part of the Austrian and Bohemian aristocracy, as well as their urban bourgeoisie, had converted to the Lutheran faith (or Augustan confession) and expressly petitioned in various regional diets for an end to their covert status and for the free practice of their faith, whether applied to the nobles or to entire cities. Regardless of his personal sympathies, Maximilian II defended the official Catholicism in order to maintain stability and prevent the civil war which confessional diversity had caused in France and Flanders. Nevertheless, he had a hard time resisting, as he depended on the financial aid of these diets and was on the verge of bankruptcy after the wars against the Turks. In 1568, Lower Austria obtained the Religions-Konzession, which allowed the nobles to practise the Augustan confession in their possessions and provide for the parishes of their fiefdoms.131 The Papacy had few means of pressure against such concessions. Although Pius V wrote a Papal brief to the empress in the autumn of 1568 asking her to warn her husband against the ReligionsKonzession, she did not need instructions to foresee the approaching disaster for the Catholic positions.132 Maria’s actions against its implementation were not coordinated with those of the papal legate, Commendone, who had come expressly for this purpose, but with Spanish diplomacy. Philip II wrote to his brother-in-law and his sister, warning that he would not tolerate such an innovation under any circumstances. As for Maximilian, he only discussed this issue privately with his wife, while ignoring the ministers and avoiding the papal legate.133 This confessional concession was concealed by the emperor’s commitment not to raise the matter again, while Maria devoted herself to watching him closely and preventing any attempts towards that direction.134 In the case of Bohemia, there was a strong

126  Empress consort, discreet mediator

confrontation in the diet of 1571 over the granting of the same concessions, but the Protestant nobles were opposed by a united Catholic group. Their efforts, coordinated by the Archbishop of Prague, Antonin Brus, the empress, and the ambassador Monteagudo, put Maximilian II on guard, who solemnly promised not to grant anything.135 The role of the apostolic nunciature in these crucial negotiations seems to have been much more discreet than that of the Spanish embassy. In other cases, it was non-existent, as in the condemnation of Georg Eder in 1573. This professor of theology at the University of Vienna had published a harsh anti-Lutheran polemic in German, the Evangelische Inquisition, which attacked the moderate policy of Maximilian II at its root. The emperor reacted sharply: he confiscated the book and forbade Eder from publishing on religion again.136 Eder suspected that his rival, the vice-chancellor Weber, had secretly plotted against him, so that the empress and the ambassador Monteagudo could not intervene on his behalf. The attempts of Maria, Monteagudo, and Dietrichstein to liaise with Maximilian II were unsuccessful but reveal once again the empress’s style of negotiation: she ordered the two men to speak clearly to the emperor and, although she was present during the conversations, she listened without intervening.137 At no time did she appeal to the nunciature, which remained outside these domestic mediations. In matters which required the assistance of the Papacy, such as the sending of observant friars to Austria or the visitation of monasteries, the empress and her confessor only had dealings with Monteagudo and his colleague in Rome, Juan de Zúñiga, thus excluding both the imperial and papal diplomats from the negotiations.138 There was greater cooperation between the empress and the Papal authorities in supporting the Jesuits, for example, in the collection of alms for the construction of their college in Prague. The Jesuits were considered the most effective promoters of the Catholic Reformation, although the empress admitted that some of them “meddled” in political affairs.139 This distribution of roles reflected the complex status quo at the imperial court and the idea of monarchy envisaged by Philip II, who had assumed the leadership of political Catholicism in Europe

Empress consort, discreet mediator  127

and prevented the Papacy from dictating strategies and calling the shots, as it was now limited to legitimising and supporting the Catholic King.140 Maria found herself in the middle of this struggle behind the scenes, although she sided more with her brother than with the Holy Father: when the legate Commendone returned to Vienna in 1571 to secure the emperor’s participation in the Holy League against the Ottomans, the empress ignored the papal exhortations and followed the line of Spanish diplomacy.141

5.3.2 Territorial business: Landsberg, Finale, Tuscany, Poland In contrast to her interest in dynastic and religious matters, Maria had no role in other aspects which affected Philip II, such as imperial policy in the Netherlands and Italy, and lacked a legal culture that could allow her to enter into delicate questions of jurisdiction. The marriage negotiations of 1570 changed this situation and intensified Maria’s dynastic communication and the interdependence of both branches of the family. Although tensions and divergent interests persisted, they were resolved through increased collaboration (or imperial subordination, according to Venetian diplomats), thanks to the indisputable mediation of Empress Maria.142 This shift is particularly notable with regard to the most sensitive aspect of Philip II’s reign, the rebellion in the Netherlands. This monumental crisis sanctioned, alongside the contemporary French civil wars, the transition from small-scale confessional unrest to unrestrained radicalism. Philip II did not explore avenues of negotiation in the aftermath of the iconoclast attacks of 1566, as did Catherine de’ Medici in France, but reaffirmed his jurisdictional rights with rigour. In 1567–1568, the confinement and subsequent death of Prince Carlos and the death of Isabel of Valois postponed sine die the royal trip to Brussels to restore order. Instead, Philip sent the rigid Duke of Alba as captain general, who, in the face of a formally organised rebellion in 1567, quickly lost control of the situation with his tactics of punishment and mercy.143 The imperial court struggled not to rush into the polarisation and entrenchment encouraged by Philip II. The role of the empress

128  Empress consort, discreet mediator

in these early stages of the Flemish crisis was marginal.144 This, however, changed after 1570 due to a direct order by Philip II: to be accepted into the Landsberg League. This alliance of imperial princes had begun with Ferdinand I in Bavaria and Salzburg in 1556 with a supra-confessional character and aimed at maintaining peace in the Empire. Philip II reinterpreted it for his own benefit: his Dutch territories made him an imperial prince, and therefore he demanded the help of his peers against the rebels, who were allied with foreign powers (the French Huguenots).145 Philip II appealed to the empress in spring 1570 to “bring the emperor to his senses” regarding the entry of the Netherlands into the League.146 The ambassadors Chantonnay and Venegas provided her with information, and she was given autonomy to make any arrangements she believed necessary with her husband, although not with her brothers-in-law in Bavaria. Her influence, however, was minimal, both because Maximilian and his advisers were fully aware that the expansion of the League was against their most fundamental interests and because of Maria’s lack of details on the matter.147 Therefore, in October 1571, she changed her domestic tactics to those she used when she failed to deal with her husband: winning over his advisers with gifts, especially the high steward, Trautson, and the imperial vice-chancellor, Weber. Monteagudo defended these obvious bribes, but neither Alba nor Philip II was willing to take such a risk. The issue was left unresolved: every time the empress exerted pressure, Maximilian was more courteous and made vague statements of good will, but without giving an inch.148 The change in the empress’s activism from 1570 onwards was visible in other political affairs in which she had not previously been involved, such as the two Italian crises: the granting of the title of Grand Duke of Tuscany to the Duke of Florence and the occupation of Finale. Finale Ligure was a fiefdom near Genoa taken in 1571 by the Milanese troops of Philip II disregarding Maximilian II’s imperial rights. Maria acted as an arbitrator between her husband and her brother in this “dark business” to ensure that the tension did not overflow the cordial channels of dynastic communication. In the end, an irreparable confrontation was avoided and Philip II was prevented from imposing his will without resistance.

Empress consort, discreet mediator  129

He was subjected to long negotiations which guaranteed the authority of his brother-in-law and that the garrison stationed in Finale would be under imperial authority, despite being paid for by the king.149 The empress was also actively involved in the crisis over the granting of the title of Grand Duke of Tuscany to Cosimo I, Duke of Florence. This concession, which was made by Pope Pius V in August 1569, challenged the emperor’s prerogatives over one of his feudatories and questioned Spanish arbitration in the Italian peninsula. The dispute did not originate from within the House of Austria but from the need to respond to papal aggression and Florentine ambition. Yet, there were few options for action in view of the fait accompli and the will of Cosimo I to maintain a collaboration with the House of Austria.150 The empress’s reading of the events was confessionalist. She did not regret so much the damage to the imperial authority as to the pontifical prestige, which made it more difficult for the Catholics of the Empire to obey the pope and form a single front. As in the crisis of Finale, her greatest concern was to prevent Maximilian from breaking or endangering relations, in this case with the Papacy. Maria acted as a Catholic empress, who apparently did not follow direct instructions from the pope, the emperor, or the king of Spain, but was determined to preserve unity among these three parties and strengthen their joint action on pressing fronts.151 Despite maintaining communication with Rome, she was concerned about the jurisdictional blow to the Empire, which affected less the Spanish authorities. Her information on this matter came mainly from Maximilian and Dietrichstein, whom she considered credible sources, while she reproached the Spanish ambassadors for their weak defence of imperial jurisdiction.152 Despite Cosimo I’s coronation as grand duke by the pope in Rome in 1570, both Philip II and Maximilian II refused to recognise the new title and the problem festered for years. The empress, unhappy with her brother’s indifference, suggested to him possible diplomatic solutions to maintain the authority of the House of Austria without losing the alliance of Cosimo I, such as granting him an alternative title to that of the Grand Duke of Florence or

130  Empress consort, discreet mediator

the Grand Duke in Tuscany. Her exhortations to her husband and her brother to end this sterile dispute with two valuable allies (the Papacy and the Medici) were presented as her own ideas for concord. It is possible, however, that they were a scheme devised by the imperial couple, by which Maximilian secured his reputation, while Maria pushed Philip II to take the initiative and risk his prestige through her role as a peaceful intercessor.153 There was another avenue of female mediation to mitigate the crisis, but it quickly proved ineffective. The daughter-in-law of Cosimo I, wife of his heir Francesco de’ Medici, was Giovanna of Austria, the emperor’s sister. Unlike Maria in Vienna, Giovanna did not enjoy such a wide room for manoeuvre in Florence nor the trust of her husband and was tainted by suspicions of lobbying for the imperial family.154 Maria attempted to use this family connection to unravel the tangle. Upon the death of Cosimo I in 1574, the new grand duke and duchess were her brother- and sister-in-law, Francis I and Giovanna of Austria, who had to be urgently integrated into the dynastic orbit. She therefore suggested that Maximilian II and Philip II should accept the grand-ducal title by presenting it as a favour to Giovanna through the intercession of the empress, a female and familial way to end the crisis without compromising the honour of men, though it was suspected that Maximilian himself had dictated this plan. The Marquis of Los Vélez, extraordinary ambassador in the Empire, approved of this solution, and Philip II relaxed his rigid attitude. Maximilian II finally granted the use of the title in January 1576, after receiving all necessary assurances.155 The last political issue in which the empress consort was involved was the succession of the Polish crown (1573–1575). It was a complex diplomatic episode in which Maria openly participated with great freedom of action, since by defending the candidacy of her son Ernst for the Polish throne she was fulfilling her maternal duty to seek the best prospects for her children. The destiny of her second son, Ernst, had not been decided yet, while the first-born Rudolf had been crowned King of Bohemia and Hungary and was bound for the imperial throne. His brothers Albert and Wenzel were carving out futures for themselves in Madrid.

Empress consort, discreet mediator  131

The Polish option seemed a low-risk way to establish another star in the courtly constellation of the Habsburgs. It was an elective crown which, after the death of Sigismund II in 1572, the last king of the Jagiellonian dynasty, offered a truly open elective process. Ernst’s candidacy, backed by the House of Austria, was opposed by Henry of Valois, brother of Charles IX of France. Henry’s triumph was ephemeral: he ruled as King of Poland only for six months, before hastening to Paris upon the death of Charles IX in May 1574 and abandoning the kingdom. In the second election for the throne, Ernst was again defeated, this time by the Transylvanian voivode, István Báthory.156 On both occasions, Maria displayed a marked ability for leadership and initiative, promoting Ernst’s candidacy before the Spanish authorities. Philip II welcomed expansion and promised financial and diplomatic support. He granted a substantial loan of 100,000 escudos and sent his extraordinary ambassador in the Empire, Pedro Fajardo (future Marquis of Los Vélez), to accompany the imperial representatives, Pernstein and Rosenberg, both clients of the empress, to Warsaw for the royal election.157 Maximilian II refused to use Spanish money to win hearts and minds in Poland, perhaps not so much out of pride as because he knew that his son’s election over the French candidate was almost impossible. In any case, the empress sprang into action on her own and, through notes and private meetings with Monteagudo, requested the largest amount possible on behalf of Fajardo. Although she claimed to act without her husband’s knowledge, Monteagudo suspected that the couple had carefully designed their strategy, so that the emperor would not lower himself to ask for Spanish help.158 Arrangements were quickly made for the Milanese businessman Constantino Magno to set out from Vienna with 40,000 florins, but he arrived too late for the election. Fajardo, who reported his mission directly to Maria, blamed the imperial ambassadors for the lack of determination and for not giving him any scope for action.159 In the second election (1574–1575), Maria was careful to avoid setbacks. As soon as the death of Charles IX of France (who left her daughter, Elisabeth of Austria, a widow) became known, the imperial couple began to prepare Ernst’s candidacy. As in the previous

132  Empress consort, discreet mediator

election, Maria asked Philip II for money in her own name, although Monteagudo came “to understand from the conversation that the emperor was the one proposing this through the empress.”160 After the last failure, Philip II refused to grant the 90,000 escudos that his sister requested. Maria, however, had been receiving money for decades by means of fait accompli and sought the amount in every possible way: pawning her income in Naples, asking Monteagudo to take a personal loan, and involving again Constantino Magno with the implicit promise that Philip II would grant honours to his family in Milan. Monteagudo took part in the empress’s activism and urged the Magno family to join the operation, while the king insisted that no more would be paid.161 In spring 1575, Philip II sent 30,000 florins, which were soon spent. The situation was so pressing that the empress had to ask for more funds, while the vice-chancellor, Weber, requested the extension of the loan on behalf of the emperor. In Vienna, both the imperial couple and the ministers blamed Philip II for indifference and stinginess. The king viewed such a complex enterprise with scepticism and preferred to focus on the Dutch front, which was on the verge of collapse. In August 1575, the empress sent Constantino Magno to Poland at her own risk with 100,000 florins to win over the electors, compromising Philip II’s treasury and forcing Monteagudo to follow her orders rather than those of the king.162 The outcome was paradoxical: in December 1575, the majority of the Polish Senate proclaimed Emperor Maximilian II king, while part of it chose Báthory. Maximilian’s intention was not to accept the throne but hand it over to his son. The imperial ministers doubted that the election would be ratified, but the empress, Monteagudo, and Pernstein strongly pressed the emperor not to abandon the effort. However, unlike Maximilian, Báthory quickly travelled to Poland, married Anna Jagiellon, sister of the last local king, and was crowned on 1 May 1576, thus putting an end to the Polish adventure.163 In the wake of these events, Maria was left with substantial debts. Monteagudo had acted beyond Philip II’s orders, following the empress’s authority. The Magno, whose loan was fundamental for the embassy and the liquidity of the empress’s household, had also been

Empress consort, discreet mediator  133

compromised. Phillip II and his ministers washed their hands of these obligations, especially because they were not satisfied with the support they had received from the imperial court in the Landsberg League and the Finale affair. Monteagudo had no alternative than to obey the empress’s demands, therefore losing his leverage in other matters.164 Nevertheless, Philip II eventually came to his sister’s aid and paid off the debt she had contracted for this failed campaign with 50,000 ducats, despite being on the verge of bankruptcy, which he finally declared in September 1576. The money was not sent to the emperor, who had maintained an ambiguous stance throughout the process, but to Maria. The precedent of the king rescuing financially the emperor was thus avoided through the offer of help between brother and sister. However, the payment was delayed for six years and left the Magno on the brink of bankruptcy despite the pleas of Maria, who felt enormous guilt.165 The Polish question established Maria as a figure with a distinct and active voice in the imperial court, who abandoned all moderation and subjection to her male relatives when the progress of her children was at stake. Her intense work of raising money to defend Ernst’s candidacy allowed her husband to obtain funds without risking his reputation, although the empress went beyond what was beneficial for Maximilian. As was also the case with the management of her household, the key issue was that, despite complaints and delays, Phillip II always came to her financial rescue in order not to lose such a powerful asset at the imperial court. However, the settlement of the Polish debts did not inaugurate a period of tranquillity for the empress since his husband’s health was deteriorating from an illness which would eventually lead to his death. On 12 October 1576, Maximilian II died in the same state of confessional ambiguity in which he had lived: he refused to confess and receive Holy Communion during more than a month of agony, and in his last moments he only made a generic profession of faith before his Catholic preacher, Gruter. Maria’s most important endeavour in the Empire had met with resounding failure: she was not able to move her firm husband an inch, not even by delegating the task to others, such as her sister-in-law, Anna of Austria, Duchess of Bavaria, the ambassador Monteagudo, or the courtiers

134

Empress consort, discreet mediator

Dietrichstein, Harrach, and Trautson. Maximilian bade farewell to the papal legate with evasions, and the preacher Gruter entered his chamber against his will. Maria barely moved from her dying husband’s bed for weeks, but he died while she was at Mass. The shock of losing her husband unconfessed and in her absence left a long-lasting mark on the dowager empress.166 After almost three decades of marriage, Maria’s role in dynastic politics was determined by the relationships established through her bonds with Maximilian. Her husband, through a mixture of personal affection and a reluctantly acknowledged necessity of Spanish support for his Imperial plans, had allowed her to enjoy a wide room for manoeuvre in arranging her imperial household, the education of their children, and the autonomy of several Catholic clerics. Although Maria strove in vain to obtain a clear Catholic profession of faith from Maximilian, she was more successful in other fields and, combining insistence and dissimulation, managed to form an active and well-coordinated working couple. However, it remains unclear to what extent Maria advanced a personal line of action or secretly coordinated with Maximilian. Her political experience, therefore, heavily relied on the support of her beloved husband. Without him, a path full of uncertainty opened before her.

Notes 1 Relation… Zuan Michiel, Fiedler, Relationen, 237. 2 Puntos que S. M. mandó que se tratasen cuando estuviese en Guadalupe, 04/01/1570, CODOIN, 103:412. In general, see Fichtner, Emperor Maximilian II, 116–118. 3 Stephan Gerlach, Tage-Buch (Franckfurt am Mayn: Zunner, 1674), 277. 4 On working couples, Heide Wunder, He Is the Sun, She Is the Moon: Women in Early Modern Germany (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), 68–70. 5 Account of the wedding of Archduke Karl, Vienna, 27/08/1571, AGS, E, 666, n. 109, 1r–1v; Karner, Die Wiener Hofburg, 129, 498–500. 6 Maximilian II to Albert V of Bavaria, 11/10/1562, 10/1563, and 10/12/1565, BayHStA, Kurbayern Äußeres Archiv, 4461, 127 and 203 and Bibl, Die Korrespondenz, I, 334; Maria of Austria to Philip II, Vienna, 18/12/1573, AGS, E, 669, n. 114. 7 Monteagudo to Philip II, Speyer, 22/07/1570 and 10/10/1570, CODOIN, 110:39 and AGS, E, 664, n. 100, 2v; Andrew Thomas,

Empress consort, discreet mediator

8

9 10 11 12 13 14

15

16 17

18 19 20

135

A House Divided: Wittelsbach Confessional Court Cultures in the Holy Roman Empire, C. 1550–1650 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 161–162. Monteagudo to Philip II, Vienna, 28/02/1573, CODOIN, 111:159– 160; Maria of Austria to Anna of Denmark, Electress of Saxony, 1574, HHStA, FK A, 31–2–3, 21r; Relación del suceso de la jornada a la villa de Tressen [Dresden], 1575, AGS, E, 672, n. 57; Keller, “Les réseaux féminins,” 169–175; Marek, Pernštejnské ženy, 111, 128. Hengerer, “Access at the Court,” 124–128, 140–144, 147–148. Nuncio Hosius to Cardinal Borromeo, Vienna, 25/11/1560, NBD, 2/1:167. Karner, Die Wiener Hofburg, 253, 435. Monteagudo to Philip II, Vienna, 14/05/1573 and 19/01/1572, CODOIN, 111:228 and CX, 349. Tron to the Doge of Venice, Vienna, 10/12/1575 and 17/12/1575, ASVe, DS, Germania, 5, 116r–v and 125r. Nuncio Dolfin to Cardinal Gallio, Prague, 24/07/1575 and 15/08/1575, NBD, 3/8:244 and 279; Tron to the Doge of Venice, Prague, 01/05/1575, ASVe, DS, Germania, 5, 32r. Monteagudo to Zúñiga, Vienna, 22/01/1574, BGe, Favre, XIX, 19v; Chantonnay to Philip II, Augsburg, 01/03/1566, AGS, E, 655, n. 26. The first lady of the bedchamber, María de Cardona, collaborated with the ambassador as much as she “talked on” with court confidants of the Venetian ambassador. Chantonnay to Philip II, Vienna, 13/02/1567, CODOIN, 101:159; Giovanni Micheli to the Doge of Venice, Vienna, 13/11/1567, Turba, Venetianische Depeschen, 3:414–416. Monteagudo to Philip II, Vienna, 14/05/1573, CODOIN, 111:232– 233. Maria’s quarters in the Vienese Hof burg consisted of four rooms: a great hall, a multi-purpose room, a dining room, and a bedroom. Karner, Die Wiener Hofburg, 109. Dietrichstein to Maximilian II, Madrid, 29/06/1564, Strohmeyer, Der Briefwechsel, 227. Friedrich Edelmayer, Söldner und Pensionäre: das Netzwerk Philipps II. im Heiligen Römischen Reich (Wien: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik, 2002), 61–70; Fernand Donnet, “Flaminio Garnier, sa Famille et son Monument dans l’église du Sablon à Bruxelles,” Annales de la Société royale d’archéologie de Bruxelles 25 (1911): 163–167; Eloy Hortal Muñoz, Los asuntos de Flandes. Las relaciones entre las Cortes de la Monarquía Hispánica y de los Países Bajos durante el siglo XVI (Saarbrücken: EAE, 2011), 146–147. Philip II to Chantonnay, Madrid, 06/09/1564, in Viktor Bibl, ed., Die Korrespondenz Maximilians II., vol. 1 (Wien: A. Holzhausen, 1916), 17. Chantonnay to Cardinal Granvelle, Vienna, 17/11/1565, in Charles Weiss, ed., Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle, vol. 9 (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1852), 672–673. Maria of Austria to Philip II, Vienna, 03/09/1573, Galende and Salamanca, Epistolario de la emperatriz, 245. José Martínez Millán, “Familia real y grupos políticos: La princesa Doña Juana de Austria

136

21

22 23 24 25

26

27

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

Empress consort, discreet mediator

(1535–1573),” in La corte de Felipe II, ed. José Martínez Millán (Madrid: Alianza, 1994), 73–106; Martínez Millán, “Factions,” 109–129. Chantonnay to Philip II, Prague, 08/03/1567, AGS, E, 657, n. 24; Maria of Austria to Chantonnay, 17/12/1566, AGS, E, 654, n. 22; Chantonnay to Philip II, Vienna, 09/07/1567, CODOIN, 101:244. Edelmayer, Söldner und Pensionäre, 71–74. The two ambassadors wrote to their respective patrons seeking instructions: Chantonnay to Alba, Vienna, 09/03/1568, AGS, E, 658, n. 41; Venegas to Philip II, Vienna, 23/11/1568, CODOIN, 103:52. Chantonnay to the Duke of Alburquerque and Gómez Suárez de Figueroa, Vienna, 29/07/1569, AGS, E, 661, n. 11. Venegas to Philip II, Vienna, 30/03/1568, CODOIN, 101:410; Philip II to Venegas, Madrid, 27/10/1569, CODOIN, 103:313. Philip II to Maria of Austria, Aranjuez, 16/01/1570, CODOIN, 103:415. In general, see Camilo Abad, “Un embajador español en la Corte de Maximiliano II: don Francisco Hurtado de Mendoza (1570–1576),” Miscelánea Comillas 43 (1965): 23–94. Monteagudo to General Mercuriano SJ, Regensburg, 30/09/1576, ARSI, Ep. Ext., 28, 18v. Fernando Bouza, “Docto y devoto. La biblioteca del Marqués de Almazán y Conde de Monteagudo (Madrid, 1591),” in Hispania-Austria II. Die Epoche Philipps II (1556–1598), ed. Friedrich Edelmayer (Wien: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik, 1999), 258–276. Monteagudo to Gabriel de Zayas, Prague, 20/08/1575, AGS, E, 673, n. 111, 4r; Marek, La embajada española, 91–92; Almudena Pérez de Tudela, “La reina Anna de Austria (1549–1580), su imagen y su colección artística,” in Martínez Millán and Lourenço, Las relaciones discretas, 3:1564. Monteagudo to Alba, Speyer, 26/08/1570, AGS, E, 664, n. 17, 7v; Monteagudo to Philip II, Speyer, 10/10/1570 and Vienna, 20/06/1574, AGS, E, 664, n. 100 and 671, n. 101, 2r–2v. Instrucciones al conde de Monteagudo, Madrid, 12/01/1570, CODOIN, 110:8–9. Monteagudo to Philip II, Speyer, 02/08/1570, CODOIN, 110:45– 47; Monteagudo to Philip II, Vienna, 18/08/1571, CODOIN, 110:305–307. Memorial y recuerdo a SM sobre las cosas del conde de Monteagudo, 1575, AGS, E, 673, n. 12, 3v–4r. Thiessen, Diplomatie und Patronage, 221–228. Dietrichstein to Maximilian II, Madrid, 29/06/1564, Strohmeyer, Der Briefwechsel, 227. Edelmayer, “Honor y dinero,” 98–99, 105. Chantonnay to Philip II, Vienna, 18/07/1569, CODOIN, 103:232. Dietrichstein to Maximilian II, Madrid, 23/12/1565, Strohmeyer, Der Briefwechsel, 476. Luis Fernández, “Pensiones a favor de eclesiásticos extranjeros cargadas sobre las diócesis de la Corona de Castilla,” Hispania 128 (1974): 509–577; Rubén González Cuerva and Pavel Marek, “The Dynastic

Empress consort, discreet mediator

36

37 38

39

40

41

42

43 44 45

46

137

Network between the Imperial and the Spanish Courts (1556–1619),” in González Cuerva and Koller, A Europe of Courts, 130–155. Chantonnay to Philip II, Augsburg, 19/03/1566, AGS, E, 655, n. 31, 2v–3v; Monteagudo to Philip II, Vienna, 05/04/1572 and 30/11/1572, AGS, E, 667, n. 78, 4r–4v and CODOIN, 111:67–68. Maximilian Lanzinner, “Geheime Räte und Berater Kaiser Maximilians II. (1564–1576),” Mitteilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung 102 (1994): 298, 301–310. Maria of Austria to Philip II, 29/11/1570, Galende and Salamanca, Epistolario de la emperatriz, 200. Fulton, Catholic Belief, 27–28. Instrucciones al conde de Monteagudo, Madrid, 12/01/1570, CODOIN, 110:9; Maria of Austria to Juana of Austria, Vienna, 08/09/1573, Galende and Salamanca, Epistolario de la emperatriz, 248–250; Maria of Austria to María de Castilla, Vienna, 12/09/1573, ibid., 258. Philip II to Luna, Madrid, 28/01/1562, CODOIN, 98:289; Venegas to Philip II, Vienna, 28/07/1568 and 22/11/1568, CODOIN, 101:467–468 and CODOIN, 103:42; Maria of Austria to Philip II, Vienna, 13/02/1572, CODOIN, 110:371. Monteagudo to Philip II, Speyer, 30/10/1570, CODOIN, 110:103; Nuncio Dolfin to Cardinal Gallio, Prague, 05/06/1575, NBD, 3/8:184–185; Nuncio Malaspina to Cardinal Gallio, Prague, 27/09/1580, NBD, 3/10:371. Gratie che si supp.ca a Sua S.tà conceda alli grani, o Ave Maria, che da parte della Regina di Bohemia se le presentano, 1561, MZA, RADM, 423, 1898/163, 25r; Indulgençias conçedidas por nuestro muy sancto padre Pío quarto, Gregorio déçimo terçio y Sisto quinto…, 1605, RB, MD/F/149, 1r–3v. Maria of Austria to the imperial ambassador Federico Madruzzo, Madrid [sic], 31/08/1564, Archivo Histórico de la Nobleza, Luque, 185, n. 146; Maria of Austria to Cardinal Borromeo, Vienna, 19/06/1565, HHStA, HA, Sammelbände, 1/1, 294r; Maria of Austria to Jerónimo Nadal SJ, Vienna, 07/07/1572, ARSI, Ep. Ext., 27, 141r; Alexander Koller, “La facción española y los nuncios en la corte de Maximiliano II y de Rodolfo II. Maria de Austria y la confesionalización católica del Imperio,” in Martínez Millán and González Cuerva, La dinastía de los Austria, 1:119–123. Monteagudo to Zúñiga, Vienna, 06/11/1574, BGe, Favre, XIX, 45r; Juan Ruiz de Azagra to Dietrichstein, Rome, 26/03/1575, MZA, RADM, 421, 1898/1, 11r. Maximilian II to Pius IV, Vienna, 23/10/1561, HHStA, HA, Sammelbände, 1/1, 162r–163v; Pius IV to Maria of Austria, Rome, 12/12/1561, NBD, 2/1:330. Pius V to Maria of Austria, Rome, 06/04/1566, in Wilhelm E. Schwarz, ed., Briefe und Akten zur Geschichte Maximilians II. (Paderborn: Bonifacius-Druckerei, 1889), 1:21; Monteagudo to Philip II, Prague, 22/05/1571, AGS, E, 666, n. 93; Azagra to Wolfgang Rumpf, Rome, 06/12/1576, MZA, RADM, 421, 1898/1, 14r. Philip II to Maria of Austria, Madrid, 18/10/1573, AGS, E, 669, n. 97.

138

Empress consort, discreet mediator

47 Maria of Austria to the Duke of Alcalá, Vienna, 19/06/1565, HHStA, HA, Sammelbände, 1/1, 293v; Maria of Austria to the Marquis of Mondéjar, Mělník, 03/07/1572, RAH, CSyC, M-1, 15r; Maria of Austria to Luis Magno, Prague, 17/08/1575, AGS, E, 673, n. 100. 48 Ceñal Lorente, “La emperatriz María,” 404, 407; Maria of Austria to Granvelle, Vienna, 09/09/1560, RB, II/2291, 241r; Maria of Austria to Alba, Vienna, 09/03/1569 and Bratislava, 13/10/1569, Galende and Salamanca, Epistolario de la emperatriz, 168 and 173. 49 Chantonnay to Philip II, Augsburg, 31/05/1566, AGS, E, 655, n. 45, 7r; Chantonnay to Alba, Vienna, 03/01/1568, AGS, E, 658, n. 26, 3v–4r. The eighteen letters of recommendation to Alba, in Galende and Salamanca, Epistolario de la emperatriz, 160–242. 50 The eleven recommendations of the empress to the governor Alburquerque (1568–1570) in AGS, E, 659, n. 42–48, 660, n. 81, and 663, n. 55–56. 51 Venegas to Philip II, Vienna, 30/09/1567, CODOIN, 101:290; Gebke, “Auf den Spuren,” 43–44. 52 Chantonnay to Philip II, Vienna, 20/09/1567, CODOIN, 101:276. 53 John Watkins, After Lavinia: A Literary History of Premodern Marriage Diplomacy (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2017), 121; Manuel Rivero, La monarquía de los Austrias (Madrid: Alianza, 2017), 187–188. 54 Nuncio Delfino to Cardinal Borromeo, Prague, 19/01/1562, NBD, 2/3:12–13. 55 Maximilian II to Philip II, Vienna, 01/11/1567, CODOIN, 101:304; Venegas to Philip II, Bratislava, 19/07/1567, AGS, E, 656, n. 11, 3v. 56 Fichtner, Ferdinand I, 236–240. 57 Maximilian II to Dietrichstein, Vienna, before 11/09/1565, Strohmeyer, Der Briefwechsel, 422; Chantonnay to Philip II, Javarino [Györ], 22/09/1566, AGS, E, 655, n. 61, 2v. 58 Chantonnay to Philip II, Vienna, 25/10/1565, AGS, E, 653, n. 52, 7v; Philip II to Chantonnay, Madrid, 03/02/1567, CODOIN, 101:147–148; Venegas to Philip II, Vienna, 12/06/1568, CODOIN, 101:436–437. 59 Maria of Austria to Philip II, Vienna, 15/09/1567, AGS, E, 657, n. 87; Juana of Austria to Chantonnay, Madrid, 26/09/1567, AGS, E, 656, n. 76; Venegas to Philip II, Vienna, 30/09/1567, CODOIN, 101:285–289. 60 Venegas to Philip II, Vienna, 30/09/1567 and 28/07/1568, CODOIN, 101:284–285 and 461–463. Parker, by contrast, mentions this episode in terms of espionage and leaking. Geoffrey Parker, Imprudent King: A New Life of Philip II (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2014), 158. 61 Venegas to Philip II, Vienna, 30/09/1567 and 14/10/1567, CODOIN, 101:284–285 and 292; Philip II to Chantonnay, Madrid, 28/01/1568, CODOIN, 101:357. Maria’s orders in Rome arrived ahead of those of Philip II: Michael J. Levin, Agents of Empire: Spanish Ambassadors in

Empress consort, discreet mediator

62 63

64 65

66 67 68 69 70 71

72 73 74 75

139

Sixteenth Century Italy (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2005), 86–87. Pedazo de carta del comendador mayor sobre lo del casamiento de Portugal, ca. 30/09/1567, CODOIN, 26:562. Parker, Imprudent King, 183–191; Juan Luis González García, “Caída y auge de don Carlos. Memorias de un príncipe inconstante, antes y después de Gachard,” in España ante sus críticos: las claves de la leyenda negra, eds. Yolanda Rodríguez Pérez, Antonio Sánchez Jiménez, and Harm den Boer (Madrid/Frankfurt am Main: Iberoamericana/Vervuert, 2015), 176–180. Maria of Austria to Philip II, Vienna, 28/02/1568, CODOIN, 101:380–381. González García, “Caída y auge de don Carlos,” 180–188; Bertrand Haan, L’amitié entre princes: une alliance franco-espagnole au temps des guerres de religion, 1560–1570 (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 2011), 141–147, 246–248. Venegas to Philip II, Vienna, 23/11/1568 and 19/02/1569, CODOIN, 103:52 and 147. Eleonore was born in Vienna on 05/11/1568. Venegas to Philip II, Vienna, 22/11/1568, CODOIN, 103:39. Philip II to Maximilian II, El Escorial, 10/03/1569, CODOIN, 103:159 and Philip II to Maria of Austria, El Escorial, 12/03/1569, CODOIN, 103:162–164. Puntos de la Junta de Cinco sobre responder a negocios de Francia y Alemania, Madrid, 05/02/1569, AGS, E, 662, n. 30, 5r. Chantonnay to Philip II, Vienna, 02/04/1569, CODOIN, 103:179. Juana of Austria to Maria of Austria, Madrid, 20/03/1569, AGS, E, 660, n. 45; Chantonnay and Venegas to Philip II, Bratislava, 12/09/1569, CODOIN, 103:272. Juana of Austria to Philip II, Madrid, 26/02/1569, AGS, E, 662, n. 97; Sebastian I to Philip II, Tomar, 26/09/1569, CODOIN, 28:551; Enrique García Hernán, “Francisco de Borja y Portugal,” A Companhia de Jesus na Península Ibérica nos sécs. XVI e XVII: espiritualidade e cultura (Porto: Universidade do Porto, 2004), 201–204, 207–208, 214, 218. Chantonnay to Philip II, Bratislava, 12/09/1569, CODOIN, 103:283; Venegas to Philip II, Vienna, 12/12/1569, AGS, E, 665, 81r. Lo que se ha platicado por los cuatro…, Madrid, 21/07/1569, AGS, E, 662, n. 31. Philip II to Chantonnay and Venegas, Madrid, 31/07/1569, CODOIN, 103:253. For a more sentimental approach to the royal plan, see Parker, Imprudent King, 158. Chantonnay and Venegas to Philip II, Bratislava, 12/09/1569, CODOIN, 103:272–278. Maria explained the reasons why it was impossible to make the trip in a letter to her sister that is only indirectly known. Philip II to Venegas, Madrid, 27/10/1569, CODOIN, 103:313.

140 Empress consort, discreet mediator

76 Venegas to Philip II, Vienna, 21/11/1569, CODOIN, 103:333. 77 Respuesta de Forquevaulx de parte del Chr.mo Rey su amo sobre los capitulos matrimoniales, 1569, AGS, E, 662, n. 123, 2v–3r; Zayas to Dietrichstein, Madrid, 09/11/1569, AGS, PR, 57, n. 2. 78 Monteagudo to Philip II, Speyer, 31/12/1570 and Prague, 17/01/1571, CODOIN, 110:140–141, 152. On the few Central Europeans who remained in her household, see Pavel Marek, “‘Tre bone amye’. Alžběta z Pernštejna pohledem korespondence Alžběty Habsburské,” in Gender History – to přece není nic pro feministky, eds. Tomáš Jiránek, Karel Rýdl, and Petr Vorel (Pardubice: Univerzita Pardubice, 2017), 31–47. 79 General Mercuriano SJ to Maria of Austria, Rome, 05/07/1573 and 07/01/1574, ARSI, Aust., 1-I, 2r and 17r; Diego de Avellaneda SJ to Philip II, Vienna, 1573, AGS, E, 669, n. 92, 2v–3r; Monteagudo to Zúñiga, Vienna, 15/01/1574, BFZ, Altamira, 72, doc. 118. 80 Maria of Austria to Lorenzo Maggio SJ, Speyer, 27/09/1570, ARSI, Ep. Ext., 27, 95r; Vratislav von Pernstein to Lorenzo Maggio SJ, Speyer, 17/10/1570, ARSI, Ep. Ext., 27, 98r; Lo que paresce que se offresce al presente cerca de la jornada que el padre doctor Avellaneda…, AGS, E, 664, n. 72, 2r. 81 Doctor Avellaneda SJ to Philip II, Luxemburg, 18/11/1570, AGS, E, 664, n. 11; Philip II to Monteagudo, ca. 12/1570, AGS, E, 680, n. 51, 1v–2r. 82 Monteagudo to Alba, Speyer, 30/08/1570, AGS, E, 664, n. 17, 11v. 83 Philip II to Venegas, Guadalupe, 08/02/1570, CODOIN, 103:438; Venegas to Philip II, Prague, 14/05/1570, CODOIN, 103:511–513. 84 Monteagudo to Philip II, Speyer, 30/10/1570 and Vienna, 05/07/1572, CODOIN, 110:105 and 472. Justina Rodríguez García and Pedro Rodríguez, “La Corte de Carlos IX de Francia: Los Advertimientos de D. Francés de Álava, embajador de Felipe II,” Espacio, tiempo y forma. Serie IV, Historia moderna 11 (1998): 111–146. 85 Maria of Austria to Philip II, Vienna, 27/12/1574, CODOIN, 111:501–502; Tron to the Doge of Venice, Prague, 20/03/1575, ASVe, DS, Germania, 5, 17r; Monteagudo to Philip II, Prague, 08/04/1575, CODOIN, 113:94; Estelle Paranque, “Elisabeth of Austria and Marie-Elisabeth of France: Represented and Remembered,” in Forgotten Queens in Medieval and Early Modern Europe: Political Agency, Myth-Making, and Patronage, eds. Valerie Schutte and Estelle Paranque (Abingdon: Routledge, 2019), 114–128. 86 Zweder von Martels, “On his Majesty’s Service. Augerius Busbequius, Courtier and Diplomat of Maximilian II,” in Edelmayer and Kohler, Kaiser Maximilian II., 179. 87 Monteagudo to Philip II, Vienna, 20/06/1574, AGS, E, 671, n. 101, 2v–3r; Luis de Requesens to Maria of Austria, Brussels, 20/06/1574, BNE, Mss., 18632/80, 1v–2v; the Countess of Arenberg to Philip II and Ana of Austria, Vienna, 26/02/1576 and 02/03/1576, AGS, E,

Empress consort, discreet mediator

88

89 90 91

92 93

94

95

96

97

141

675, n. 82; Mirella Marini, “Dynastic Relations on an International Stage: Margaret de la Marck (1527–1599) and Arenberg Family Strategy during the Dutch Revolt,” in Women, Diplomacy and International Politics since 1500, eds. Glenda Sluga and Carolyn James (Abingdon: Routledge, 2016), 52–58. Maximilian II’s response to the marriage capitulations, 1569, in CODOIN, 111:408. The emperor was very displeased with Philip II for his rejection of most of the requests he submitted to him with his daughter Ana. Relatione del nob. huomo S. Zuan Michiel cavalier ritornato ambasciator dall’Imperatore letta nell’Ill.mo Senato adì 24 novembre 1571, Fiedler, Relationen, 303. Strohmeyer, Der Briefwechsel, 87–88, 119, 318–319, 476–477; Venegas to Philip II, Vienna, 03/12/1567, CODOIN, 101:324. Maria of Austria to Philip II, Prague, 29/05/1570, Galende and Salamanca, Epistolario de la emperatriz, 181. Also, Venegas to Philip II, Prague, 14/05/1570, CODOIN, 103:511–513. Bellido to Zayas, Prague, 19/03/1571, AGS, E, 666, n. 73, 1v. See also Monteagudo to Philip II, Speyer, 30/11/1570, AGS, E, 664, n. 63. The Empress used María de Cardona, for example, to communicate discreetly with the general of the Jesuits. María de Cardona to unknown recipient, ca. 1569, ARSI, Ep. Ext., 27, 9r. Maria of Austria to Philip II, Prague, 29/05/1570, Galende and Salamanca, Epistolario de la emperatriz, 185–188; García Prieto, Una corte en femenino, 40–49. Rodríguez-Salgado, “Una perfecta princesa,” 71–98; José Martínez Millán, “La corte de Felipe II: la casa de la reina Ana,” in La monarquía de Felipe II a debate, ed. Luis Ribot García (Madrid: SECCe, 2000), 164–166. Maria of Austria to Venegas, Prague, 18/02/1573, Galende and Salamanca, Epistolario de la emperatriz, 266; Eloy Hortal Muñoz, “Organización de una Casa. El Libro de Veeduría de la reina Ana de Austria,” in Martínez Millán and Lourenço, Las relaciones discretas, 1:299. Maria of Austria to Juana of Austria, Vienna, 08/09/1573, Galende and Salamanca, Epistolario de la emperatriz, 251. Almudena Pérez de Tudela, “Algunas joyas y relicarios de la reina Ana de Austria (1549–1580),” in Estudios de platería: San Eloy 2012, ed. Jesús Rivas Carmona (Murcia: Universidad de Murcia, 2012), 456, 458, 460, 462, 464. Maria of Austria to the Duke of Medinaceli, Speyer, 28/10/1570, RAH, CSyC, A-50, 40r; Rubén González Cuerva, “Anne, Margaret and Marianne of Austria: Queens of Spain, Archduchesses of Austria and Dynastic Links,” in Braun, Keller, and Schnettger, Nur die Frau, 49–60; García Prieto, Una corte en femenino, 47, 67–81. Puntos que S. M. mandó que se tratasen cuando estuviese en Guadalupe, 04/01/1570, CODOIN, 103:412. Also, Venegas to Philip II, Vienna, 06/03/1568, CODOIN, 101:400–401.

142 Empress consort, discreet mediator

98 Philip II to Venegas, Madrid, 26/12/1569, CODOIN, 103:348; Venegas to Philip II, Speyer, 31/07/1570, CODOIN, 103:534–535; Eloy Hortal Muñoz, “The household of archduke Albert of Austria from his arrival in Madrid until his election as governor of the Low Countries: 1570–1595,” in A Constellation of Courts. The Courts and Households of Habsburg Europe, 1555–1665, eds. René Vermeir, Dries Raeymaekers, and Eloy Hortal Muñoz (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2014), 103–110, 112–114. 99 Lo que su Majestad dijo de palabra a los príncipes Rodolfo y Ernesto y a Dietristan…, Aranjuez, 28/05/1571, CODOIN, 110:241–243; Maria of Austria to Philip II, Vienna, 12/11/1572, CODOIN, 111:44–46; Maria of Austria to Philip II, Vienna, 29/11/1573, Galende and Salamanca, Epistolario de la emperatriz, 263–265. 100 Maria of Austria to Philip II, Prague, 02/03/1570, CODOIN, 103:465. 101 Monteagudo to Philip II, Speyer, 30/10/1570, CODOIN, 110:105– 106; Dietrichstein to Philip II, Madrid, 12/04/1571, AGS, E, 666, n. 54. Castro, “Confesores franciscanos,” 125–126. 102 Monteagudo to Philip II, Vienna, 06/04/1572, CODOIN, 110:431; Juan del Pino OFM, after 1571, AGS, E, 659, n. 79. 103 Rudolf II to Dietrichstein, Vienna, 30/06/1572 and 21/09/1572, MZA, RADM, 423, 1898/201, 3r and 15r; Bouza, “Docto y devoto,” 277. 104 Monteagudo to Philip II, Vienna, 05/06/1572, AGS, E, 667, n. 18, 1v–2v; Monteagudo to Philip II, Regensburg, 12/07/1576, AGS, E, 677, n. 9, 10v–11r. 105 Monteagudo to Zayas, Vienna, 13/04/1576, AGS, E, 675, n. 23, 1v– 2r. Martels, “On His Majesty’s Service,” 175–179. 106 Venegas to Philip II, Prague, 11/02/1570, CODOIN, 103:449; Noflatscher, Glaube, 65; Louthan, The Quest, 137–142. 107 Monteagudo to Philip II, Vienna, 19/01/1572, CODOIN, 110:345; Joseph Jungnitz, Martin von Gerstmann, Bischof von Breslau. Ein Zeitund Lebensbild aus der schlesischen Kirchengeschichte des 16. Jahrhunderts (Breslau: Aderholz, 1898), 28–29; Gábor Almási, The Uses of Humanism: Johannes Sambucus (1531–1584), Andreas Dudith (1533– 1589), and the Republic of Letters in East Central Europe (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 184. 108 Monteagudo to Philip II, Vienna, 25/12/1573, CODOIN, 111:349. Dietrichstein to Philip II, Vienna, 31/07/1573, AGS, E, 671, n. 164, 3v–4r. 109 Monteagudo to Philip II, Prague, 08/04/1575, CODOIN, 113:88– 89; Nuncio Dolfin to Cardinal Gallio, Prague, 04/04/1575, NBD, 3/8:114–115; Gebke, “Auf den Spuren,” 52. 110 Monteagudo to Philip II, Prague, 28/03/1575 and 29/09/1575, CODOIN, 113:86–87 and 190–191; Fichtner, Emperor Maximilian II, 114–116, 149, 210–214; Louthan, The Quest, 49–52. 111 Monteagudo to Philip II, Vienna, 14/05/1573, CODOIN, 111:232.

Empress consort, discreet mediator

143

112 Juana of Austria to Philip II, ca. 11/1568, AGS, E, 659, n. 54; Philip II to Maria of Austria, El Escorial, 12/03/1569 and Madrid, 21/07/1569, CODOIN, 103:165–166 and 244–245. 113 Maria of Austria to Philip II, before 1570, CODOIN, 111:357–359; Puntos que S. M. mandó que se tratasen cuando estuviese en Guadalupe, 04/01/1570, CODOIN, 103:411. 114 Monteagudo to Philip II, Prague, 23/04/1570, AGS, E, 666, n. 82; Maria of Austria to Philip II, 29/11/1570, Galende and Salamanca, Epistolario de la emperatriz, 204. 115 Monteagudo to Philip II, Speyer, 30/10/1570 and Vienna, 14/05/1573, CODOIN, 110:103 and 111:228; Maria of Austria to Córdoba, Vienna, 24/05/1574, AGS, E, 674, n. 123. 116 Monteagudo to Philip II, Prague, 29/04/1571, AGS, E, 666, n. 85, 1r–1v; Monteagudo to Philip II, Vienna, 16/11/1574, CODOIN, 111:490–492. 117 Monteagudo to Philip II, Prague, 29/04/1571, AGS, E, 666, n. 85, 1v; Monteagudo to Philip II, Vienna, 19/01/1572, CODOIN, 110:343; Fichtner, Emperor Maximilian II, 210. 118 González Cuerva, “Anne, Margaret and Marianne,” 60–61; Monteagudo to Philip II, Prague, 28/03/1575, CODOIN, 113:85–86. 119 Instrucción secreta para Adam von Dietrichstein, El Pardo, 06/04/1573, AGS, E, 671, n. 166; Monteagudo to Philip II, Vienna, 19/01/1572 and 10/01/1573, CODOIN, 110:342–344 and 111:99–104; Maria of Austria to Philip II, Vienna, 08/02/1572, CODOIN, 110:369. 120 Maria of Austria to Philip II, Vienna, 31/07/1573, AGS, E, 669, n. 4. Viktor Bibl, “Zur Frage der religiösen Haltung K. Maximilians II.,” Archiv für österreichische Geschichte 106 (1918): 400–402, 406–411; Edelmayer, “Honor y dinero,” 101–102. 121 Parecer de los obispos de Segovia y Cuenca y prior don Antonio de Toledo sobre lo que toca al Emperador, El Pardo, 22/01/1574, AGS, E, 671, n. 163; Monteagudo to Zayas, Vienna, 20/03/1574, AGS, E, 671, n. 144. 122 Venegas to Philip II, Vienna, 03/12/1567, CODOIN, 101:324; Gebke, “Auf den Spuren,” 46. 123 The appeals of Margarethe von Mansfeld (12/02/1574), Barbara Müller (20/05/1575), and the Carthusian province of the Rhine (03/05/1600) in HHStA, RHR, Judicialia Antiqua, 295-1, 20r–23v; RHR, Judicialia APA, 114-11, 221r–222v; and RHR, Judicialia APA, 35-11, 426r–427v. 124 Fichtner, Emperor Maximilian II, 117. 125 Venegas to Philip II, Prague, 21/01/1570, CODOIN, 103:421; Monteagudo to Philip II, Vienna, 26/06/1574, AGS, E, 671, n. 106; Nuncio Dolfin to Cardinal Gallio, Linz, 30/11/1576, NBD, 3/8:680; Alberto Badoer to the Doge of Venice, Prague, 25/04/1581, ASVe, DS, Germania, 8, 31r; Fichtner, Emperor Maximilian II, 106. 126 Robert J.W. Evans, The Making of the Habsburg Monarchy 1550–1700: An Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979), 59–61;

144

127

128

129

130 131

132 133

134 135

136 137

Empress consort, discreet mediator

Erika Rummel, The Confessionalization of Humanism in Reformation Germany (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 102–119. Diego de Avellaneda SJ to Philip II, Vienna, 1573, AGS, E, 669, n. 92, 2r. Karl Vocelka, “Kirchengeschichte,” in Die frühneuzeitliche Residenz (16. bis 18. Jahrhundert), eds. Karl Vocelka and Anita Traninger (Wien: Böhlau, 2003), 311–321. Maria of Austria to Philip II, Vienna, 12/10/1573, CODOIN, 111:321. Maria of Austria to Philip II, Vienna, 25/05/1573, CODOIN, 111:247. Contrition for worldliness and wickedness was commonplace among Catholics at the time; see Teresa de Jesús, Libro de la vida, 3, 5, 54–55. Maria of Austria to General Mercuriano SJ, Vienna, 15/11/1574, ARSI, Ep. Ext., 27, 241r; Maria of Austria to Philip II, Vienna, 07/09/1574, CODOIN, 111:459; Karner, Die Wiener Hofburg, 241–242. Axel Gotthard, Der Augsburger Religionsfrieden (Münster: Aschendorff, 2004), 212–220, 292–314. Arno Strohmeyer, Konfessionskonflikt und Herrschaftsordnung: Widerstandsrecht bei den österreichischen Standen (1550–1650) (Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 2006), 67; Elaine Fulton, “Mutual Aid: The Jesuits and the Courtier in Sixteenth-Century Vienna,” in Communities of Devotion: Religious Orders and Society in East Central Europe, 1450–1800, eds. Maria Craciun and Elaine Fulton (Farnham: Ashgate, 2011), 175–178. Pius V to Maria of Austria, Rome, 05/11/1568, AAV, Armadio XLIV, 18, 237r. Philip II to Maria of Austria, Madrid, 17/10/1568, AGS, E, 659, n. 58; Venegas to Philip II, Vienna, 23/11/1568, CODOIN, 103:52. For Maria’s collaboration with the nuncio Biglia, see Tomáš Černušák and Pavel Marek, Gesandte und Klienten. Die päpstlichen und spanischen Diplomaten im Umfeld des Kaiserhofs Rudolfs II. (Stuttgart: De Gruyter, 2020), 64–65. Philip II to Maria of Austria, Madrid, 02/03/1569, CODOIN, 103:156; Para consultar con Su Majestad, Madrid, 10/07/1569, AGS, E, 662, n. 34. Monteagudo to Philip II, Prague, 22/05/1571 and 26/06/1571, AGS, E, 666, n. 94 and 102; Nuncio Dolfin to Cardinal Gallio, Prague, 20/03/1575, NBD, 3/8:105; Jaroslav Pánek, “Maximilian II. als König von Böhmen,” in Edelmayer and Kohler, Kaiser Maximilian II., 66–68. Fulton, Catholic Belief, ch. 4; Allyson F. Creasman, Censorship and Civic Order in Reformation Germany, 1517–1648: ‘Printed Poison & Evil Talk’ (Farnham: Ashgate, 2012), 112–114. Monteagudo to Philip II, Vienna, 18/10/1573, CODOIN, 111:335– 339; Maria of Austria to Philip II, Vienna, 29/11/1573, Galende and Salamanca, Epistolario de la emperatriz, 263–265; Georg Eder to Duke

Empress consort, discreet mediator

138

139

140

141 142 143

144

145

146 147 148

145

Albert V of Bavaria, Vienna, 11/12/1573, in Karl Schrauf, ed., Der Reichshofrath Dr. Georg Eder (Wien: Holzhausen, 1904), 59. Monteagudo to Philip II, Vienna, 18/08/1571, CODOIN, 110:305– 306; Monteagudo to Zúñiga, Vienna, 22/05/1574, BFZ, Altamira, 72, doc. 123; Joseph Patrouch, “The Investiture Controversy Revisited: Religious Reform, Emperor Maximilian II, and the Klosterrat,” Austrian History Yearbook 25 (1994): 59–77. Maria of Austria to Philip II, Vienna, 10/07/1574, CODOIN, 111:443; Nuncio Dolfin to Cardinal Gallio, Prague, 22/05/1575 and 03/07/1575 and Vienna, 25/02/1576 and 26/05/1576, NBD, 3/8:162, 215, 500 and 585–586; Fulton, “Mutual Aid,” 180. José Martínez Millán, “El triunfo de Roma. Las relaciones entre el Papado y la Monarquía Católica durante el siglo XVII,” in Centros de poder italianos en la monarquía hispánica (siglos XV-XVIII), eds. José Martínez Millán and Manuel Rivero (Madrid: Polifemo, 2010), 1:549–682. Relatione del nob. huomo S. Zuan Michiel, 1571, Fiedler, Relationen, 303; Maria of Austria to Philip II, Vienna, 16/01/1572, Galende and Salamanca, Epistolario de la emperatriz, 233. Relatione del nob. huomo S. Zuan Michiel, 1571, Fiedler, Relationen, 301–302; Monteagudo to Philip II, Vienna, 18/04/1573, CODOIN, 111:201. Wayne P. Te Brake, Religious War and Religious Peace in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 93–95; Gustaaf Janssens, “The Duke of Alba: Governor of the Netherlands in Times of War,” in Alba. General and Servant to the Crown, eds. Maurits Ebben, Margriet Lacy-Bruijn, and Rolof van Hövelle tot Westerflier (Rotterdam: Karawansaray, 2013), 90–115. Chantonnay to Alba, Vienna, 29/09/1567, AGS, E, 656, n. 21; Venegas to Philip II, Vienna, 30/09/1567, CODOIN, 101:287; Lanzinner, “Geheime Räte,” 306–308; Joachim Whaley, Germany and the Holy Roman Empire, vol. 1 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 343–348, 372–373. Maximilian Lanzinner, “Der Landsberger Bund und seine Vorläufer,” in Alternativen zur Reichsverfassung in der Frühen Neuzeit?, ed. Volker Press (München: Oldenbourg, 1995), 72–73; Friedrich Edelmayer, “El ducado de Baviera en la red clientelar de Felipe II en el Sacro Imperio,” in Felipe II (1598–1998), Europa y la Monarquía católica, ed. José Martínez Millán (Madrid: Parteluz, 1998), 1:178–179. Philip II to Venegas, Córdoba, 20/03/1570, CODOIN, 103:467. Chantonnay to Alba, Prague, 04/03/1570, AGS, E, 663, n. 57; Venegas to Philip II, Prague, 14/05/1570, CODOIN, 103:517. Monteagudo to Philip II, Regensburg, 24/10/1575, CODOIN, 113:223. Monteagudo to Philip II, Prague, 19/03/1571, AGS, E, 666, n. 74, 2r, 5r; Monteagudo to Alba, Vienna, 22/10/1571, AGS, E, 666, n. 121.

146 Empress consort, discreet mediator

149 Maria of Austria to Requesens, Vienna, 21/09/1573, AGS, E, 678, n. 80; Friedrich Edelmayer, Maximilian II., Philipp II. und Reichsitalien. Die Auseinandersetzungen um das Reichslehen Finale in Ligurien (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1988), 61–73, 125–130. 150 Alessandra Contini, “La concessione del titolo di granduca e la ‘coronazione’ di Cosimo I fra papato e Impero (1569–1572),” in L’Impero in Italia nella prima età moderna. Reichsitalien in der frühen Neuzeit, eds. Matthias Schnettger and Marcello Verga (Bologna: Il Mulino, 2006), 417–438; Levin, Agents of Empire, 89–93. 151 Viktor Bibl, Die Erhebung Herzog Cosimos von Medici zum Grossherzog von Toscana und kaiserliche Anerkennung (1569–1576) (Wien: Alfred Hölder, 1911), 88, 96; Koller, “Maria von Spanien,” 91. 152 Venegas to Philip II, Prague, 25/03/1570 and 14/05/1570, CODOIN, 103:474 and 518; Monteagudo to Philip II, Speyer, 30/08/1570, CODOIN, 110:61–62. 153 Monteagudo to Philip II, Vienna, 23/08/1572, AGS, E, 668, n. 21; Maria of Austria to Philip II, Vienna, 04/06/1573, CODOIN, 111:249. 154 Monteagudo to Philip II, Vienna, 02/05/1572, AGS, E, 667, n. 91, 3v; Ferrari, “Kinship and the Marginalized Consort,” 57–59. 155 Philip II to Hans Khevenhüller and Rumpf, Madrid, 08/12/1575, HHStA, SDK, 9/8, 8v–9r; Monteagudo to Zayas, Vienna, 21/12/1575, AGS, E, 675, n. 1; Bibl, Die Erhebung, 157–160. 156 Miguel Conde Pazos, “La Monarquía católica y los confines orientales de la Cristiandad. Relaciones entre la Casa de Austria y los Vasa de Polonia” (PhD diss., Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 2016), 125–153; Felicia Roşu, Elective Monarchy in Transylvania and Poland-Lithuania, 1569–1587 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 57–64, 70–80, 103–114. 157 Maria of Austria to Philip II, 12/02/1573, AGS, E, 670, n. 84; Almut Bues, Die habsburgische Kandidatur für den polnischen Thron während des Ersten Interregnums in Polen 1572/1573 (Wien: VWGÖ, 1984), 73–78; Raimundo Rodríguez Pérez, “Servir al Rey, servir a la Casa. La embajada extraordinaria del III marqués de los Vélez en Viena y Polonia (1572–1575),” in Martínez Millán and González Cuerva, La dinastía de los Austria, 1:460–462; Marek, La embajada española, 54, 59. 158 Monteagudo to Philip II, Vienna, 12/05/1573, CODOIN, 111:216–218. 159 Pedro Fajardo to Maria of Austria, Łowicz, 05/05/1573, in Valerianus Meysztowicz, ed., Elementa ad fontium editions VIII. Documenta Polonica ex Archivo Generali Hispaniae in Simancas. III Pars (Romae: Institutum Historicum Polonicum Romae, 1964), 201–202; Bues, Die habsburgische Kandidatur, 104–114, 129–133. 160 Monteagudo to Philip II, Vienna, 26/06/1574, CODOIN, 111:435.

Empress consort, discreet mediator

147

161 Monteagudo to Zayas, Vienna, 10/08/1574, AGS, E, 671, n. 84, 2r–2v; Maria of Austria to Philip II, Vienna, 07/09/1574, CODOIN, 111:458; Conde Pazos, “La Monarquía católica,” 105–106. 162 Monteagudo to Zayas, Prague, 26/05/1575 and 07/07/1575, AGS, E, 670, n. 25 and 669, n. 2; Monteagudo to Philip II, Prague, 20/08/1575, CODOIN, 113:159–160. 163 Nuncio Dolfin to Cardinal Gallio, Vienna, 02/01/1576, NBD, 3/8:439–440; Monteagudo to Zayas, Vienna, 20/04/1576, AGS, E, 675, n. 47, 4v–7v; Roşu, Elective Monarchy, 146–147. 164 Monteagudo to Zayas, Vienna, 21/12/1575, AGS, E, 675, n. 1, 4r. 165 Philip II to Monteagudo, El Escorial, 30/06/1576, CODOIN, 113:400–401; Constantino Magno to Philip II, 30/04/1581, BFZ, Altamira, 157, doc. 17–18. 166 Monteagudo to Zúñiga, Regensburg, 12/10/1576, BGe, Favre, XIX, 73r; Relación de la enfermedad y muerte del emperador Maximiliano II, Regensburg, 13/10/1576, AGS, E, 676, n. 9; Louthan, The Quest, 134–141; Fichtner, Emperor Maximilian II, 214–217.

6 THE UNCERTAIN ROLE OF THE DOWAGER EMPRESS (1576–1581)

6.1 Widowhood, hope, and melancholy The rites of transition between two monarchs combined the mourning for the deceased with the hopes raised by the ascent of the new sovereign. In this case, the death of Maximilian II plunged the empress into a deep state of melancholy. While Rudolf II and his siblings appeared in public immediately after Maximilian’s death, Maria was taken unconscious to her chamber at the news and remained enclosed there for a long time. Until her husband’s funeral service in Prague (22 March 1577), she stayed near the different chapels of the palaces, as, according to the nuncio, she dedicated most of her day to prayer and devotions and “when she is alone, it is my understanding that she never stops crying.”1 She thus exemplified the grief and isolation expected of an early-modern European widow, which suited her own spiritual distress.2 As the empress did not show herself for weeks, the Venetian ambassador could not offer his condolences until more than a month later. When he finally did, Maria was so visibly moved at his first words that he had to change the subject.3

DOI: 10.4324/9781003125693-7

Uncertain role of the dowager empress  149

Only the Spanish ambassador, Monteagudo, was exempt from this general lack of contact and filled the vacuum of male authority, since the empress, as well as being a widow, also lacked a high steward. From that moment, Monteagudo (like his wife) “worked more as an ordinary servant of Her Imperial Majesty than as an ambassador of Your Catholic Majesty.”4 His prominent role in the domestic context was quickly authorised by Philip II, who ordered him to obey his sister’s commands. When Maximilian II died, Monteagudo had already received permission to return to Spain and be replaced by a successor. Maria did not revoke his license but asked him not to leave her alone in such grave circumstances. As her most efficient means of pressure was invoking the risk to her health, she confessed to him her fears that she might follow in the footsteps of her grandmother, Juana of Castile, who lost her mind after her husband’s death. Monteagudo felt compelled to obey, although behind his polite words lay a desperate desire to return to Spain. Besides, his room for action was seriously curtailed, since Maria forbade him to discuss with Rudolf II matters which she did not consider suitable.5 Apart from keeping Monteagudo in her service, the dowager empress displayed her personal authority in these early stages by deciding the fate of Maximilian II’s mortal remains, since he had died intestate. According to Spanish and Roman diplomatic sources, it was not Rudolf II who had the say but his mother, who gave the order to leave as soon as possible the imperial city of Regensburg, where the Diet had already concluded, and move to Linz, the closest city of the Habsburg Hereditary Lands. From there the imperial court moved to Prague, where Maximilian was buried in the cathedral of St Vitus along with his parents. While Rudolf II continued his journey to visit his new states, Maria announced that she would stay in the castle of Prague, which shared the grounds with the cathedral of St Vitus, in order not to be separated from her husband’s tomb.6 The widowed mothers of sovereigns were often faced with a certain ambiguity regarding their relationship of obedience/authority vis-à-vis their young sons who had suddenly become rulers.

150  Uncertain role of the dowager empress

Whereas Maria and Maximilian II had functioned as a working couple with clearly defined characteristics, she found it difficult to build a stable relationship with Rudolf II. Her wish to stay in Prague was subject to her brother Philip II’s approval, to whom she conceded a patriarchal authority over her destiny which she denied to her young and unmarried son Rudolf.7 Regarding the new emperor, the Spanish, papal, and Jesuit authorities expected Maria to act as a discreet advisor to her son – without an institutional role, of course – who should not decide on “serious matters in the council of state, until they were made known to the empress and her advice was sought.”8 Maria’s involvement in the decision-making process aimed at continuing and standardising a practice which had been de facto followed under Maximilian II, as the new emperor was young and inexperienced. In any case, the hopes placed on Rudolf II were high: as a pious Catholic brought up in Spain, he was expected to alleviate the climate of mistrust which had existed in his father’s time.9 The Spanish and papal instructions were both clear and legitimate. The empress had to ensure that Rudolf II maintained the tradition which he had followed as King of the Romans and did not accept any Protestants into his entourage, which meant expelling several of his father’s household servants. As for the “old ministers,” the empress and the Spanish authorities viewed them as susceptible to bribing. Maria’s strategy, partly her own decision, partly Philip II’s orders, was to “win them back” through the payment of gifts and the appointment of the most pro-Spanish courtiers (Dietrichstein and Rumpf ) and a couple of Catholic prelates to the Secret Council, the informal deliberative core of the imperial government, whose importance the Spanish authorities overestimated.10 Success was more immediate and tangible in the imperial household. Within only a few months, Monteagudo made certain that the captains of the guards were the only Protestants left in service. Meanwhile, three of the four senior court officials were married to former ladies of the empress: the high steward, Dietrichstein, to Margarita de Cardona; the grand chamberlain, Rumpf, to María de Arco; and the master of the horse, Trivulzio, to Margarita Laso

Uncertain role of the dowager empress  151

de Castilla.11 This new arrangement within the imperial household does not seem to have been the result of deliberate and circumstantial pressure from any of the actors involved; the empress was rather reaping the fruits of decades of patient work connecting her own family to those of her ladies and the courtiers most favourably inclined to the dynasty. However, it seemed that the court had lost its lustre. The Venetian ambassadors highlighted that there were not many courtiers. Moreover, it had lost much of its noble character, as there were hardly any German princes left, thus marking the transition towards an increasingly Habsburg and less imperial court.12 The elevation of these courtiers to ministers, however, was not so simple and overall it seemed preferable to prioritise continuity. Maximilian II’s old high steward, Johann von Trautson, presided over the Secret Council until his death in 1589. The new high steward, the cautious Dietrichstein, did not actively participate in the Secret Council but chose to exercise a more discreet influence from the imperial chamber and avoid excessive exposure.13 However, the old Leonhard von Harrach still held substantial sway in the Secret Council alongside Trautson, more in collaboration than in factional competition with him, although Spanish and Italian sources exaggerate his importance, since he was their closest contact in the Council.14 Harrach had no direct relations with the empress, who in the absence of a more prominent role for the loyal Dietrichstein advocated the advancement of the grand chamberlain, Wolfgang Rumpf. Rumpf had been ambassador to Spain, enjoyed excellent relations at Philip II᾽s court, and, despite his reputation for intrigue, was considered a rising star among the Spanish clientele and the imperial servants. In 1578, the empress arranged for Rumpf to marry one of her ladies, the Spanish-Italian María de Arco y Meneses, which further strengthened his links to this group. Yet, despite the hopes of Spanish diplomacy, the ambitious grand chamberlain was not invited to the Secret Council until 1584.15 It seems that, from the beginning of his reign, Rudolf II took care to demonstrate continuity and not behave with the aloofness and dryness of his Spanish relatives, but with the frankness and openness expected of a German. Nevertheless, the accusation of

152  Uncertain role of the dowager empress

being a “Spanish emperor” became an easy way for Germans and Italians to criticise his Catholic policies and, at any rate, his use of clothes and a personal style which recalled the court of Madrid.16 Continuity also persisted in dynastic relations, and the unresolved crises in Flanders, Finale, or Landsberg showed no signs of a quick solution. In these early stages of Rudolf ’s reign, the empress’s mediation was effective on only one point, on which the interests of both branches (and the Papacy) coincided, and which allowed Maria to act within the legitimate dynastic boundaries: deciding the destiny of the archdukes now that, after Maximilian II’s death, the main obstacle to giving them ecclesiastical offices had been removed. After the period of condolences and congratulations which marked the change of reign had ended, this was the first issue that Rudolf II discussed with Philip II. He presented it as a joint initiative with his mother, the empress, both because it was to some extent a shared strategy and because he wished to improve his standing through her reputation. The first step was for Archduke Albert, who was growing up in Madrid, to receive the cardinal’s hat from the pope and the Archbishopric of Toledo from Philip II, which was considered the richest seat in Christendom.17 Rudolf II wrote to Rome and Madrid, while the empress mobilised Spanish diplomacy, wrote to Pope Gregory XIII, and sent an agent to Rome, her keeper of the jewels, Gaspar de Santiago.18 The cardinalate was quickly granted, in March 1577. Diplomats at the imperial court were debating whether the pope wanted to please Philip II or the empress, or whether he wanted to send a message of Catholic unity to the Protestants of the Empire.19 The favour had a highly symbolic value but not a financial one, and therefore Archduke Albert would achieve full status only if Philip II granted him an important Spanish archbishopric. Rudolf II and Maria first requested the primate seat of Toledo, which had become vacant in May 1576. Although Philip II was initially willing to accept, he was deterred by the candidate’s young age. He preferred to promise him the succession and appointed an elderly prelate, the General Inquisitor Gaspar de Quiroga, who lived until 1595.20 In the meantime, Rudolf II tried unsuccessfully to benefit from the vacancies in Zaragoza and Seville for his brother,

Uncertain role of the dowager empress  153

although he did not petition for them personally but via the more influential empress.21 Offering a successful career to his younger brother Wenzel, who was also educated in Madrid, was more pressing. His relatives intended for him the Grand Priory of Castile of the Order of Malta. The appointment took longer in this case, since the approval of Madrid, Prague, Rome, and Malta was required. Finally, in July 1577 the young Wenzel was triumphantly accepted as a knight of the order and was promised the “prospect” (the right of succession) of the Grand Priory of Castile and Leon, since the incumbent, Hernando de Toledo, did not die until 1591.22 The Order of Malta was the only one that operated in the Iberian kingdoms with certain autonomy, without being under the authority of the Crown. Thanks to the rich incomes from his grand priory, and from the bailiwick of Lora, Philip II was able to meet the financial needs of his nephew without drawing on the royal coffers and to boost royal patronage in a process which Geevers has described as the construction of the state by means of dynastic patrimonialisation.23 Within the framework of the working couple which Maria and Rudolf had temporarily formed, she was more directly in charge of monitoring these ecclesiastical issues and the careers of the archdukes. As in the time of Maximilian II, Rudolf intervened to stop the negotiations whenever the boundaries were exceeded. This time the problem was that the Order of Malta, which could not guarantee Wenzel sufficiently prestigious positions in its Iberian territories, also offered the archduke the “seniority” of the priory of Bohemia and the bailiwick of Brandenburg. These old imperial jurisdictions had almost been abandoned since the beginning of the Reformation and were at risk of falling into Protestant hands. There was therefore no one better than the emperor’s brother to ensure their preservation. Philip II, too, appreciated the benefits of his nephew’s strong ties with the Empire for the enhancement of movement between the two dynastic branches, a vision which Maria also shared. Spanish diplomacy did not accept the offer of the Master of Malta without asking Maria and Rudolf II’s authorisation. However, while she was well disposed towards the idea, Rudolf II considered the problems that such a delicate matter would

154  Uncertain role of the dowager empress

pose for the governance of the Empire and did not accept it, despite pressure from Maria and the pleas of Wenzel himself. In any case, Wenzel᾽s rising career within the Order of Malta was abruptly interrupted by his premature death on 22 September 1578.24 Maria and Rudolf ’s actions regarding the rest of the archdukes were less systematic compared to the clear common strategy they had followed with Albert and Wenzel. In the case of Matthias and Maximilian, both Philip II and the empress explored the possibility of an ecclesiastical career for them, although not in Spain, with which they were not familiar, but in the Empire. They followed the strategy of Albert V of Bavaria, the other great Catholic prince of the Empire, who had succeeded in having his second son, Ernst, appointed Bishop of Freising, Hildesheim, Liege, and Archbishop of Cologne, thus making him one of the seven electors of the Empire. Philip II was no less ambitious and hoped that his nephews could reach the other two electoral archbishoprics, Mainz and Trier.25 The king entrusted the task to his sister Maria, with whom he had a closer relationship than with Rudolf II. It seems that the emperor and his mother worked together in harmony and with resolve on this occasion. Rudolf II convinced her against seeking an ecclesiastical office for Matthias, as he was not inclined towards it, in contrast to Maximilian who willingly accepted. However, rather than aiming for the great electoral archbishoprics, Rudolf thought it more prudent to begin with the coadjutorship of the Bishopric of Salzburg. Rome also favoured the ecclesiastical careers of Matthias and Maximilian as Rudolf II would not have to divide his territories among his brother like his grandfather Ferdinand I, who had given Tyrol and Outer Austria to his uncle Ferdinand and Inner Austria to Karl. If Rudolf II followed this family tradition, his power as a Catholic emperor would be seriously impaired.26 Faced with the difficulties involved in the struggle for the German bishoprics, Rudolf II took advantage of the death of his brother Wenzel to ask Philip II to allow his other brother, Maximilian, to continue his career in the Order of Malta. This aspiration broke the family consensus: Philip II had explained to Maria that the opportunity to make Maximilian an ecclesiastic in the

Uncertain role of the dowager empress  155

Empire had been lost and that no further support should be expected from him. Aware of his firm position, the empress pressed, instead, for an archbishopric for her son Albert, and only supported Rudolf II᾽s petition for Archduke Maximilian’s knighthood out of obedience.27 The imperial ambassador in Madrid, Khevenhüller, also had difficulties in negotiating this request, as dynastic matters used to be outside of his competency. Queen Ana of Austria, sister of Rudolf II and Archduke Maximilian, was also unwilling to collaborate, arguing “that she cannot, nor wants to be able to do anything.”28 The debate faded, demonstrating that the consensus of all the dynastic members involved was required in order to guide the careers of the archdukes. A very different issue was that of the three archduchesses who remained at the imperial court with their mother: Elisabeth, the Dowager Queen of France, and the teenage girls, Margarita (1567– 1633) and Eleonore (1568–1580). Although Maria had to secure Rudolf II᾽s agreement with regard to her sons in the absence of a testament from Maximilian II, she assumed the guardianship and tutelage of her younger daughters without any palpable resistance, since both Iberian and German traditions allowed it.29 Maria defended fiercely her right to decide on the future of her two unmarried daughters. She considered Eleonore to be suitable for marriage and agreed to discuss the possibility of marrying her to Charles Emmanuel, heir to the Duchy of Savoy, but Eleonore’s premature death in 1580 cut short the empress’ plans. By contrast, however, she did not accept any marriage proposal for Margarita, “as she is ugly and disastrous […] and so it is more convenient for her to be with me for my whole life and do what I tell her,” as indeed happened.30 Her daughter Elisabeth posed greater problems, since, as a dowager queen, she demanded the same amount of autonomy as her mother. Elisabeth had already fulfilled her dynastic duty and, in view of recurrent pressure to remarry, she could threaten to take a vow of chastity and retire to a convent to stop any such attempt. The Duke of Ferrara, Alfonso II, the Grand Duke of Tuscany, Francis I, and the King of Portugal, Henry I, were evaluated as potential candidates, and the empress received instructions from the Spanish

156  Uncertain role of the dowager empress

diplomats on whether to consider them or reject them.31 Philip II’s plan for his niece was, in fact, to marry her to the Duke of Savoy, Emmanuel Philibert, first cousin of Philip II and Maria. The empress obeyed her brother, but she was concerned about Elisabeth’s wish to retire and the lack of support from Rudolf II. However, Maria used all the means available to her: she even had Elisabeth’s confessor persuade her, as well as María Manrique de Lara and her daughters, with whom Elisabeth enjoyed a close friendship. The empress finally employed the only emotional argument which she believed to be effective: she suggested that the marriage deal should be completed by marrying the heir of Savoy to Elisabeth’s only daughter, Marie-Elisabeth of Valois, who was being brought up in France. When the girl died in April 1578, Maria proposed in her stead Archduchess Eleonore. Thus, Elisabeth could be reunited with her only daughter or, at least, enjoy the company of her little sister.32 Elisabeth, however, stood firm and Maria abandoned all hope. Her daughter imitated her actions, both by taking control of her destiny as a widow and by building her own network, as she began to write to her relatives, asking for favours for her ladies and help in marrying them off well.33

6.2 Solitude and crisis Maria’s activity during the first months of her widowhood, focused on the future of her children and the advance of the Catholic reform in the entourage of the new emperor, aroused hopes that she would retain a complementary role at the imperial court. Circumstances, however, had changed profoundly since the death of Maximilian II. The empress had expressed, already since the end of 1576, her wish to spend the rest of her life away from the imperial court and withdraw to a religious house, if possible, to the Descalzas Reales in Madrid, which had been founded by her sister Juana of Austria. Both Rudolf II and Philip II, as well as the pope, opposed her demand.34 However, their objections were based on a structure of relations that quickly collapsed, namely, on the continued collaboration between the emperor and the empress and the contribution of the authoritarian Spanish ambassador. In April 1577, shortly after

Uncertain role of the dowager empress  157

the solemn funeral of Maximilian II in the cathedral of Prague and while Maria was staying in the city, the ambassador Monteagudo and Rudolf II left. Monteagudo’s dismissal, despite authorisation in 1576, was delayed by Philip II until the arrival of his substitute, Juan de Borja, in December 1577. Desperate to resume his affairs in Spain, Monteagudo asked for the empress’s permission to return under the pretext of announcing to the king in person her wish to retire. It seems that Maria did not readily accede to Monteagudo’s pleas, as their relationship was broken quite abruptly, and his family disappeared almost immediately from the circle of imperial patronage.35 The empress was isolated in Prague. Although Monteagudo assured her that Dietrichstein and Pernstein would be at her service after his departure, Rudolf II also left a few days later for more than a year, taking with him most of the imperial court. Maria was thus deprived of her two most trusted men and their wives in a dismembered imperial household without a high steward since the departure of Francisco Laso de Castilla in 1570. The presence of Monteagudo and those two courtiers had allowed her to maintain a certain order, although the one who had taken up the reins of the household’s daily activities was the first lady of the bedchamber, Ana de Cardona, who died in February 1577. Only two gentlemen remained in Maria’s service after April 1577, Rudolph Khuen and Georg Pruskovsky.36 The empress often used the resources of the emperor’s household for her own service, but after Rudolf left her in Prague substantial deficiencies came to the fore. Although she led the austere life of a nun and had long abandoned her proverbial largesse, expenses increased exponentially due to the unsustainable debts and the reduced access to loans after the failed attempts of 1576 to secure the Polish throne for Archduke Ernst.37 In April 1577, the household’s accounts were reviewed for the first time since 1560. There were 173 servants, despite the recent vacant offices, who cost around 25,000 florins per year in wages.38 There were numerous occasions for spending, considering also her role as a Spanish matriarch, as “all Spaniards who come here, whether adventurers or poor or captives, seek the help of the merciful mother.”39

158  Uncertain role of the dowager empress

In the absence of the ambassador Monteagudo, it was hoped that Maria would act as Philip II’s high representative and maintain diplomatic correspondence between the two courts. These expectations, however, proved futile after Rudolf ’s departure.40 There were strong motives behind her pleas for returning to Spain: she had no company and had no mediating or representative functions. According to her confessor, she spent most of the day praying alone in her oratory, her mental health had seriously deteriorated, and she was obsessed that she would die soon.41 Meanwhile, Vratislav von Pernstein, husband of María Manrique de Lara and Grand Chancellor of the Kingdom of Bohemia, returned to Prague to resume his duties. The married couple de facto managed the empress’s household as high steward and first lady of the bedchamber and became Maria’s closest companions. Philip II counted on Pernstein’s advice and letters to monitor the health and mood of his sister.42 In the autumn of 1577, the family was in disarray. Rudolf II and his brothers were in Vienna, while Maria and her daughters were in Prague without an ordinary Spanish ambassador to control the agenda. The secretary of the embassy, Flaminio Garnier, could barely keep the lines of communication open, as he was not an important interlocutor, and Dietrichstein unofficially took charge of the negotiations between Philip II and the empress. Although there were two brief extraordinary Spanish embassies (those of the Count of Galve and the Admiral of Castile), their character was formal, since they had been sent to congratulate (belatedly) Rudolf II on his election as King of the Romans and to offer condolences for the death of Maximilian II.43 It was in this context that the most serious crisis in dynastic relations for decades broke out. On the night of 4 October 1577, Archduke Matthias fled from Vienna to the Netherlands to lead the Dutch rebels against Philip II. Although the archduke swore that he had peaceful intentions aimed at preserving the heritage of the House of Habsburg, his uncle Philip II viewed it as full-blown treason and even mistrusted the entourage of Queen Ana in Madrid. Matthias was the eldest of the archdukes who had not been brought up in Spain and refused to pursue a career in the Church under the patronage of Philip II; he was thought to have little affection for

Uncertain role of the dowager empress  159

the Spanish nation, thus confirming the empress’s fears regarding the education that her children received at the imperial court.44 The situation in the Netherlands was very delicate. In 1576, Philip II had practically lost control of the region and agreed to send a governor from the royal family, his half-brother Juan of Austria. Juan signed the humiliating Perpetual Edict – which included the withdrawal of all foreign troops – for its ratification and the restoration of Spanish power. As soon as he received money for the return of the tercios, he broke the pact and prepared for a new war. The arrival of Matthias was welcomed by many moderates, who saw in him a supra partes figure that could end the polarisation. In December 1577, the States General of the provinces declared Juan of Austria an enemy and accepted Matthias as Governor General. The archduke, who lacked political experience and possessed more representative than deliberative powers, was unable to act as an intermediary and change the course of the conflict, becoming a puppet in the hands of the rebels. Plunged into irrelevance and highly discredited, he left the Netherlands in 1581.45 This major scandal exposed the absence of agents close to Philip II in the emperor’s entourage, since neither Rudolf nor his advisors were able to gauge his uncle’s implacable hostility in the face of Rudolf ’s ambiguous stance. It seems that Rudolf II knew Matthias’ plan and, supposedly, only discouraged him with words. Apparently, Archduke Maximilian had also been incited to escape, but refused, without, however, stopping his brother.46 In contrast to Rudolf ’s questionable attitude, no suspicions were harboured against Maria. She experienced the events as a hard blow, which further reinforced her decision to abandon the Empire and demonstrate to Philip II her loyalty to him and her impotence before her own children, since if Matthias “had so little respect for me being so young, the others will have even less.”47 Only Maria and Dietrichstein hastened to write to Philip II expressing their dismay. The empress also justified herself to the pope and wrote to Rudolf II, reprimanding him for tolerating such disloyalty to Philip II.48 Apart from these letters, her scope for action was restricted. She had no personal influence over Matthias and could only beg Philip II to show clemency to her son, while her deep melancholy worsened.

160  Uncertain role of the dowager empress

The severing of her ties with Matthias was firm and painful; years later she confessed: “I think that Matthias’ main goal in this life is to finish mine, since he only gives me reasons for this.”49

6.3 Maria and the ambassador Borja: politics and patronage In January 1578, after having settled into the imperial court of Vienna, Juan de Borja visited Prague. The new Spanish ambassador, whose arrival had been expected with genuine desperation, would fully meet Maria’s expectations, as he stayed in her service for the rest of her life. Borja had excellent credentials. He was the son of the former Duke of Gandía and Jesuit General, [Saint] Francis Borgia, and had previously served as ambassador to Lisbon, where he had earned the trust of the queen, Catarina of Austria, and of Princess Juana of Austria. His excellent relations with Rome and his frankness in his dealings with the nuncios contributed to a common line of action among the Catholic members of the imperial court.50 Thanks to his finesse in serving the women of the dynasty and his Jesuit spirituality he matched perfectly with Maria. His wife, Francisca de Aragón – former lady of the Portuguese queen – belonged to the same cultural milieu and exerted such influence over the empress that the Venetian ambassadors called her “the ambassadress.”51 Borja, however, was not Rudolf II᾽s favourite candidate, because his experience and authority made him difficult to control. Rudolf ’s ambassador in Madrid, Khevenhüller, asked Queen Ana of Austria to suggest someone less experienced, but the collaboration between sovereign and ambassador in Madrid was much less effective than in Prague.52 Rudolf settled permanently in Prague in the summer of 1578. Once again, mother and son lived together, and a stable Spanish embassy undertook to coordinate communications. Like Monteagudo, Borja arrived in Prague accompanied by a number of servants, including two theologians for the empress’s chapel, both Valencians and associated with the patronage of the Borjas.53 Although a high steward was not appointed, the new ambassador fulfilled domestic functions, while his wife joined Margarita de

Uncertain role of the dowager empress  161

Cardona and María Manrique to form the triumvirate of the empress’s daily companions. The Cardonas had greater control over the empress’s household: upon the death of María de Cardona in 1577, her daughter, Ana de Cardona, Countess Dowager of Villasor and sister of Margarita de Cardona, succeeded her as first lady of the bedchamber. When one of the chaplains brought by Juan de Borja died, Margarita managed to have him replaced with a Sardinian canon in her service, among other favours she obtained from the empress. The Pernstein-Manrique did not lag behind, as the family had a stronger presence in Prague and shared their servants with those of the empress, such as Gaspar de Santiago.54 However, the Laso de Castilla family, who represented the most traditional Spanish lineage in the imperial service, practically disappeared due to their gradual return to the Iberian Peninsula. The importance of the Dietrichstein-Cardona and Pernstein-Manrique families in Maria’s service can be seen in her efforts to marry off their next generation, especially to candidates from Spain.55 The empress’s household experienced an unprecedented cultural boom with Juan de Borja, a distinguished humanist, who taught poetics at the Jesuit college in Prague and published his Empresas morales there in 1581, which was the first treatise on emblems in Spanish. In the same year, the Ensaladas (popular songs) of Mateo Flecha, chaplain of the empress, and the Historia de las civiles guerras y rebelion de Flandes of Pedro Cornejo were also published. In 1577, before settling in Prague, Borja published in Latin the sermons of his father, Francis Borgia, and the chaplain Bartolomé Valverde published a sermon and an exegesis. Such literary flourishing had no precedent or continuation and has been interpreted as a propaganda campaign by the ambassador to confer prestige to the Spanish side in the new imperial seat. More than an initiative from above, an argument which has been abandoned to explain patronage at Rudolf II’s court, it seems that it was a confluence of educated courtiers who grouped around the empress’s household: even Pedro Cornejo, who was in fact an adventurer suspected of Calvinism, dedicated his treatise to Maria by presenting himself as her chaplain.56 The empress, rather than deliberately cultivating spiritual patronage in Prague, found that the political context there was more

162  Uncertain role of the dowager empress

favourable than in Vienna, even though both cities had Protestant majorities. Both she and the nuncios were frustrated with Rudolf II in the field of confessional politics because, despite all his good intentions, he did not lead a true Catholic Reformation as his uncles did in Graz and Innsbruck and his brother Ernst in Vienna. Rudolf followed his father’s middle way and surrounded himself with heterodox courtiers.57 By contrast, the empress’s chapel could hardly meet its needs: it lacked a lord almoner and only a weekly sermon was preached in Spanish in her antechamber.58 She also could not provide funds or adequate infrastructure to run a religious foundation, as was common among sovereign widows. Her religious patronage in Prague was therefore more indirect and included the bestowing of liturgical gifts and alms for the completion of the mausoleum of St Adalbert and the rebuilding of the AllSaints Chapel in the Prague castle.59 Maria’s most notable achievement in this confessional context was the foundation of the Corpus Christi Brotherhood in 1580, a space of courtly sociability outside Rudolf II’s control, in which Maria’s entourage enjoyed great influence. The Brotherhood included representatives from the four main Catholic nations (Spain, Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands) and was based in the court church of St Thomas. After Maria and her entourage left Prague, her pious traditions were preserved under the guidance of the director of the imperial chapel, Jacob Chimarrhäus, and under the popular name of the Brotherhood of Saint Thomas of the Spaniards.60 Besides their agreement on confessional matters, Borja and Maria closely collaborated in negotiations, although she also maintained a confidential correspondence with Philip II on more delicate issues, as well as with her daughter, Queen Ana of Austria. However, Ana’s capacity as a dynastic agent was rather limited, both because of her lack of personal skill and because of the different court dynamics: Philip II hardly tolerated family influences and Ana could not assert imperial patronage. Khevenhüller tried to cooperate with her in many negotiations, but they did not form an effective couple.61 By contrast, Borja wrote to Maria about all his actions until Rudolf II moved to Prague, and she sent letters to her children, although this practice was as fruitless as it was frustrating

Uncertain role of the dowager empress  163

for Maria, who “confesses that she can do less with her son than with her husband, and therefore she cannot wait to retire and leave everything behind.”62 Once all the protagonists were in Prague, Borja aided the empress with more enthusiasm, especially in the Dutch question. Rudolf II had promised to lead a mediation effort, which was accepted by Philip II and took place in Cologne in 1579.63 Maria’s role was crucial in ensuring that Rudolf kept his commitments and in explaining to Borja the dynamics among the imperial ministers: as during Maximilian II’s reign, having ministers as clearly pro-Spanish as Dietrichstein, Pernstein, and Rumpf was counterproductive, because their advice on these matters was viewed with suspicion.64 An underlying obstacle to the Dutch negotiations was Matthias’ presence on the side of the rebels. This thwarted the original plan of the imperial court to install an Austrian governor in the Netherlands, who would enable a more effective collaboration with the Empire and preserve dynastic legitimacy. Maria was the most obvious candidate, and as soon as she was widowed, rumours arose of her appointment as governor in the footsteps of her aunt Marie of Hungary and her half-sister Margherita of Parma.65 The appointment of Juan of Austria precluded this possibility, but as he became increasingly isolated, Rudolf II again put the proposal on the table for the negotiations in Cologne. According to dynastic logic, Maria was the only one able to persuade Matthias to stand down and take in her entourage the reliable Archduke Ernst, who would take over the reins once the empress had restored order. Philip II agreed to discuss the plan and his sister accepted to serve the family, but the failure of the Cologne talks impeded further progress.66 Although Rudolf II tried to restore mutual trust, he maintained an ambivalent attitude towards Spanish diplomacy because he was less interested in the role of arbitrator than that of heir.67 This was related to his marriage negotiations with Isabel Clara Eugenia, the eldest daughter of Philip II, for which he demanded the cession of the Netherlands as dowry. For the dowager empress, this marriage would be the culmination of decades of matchmaking and her last negotiation before retiring. As with her daughters in 1567–1570, she was in charge of sparking interest in the deal and facilitating

164  Uncertain role of the dowager empress

communication between the two sovereigns with the help of her daughter Ana in Madrid and without the direct intervention of the two ambassadors. Rudolf II commissioned his mother to write to the king about his claim to the Netherlands as dowry and to continue negotiating with him in case he refused. Maria and the ambassador Borja regarded this move as extremely tactless, and Philip II saw it as an insult, since his nephew did not help him loyally to preserve his provinces but waited to collect the spoils. Though reluctantly, Maria wrote what her son asked of her, taking the side of the imperial family in the more complicated cases. Negotiations dragged on unsuccessfully for another decade and confirmed the seriousness of Rudolf II’s authoritarian obsessions and pathological mistrust, which led to an increasingly inconsistent political behaviour, as his depression progressed.68 It also became apparent that the empress was unable to influence Rudolf and convey to him Philip II’s orders, such as supporting the claim of the Duke of Savoy, first cousin of both, so that the Grand Duke of Tuscany would not take precedence over him at the imperial court, as Maximilian II had instructed. Maria did not act publicly on the orders of her unpopular brother but through the intercession of the ambassadors of Savoy and Saxony, thus preserving her mediating role as empress.69 Maria spoke and wrote to Rudolf II, and sent urgent notes to Rumpf, who apart from being her trusted servant played a double game as an informant for Tuscany, as did the counsellor Harrach. Dietrichstein initially kept a neutral position, but the insistence of his wife Margarita de Cardona and the promise of favours from the empress persuaded him to act. This domestic course of action clashed with the deliberations of the Secret Council and the efforts of the Tuscan embassy.70 Maria’s activism allowed the imperial ministers to justify the delays to the Tuscans and prevent any explicit complaints by them against the untouchable empress. Finally, Rudolf II displayed his authority before his mother and Philip II by rejecting Savoy’s claim, although Borja and the empress attributed the failure to the bribery of the imperial ministers by Tuscany.71 Moreover, Maria’s partisan intervention put her in an uncomfortable position with Tuscany, and she had to apologise indirectly in order to keep her good correspondence with the grand duke.72

Uncertain role of the dowager empress

165

The role of the dowager empress found Maria depressed, tired, and increasingly detached from the future of her children. Her desire to dismantle her imperial household, pay off her debts, and retire to Spain was becoming an obsession. Meanwhile, her brother, her son, and the pope discouraged her, aware of the value that, despite her increasing irrelevance, Maria had for all of them at the imperial court. The productive working couple she had formed with her husband Maximilian was not replicated with her son Rudolf, who developed a volatile and distrustful attitude. While the empress obeyed the orders of Philip II with growing scepticism, her stay in Prague favoured a Catholic spiritual renewal which she would hardly witness. In 1581, she received permission to fulfil her desire of returning, after three decades, to her motherland, where she would spend the rest of her life.

Notes 1 Nuncio Dolfin to Cardinal Gallio, Regensburg, 26/10/1576 and Prague, 29/12/1576, NBD, 3/8:652 and 707. 2 Nuncio Dolfin to Cardinal Gallio, Regensburg, 12/10/1576, NBD, 3/8:638; Dagmar Freist, “Religious Difference and the Experience of Widowhood in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Germany,” in Widowhood in Medieval and Early Modern Europe, eds. Sandra Cavallo and Lyndan Warner (London: Pearson, 1999), 164–165; Margarita Birriel Salcedo, “El cónyuge supérstite en el derecho hispano,” Chronica nova 34 (2008): 14–19. 3 Tron to the Doge of Venice, Linz, 23/11/1576, ASVe, DS, Germania, 5, 480r. 4 Monteagudo to Philip II, Regensburg, 09/11/1576, AGS, E, 676, n. 44, 2r. 5 Philip II to Monteagudo, Madrid, 30/11/1576, AGS, E, 677, n. 71; Monteagudo to Zúñiga, Prague, 10/01/1577, IVDJ, 5-1, n. 114; Monteagudo to Zayas, Prague, 27/01/1577, AGS, E, 679, n. 83. 6 Monteagudo to Philip II, Regensburg, 21/10/1576, AGS, E, 676, n. 93; Nuncio Dolfin to Cardinal Gallio, Linz, 08/12/1576 and Prague, 29/12/1576, NBD, 3/8:695 and 707; Valentino Florio to Alfonso II of Ferrara, Prague, 24/03/1577, ASMo, Germania, 34, n. 5. On Rudolf ’s II possible decision to create a dynastic mausoleum in Prague similar to that of El Escorial, see Evans, Rudolf II, 60–62. 7 Monteagudo to Philip II, Prague, 16/01/1577, AGS, E, 679, n. 77, 2r. Brigitte Streich, “Anna von Nassau und ihre ‘Schwestern’. Politische Gestaltungsmöglichkeiten fürstlicher Witwen in der Frühen Neuzeit,” in Witwenschaft in der Frühen Neuzeit. Fürstliche und adlige Witwen zwischen

166 Uncertain role of the dowager empress

8

9 10

11

12

13 14

15

16

17

18

Fremd- und Selbstbestimmung, ed. Martina Schattkowsky (Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag, 2003), 188. Monteagudo to Philip II, Prague, 16/01/1577, AGS, E, 679, n. 77, 3v; Nuncio Dolfin to Cardinal Gallio, Regensburg, 26/10/1576, NBD, 3/8:652–653; General Mercuriano SJ to Maria of Austria, Rome, 21/11/1576, ARSI, Aust., 1-Ia, 9r. Monteagudo to Zayas, Regensburg, 21/10/1576, AGS, E, 676, n. 94; Monteagudo to Philip II, Prague, 16/01/1577, AGS, E, 679, n. 77. Nuncio Dolfin to Cardinal Gallio, Regensburg, 12/10/1576, NBD, 3/8:638; Borja to Philip II, Bratislava, 05/04/1578, AGS, E, 685, unpaginated; Michael Haberer, Ohnmacht und Chance: Leonhard von Harrach (1514–1590) und die erbländische Machtelite (Wien: Böhlau, 2011), 53–66. Zúñiga to Monteagudo, Rome, 13/03/1577, BGe, Favre, XXIV, 40r. Lanzinner, “Geheime Räte,” 298, 301, 309–311; Haberer, Ohnmacht und Chance, 61. In fact, the Protestant servants disappeared from the highest positions, although they remained a minority in certain sections. Jaroslava Hausenblasová, Der Hof Kaiser Rudolfs II. Eine Edition der Hofstaatsverzeichnisse 1576–1612 (Prag: Artefactum, 2002), 115–117. Badoer to the Doge of Venice, Prague, 22/12/1579, ASVe, DS, Germania, 7, 177r. Jeroen Duindam, “The Habsburg Court in Vienna: Kaiserhof or Reichshof,” in The Holy Roman Empire, 1495–1806: A European Perspective, eds. Richard Evans and Peter Wilson (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 113. Monteagudo to Zayas, Regensburg, 21/10/1576, AGS, E, 676, n. 94; Florio to Alfonso II of Ferrara, Prague, 02/03/1577, ASMo, Germania, 34, n. 2. Lanzinner, “Geheime Räte,” 298. Monteagudo to Philip II, Regensburg, 09/11/1576, AGS, E, 676, n. 44, 3r; Florio to Alfonso II of Ferrara, Prague, 20/04/1577, ASMo, Germania, 34, n. 9. Edelmayer, Söldner und Pensionäre, 88–90; Haberer, Ohnmacht und Chance, 18–19, 53–66. Flaminio Garnier to the Marquis of Ayamonte, Vienna, 19/10/1577, AGS, E, 679, n. 33; Friedrich Edelmayer, “Wolf Rumpf Wielross y la España de Felipe II y Felipe III,” Pedralbes 16 (1996): 142, 147–148; Haberer, Ohnmacht und Chance, 75–76; Hausenblasová, Der Hof, 205. Giovanni Alberti to Francis I of Tuscany, Prague, 22/11/1580 and 27/12/1580, ASFi, MP, 4324, 745v and 759v–760r; Giovan Battista Modesti to Francis I of Tuscany, Regensburg, 19/10/1576, ASFi, MP, 4334, 244r; Rodríguez-Salgado, “I loved him,” 354–357. In the mid-sixteenth century, Toledo generated an annual income of 2,288,114 reales, a long way from the second Spanish church, Seville, with 853,284 reales. Maximiliano Barrio Gozalo, El Real Patronato y los obispos españoles del Antiguo Régimen (1556–1834) (Madrid: CEPC, 2004), 362. Rudolf II to Philip II, Prague, 27/01/1577, AGS, E, 679, n. 167; Maria of Austria to Gregory XIII, AAV, FB, Serie III, 122, 13r; Monteagudo

Uncertain role of the dowager empress

19

20 21

22 23

24 25

26

27 28 29

167

to Zúñiga, Prague, 10/01/1577 and 29/03/1577, IVDJ, 5-1, n. 114 and BGe, Favre, XIX, 107v–108v. Gregory XIII to Maria of Austria, Rome, 11/03/1577, AAV, Armadio XLIV, 23, 313r–319r; Florio to Alfonso II of Ferrara, Prague, 30/03/1577, ASMo, Germania, 34, n. 6; Monteagudo to Zúñiga, Prague, 29/03/1577, BGe, Favre, XIX, 109r. Monteagudo to Zúñiga, Prague, 10/01/1577, IVDJ, 5-1, n. 114; Henar Pizarro, Un gran patrón en la corte de Felipe II: Don Gaspar de Quiroga (Madrid: Universidad Pontificia Comillas, 2004), 389–390. Maria of Austria to Philip II, Prague, 16/01/1579, AGS, E, 683, n. 91, 2v; Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 13/03/1579, in Maria Stieglecker, “Die Berichte von Johann Khevenhüller, kaiserlicher Gesandter in Spanien, an Rudolf II. (1579)” (State diss., Universität Wien, 1995), 43–44; Elisabeth Schoder, “Die Berichte von Johann Khevenhüller, kaiserlicher Gesandter in Spanien, an Rudolf II. (1581)” (State diss., Universität Wien, 1995), xxxix. Zúñiga to Maria of Austria, Rome, 18/07/1577, BGe, Favre, XXIV, 273r. Ignacio Ezquerra, “Los intentos de la corona por controlar la orden de San Juan: la ‘expectativa’ del archiduque Wenceslao de Austria en el Gran Priorato de Castilla y León,” in La Orden de San Juan entre el Mediterráneo y La Mancha, eds. Francisco Ruiz and Jesús Molero (Cuenca: Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, 2009), 417–422; Liesbeth Geevers, “Dynasty and State Building in the Spanish Habsburg Monarchy: The Career of Emanuele Filiberto of Savoy (1588–1624),” Journal of Early Modern History 20(3) (2016): 267–270, 291–292. Philip II to Rudolf II, Madrid, 12/10/1577, AGS, E, 680, n. 167; Borja to Philip II, Prague, 01/11/1578, AGS, E, 683, n. 54; Ezquerra, “Los intentos de la corona,” 422–424. Philip II to Monteagudo, Madrid, 29/11/1576, AGS, E, 677, n. 70; Ernst Bosbach, “Ernst, Herzog von Bayern,” in Die Bischöfe des Heiligen Römischen Reiches 1448 bis 1648, ed. Erwin Gatz (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1996), 163–171. Monteagudo to Philip II, Prague, 20/01/1577, AGS, E, 679, n. 82; Monteagudo to Zúñiga, Prague, 16/03/1577, BGe, Favre, XIX, 103r; Thomas Winkelbauer, Ständefreiheit und Fürstenmacht. Länder und Untertanen des Hauses Habsburg im konfessionellen Zeitalter (Wien: Ueberreuter, 2003), I, 44–47. Philip II to Maria of Austria, Madrid, 28/08/1578, AGS, E, 684, unpaginated; Maria of Austria to Philip II, Prague, 16/01/1579, AGS, E, 683, n. 91; Noflatscher, Glaube, 67. Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 13/03/1579 and 03/04/1579, Stieglecker, “Die Berichte,” 43 and 62–63. Maximilian of Austria to Ana of Austria, Vienna, 10/10/1577, HHStA, SHK, 2/3, 31r. Birriel Salcedo, “El cónyuge,” 39–42; Karl-Heinz Spieß, “Witwenversorgung im Hochadel. Rechtlicher Rahmen und praktische

168 Uncertain role of the dowager empress

30

31

32

33 34 35

36 37

38 39 40

Gestaltung im Spätmittelalter und zu Beginn der Frühen Neuzeit,” in Schattkowsky, Witwenschaft, 102–105. Maria of Austria to Philip II, Prague, 22/09/1578, AGS, E, 683, n. 93, 2r; Philip II to Maria of Austria, AGS, E, 683, n. 91. Margarita became a nun in Madrid under the name of Margarita de la Cruz and accompanied her mother for the rest of the latter’s life. González Heras, “Sor Margarita de la Cruz,” 597–614. Renato Cato to Alfonso II of Ferrara, Prague, 12/01/1577, ASMo, Germania, 33, unpaginated; Zúñiga to Maria of Austria, Rome, 24/05/1578, BGe, Favre, XXV, 337v–338r; Borja to Philip II, Prague, 17/12/1578, AGS, E, 687, unpaginated; Alfonso Danvila, Don Cristobal de Moura: primer marqués de Castel Rodrigo (1538-1613) (Madrid: Fortanet, 1900), 419–420. Borja to Philip II, Vienna, 23/02/1578, 28/02/1578, and 27/09/1578, AGS, E, 683, n. 3–4 and 47; Alberti to Francis I of Tuscany, Prague, 19/10/1578, ASFi, MP, 4324, 226v; Marek, “Tre bone amye,” 42; Jacqueline Vons and Pauline Saint Martin, “Vie et mort de Marie-Elisabeth de France (1572–1578), fille de Charles IX et Elisabeth d’Autriche,” Cour de France.fr (2010), http://cour-de-france.fr/article744.html. Elisabeth of Austria to Philip II, 09/05/1578, AGS, E, 683, n. 104; Maria of Austria to Charles Emmanuel I of Savoy, Prague, 10/1580, ASTo, LPF, 2/4/5. Philip II to Maria of Austria, Madrid, 28/08/1578, AGS, E, 684, unpaginated; Monteagudo to Philip II, Regensburg, 13/10/1576, AGS, E, 676, n. 23. Monteagudo to Philip II, Prague, 16/01/1577, AGS, E, 679, n. 77; Monteagudo to Zúñiga, Innsbruck, 22/04/1577 and Madrid, 23/05/1579, BGe, Favre, XIX, 117r and XX, 122r. Hans Khevenhüller, Diario de Hans Khevenhüller: embajador imperial en la Corte de Felipe II (Madrid: SECCe, 2001), 161. Monteagudo to Philip II, Prague, 02/01/1577 and Genoa, 29/05/1577, AGS, E, 679, n. 74, 2v and n. 88; Florio to Alfonso II of Ferrara, Prague, 26/04/1577, ASMo, Germania, 34, n. 10. Memorial que Vélez dio al Rey de parte de Monteagudo, 1575, AGS, E, 672, n. 41. Relatione delli Clarissimi m. Zuan Michiel… ritornati ambasciatori dalla ser.ma Imperatrice, 18/11/1581, Fiedler, Relationen, 393–394; Katrin Keller, “Die Hofstaaten der Kaiserinnen und der Kaiserin-Witwen,” in Verwaltungsgeschichte der Habsburgermonarchie in der Frühen Neuzeit, eds. Michael Hochedlinger, Petr Mata, and Thomas Winkelbauer (Wien: Böhlau, 2019), 245. Horden y estado, de todos los mayores y menores officios y serviçios de la Casa de la Magestad de la Emperatriz, 01/04/1577, AGS, E, 679, n. 25. Juan de Espinosa OFM to Zayas, Prague, 26/04/1578, AGS, E, 685, unpaginated; Juan Carrillo, Relacion historica de la Real Fundacion del monasterio de las Descalças… (Madrid: Luis Sánchez, 1616), 183r. Zayas to Garnier, Madrid, 12/1576, AGS, E, 677, n. 77.

Uncertain role of the dowager empress

169

41 Espinosa to Zayas, Prague, 24/04/1577, AGS, E, 679, n. 4; Borja to Zúñiga, Vienna, 26/02/1578, BGe, Favre, XIV, 19r. 42 Instrucción para el Almirante de Castilla, El Escorial, 16/07/1577, AGS, E, 680, n. 1, 6r; Pernstein to Philip II, Prague, 26/04/1578, AGS, E, 685, unpaginated; the Lord Della Croce to Emmanuel Philibert of Savoy, Prague, 01/02/1578, ASTo, LM, Austria, 5, unpaginated. I am grateful to Pavel Marek for this latter document. 43 Instrucciones del conde de Galve, 09/1576, AGS, E, 675, n. 86; Galve to Philip II, El Escorial, 01/10/1577, AGS, E, 679, n. 66. Instrucción para el Almirante de Castilla, El Escorial, 16/07/1577, AGS, E, 680, n. 1; Khevenhüller, Diario, 120–121; Admiral of Castile to Philip II, Vienna, 06/10/1577, AGS, E, 679, n. 38. 44 Walsingham to Davison, 20/10/1577, Calendar of State Papers Foreign: Elizabeth, ed. Arthur John Butler, vol. 12 (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1901), 272; Florio to Alfonso II of Ferrara, Vienna, 14/12/1577, ASMo, Germania, 34, n. 47; Cruz Medina, “Margarita de Cardona,” 1280. 45 Te Brake, Religious War, 119–120. 46 Garnier to Zayas, Vienna, 04/10/1577, AGS, E, 679, n. 27; Sigismondo de Cavalli to the Doge of Venice, Vienna, 05/10/1577, ASVe, DS, Germania, 6, 127r; Philip II to Borja, Madrid, 26/12/1577, AGS, E, 680, n. 141. 47 Maria of Austria to Córdoba, Prague, 23/04/1578, AGS, E, 683, n. 103, 1v. 48 Dietrichstein to Philip II, Vienna, 09/10/1577, AGS, E, 679, n. 43; Maria of Austria to Gregory XIII, Prague, 08/11/1577, AAV, FB, III, 122, 7r–7v; Florio to Alfonso II of Ferrara, Vienna, 07/12/1577, ASMo, Germania, 34, n. 46. 49 Maria of Austria to Rudolf II, Lisbon, 16/07/1582, HHStA, FK A, 4/7, 120r; Maria of Austria to Philip II, Prague, 17/02/1578, AGS, E, 683, n. 89. 50 Zúñiga to Borja, Rome, 30/09/1577, BGe, Favre, XVII, 94r–95r; Borja to Philip II, Vienna, 14/12/1577, AGS, E, 680, n. 87; Nuncio Castagna to Cardinal Como, Prague, 13/11/1578, NBD, 3/2:244; Sebastián Lozano, “Francisco de Borja,” 67–69; Marek, La embajada española, 75–81. 51 Borja to Zúñiga, Vienna, 15/01/1578, BGe, Favre, XIV, 15r; Sigismondo de Cavalli to the Doge of Venice, Prague, 23/03/1579, ASVe, DS, Germania, 7, 14r. 52 Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 11/07/1579, in Stieglecker, “Die Berichte,” 112; González Cuerva, “Anne, Margaret and Marianne,” 62. 53 Espinosa to Zayas, Prague, 12/08/1575, AGS, E, 673, n. 112; Zayas to Monteagudo, Madrid, 09/02/1576, AGS, E, 677, n. 63; Philip II to Borja, Madrid, 04/03/1577, AGS, E, 680, n. 137. 54 Borja to Philip II, Prague, 15/10/1578 and 01/11/1578, AGS, E, 683, n. 33 and 54; Espinosa to Zayas, Prague, 20/04/1578, AGS, E, 685,

170

55

56

57

58 59 60

61 62 63

Uncertain role of the dowager empress

unpaginated; Maria of Austria to Zúñiga, Prague, 25/07/1580, BFZ, Altamira, 81, doc. 118; Marek, Pernštejnské ženy, 96. In the case of Johanna von Pernstein, the empress negotiated without the knowledge of Rudof II and his ambassador Khevenhüller, who complained that Maria side-lined him as she saw fit. Modesti to Belisario Vinta, Prague, 17/10/1578, ASFi, MP, 4324, 231r–v; Khevenhüller to Mateo Vázquez, Madrid, 22/11/1579, IVDJ, 6-2, n. 175; Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 27/06/1579, in Stieglecker, “Die Berichte,” 104. Pedro Cornejo, Historia de las civiles guerras y rebelion de Flandes… (Praga: Jorge Nigrin, 1581); Jaroslava Kasparová, “Los impresos españoles del siglo XVI procedentes de la tipografía praguense de Jorge Nigrin,” Ibero-Americana Pragensia 22 (1988): 151–153; Pablo Jiménez Díaz, El coleccionismo manierista de los Austrias entre Felipe II y Rodolfo II (Madrid: SECCe, 2001), 120–123; Almási, The Uses of Humanism, 99–101. Evans, Rudolf II, 84–115; Alexander Koller, “Der Kaiserhof am Beginn der Regierung Rudolfs II. in den Berichten der Nuntien,” in Kaiserhof - Papsthof (16.–18. Jahrhundert), eds. Richard Bösel et al. (Wien: VÖAW, 2006), 13–24. On tolerance and supra-confessional Christianity in Bohemia, see Josef Válka, “Die Politiques. Konfessionelle Orientierung und politische Landesinteresse in Böhmen und Mähren (bis 1630),” in Ständefreiheit und Staatsgestaltung in Ostmitteleuropa. Übernationale Gemünsamkeiten in der politischen Kultur vom 16.-18. Jahrhundert, eds. Joachim Bahlcke et al. (Leipzig: Universitätsverlag, 1996), 229–241. Borja to Philip II, Prague, 01/11/1578, AGS, E, 683, n. 54; Espinosa to Zayas, Prague, 12/08/1575, AGS, E, 673, n. 112. Jiménez Díaz, El coleccionismo, 76–79. Erika Supria Honisch, “Hearing the Body of Christ in Early Modern Prague,” Early Music History 38 (2019): 70–72; Alexander Koller, “Einleitung,” in his Nuntiaturen des Orazio Malaspina und des Ottavio Santacroce. Interim des Cesare dell’Arena (1578–1581), vol. 3/10 of NBD (Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2012), xxxii. Maria of Austria to Philip II, Prague, 22/09/1578, AGS, E, 683, n. 93; Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 02/04/1579, in Stieglecker, “Die Berichte,” 59. Borja to Philip II, Prague, 13/05/1579 and Bratislava, 05/04/1578, AGS, E, 687, unpaginated and 683, n. 5. Peter Rauscher, “Kaisertum und hegemoniales Königtum: Die kaiserliche Reaktion auf die niederländische Politik Philipps II. von Spanien,” in Edelmayer, Hispania-Austria II, 57–88; Thomas Becker, “Der Kölner Pazifikationskongress von 1579 und die Geburt der Niederlande,” in Frühneuzeitliche Friedensstiftung in landesgeschichtlicher Perspektive, ed. Michael Rohrschneider (Wien: Böhlau, 2019), 105–108.

Uncertain role of the dowager empress

171

64 Borja to Philip II, Prague, 25/08/1578 and 28/10/1578, AGS, E, 683, n. 37 and 49; Maria of Austria to Philip II, Prague, 16/01/1579, AGS, E, 683, n. 91. 65 Nuncio Dolfin to Cardinal Gallio, Regensburg, 26/10/1576, NBD, 3/8:654; Gustav Turba, “Beiträge zur Geschichte der Habsburger aus den letzten Jahren des spanischen Königs Philipp II.,” Archiv für österreichische Geschichte 86 (1899): 340. 66 Borja to Philip II, Bratislava, 05/04/1578, AGS, E, 683, n. 5; Las condiciones con que presupone el Emperador que se ha de tratar el concierto, 1578, AGS, E, 669, n. 40; Borja to Philip II, Prague, 24/02/1579, AGS, E, 687, unpaginated. Étienne Bourdeu, Les archevêques de Mayence et la présence espagnole dans le Saint-Empire (XVIe-XVIIe siècle) (Madrid: Casa de Velázquez, 2015), 39–44, 97–99. 67 Rudolf II to Khevenhüller, Vienna, 11/06/1578, Archivio Fondazione Trivulzio, cod. 2088, unpaginated. I thank Pavel Marek for this document. 68 Borja to Philip II, Prague, 08/11/1578, AGS, E, 683, n. 62; Maria of Austria to Philip II, Prague, 16/01/1579, AGS, E, 683, n. 91; Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 27/07/1579, Stieglecker, “Die Berichte,” 116; Alberti to Francis I of Tuscany, Vienna, 06/12/1580, ASFi, MP, 4324, 769r; Turba, “Beiträge,” 341; Rodríguez-Salgado, “I loved him,” 354–355, 361–363. Erik Midelfort, Mad Princes of Renaissance Germany (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1996), 99–124. 69 Monteagudo to Zúñiga, Innsbruck, 22/04/1577, BGe, Favre, XIX, 117v–118r; Philip II to Maria of Austria, Madrid, 28/08/1578, AGS, E, 684, unpaginated; Alberti to Francis I of Tuscany, Prague, 07/12/1578 and 20/12/1578, ASFi, MP, 4324, 273r and 282r–v. 70 Modesti to Vinta, Prague, 01/08/1578 and 04/04/1579, ASFi, MP, 4324, 171r–v and 330r–v; Maria of Austria to Philip II, Prague, 08/11/1578, AGS, E, 683, n. 97–98. 71 Alberti to Francis I of Tuscany, Prague, 18/05/1579, ASFi, MP, 4324, 394r; Borja to Philip II, Prague, 14/05/1579 and Vienna, 21/12/1577, AGS, E, 687, unpaginated and 680, n. 90; Maria of Austria to Philip II, Prague, 16/01/1579, AGS, E, 683, n. 91. 72 Savoy, to which Maria wrote personally, had precedence in the requests for favours that reached her, whereas in the case of Tuscany her secretary communicated with the ambassador. Alberti to Francis I of Tuscany, Prague, 13/09/1578 and 09/06/1579, ASFi, MP, 4324, 206r and 418v–421r; Maria of Austria to Emmanuel Philibert I of Savoy, Prague, 08/03/1579, 18/06/1579, and 12/11/1579, ASTo, LPF, 2/4/2-4.

7 ESTABLISHING AN IMPERIAL HOUSEHOLD IN MADRID (1581–1587)

7.1 The return journey On 12 December 1581, Empress Maria disembarked at Collioure, the first Catalan port, and set foot in the Iberian Peninsula for the first time after thirty years. She returned to her homeland widowed and with a stronger personal authority, not directly subject to any male relative. Conscious of this, she refused to sail to Barcelona and instead continued by land, tired of the gruelling journey.1 She thus foreshadowed the freedom with which she intended to conduct her affairs vis-à-vis the leading members of her family. Among the dowager empresses of the House of Habsburg, Maria was the only one who abandoned the territory of the Holy Roman Empire, although she had the example of her aunts Marie and Leonor – who returned to Castile after fulfilling their dynastic obligations in the Netherlands and France – and of her father Charles V, who retired to the monastery of Yuste at the end of his life.2 In her attempt to obtain royal permission to retire, Maria was only able to mobilise her small group of religious men and ladies-in-waiting in Prague and Madrid. The clerics were called to legitimise her demand and eliminate the moral risk which she ran DOI: 10.4324/9781003125693-8

Establishing imperial household in Madrid  173

due to her heavy debts. The women were viewed with suspicion, “as they are bothersome and great negotiators and do not miss the opportunity to do anything which is in their power.”3 In order to coordinate her actions more efficiently, Maria sent her keeper of the jewels, Gaspar de Santiago, to Madrid, who had previously served as her agent in Rome. She also had the support of her former confessor, Francisco de Córdoba, who had some influence over Philip II, and of her confessor at the time, Juan de Espinosa, who tried to win over the royal secretary Zayas.4 The ambassadors, however, discreetly attempted to stifle and boycott Maria’s negotiations with Philip II and Rudolf II, as the whispers of those religious men and ladies-in-waiting were thought to undermine the authority of the two sovereigns. In Prague, Borja warned against any commotion which could compromise the emperor, who openly opposed his mother’s plans.5 His counterpart in Madrid, Khevenhüller, was pressured by the empress to facilitate her negotiations with the two monarchs. In fact, however, he worked against those who helped her and agreed with the principal royal minister, Cardinal Granvelle, that her return to Madrid was to no one’s benefit.6 Maria’s move to Spain was untimely in terms of dynastic strategy and involved serious underlying financial problems which neither Philip II nor Rudolf II was willing to address. The empress’s household had always operated with a structural deficit, but the extraordinary assistance which she provided for the unsuccessful royal election in Poland in 1574–1576 bankrupted her treasury, since she had almost no access to credit in the Empire after the financial collapse of the Magno family.7 Rudolf II, who also faced grave economic difficulties, did not pay her the 30,000 florins per year to which she was entitled as a widow. She therefore reached an agreement with Italian financiers, through the mediation of the Viceroy of Naples, for an advance payment of 60,000 florins against her incomes from Naples.8 Only Pope Gregory XIII offered generous help, as he knew Maria’s moral anguish about the enormous debts which she had contracted and was “absolutely convinced that the presence of Her Majesty in those provinces is of great importance.”9 However, the aid of 100,000 ducats which he promised

174  Establishing imperial household in Madrid

her at the beginning of 1577 was in fact a weapon directed against Philip II, as this money came from the rich revenues of the Archbishopric of Toledo, whose collection was disputed between the pope and king during the imprisonment of Archbishop Carranza. Gregory XIII followed the same tactics which Maximilian II had used: he forced Philip II to commit revenues to the payment of his sister’s debts. Fearing a rift with Philip II and his ministers, Maria finally acceded and accepted only 50,000 ducats from other ecclesiastical sources of income in Spain. Her agents in Madrid, the treasurer Gaspar de Santiago and the accountant Murga, conducted tough negotiations, but without immediate results.10 Maria and her supporters had limited influence over the king and the emperor to obtain permission for her return to Spain. An unfortunate dynastic event finally defused the situation: on 26 October 1580, Queen Ana of Austria died in Badajoz. Philip II was widowed for the fourth time in the middle of his conquest of Portugal, with five young children and no adult family member available to act as a regent in his absence. The presence of his sister Maria was suddenly of vital importance, and in December 1580 he authorised her return for the following year.11 In order to address her great financial needs, Philip II finally sent the 50,000 ducats offered by the pope – which were to be paid from the revenues of the Archbishopric of Toledo – and promised a further 150,000 ducats. The amount was considerable but insufficient, as Rudolf II failed to pay off his mother’s debt of 200,000 florins. All possible means were therefore used to collect money: Philip II’s ministers helped implement a plan to raise 60,000 florins on credit against the revenues of Naples, while the loyal Adam von Dietrichstein lent the empress 50,000 florins and, since Rudolf II was unable to advance money himself, he resorted to loans from his courtiers.12 The logistical effort was both substantial and costly: as much as Maria wanted to spend the rest of her life in sober retirement, she needed an entourage of around a thousand people to make the journey, including the entire imperial household and Margarita, her only unmarried daughter. Juan de Borja quickly passed from being an obstacle to being the driving force behind the journey, as in February 1581 he also became the empress’s high steward, a

Establishing imperial household in Madrid  175

position which he held until her death and which allowed him to return to Madrid as a high-ranking court dignitary. The nuncio Malaspina admitted defeat, while other papal diplomats feared that “the Catholic religion would suffer a heavy blow” as a result of Maria’s absence.13 By contrast, Rudolf resolutely opposed his mother’s decision, which he interpreted as an abandonment of her dynastic role, and only reluctantly authorised her departure.14 His attitude verged on obstructionism, although two of his ministers, Paul Sixt von Trautson and Leonhard von Harrach, effectively collaborated with Borja. The latter was instrumental in the logistical work and accompanied Maria to Milan as an unofficial grey eminence. Harrach intended to crown his career with the title of Knight of the Golden Fleece, the most prestigious chivalric honour that the Spanish Kings could award. He rightly predicted that his outstanding service to the empress would earn him a recommendation to Philip II for the Golden Fleece, which he received in 1583.15 In the spring of 1581, as preparations for the journey progressed slowly, Rudolf made several attempts to dissuade his mother with the assistance of Rumpf, a minister protected by the empress, but strongly opposed to “such female firmness.”16 Rudolf unsuccessfully pursued a legal avenue, according to which Maria had to request permission from the Kingdoms of Hungary and Bohemia, as she was their crowned queen. The empress, however, ignored Rudolf II’s obstacles, who was forced to resort to family pressure. His brother Ernst, who came to his aid from Vienna, proposed to postpone the journey for the following year with a convincing excuse: the marriage negotiations between Elisabeth, his widowed sister, and Philip II. Elisabeth, who had clearly stated her intention to remain celibate, would agree to her brothers’ manoeuvre only if the pope advised her to marry.17 While Maria waited for the order to leave, these intrigues reached a breaking point between 24 and 26 July 1581. Several conversations ensued between her and her children Rudolf, Ernst, and Elisabeth. Rudolf II accused his mother of allowing herself to be advised only by “women and enthusiasts” and of not realising the inconvenience which her absence would cause. Maria assured him in tears that she would leave with

176  Establishing imperial household in Madrid

or without his permission and finally prevailed through raw emotion. On 1 August she left Prague with Margarita and Elisabeth. The latter withdrew to Königinkloster, the Poor Clare monastery which she founded in Vienna as the Austrian version of the Descalzas. From there Elisabeth maintained intense personal and spiritual contact with her mother.18 The triumph of Maria’s will and of Philip II’s needs put an enormous strain on dynastic harmony. In addition to the reaction of her sons Rudolf and Ernst, Maria faced opposition from her brothersin-law, Ferdinand and Karl. Ferdinand was the eldest member of the Austrian branch and Rudolf II thought of him as the empress’s best companion on her journey to Italy through his possessions in Tyrol. However, Ferdinand openly criticised Maria’s withdrawal and refused to bid her farewell in person or receive her in Tyrol, on the pretext that he had to visit some thermal baths for treatment.19 Faced with his contempt, Maria changed her route to enter Italy from Carinthia. Her other brother-in-law Karl, who was busy on the border with the Ottoman Empire, and her second-born son Ernst also did not accompany her on the journey. She was, however, joined by her youngest son in the Empire, Maximilian. Maximilian was in such a poor financial state that the expedition had to stop in Vienna for most of August to raise more funds for the journey.20 The departure from Prague was tumultuous, so that it was only in Vienna that Maria was able to dictate her first testament before the long journey that awaited her.21 Given the significant delay with which the journey had begun, it was vital to take the galleys in Genoa before the advance of autumn made navigation hazardous. This urgency and the need to preserve her unblemished image as a retired widow hastened her passage through northern Italy, preventing her from entering major cities (Venice, Ferrara, Mantua, and Milan) and participating in celebrations.22 The only temptation she faced was making pilgrimages to prominent shrines. In the end, she only visited the tomb of St Anthony in Padua, in accordance with her deep Franciscan spirituality, and avoided the shrine of Loreto and the entry into the Papal States. Even so, she was offended by the pope’s cool welcome;

Establishing imperial household in Madrid  177

he did not send a legate to meet and escort her, in contrast to her more satisfactory passage through the Republic of Venice, which she recounted to every Venetian ambassador in Madrid until her death.23 The empress’s pious journey through Italy was enhanced by her meeting with the Archbishop of Milan, (St) Carlo Borromeo, in Lodi, whose reputation for holiness was already well established and in whom she found “much consolation.” Borromeo took advantage of the visit to secure her intercession with Philip II regarding the jurisdictional dispute of the two men over Milan. Shortly before that, one of the sons of the Marquis of Castiglione, the future St Luigi Gonzaga, joined her retinue as a page. Escorted by her grandnephew Ranuccio Farnese, Prince of Parma, she arrived in Genoa on 16 October 1581. However, autumn was well under way, complicating the departure of the galleys with the imperial entourage.24 The fleet, commanded by Gian Andrea Doria, sailed under unfavourable conditions and had to stop in Marseille at the beginning of December 1581 due to rough seas. The empress refused to continue by sea and discussed with the pontifical authorities of Avignon and the French authorities the possibility of travelling by land. This meant passing through Languedoc, which put their safety at risk due to the Huguenot majority in the region, and lengthening the time of the journey from a couple of days sailing to about three weeks on horseback. Eventually, under the circumstances, the empress reluctantly set sail again for Collioure. However, once on Catalan soil, she continued her journey to Barcelona by land, despite the resulting organisational chaos and the disregard for the preparations for her naval reception in the Catalan capital.25 The empress’s retinue in Barcelona was headed by the Portuguese Antonio de Castro and the Archbishop of Seville, Rodrigo de Castro, who won the empress’s enthusiastic support for his claim to the cardinalate, which he obtained in 1583. After the hazardous journey from Prague, the financial situation of the household greatly improved thanks to the contributions made by Archbishop Castro, the loan of 12,000 pounds (~5,610 ducats) from the city of

178  Establishing imperial household in Madrid

Barcelona, and the 24,000 ducats sent by Philip II.26 The last phase of the journey, between Barcelona and Madrid, and the solemn entry into Zaragoza lasted from January to February 1582.

7.2 To govern or to retire? At the beginning of 1582, the model of governance of the Spanish monarchy underwent a profound reorganisation which would give it its institutionalised form well into the seventeenth century. Philip II was in Lisbon, commanding the recently conquered Kingdom of Portugal, while the administrative mechanism of the councils was based in Madrid under the direction of Cardinal Granvelle. The end of the factional tensions contributed to better coordination, as the Albists-Castilianists definitively imposed themselves on the heirs of the Prince of Eboli, who fell from grace in 1579.27 This new state of affairs created confusion among the imperialists, as both Khevenhüller and Maria were close to the Ebolists and the ambassador was unable to win over the new ministers. However, Cardinal Granvelle, the brother of the ambassador Chantonnay, with whom Maximilian and Maria had had a poor relationship, was extremely suspicious of the empress’s presence in Madrid. Granvelle made it plain to Khevenhüller that she would only come to Spain to perform “useful” tasks, and the diplomats speculated whether she would remain as regent in Castile or as vicereine in Portugal.28 Philip II was aware of his sister’s strong will to retire but hoped to change her mind personally and demanded that she continue her journey to meet him in Lisbon. Maria’s first stay in Madrid was brief, barely a month, and clearly demonstrated her independent spirit: instead of officially entering the city, she circumvented it and travelled directly to El Pardo to meet her nieces, Isabel Clara Eugenia and Catalina Micaela, and her grandchildren, Diego, Philip, and Maria, on 23 February 1582. From there she went to El Escorial, where she inspected the construction of the monastery and visited her parents’ tomb. She did not enter Madrid until 6 March, demanding that there be no formal reception. After leaving the infantes in the Royal Alcázar, she went immediately to the Descalzas

Establishing imperial household in Madrid  179

Reales. There she was greeted by the counsellors, ambassadors, and nobles, who appeared in the order in which they were called by Juan de Borja. Upon her arrival, the mourning for the death of Queen Ana in 1580 came to an end, as in her mother’s entourage “ladies and other women dress in finery.”29 As revealed by the correspondence between Philip II and his daughters, the monarch wanted them to treat their aunt as their mother and inquired about the empress’s opinion of the Royal Sites after so many years of absence and whether he still resembled his sister as much as in the past. He finally met Maria near Almeirim, some hundred kilometres from Lisbon, on 5 May 1582.30 Brother and sister were overcome with emotion; the empress burst into tears and Philip would later confess: “you can imagine how much she and I rejoiced when we saw each other, having lived 26 years without seeing each other.”31 Maria was also reunited with her youngest son, Albert, whom she had not seen for twelve years. Despite the touching outcome, Maria was initially reluctant to travel to Portugal. Due to her poor relationship with Cardinal Granvelle, she was urged to change her mind by Jesuit priests and the Archbishop of Toledo, Quiroga, one of the ministers out of favour who returned to Madrid to persuade her. 32 Philip II also had two powerful weapons: the promise that he would settle her great debts and that they would negotiate the only worldly matter that still concerned the empress, the marriage between Rudolf II and her eldest niece, Infanta Isabel Clara Eugenia.33 Maria spent almost a year in Lisbon, firmly refusing to accept the governance of Portugal or develop strong ties with her mother’s native kingdom beyond including two Portuguese ladies-in-waiting in her entourage. Her relationship with the new triumphant ministers was guarded. She was reportedly snubbed by the Duke of Alba, the new powerful figure at court, who did not go out to meet her in Lisbon past the door of the royal palace, although when Philip II fell seriously ill the duke and the empress agreed, as the two existing authorities, that the king should not be bled.34 Philip II maintained a strong relationship with his sister. They also discussed imperial affairs at length, which was why Maria had brought with her the ambassador Khevenhüller, who, like his

180  Establishing imperial household in Madrid

Spanish counterparts in the Empire, occupied an ambiguous position of double service to Rudolf II and his mother.35 The empress acted with confidence in “the state negotiations of Germany” to the point of challenging the monkish image that her biographers drew of her.36 She advocated a rapprochement with Saxony, with whose duchess she shared a friendship, on the grounds that it was not hostile to the House of Habsburg, despite being a Lutheran territory.37 In addition, she insisted that her brother should abandon his attempts to marry her daughter Margarita, partly because “she was crippled apart from lame and had a very different face and appearance from the others and was quite deformed.”38 Progress on the important question of Rudolf and Isabel’s marriage was only made when the circumstances allowed. In June 1582, Rudolf was asked to confer negotiating powers on Maria and Khevenhüller, but he never sent a reply amidst his pathological indecision and the unease of his ministers at the prospect of another Spanish sovereign.39 Those who believed that Maria would remain as a vicereine were soon proved wrong, as it became clear that the position would be assigned to her son, Cardinal Albert.40 While preparations were being made for the return of the court to Castile in early 1583, it was still speculated that she would serve as a governor in Madrid, while Philip II moved to Aragon or even Italy.41 However, the king’s terms were clear: if Maria retired to the monastery of the Descalzas, she would have no say in negotiations. She had already promised this to her children before abandoning the Empire, who dreaded their mother’s initiatives. The Venetian ambassador Zane, who followed the events closely, echoes Maria’s frustration, who in May 1583, two months after permanently settling in the Descalzas, “lived more isolated than she might have wished, because the king does not allow her to take part in any kind of negotiations and her pleas for whatever she might want to be involved in are not heard.”42 Her efforts to secure the future of her children produced mixed results. She fulfilled her purpose of having her youngest daughter Margarita join the monastery of the Descalzas and accompany her for the rest of her life, putting an end to Philip II’s plans for

Establishing imperial household in Madrid  181

a marriage with the same unyielding authority with which she had dealt with her sons in Prague. When Margarita professed in January 1584 under the name of Sister Margarita de la Cruz, Maria informed the king only the day before and took Khevenhüller’s criticism for not “letting the king believe that his arguments had some value.”43 Margarita achieved great spiritual fame, and her beatification was promoted after her death, although she retained her privileges as an infanta, with special dispensations, her own room, and domestic service.44 The empress had less room for decision-making in the marriage plans for her son Rudolf II, whose absolute silence on the matter gradually discredited her. After Margarita de la Cruz’s vows, Maria used every possible mediator to advance the marriage talks in March 1584, defending herself “as a lady and a mother,” even at the risk of strengthening Rudolf II’s mistrust. According to Khevenhüller, she wrote to the ministers Dietrichstein, Rumpf, Harrach, and Trautson, and above all asked her second son Ernst to act as her representative before the emperor, again without success.45 Ernst’s intervention was supposed to give her greater leverage, since, according to her plan, Rudolf ’s marriage would be supplemented with that of Ernst himself with the second infanta, Catalina Micaela.46 Duke Charles Emmanuel I of Savoy also competed for Catalina Micaela’s hand but his diplomats had little room for negotiation in Madrid under the vigilant eye of the empress.47 However, as the dominant ministers acted outside her circle, the counsellor Juan de Zúñiga negotiated the marriage between the infanta and the Duke of Savoy in September 1584 without Maria and Khevenhüller’s knowledge. Philip II thus showed that his priority was to secure alliances in northern Italy rather than strengthen intra-dynastic ties. Khevenhüller formally complained that the emperor had been ignored in the process, while Maria tried to undermine the engagement through indiscreet and unsuccessful manoeuvres.48 The Savoyan agents feared her initiatives, as she was particularly militant and her position was unassailable, but such little success demonstrates how easy it was for Spanish policymakers to circumvent her actions and how limited her influence was.

182  Establishing imperial household in Madrid

7.3 The palace in the monastery Maria settled in Madrid in the precincts of the Descalzas Reales, founded by her sister Juana in 1559 under the influence of (St) Francis Borgia, who proposed the Colettine reform of the Poor Clares as an apt way to promote a more radical spirituality. The first nuns came from the convent of Gandía and the most long-lived abbess was Juana de la Cruz (1557–1601), sister of Francis Borgia and aunt of Juan de Borja, who saw her family’s influence grow in the empress’s entourage. Maria effectively protected the interests of the community and the authority of the abbess against Philip II’s attempts to give more power to the high chaplains, who were eventually appointed on her recommendation.49 The empress lived outside the cloister, in the quarters which Juana had earmarked

FIGURE 7.1

Coat of arms of Empress Maria (Descalzas Reales, Madrid) © Patrimonio Nacional

Establishing imperial household in Madrid  183

for her residence, although she never continuously occupied them. They were situated in the north wing of the palace of the contador (accountant) Gutiérrez, on top of which the monastery was built as well as around the altar of the church, as was traditionally the case with the royal quarters in Iberian monasteries. As a symbol of this double character of the building, the main room (now Salón de Reyes) communicated with the cloister through a door which was guarded on each side by a lady and a nun.50 On the other side of the Plaza de las Descalzas was the Casa de la Tesorera, Juan de Borja’s residence, which was connected with the empress’s apartments through an elevated passage, allowing discreet access to visitors. The rest of the servants were distributed among the ground floor below the empress’s quarters, other houses adjacent to the complex of the Descalzas (Casa de la Misericordia and Casa de Capellanes) and rented dwellings in the area. Despite its monumental modesty, the complex had the characteristics of a court comparable to that of the Royal Alcázar and a public space for celebrations, the Plaza de las Descalzas.51 Maria followed, on a larger scale, in the footsteps of her old servants. Her Governess Leonor de Mascarenhas lived in the convent of the Poor Clares of Los Ángeles, which she had founded in 1563 a hundred metres from the Descalzas, without taking vows, while her lady-in-waiting María de Aragón was striving at the time to build the Augustinian College of La Encarnación (for which the empress’s intercession with the pope had been of great help), which included a house for her next to the church.52 Maria received papal dispensations to enter the monastery freely and share the monastic life at will.53 Her biographers emphasised her demanding daily regime: a nun read to her the life of the saint of the day and a book of moral instruction; after lunch she retired to the reliquary to pray with the Infanta Margarita; in her free time she sewed and read with her daughter and her ladies-in-waiting; and in the evening she devoted two hours to spoken and silent prayer in bed. This “profound praying” with tears and agony of soul led her on the mystical path of seclusion, which through methodical prayer and imaginative meditation cultivated the spirit of renunciation necessary for one’s union with God.54

184  Establishing imperial household in Madrid

Maria followed a mixed life and her religious fervour coexisted with more worldly endeavours. She delighted in how the perfumer Gigante composed his formulas, organised mythological theatre plays in the Salón de Reyes in the presence of the prince and the infanta, and – at least until the end of the 1590s and as long as her health allowed – moved freely around Madrid and its surroundings.55 In addition to her frequent visits to the Royal Alcázar, she regularly visited various churches and convents of the court and made excursions to the Casa de Campo and the orchards of Juan de Borja and Cardinal Quiroga.56 Philip II controlled her movements and, given her poor financial condition, invited her to the Royal Sites of El Pardo, Aranjuez, El Escorial, Valsaín, and Segovia,

FIGURE 7.2

Blas de Prado, La emperatriz María y Felipe III príncipe (Museo de Santa Cruz, Toledo, 1586) © David Blázquez

Establishing imperial household in Madrid  185

where they went on country trips and hunting outings.57 Due to her insufficient resources, and in order to preserve her image as a widow and avoid being separated from her daughter in the Descalzas, Maria did not accompany the royal family on the visits to the Crown of Aragon and nor attended non-religious celebrations. She only deviated from this pattern on two occasions, as they were royal invitations to religious festivals: on the arrival of the relics of Saint Leocadia in Toledo (1587) and the canonisation of Saint Diego of Alcalá in Alcalá de Henares (1589).58 Although family contact eased ceremonial tensions, Maria’s presence disrupted the established order, since her local position was that of an infanta of Castile. She staunchly defended, however, her status as empress, which made her superior in rank to everyone else. Courtly custom dictated that each distinguished visitor, whether nuncio, ambassador, Italian prince, or Japanese envoy, should first present himself to Philip II and his children in the Alcázar and then to the empress in the Descalzas.59 Delicate negotiations were required in more solemn acts, as in Prince Philip’s swearing-in ceremony as heir to Castile in November 1584. Maria was unwilling to take an oath of allegiance to her grandson and in the end the ceremony was adapted to her tastes: she attended Mass in the church of San Jerónimo from a high window, then Philip II accompanied her to the altar, and there, to the right of the king, she was the first to recognise the prince, who refused to allow his grandmother to kiss his hand and embraced her.60 Less cordial was the resolution of the crisis caused by the enactment of the Pragmática de las Cortesías (“Etiquette on Titles and Courtesies,” 1586), by which Philip II authoritatively regulated the system of ranks and honours at his court, defying papal and imperial prerogatives. Maria resisted her brother’s attempts to legislate how she and her children were to be treated and deprive her high steward, Borja, of his title of lordship.61 Philip II flatly refused to discuss the issue with the empress, who came up with a more imaginative solution, perhaps suggested by the ambitious Borja: Rudolf II would grant Borja an imperial county, so that the latter would regain his lost dignity and the former would feed his vanity by demonstrating his ability to alter the ceremonial order in Madrid.

186  Establishing imperial household in Madrid

However, Rudolf II showed no interest, while his ambassador Khevenhüller was unwilling to favour his rival Borja.62

7.4 The establishment of the imperial household The eventful relocation of the imperial household from Prague to Madrid and its adjustment to a monastic context put the empress’s circle and the continuity of her servants to the test. From the 600– 700 persons listed in her retinue during the passage through Italy only a hundred individuals remained – “a household that was not very numerous, in which there is hardly anyone left who is not employed in positions necessary for her service” – under the authoritative government of the high steward, Juan de Borja, and the first lady of the bedchamber, Ana de Cardona.63 The empress’s reduced household preserved its cosmopolitan character, since, apart from the predominant Spanish contingent, there were Italians, Dutch, and Germans, the latter especially in the guard and minor positions. Two of the most original ecclesiastical authors of the Spanish seventeenth century, Juan Eusebio de Nieremberg and Juan Caramuel Lobkowicz, were sons of these servants.64 The three Spanish-imperial families which formed the backbone of Maria’s service also underwent changes. The Laso de Castilla family had a symbolic presence through Margarita Laso and her husband, Count Trivulzio, while the Dietrichstein-Cardona and the Pernstein-Manrique families maintained their continuity. One of the daughters of the chancellor Pernstein married the Duke of Villahermosa, while another took the veil in the Descalzas and became an abbess.65 Among the Cardona women, apart from the first lady of the bedchamber, there was a dueña de honor and a lady-in-waiting, who also became a nun in the Descalzas.66 Entry into the Descalzas Reales was relatively common given the dynamic relationship between the monastery and the imperial household. One of Juan de Borja’s daughters and a German lady, Ana Mollard, daughter of Maria’s former master of the horse, also professed there.67 High-ranking male servants found it more difficult to advance their careers at court due to the greater integration of women.

Establishing imperial household in Madrid  187

The steward Ernst von Mollard, brother of the aforementioned Ana Mollard, was released of his duties in 1583, apparently because Maria was not satisfied with his services. The same fate befell Count Claudio Trivulzio, husband of Margarita Laso de Castilla and master of the horse to Rudolf II. Trivulzio had unexpectedly abandoned his position to serve Maria as her interim master of the horse but his attempts to establish himself in Madrid or his native Milan failed. He was sabotaged by Khevenhüller, who was offended by his decision to abandon the emperor, and by Borja, who feared a rival nobleman within the household that was better connected to the Italian princes. Neither Philip II nor Maria came to his defence, and he left Spain in 1588.68 Juan de Borja, however, consolidated his control over the imperial household to an unprecedented degree. Apart from negotiating marriages between his relatives and members of the Cardona and Manrique families, he managed to have two of his brothers appointed consecutively as stewards, as well as an aunt of his as a dueña de honor. His wife, Francisca de Aragón, also assumed additional duties in Maria’s chamber as dueña de honor.69 The ambassador Khevenhüller served Maria in the domestic sphere too, and competed with Borja as her principal minister, as she used both of them depending on the negotiation and the interlocutors.70 The ambassador disapproved of the all-encompassing control which, as he claimed, the Borja-Aragón couple (and the Portuguese Jesuit chaplain, Francisco Antonio) exercised over the empress’s entourage and accused Borja of being a poor administrator, irritable, and idle.71 Khevenhüller nurtured the image of a kind-hearted Maria suffering in the hands of a clique of intriguers who took advantage of her authority to advance their interests, such as placing some twenty of their own servants on the salary list of the empress’s household or sabotaging the weddings of Maria Landi and the Countess of Alcañices, because they were not marrying members of their family.72 When the elderly first lady of the bedchamber, Ana de Cardona, became incapacitated in 1587, Philip II proposed to restructure the household to avoid the monopoly of the Borja family and asked for Khevenhüller’s advice, but Maria rejected any innovations.73

188  Establishing imperial household in Madrid

Khevenhüller’s most explicit accusation was the poor financial management of the household, which forced him to stop such questionable initiatives by Borja as selling the empress’s finest jewellery.74 The deplorable image of the empress’s household had been recurrent since her arrival in Spain. Upon entering Lisbon, an observer noted the dishevelled appearance of her entourage, “which seemed to have been robbed by the French or the English […] they looked like gypsies,” and Philip II noticed the old-fashioned clothes of her ladies-in-waiting.75 Although this poverty was later cast as a virtue, it was largely the product of Philip II’s deliberate policy to avoid giving excessive autonomy to his sister. Maria was disappointed by Philip’s lack of sensitivity, as she received little financial help to pay off her pressing debts in the Empire, which threatened the credit of loyal servants such as Adam von Dietrichstein and Constantino Magno.76 Maria placed her hopes on the distribution of the inheritance of her nephew, Sebastian I of Portugal, from which she had a share equal to that of Philip II, amounting to 1,500,000 ducats. Unable to exert any substantial pressure, she had to negotiate an agreement in 1583–1584, whereby she received a life annuity of 20,000 ducats from the almojarifazgos (port tariffs) of Seville, which, when added to her Neapolitan income, theoretically amounted to around 50,000 ducats a year.77 Rudolf was no prompter in fulfilling his commitments to his mother. Maria renounced the Heiratsgut (dowry money) to which she was entitled as a widow in exchange for the settlement of her debts in the Empire which amounted to 200,000 florins (133,333 ducats).78 This agreement from 1585 was implemented almost a decade later, as it formed part of the debate over the division of Maximilian II’s inheritance. Rudolf II was unwilling to share his inheritance with his brothers and his mother, thus inciting the bitterest disputes within the imperial family. Maria also demanded the rightful inheritance of her son Wenzel, who had granted it to her before his death, and that provision be made for the maintenance of her daughter Margarita, who was in her care in Madrid, which she only accomplished in 1595.79 Maria’s image in Madrid was one of financial hardship in a small and discordant household. Meanwhile, the king denied her a role

Establishing imperial household in Madrid

189

outside the family sphere and the new ministers appeared to be against her. However, the presence of the dowager empress at the court of Madrid opened possibilities for patronage and the integration of a new nexus of power, whose scope would become apparent in the following years.

Notes 1 Nuncio Taverna to Cardinal Gallio, Barcelona, 17/12/1581, AAV, SS, Sp., 28, 42v; Elisabeth Schoder, “Die Reise der Kaiserin nach Spanien (1581/82),” in Edelmayer, Hispania-Austria II, 177. 2 Carrillo, Relacion, 184r–185r. 3 Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 02/04/1579, Stieglecker, “Die Berichte,” 59; Relatione delli Clarissimi…, Fiedler, Relationen, 394–395; the Countess of Villasor to Zúñiga, Prague, 08/01/1580, BGe, Favre, XXI, 35v. 4 Maria of Austria to Córdoba, Prague, 23/04/1578, AGS, E, 683, n. 103; Espinosa to Zayas, Prague, 26/04/1578 and 15/01/1579, AGS, E, 685, unpaginated. 5 Borja to Philip II, Vienna, 23/02/1578, AGS, E, 683, n. 3; Maria of Austria to Philip II, Prague, 08/11/1578, AGS, E, 683, n. 97–98. 6 Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 04/01/1580, HHStA, SDK, 10/1, 2v; Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 13/03/1579 and 11/11/1579, Stieglecker, “Die Berichte,” 42–43 and 155–156. 7 Maria of Austria to Philip II, Prague, 24/01/1581, BFZ, Altamira, 157, doc. 16; Nuncio Malaspina to Cardinal Gallio, Prague, 31/01/1581, NBD, 3/10:414. 8 Borja to Philip II, Prague, 17/12/1578, AGS, E, 687, unpaginated; Borja to Zúñiga, Prague, 26/02/1580, BGe, Favre, XIV, 185r–188r. 9 Zúñiga to Monteagudo, Rome, 13/03/1577, BGe, Favre, XXIV, 39r. 10 Monteagudo to Zúñiga, Prague, 10/01/1577, IVDJ, 5-1, n. 114; Papal brief of Gregory XIII to Maria of Austria, Rome, 08/01/1578, AGS, E, 683, n. 90; Khevenhüller to Zúñiga, Madrid, 20/09/1579, IVDJ, 5-1, n. 144; Pizarro Llorente, Un gran patrón, 382. 11 Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 01/11/1580, HHStA, SDK, 10/1, 77v; Badoer to the Doge of Venice, Prague, 24/01/1581, ASVe, DS, Germania, 7, 331r; Schoder, “Die Reise,” 155. 12 Badoer to the Doge of Venice, Prague, 11/04/1581, ASVe, DS, Germania, 8, 24r–24v; Sobre la renta que la Emperatriz tiene en el reino de Napoles, 1581, BFZ, Altamira, 153, doc. 152; Borja to Philip II, Polen, 06/08/1581, AGS, E, 688, n. 117. Schoder, “Die Reise,” 161–165. 13 Nuncio Dolfin to Cardinal Gallio, Regensburg, 12/10/1576, NBD, 3/8:636; Nuncio Malaspina to Cardinal Gallio, Prague, 31/01/1581, NBD, 3/10:413. Koller, “La facción española,” 118–119.

190 Establishing imperial household in Madrid

14 Badoer to the Doge of Venice, Prague, 30/01/1581, ASVe, DS, Germania, 7, 333r–334v; Rudolf II to Khevenhüller, Prague, 26/04/1581, Schoder, “Die Berichte,” 55–56. 15 Maria also successfully recommended to the golden fleece to the burgrave of Bohemia, Wilhelm von Rosenberg. Borja to Philip II, Polen, 06/08/1581, AGS, E, 688, n. 117; Schoder, “Die Reise,” 157, 166; Haberer, Ohnmacht und Chance, 177–181. 16 Badoer to the Doge of Venice, Prague, 11/07/1581, ASVe, DS, Germania, 8, 70r–70v. 17 Badoer to the Doge of Venice, Prague, 25/04/1581 and 16/07/1581, ASVe, DS, Germania, 8, 31r and 72r–72v; Koller, “Einleitung,” lx. 18 Badoer to the Doge of Venice, Prague, 25/07/1581, 26/07/1581, and 27/07/1581, ASVe, DS, Germania, 8, 94r, 98r, and 101r. Marek, “Tre bone amye,” 42; Hodapp, Habsburgerinnen, 96–108. 19 Badoer to the Doge of Venice, Prague, 30/05/1581, ASVe, DS, Germania, 8, 48v–49r; the French ambassador St Goard to Catherine de’ Medici, Madrid, 24/07/1581, in Friedrich von Bezold, ed., Briefe des Pfalzgrafen Johann Casimir mit verwandten Schriftstücken (München: Gustav Himmer, 1882), 1:443; Josef Hirn, Erzherzog Ferdinand II. von Tirol, vol. 2 (Innsbruck: Wagner, 1888), 97. 20 Giovanni Francesco Marchesini to the Doge of Venice, Vienna, 30/08/1581, ASVe, DS, Germania, 8, 157r; Schoder, “Die Reise,” 161–165. 21 First testament, Vienna, 20/08/1581, BNE, R/39135. 22 Schoder, “Die Reise,” 168–178. 23 Badoer to the Doge of Venice, Prague, 07/02/1581 and 23/06/1581, ASVe, DS, Germania, 7, 338r–339r and 8, 55r; Cardinal Gallio to Nuncio Sega, Rome, 24/12/1581, AAV, SS, Sp., 27, 246r–247v; Francesco Soranzo to the Doge of Venice, Madrid, 21/11/1598, ASVe, DS, Spagna, 30, n. 81. In 1576, the Valencian Franciscan friar Cristóbal Moreno dedicated her an Epistola including the life and miracles of Saint Anthony of Padua (Valencia: Ioan Navarro, 1576). 24 Philip II to Borja, Tomar, 14/05/1581, AGS, E, 688, n. 184; Giovanni Pietro Giussano, Vita Di S. Carlo Borromeo (Roma: Stamp. della Camera Apostolica, 1610), 417; Fidel Fita, “San Luis Gonzaga en Zaragoza y Madrid,” Boletín de la Real Academia de la Historia 18 (1891): 68–74. 25 Nuncio Taverna to Cardinal Gallio, Marseille, 06/12/1581 and Barcelona, 17/12/1581, AAV, SS, Sp., 28, 38r–38v and 42r–42v; Schoder, “Die Reise,” 176–177; Alfredo Chamorro Esteban, “El paso de las infantas de la Casa de Austria por Barcelona (1551–1666),” in De la tierra al cielo. Líneas recientes de investigación en historia moderna, ed. Eliseo Serrano (Zaragoza: IFC, 2013), 497–502. 26 Archbishop Castro to Philip II, Barcelona, 10/01/1582, IVDJ, 7-2, 412r; Nuncio Taverna to Cardinal Gallio, Madrid, 01/01/1584, AAV, SS, Sp., 31, 3r; Cargo de las 12000 libras que la ciudad de Barcelona prestó a la emperatriz al venir de Alemania, Archivo de la Corona de Aragón,

Establishing imperial household in Madrid

27 28

29 30

31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

39

40 41

191

Consejo de Aragón, 267, n. 38; Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 13/11/1581, Schoder, “Die Berichte,” 126. Rivero, La monarquía, 153–159; Martínez Millán, “Factions,” 120–123. Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 01/11/1580 and 10/11/1580, HHStA, SDK, 10/1, 77v and 80r–81r; Badoer to the Doge of Venice, Prague, 24/01/1581, ASVe, DS, Germania, 7, 331r; Nuncio Taverna to Cardinal Gallio, Madrid, 01/03/1582, AAV, SS, Sp., 28, 67r; Danvila, Don Cristobal de Moura, 540. Antonio de Pazos to Mateo Vázquez, Madrid, 26/02/1582, IVDJ, 21–32, 874r; Consultation of the Council of the Indies, Madrid, 17/02/1582, AGI, Indiferente, 740, n. 21. Philip II to the infantas, Lisbon, 30/10/1581, 29/01/1582, 19/02/1582, and 19/03/1582, in Fernando Bouza, ed., Cartas de Felipe II a sus hijas (Madrid: Akal, 1998), 62, 68, 71–72, and 76; the Countess of Paredes to Margarita de Cardona, Madrid, 06/08/1581, MZA, RADM, 426, 1903/35, 5v. Philip II to the infantas, Almeirim, 07/05/1582, Bouza, Cartas, 82; Luigi Dovara to Francis I of Tuscany, Almeirim, 07/05/1582, ASFi, MP, 4914, 173r–173v. Matteo Zane to the Doge of Venice, Madrid, 05/03/1582, ASVe, DS, Spagna, 15, n. 2; Pizarro Llorente, Un gran patrón, 594–595. Relatione delli Clarissimi…, Fiedler, Relationen, 395. Philip II to the infantas, Aldeia Galega, 14/02/1583, Bouza, Cartas, 103; Zane to the Doge of Venice, Madrid, 25/05/1582, ASVe, DS, Spagna, 15, n. 19; Avisos de Lisboa, 23/07/1582, AAV, SS, Sp., 28, 162r. Alvar Ezquerra, El Embajador, 413–414; Nuncio Taverna to Cardinal Gallio, Madrid, 16/04/1582, AAV, SS, Sp., 28, 93r. Juan de Palma, Vida de la serenissima infanta Sor Margarita de la Cruz (Madrid: Inprenta Real, 1636), 42v–43r. Philip II to San Clemente, Lisbon, 14/06/1582 and 27/08/1582, AGS, E, 689, n. 73 and 79; Keller, “Les reseaux femenines,” 170. Relatione delli Clarissimi…, Fiedler, Relationen, 393; Claudia Reichl-Ham, “Die Korrespondenz zwischen Kaiser Rudolf II. und Johann Khevenhüller, seinem Gesandten in Spanien (1583)” (State diss., Universität Wien, 1995), xlvii–xlviii. Felix Stieve, Die Verhandlungen über die Nachfolge Kaiser Rudolfs II. in den Jahren 1581–1602 (München: Verl. der K. Akad., 1880), 9–11; Rodríguez-Salgado, “I loved him,” 364–375; Carlo Pallavicino to Charles Emmanuel I of Savoy, Madrid, 06/06/1583, ASTo, LM, Sp, 3, unpaginated. Annibale Cambi to Charles Emmanuel I of Savoy, Madrid, 06/1582, ASTo, LM, Sp, 3, unpaginated; Hortal Muñoz, “The Household,” 115–119. Nuncio Taverna to Cardinal Gallio, Madrid, 25/10/1582, AAV, SS, Sp., 28, 230r; Annibale Cambi to Charles Emmanuel I of Savoy, Madrid, 08/11/1582, ASTo, LM, Sp, 3, unpaginated.

192 Establishing imperial household in Madrid

42 Zane to the Doge of Venice, Madrid, 09/05/1583, ASVe, DS, Spagna, 16, n. 13, 4r; Relazione di Matteo Zane, 1584, Albèri, Relazioni, vol. 1/5 (Firenze: a spese dell’editore, 1862), 366–367; Giuseppe Argentero to Charles Emmanuel I of Savoy, Madrid, 21/04/1587, ASTo, LM, Sp, 4, unpaginated. 43 Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 01/02/1584, HHStA, SDK, 11/9, 4v; Palma, Vida, 44r–52r. 44 María Leticia Sánchez Hernández, “El proceso de beatificación de sor Margarita de la Cruz y Austria,” in Subir a los altares. Modelos de santidad en la Monarquía Hispánica (S. XVI-XVIII), eds. Inmaculada Arias de Saavedra et al. (Granada: Universidad de Granada, 2018), 133–154. 45 Khevenhüller to Ernst of Austria, Madrid, 02/03/1584, HHStA, SDK, 11/9, 11r–13v. 46 Zane to the Doge of Venice, Madrid, 09/03/1583 and 09/04/1583, ASVe, DS, Spagna, 16, n. 1 and 7. 47 Pallavicino to Charles Emmanuel I of Savoy, Madrid, 25/04/1583 and 20/06/1583, ASTo, LM, Sp, 3, unpaginated. 48 Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 22/09/1584, HHStA, SDK, 11/9, 51r–52r; Pallavicino to Charles Emmanuel I of Savoy, Madrid, 05/01/1585, ASTo, LM, Sp, 3, unpaginated. For Catalina Micaela’s household in Turin following the Spanish style, see Magdalena Sánchez, “‘She Grows Careless’: The Infanta Catalina and Spanish Etiquette at the Court of Savoy,” in Early Modern Dynastic Marriages and Cultural Transfer, eds. Joan-Lluís Palos and Magdalena Sánchez (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2016), 21–43. 49 Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 01/05/1584, HHStA, SDK, 11/9, 24r; Borja to the Duke of Lerma, Madrid, 12/12/1601, BL, Add. Mss., 28424, 236r; Carrillo, Relación, 17v–22r, 135r; María Leticia Sánchez Hernández, Patronato regio y órdenes religiosas femeninas en el Madrid de los Austrias: Descalzas Reales, Encarnación y Santa Isabel (Madrid: FUE, 1997), 29–36, 78–79; María Leticia Sánchez Hernández, “Servidoras de Dios, leales al Papa: las monjas de los Monasterios Reales,” Librosdelacorte.es Extra 1 (2014): 301; Magdalena Sánchez, “Where Palace and Convent Met: The Descalzas Reales in Madrid,” Sixteenth-Century Journal 46 (2015): 61–62. 50 Nuncio Speciano to Cardinal Montalto, Madrid, 02/04/1588, AAV, SS, Sp., 34, 250r–250v; Palma, Vida, 91v–92r; María Ángeles Toajas Roger, “Palacios ocultos: las Descalzas Reales de Madrid,” in Felix Austria. Lazos familiares, cultura política y mecenazgo artístico entre las cortes de los Habsburgo, ed. Bernardo García (Madrid: Fundación Carlos de Amberes, 2016), 354–355, 360–366; Annemarie Jordan Gschwend, “The Monastery I Have Built in This City of Madrid: Mapping Juana de Austria’s Royal Spaces in the Descalzas Reales Convent,” in Representing Women’s Political Identity in the Early Modern Iberian World, eds. Jeremy Roe and Jean Andrews (London: Routledge, 2020), 133–138.

Establishing imperial household in Madrid

193

51 José Miguel Muñoz de la Nava, “Monasterio de las Descalzas Reales de Madrid. La Casa de Capellanes y la de Misericordia,” Anales del Instituto de Estudios Madrileños 51 (2011): 70–74; Sánchez, “Where Palace and Convent Met,” 54–55, 68; María José del Río Barredo, Madrid, urbs regia: la capital ceremonial de la Monarquía Católica (Madrid: Marcial Pons, 2000), 146–147. 52 Carmen Soriano Triguero, “Fundación y dote del convento de Nuestra Señora de los Ángeles de Madrid. Peculiaridades de un modelo diferente de patronato regio,” Cuadernos de Historia Moderna 17 (1996): 48; Rafael Lazcano, “Colegio de doña María de Aragón (Madrid): de los orígenes a la desamortización de Mendizábal,” La desamortización: el expolio del patrimonio artístico y cultural de la Iglesia en España (El Escorial: RCU Escorial-Mª Cristina, 2007), 380; Nuncio Speciano to Cardinal Rusticucci, Madrid, 21/06/1587, AAV, SS, Sp., 19, 248r. 53 Nuncio Caetani to Cardinal Aldobrandini, Madrid, 02/04/1593, AAV, SS, Sp., 43, 79r–82v. 54 Méndez Silva, Admirable Vida, 44r; Palma, Vida, 92r–92v; Carrillo, Relación, 197r. Palma Martínez-Burgos García, “Viudas ejemplares: la princesa doña Juana de Austria, mecenazgo y devoción,” Chronica nova 34 (2008): 79. 55 Pallavicino to Charles Emmanuel I of Savoy, Madrid, 01/08/1583, ASTo, LM, Sp, 3, unpaginated; Eugenia Fosalba Vela, “La Égloga Dafne. Algunas precisiones sobre su representación, fecha de composición y posible, aunque no demostrada, autoría,” Propaldia 2 (2008): 1–7. 56 Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 01/5/1584 and 13/11/1584, HHStA, SDK, 11/9, 24v and 64r–65r; Juan Carrillo de Alderete to Albert of Austria, Campillo, 17/05/1597, AGR, SEG, 489, 119v. Sánchez, The Empress, 85–86. 57 Azagra to Ernst of Austria, Madrid, 28/03/1594, AGR, SEG, 479, unpaginated; Argentero to Charles Emmanuel I of Savoy, Madrid, 30/06/1587 and 09/08/1587, ASTo, LM, Sp, 4, unpaginated. 58 Pedro Sánchez, Historia moral y philosophica… (Toledo: Viuda de Juan de la Plaça, 1590), 184r–187v; Peter Cherry and Arantza Mayo, “The Fabric of Saintly Proof: Leocadia of Toledo from Orrente to Calderón,” Bulletin of Spanish Studies 93(7–8) (2016): 1345, 1353–1354; Alvar Ezquerra, El Embajador, 482–483. 59 Pallavicino to Charles Emmanuel I of Savoy, Madrid, 12/10/1584, ASTo, LM, Sp, 3, unpaginated; Cavato da una l.ra del Provincial di Toledo scritta al P. G.nrale della Compagnia di Giesu, 17/12/1584, AAV, SS, Sp., 31, 227v. 60 Alvar Ezquerra, El Embajador, 438; Ceremonia del juramento del príncipe de España, 15/11/1584, AAV, SS, Sp., 31, 194r–195r. 61 Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 01/11/1586 and 22/12/1586, HHStA, SDK, 11/9, 202r–203r and 215r; Argentero to Charles Emmanuel I of Savoy, Madrid, 28/10/1586, ASTo, LM, Sp, 4, unpaginated;

194

62

63

64

65

66

67 68

69

70

Establishing imperial household in Madrid

José Martínez Millán, “El control de las normas cortesanas y la elaboración de la pragmática de cortesías (1586),” Edad de oro 18 (1999): 103–133. Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 17/12/1595, 03/09/1596, and 02/06/1598, in Maria Stieglecker, “Wir haben dein gehorsames schreiben empfangen: die Korrespondenz Rudolfs II. mit Johann Khevenhüller, seinem Gesandten in Spanien 1595–1598” (PhD diss., Universität Wien, 2002), 178–181, 240–241, and 370. Zane to the Doge of Venice, Madrid, 22/02/1583, ASVe, DS, Spagna, 15, n. 72. The household’s lists in Italy and Spain in ASVe, DS, Germania, 8, 118r–123r and Martínez Millán, “La emperatriz María,” 157–162. Maria of Austria to Dietrichstein, Madrid, 13/07/1585, MZA, RADM, 423, 1898/163, 7r; Martínez Millán, “La emperatriz,” 160–161; Julián Velarde Lombraña, Juan Caramuel. Vida y obra (Oviedo: Pentalfa, 1989), 12–13, 90–97. Pavel Marek, “‘Signora di molta stima in questa corte’. La duquesa de Villahermosa Juana de Pernstein a través del epistolario conservado en el Archivo de la Casa de Alba,” in De puño y letra: cartas personales en las redes dinásticas de la Casa de Austria, eds. Bernardo García et al. (Madrid: Iberoamericana, 2019), 279–281; Pavel Marek, “Luisa de las Llagas. La abadesa de las Descalzas y el proceso de la comunicación política y cultural entre la corte real española y la imperial,” Pedralbes 31 (2011): 56–64. Beatriz de Dietrichstein to Sigismund von Dietrichstein, El Escorial, 30/09/1595, MZA, RADM, 424, 1899/9, 4r–4v; Bohumil Baďura, “La casa de Dietrichstein y España,” Ibero-Americana Pragensia 33 (1999): 47–64. Karen María Vilacoba Ramos and María Teresa Muñoz Serrulla, “Las religiosas de las Descalzas Reales de Madrid en los siglos XVI-XX: fuentes archivísticas,” Hispania sacra 125 (2010): 123–126. Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 18/07/1583, Reichl-Ham, “Die Korrespondenz,” 87; Luigi Dovara to Francis I of Tuscany, Lisbon, 04/06/1582, ASFi, MP, 4914, 249r–249v; Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 28/07/1584, HHStA, SDK, 11/9, 37r–37v; Argentero to Charles Emmanuel I of Savoy, Madrid, 05/09/1587, ASTo, LM, Sp, 4, unpaginated. Alvar Ezquerra, El Embajador, 470; Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 31/12/1593, in Tatjana Lehner, “Johann Khevenhüller - ein Diplomat am Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts: seine Briefe an Rudolf II. 1591–1594” (PhD diss., Universität Wien, 2007), 300; Bohumil Baďura, “Los Borja y el reino de Bohemia,” Ibero-Americana Pragensia 39 (2005): 67–72. Khevenhüller was more successful with Philip II, Cardinal Granvelle, and Cristóbal de Moura, while Borja was more efficient with the Treasury ministers and the Papal nuncios. Khevenhüller to Rudolf II,

Establishing imperial household in Madrid

71 72

73 74 75 76

77

78 79

195

Madrid, 28/07/1584, HHStA, SDK, 11/9, 37r–37v; Alvar Ezquerra, El Embajador, 488; Hernando de Vega to Mateo Vázquez, 02/10/1583, IVDJ, 7-2, 414r; Nuncio Speciano to Cardinal Rusticucci, Madrid, 26/07/1586, AAV, SS, Sp., 32, 225r. Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 06/06/1583, Reichl-Ham, “Die Korrespondenz,” 58; Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 15/08/1584 and El Escorial, 24/08/1585, HHStA, SDK, 11/9, 41r and 126r–126v. Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 01/06/1585, 05/04/1586, 06/03/1587, and 06/01/1590, HHStA, SDK, 11/9, 111r–111v, 164r–164v, 231r–232r, and Karin Hofer, “Die Berichte von Johann Khevenhüller, kaiserlicher Gesandter in Spanien, an Rudolf II. (1589– 1590)” (MA diss., Universität Wien, 1997), 120. Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, El Escorial, 19/09/1587, HHStA, SDK, 11/9, 268v–269r; Alvar Ezquerra, El Embajador, 467. Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 11/03/1585, HHStA, SDK, 11/9, 98r–98v. Bouza, Cartas, 82, n. 168. See also Philip II to the infantas, Lisbon, 04/06/1582, Bouza, Cartas, 85. Argentero to Charles Emmanuel I of Savoy, Madrid, 21/04/1587, ASTo, LM, Sp, 4, unpaginated. Instruction by Maria of Austria for the Duke of Terranova, Madrid, 01/08/1583, MZA, RADM, 423, 1898/163, 16r–17r; Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 28/05/1588 and 01/03/1595, HHStA, SDK, 11/9, 305r and Stieglecker, “Wir haben,” 90–91. Relación de los bienes libres que parece haver quedado por fin y muerte del Ser. mo Rey de Portugal Don Sebastian, HHStA, Spanien Varia, 3/8, 26r–27r; Hernando de Vega to Philip II, Madrid, 12/10/1583, IVDJ, 24–38, n. 407; Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 13/11/1584 and 25/08/1586, HHStA, SDK, 11/9, 61r–61v and 187v; Martínez Millán, “La emperatriz,” 154. Acta de cesión de la emperatriz María, 08/03/1585, HHStA, UR/FUK, 1438. For inheritance problems for contemporary German widows, see Bastl, Tugend, 84–120. Wenzel of Austria’s renunciation, El Escorial, 17/10/1577, HHStA, Spanien Varia, 3/4, 34r; Maria of Austria to Khevenhüller, Madrid, 02/02/1589, HHStA, SDK, 11/8, 17r; Ratification of the agreement between Rudolf II and Maria of Austria, Prague, 05/01/1595, HHStA, UR/FUK, 1464; Luc Duerloo, Dynasty and Piety. Archduke Albert (1598–1621) and Habsburg Political Culture in an Age of Religious Wars (Farnham: Ashgate, 2012), 238–241.

8 THE EMPRESS WITHOUT AN EMPIRE AND THE DYNASTIC TURN (1587–1598)

8.1 An alternative patroness? Court and piety Maria’s change of status within the courtly constellation of the Habsburgs led to the partial eclipse of her star due to her poor communication with Rudolf II and Philip II and the reshuffle of ministers at both courts. The effective partnership she had formed with the Spanish ambassadors in Vienna and Prague was mirrored in Madrid with the imperial ambassador Khevenhüller, but not with his counterpart in Prague, Guillén de San Clemente (1581–1608), whom she deliberately excluded from many of her negotiations. She never had a close relationship with San Clemente, whom she barely met for two weeks in 1581 during the preparations for her return to Spain. The new ambassador came from the lower Catalan nobility and was linked to the ministers Juan de Zúñiga and Juan de Idiáquez, who moved outside Maria’s circle of trust. Although San Clemente quickly realised the empress’s central role in dynastic affairs and the tremendous consequences of her absence from the Empire, as “she was the real means of dealing with all the difficulties which could arise here,” he had to carve out his own space by approaching the imperial ministers, such as Rumpf, Dietrichstein, DOI: 10.4324/9781003125693-9

Empress without empire and dynastic turn  197

Pernstein, and Harrach.1 Maria also sought the mediation of these old acquaintances for her interests in Central Europe, although her ability to exert any pressure from Madrid was limited.2 The main problem, however, was the obstacles posed to dynastic communication by the erratic and taciturn behaviour of Rudolf II, who had increasingly distanced himself from negotiations.3 Khevenhüller lamented this situation, as his letters remained unanswered for months and he received no funds, and in 1588 he feigned to leave Madrid. Maria intervened with her authority and advanced him money to continue his services, from which she directly benefited, as Khevenhüller was her main informant about the dealings between the king and the emperor.4

FIGURE 8.1

Antonio González Velázquez, Emperatriz María de Austria (Descalzas Reales, Madrid, 1770) © Patrimonio Nacional

198  Empress without empire and dynastic turn

Meanwhile, relations with the Papacy fluctuated, as popes and nuncios succeeded one another. Since the nuncios realised in 1583 that Maria was irrelevant in the negotiations over the Cologne crisis, they stopped using her as a mediator in imperial affairs until the outbreak of the Long War of Hungary in 1593. Then, the combination of a pope and a nuncio with a more activist inclination (Clement VIII and Camillo Caetani) gave her more room for action and the opportunity to claim church funds in exchange for using her authority in the negotiations.5 With respect to other matters, the nuncios turned to the royal confessor or the Count of Chinchón. There was no pro-Papal court faction, but a subtle game of favours: the nuncios presented the courtiers’ claims in exchange for discussing the papacy’s interests.6 Under this light, the empress was not the pope’s executive arm but a strict negotiator. Maria dominated this smooth, two-way relationship through her own network in Rome. This consisted of Cardinals Madruzzo and Gesualdo, who acted as go-betweens, and her almsgiver, Antonio de Mier, who was sent as an agent in 1596 to collect the above-mentioned funds.7 Maria also asked for indulgences and blessed rosaries and interceded on behalf of ecclesiastics and their trusted servants. It was partly thanks to her that Franz von Dietrichstein, son of Adam and Margarita de Cardona, was promoted to cardinal in 1599 and that Antonio de Borja, son of Juan de Borja, became a canon in Toledo.8 According to the nuncios, Maria obtained many of these favours through her insistence and authority, since any refusal was regarded as a cause for offence.9 In Madrid, Philip II’s new ministers, such as Cardinal Granvelle and the secretary Mateo Vázquez, were generally unwilling to accept her demands and implicitly questioned her sense of timing. Before her arrival, the veteran secretary Jerónimo Gasol urged his colleague Mateo Vázquez to “try to win the favour of the empress and befriend those who remain from her time [before 1551] and could be helpful,” in order to be part of her future plans. Vázquez ignored the advice and his relationship with Maria always remained distant: although he passed many of her requests to the king, he did not favour them.10

Empress without empire and dynastic turn  199

After the deaths of Juan de Zúñiga and Granvelle in 1586, Juan de Idiáquez and Cristóbal de Moura consolidated their position as Philip II’s principal ministers. Although they represented factional continuity, their personal relationship with the empress was generally positive. The two men often discussed various dynastic matters with her, and Maria repeatedly asked Khevenhüller to negotiate with them on her behalf.11 The interests of Moura converged with those of Khevenhüller and Maria’s circle on the appointment of the Marquis of Velada as Prince Philip’s ayo (tutor) in 1587. The ambassador of Savoy referred to the latter as “the imperialists.”12 Rather than an organised group, however, they represented a temporary alliance formed under very specific circumstances. Khevenhüller had simply divided the court into those “well-disposed” and those “ill-disposed” towards dynastic collaboration.13 Nevertheless, Rudolf II’s indifference prevented any attempt at consolidating a clientele favourable to the imperial interests. For more than a year, Maria repeatedly asked Rudolf to give sable skins to Moura and silver trays to Idiáquez as presents, as they had served Rudolf “very affectionately and obediently,” but to no avail.14 With such a limited capacity for patronage, the social circle that gradually formed around the empress lacked cohesion and political ambition. It was a cosmopolitan dynastic network, which served as an alternative framework for those who had been displaced by the triumphant court group in Madrid, and did not coordinate closely enough with the pope or the emperor to justify discussion of a Papist or Austrian party.15 As in the Empire, the families of Maria’s most important ladies-in-waiting and the ecclesiastics around her constituted the nucleus of this group, which did not act far outside the confines of the household. In addition to the strong presence of the Borja and Cardona families, other aristocrats linked to these lineages, such as the Countesses of Paredes and Osorno, aspired to win the empress’s favour.16 For those families that did not achieve prominence at the court of Philip II, the proximity to the empress offered an attractive alternative, as in the case of the Dowager Countess of Monterrey, who “frequently visited the palace of Her Majesty, who welcomed her and honoured her greatly.”17

200  Empress without empire and dynastic turn

Particularly noteworthy was the protagonist role of members of the elites from the Crown of Aragon, as in Maria’s childhood, although this time without the Portuguese presence. These were secondary family lines of the Spanish nobility, since the only Grandee among them was the Duke of Villahermosa, husband of Johanna von Pernstein, who had fallen from royal grace and died in prison in 1592 for his murky role in the uprisings in Aragon in 1591. Thanks to the unconditional support of the empress, his widow had their daughter inherit the dukedom and saved her possessions from confiscation. Maria also received into her household the Argensola brothers, prominent Aragonese poets and former servants of the Villahermosa family, who served as her secretary and chaplain. During the Carnival of 1597, she invited Prince Philip and Infanta Isabel to her chamber for an unprecedented theatrical performance about the “Duke of Villahermosa and everything that happened in the past years during the uprisings in Aragon.”18 The ecclesiastical circle around the empress also achieved renown; it became famous for its musical chapel. Distinguished composers, such as Mateo Flecha and, above all, Tomás Luis de Victoria, served as chaplains to her household rather than to the monastery of the Descalzas.19 The members of her chapel were also reputed to be fine agents: her influential chaplain, Francisco Antonio, served the Venetian embassy as an informant and her confessor, Francisco de Guzmán, fulfilled a similar role for that of Savoy.20 The empress was also active in the confessional field as protector of a reformist/ discalced trend which prevailed at the royal court throughout the seventeenth century, although at the time it was still controversial and under inquisitorial scrutiny.21 A long-time supporter of the Jesuits, she intervened in 1588 in the deliberations about the organisation of a visita (royal inspection) against the Spanish Jesuits, which practically meant their submission to the control of the Crown rather than to Holy Roman authority. Maria wrote to Philip II and employed every means at her disposal to thwart the plans of the Castilian ministers. In the end, the idea for an inspection was abandoned both out of fear of creating a scandal and due to Philip II’s indecision. Maria was hailed as the unquestionable protector of the Society of Jesus. The following year, the Jesuit father

Empress without empire and dynastic turn  201

Ribadeneira dedicated to her the Tratado de la tribulación [Treatise on tribulation], which represents one of the most splendid examples of Spanish moral theology.22 Maria showed her firmness in delicate spiritual matters that often verged on heterodoxy, and established ties with figures threatened by the Inquisition. She read manuscripts by (Saint) Teresa of Ávila, whose originals had been seized by the Inquisition, and protected Ana de Jesús, Teresa’s favourite disciple and foundress of the Discalced Carmelite convent in Madrid (1586). Thanks to the empress’s support, the works of Teresa were published and dedicated to Maria in 1588. Their editor was the great theologian, Fray Luis de León, who had been imprisoned by the Inquisition (1572–1576) and from whom Maria had also commissioned a biography of Teresa, which remained as a draft.23 In these turbulent times, when the translation of the Bible into vulgar languages was forbidden, Maria commissioned Fray Francisco Cano to produce a manuscript translation of the penitential psalms in the form of an “Exposition” in order to understand better their message. She was more successful than her aunt Leonor of Austria, whose chaplain, Master Jaraba, produced a similar translation which was banned by the Inquisition.24

8.2 The problems of Matthias, Maximilian, and Rudolf In the years after the death of her husband, Maria acted as a matriarch in order to ensure the best future for her children. In Madrid, where her ability to influence Rudolf II was very limited, she devoted herself to interceding with Philip II on behalf of her children rather than representing him in the Empire. Although she acted less often as a mediator between sovereigns than before, her interventions conditioned politics in Poland, Hungary, and the Netherlands.25 Maria maintained correspondence with all her children, although not with equal frequency. Her point of reference was Vienna, where her daughter Elisabeth and, for long periods, Ernst resided. These direct contacts with her children were combined with epistolary ties with the ladies of the House of Pernstein-Manrique

202  Empress without empire and dynastic turn

and Dietrichstein-Cardona in Prague and Vienna; on Maria’s recommendation, Margarita Laso de Castilla, Dowager Countess of Trivulzio, was received by Elisabeth in Vienna, from where she continued to inform Maria.26 Despite her precarious financial situation and vows of austerity, she maintained the necessary social lavishness. Gifts and orders generously circulated between the Descalzas and the households of her children and ladies-in-waiting, ranging from small artefacts made of thread and straw, which were sent together with the letters, to horses for Ernst.27 Thanks to this complex dynastic network, Maria reconciled with her unruly son Matthias after his failed tenure as Governor of the Netherlands on behalf of the rebels. The first contacts were indirect: Matthias’ equerry, Ottavio Cavriani, a well-connected Mantuan aristocrat and an irreproachable Catholic, wrote to the Duchess of Villahermosa, Johanna von Pernstein, in 1582 to test the waters. By 1584 Maria had accepted her prodigal son, and Elisabeth encouraged her brother to stay in contact with their mother.28 The empress interceded with Philip II to complete her son’s reintegration and favour him as much as his other nephews. She proposed that Matthias should receive the commanderies of Malta, which his late brother Wenzel had held, but Philip remained undecided.29 Again, Matthias’ thoughtlessness and impatience worked against him: in 1587, he forced the issue by leaving the imperial court intent on reaching Madrid and obtaining Philip II’s pardon and support without first consulting the empress or the emperor. Despite Maria’s pleas, Philip II refused, and Matthias had to interrupt his journey. He maintained a friendly and continuous correspondence with his mother after this, at least between 1591 and 1593, which however did not help him improve his image at the Spanish court.30 Matthias’ closest brother, Maximilian, was more successful, as he was elected Grand Master of the Teutonic Order in 1585, and thus his Spanish relatives had to worry less about his future.31 Everything changed in December 1586 with the death of the Polish King István Báthory, who had failed to leave a successor. The struggle for the throne was raging once again. For the third time, Ernst stood for election, but he was opposed within his family by  his

Empress without empire and dynastic turn  203

brother Matthias and, more openly, by Maximilian. This uncertain situation revealed Rudolf II’s failure to exercise dynastic authority and secure positions for his brothers. The empress viewed this election with great scepticism after the eagerness with which she had defended Ernst in 1573–1575. She was disillusioned with what she thought of as the volatile character of the Poles, and although Ernst took her support for granted, she was more favourable towards Maximilian, as he seemed to have more chances.32 Maria promised to offer her motherly help but her actions were confined to the court of Madrid, as she was either unable or unwilling to influence the course of events in Prague due to her poor relationship with the imperial ministers, whom she considered irresolute and timid. She corresponded courteously with the ambassador San Clemente but refrained from directly negotiating with him or giving specific instructions, either due to her melancholic state or her insecurity in this matter (“I think it is better for me and for business not to deal with these issues”33), or because all her efforts in Prague were focused on concluding the never-ending marriage negotiations between Rudolf and Infanta Isabel.34 Her activity in Madrid, by contrast, was well coordinated with that of the ambassador Khevenhüller and was quite successful, thanks to the convergence of interests with Philip II and the correct interpretation of the available options. The two siblings viewed the Polish succession as a distant and secondary question, which, however, allowed Maria to elevate her son to a high status and Philip to consolidate a dynastic network of Catholic kingdoms against the United Provinces and the Ottoman Empire. Khevenhüller and Maria asked specifically for money and an authoritative Spanish ambassador to Poland. Maria actively pressed Philip II on both issues and obtained promises of funds and the appointment of the prestigious Italian prince Vespasiano Gonzaga as ambassador.35 She also tried to take advantage of female solidarity by writing, without success, to Anna Jagiellon, the Dowager Queen of Poland and last representative of the local dynasty, seeking support for Maximilian’s candidacy. Maria was the true imperial authority in Madrid in the face of the slow delivery of messages and the indecisiveness

204  Empress without empire and dynastic turn

in Prague, as Rudolf officially supported the candidacies of Maximilian, Ernst, and Matthias simultaneously. Meanwhile, Maria hampered Ernst’s candidacy, further forged her relationship with Maximilian outside Rudolf ’s influence, and coordinated her actions with Khevenhüller. The two gave each other advice, and she arranged his audiences with the king and moderated his urgent demands for money, knowing that her brother and his ministers would not act until they received letters from San Clemente confirming Maximilian’s election.36 In August 1587, elections took place in Poland in the presence not of Gonzaga, but of San Clemente, who promoted Ernst’s candidacy for unity in vain. Instead, there was a double election as in 1575: one side elected Maximilian of Austria and the other Sigismund Vasa, son of the King of Sweden.37 When San Clemente confirmed the news, Philip II granted the promised 200,000 florins in November, but the slow pace of diplomacy was outstripped by the rapid developments in Poland. In contrast to Maximilian II’s indecisiveness in the elections of 1573–1575, his namesake son was reckless and entered Poland with a hastily improvised army to take the throne. This disorganised force failed to lay siege to Krakow and was later defeated at Byczyna (24 January 1588) by the forces of the chancellor Zamoyski, who favoured Vasa. The defeat was so shattering that Maximilian himself was captured and imprisoned.38 This outcome seriously discredited the House of Habsburg and represented a severe blow to Maria. The empress was a zealous guardian of her dynastic legacy and was deeply affected because Rudolf ’s laxity and Maximilian’s irresponsible failure were unsuitable for Charles V’s grandchildren.39 She ardently strove to free her son and mobilised all her earthly and divine resources: she even retired to the cloister of the Descalzas and considered to take the habit, which showed her desperation and how dearly she valued her secular life to make such a sacrifice.40 The maternal sentiment also had political value, as it legitimised her activist approach and allowed her to complement the policies of Philip II in Prague with her actions in Rome. The king organised a diplomatic offensive in Prague by finally sending Vespasiano Gonzaga and recognising the Duke of Aerschot as his representative. Faced with Rudolf

Empress without empire and dynastic turn  205

II’s wavering attitude and the fear that the reputation of the dynasty would be damaged in the negotiations with the Poles, Philip II pressed for a collegial solution at the Junta de Praga (Board of Prague, summer 1588). San Clemente and Gonzaga participated in the assembly, together with all the male archdukes and representatives of the Habsburg provinces, so that Rudolf II would not monopolise the talks.41 The empress assisted this effort in Rome in agreement with the Spanish ambassador Olivares. Although Khevenhüller claimed that Maria wrote to several cardinals (Madruzzo, Gesualdo, and Montalto) on his advice, it seems from the nuncio’s letters that this was a strategy coordinated with the ministers Moura and Idiáquez. Philip and Maria thus complemented each other as a working couple and the king would not lose his prestige by pleading for papal mediation.42 The negotiations with Rome were ultimately successful, as the papal legate Aldobrandini fostered an agreement on the peace of Bytom-Będzin (9 March 1589), which stipulated Maximilian’s release after a year and a half in prison and recognised Sigismund III Vasa as King of Poland. Maria also played the card of Tuscany, since the Grand Duke Ferdinand I had been her brother-in-law and an influential cardinal, whose circle included the legate Aldobrandini. San Clemente was uncomfortable with these moves and censured Maria’s interference, as it ruined his plan to have the pro-Spanish nuncio Annibale de Capua appointed as papal legate.43 The disagreement between the empress and the ambassador on the Polish question was mutual, as she also complained bitterly about his lack of zeal in informing her on the events.44 This case demonstrated once again Maria’s ability to defend the needs of her children in Madrid and Rome (including Florence), but not in Prague. The ineffectiveness of her communication with Rudolf II remained evident throughout the 1580s in her failure to bring her marriage negotiations to a successful conclusion. After the progress made in 1582, it took three years for Rudolf to send a response, and when he did, it was to ask for more information about Isabel, whom Maria and Khevenhüller described as an accomplished princess of the dynasty, pliable and able to deal with “both women’s matters and matters of state, as she spends most of

206  Empress without empire and dynastic turn

her day with her father, helping him with documentation.”45 Maria’s sincere admonitions, however, were as useless as the mediation of her other children and the imperial ministers or the threat to propose other candidates for Isabel’s hand, such as Archduke Ernst or the King of Scotland.46 It seems that in order to attract the emperor’s attention and maintain correspondence with him, Maria’s only recourse was to send him exotic gifts of amber and bezoars (concretions found in the stomach of some ruminants, thought to be an antidote for poisons).47 The situation was desperate regarding the continuity of the House of Habsburg in the Empire, as Rudolf neither married nor named an heir as Holy Roman emperor, resembling a male version of his contemporary Elizabeth I of England. In summer 1589, Philip II, Maria, and Khevenhüller presented the emperor with an ultimatum: he would seriously negotiate the marriage, or the agreement would be broken. Their gamble proved fruitless, as Rudolf insisted on receiving the Netherlands as dowry, a condition which Philip II patently rejected. The intense negotiations between Moura and Maria remained stalled.48 The king set the issue aside and the empress spent her last cartridge: in the face of Rudolf ’s inaction, she involved his favourite, Wolfgang Rumpf, and planned to send her own trusted ambassador. After two more years of delay, Philip II decided to send the only person he trusted to resolve the situation: Khevenhüller himself, whose absence from Madrid Maria opposed in vain.49 Khevenhüller’s journey to Prague between October 1591 and May 1593 revealed the full extent of the debacle. Rudolf avoided the ambassador for months and put him in a humiliating position. Khevenhüller returned to Madrid without a clear answer, while Maria definitively abandoned the marriage plan.50 However, this setback would in fact produce a far-reaching dynastic turnaround.

8.3 The dynastic turn As soon as Khevenhüller returned to Madrid in May 1593, Philip II took two decisions which signalled a definite change of direction: he appointed Archduke Ernst as Governor of the Netherlands and

Empress without empire and dynastic turn  207

recalled Albert from Lisbon.51 Faced with the lack of understanding with Rudolf, he used Ernst, younger brother to the emperor, to prepare him for a high office, make him a candidate for Holy Roman emperor, and marry him to his daughter Isabel. At the same time, he intended his beloved Albert to be his right hand and manage the succession of Prince Philip in case of the king’s premature death. As in the case of the Viceroyalty of Portugal in 1582, Albert was given the position that his mother Maria could not or did not want to hold. This carefully considered dynastic turn was completed by seeking a wife for Prince Philip from among the Styrian archduchesses, who were cousins both of the Spanish and Austrian branches of the dynasty. After the failure of the Spanish Armada in 1588 and the total war in Flanders and France, it has been suggested that Philip II wanted to safeguard his legacy by building an extensive family network of mutual aid which eschewed his unpredictable nephew Rudolf.52 Empress Maria played a significant part in this dynastic turn by ensuring communication with the individuals involved. She maintained a constant and trusting correspondence with Ernst (now lost), which contrasted with her complaints about the indifference of her other children and aroused Rudolf ’s jealousy, who feared that his mother conspired with his brother Ernst and considered him her favourite.53 After the failed attempt to seize the Polish throne, Ernst distanced himself from conspiracies and enjoyed a reputation as a fervent Catholic among his Spanish relatives. Maria had also silenced the irresponsible voices of the imperial ministers back in 1580 which proposed Ernst for the throne of Portugal against Philip II, as she would “lose the love and grace of her brother the king, to no effect.”54 When in 1588 Ernst admitted his failure to occupy the Polish throne to his brother Maximilian, Maria encouraged him to succeed to the Duchy of Ferrara, which lacked legitimate heirs, but Philip II refused to get involved in such daring plans.55 In fact, Philip intended Ernst for the government of the Netherlands, an option which he had valued since 1572 and now seemed inevitable, after the successive deaths in office of two princes of the dynasty ( Juan of Austria and Alessandro Farnese). Faced with

208  Empress without empire and dynastic turn

Rudolf II’s expected anger over the loss of the services of his loyal brother, Maria and Khevenhüller assured him that they were unaware of the king’s decision.56 Ernst’s arrival in Brussels consolidated the movement between courts promoted by Maria, but also reflected tensions in the dynastic service. His household was organised in the German style, with Ernst von Mollard as the high steward and factotum, who impeded the entry of Spaniards and Flemish and quite successfully controlled access to the governor. The only one among Ernst’s high servants who was seen favourably by the Spaniards was Maximilian von Dietrichstein, son of Adam and Margarita de Cardona. This largely reflected the Dietrichsteins’ smooth relationship with the empress and the Spanish branch, in contrast to Maria’s lack of interest in rewarding the Mollards.57 Ernst settled in Brussels at the beginning of 1594. He found it extremely difficult to fight against both the Dutch and the French simultaneously and therefore sent Maximilian von Dietrichstein to Madrid to obtain additional royal aid or negotiate a truce. This proved to be a wise decision, as Maximilian was well-received by the royal ministers and coordinated well with Maria and Khevenhüller. Dietrichstein finally secured an extraordinary aid of 50,000 florins for Ernst, as well as an annual governor’s salary of 40,000 florins. As far as the peace negotiations were concerned, Maria was not able to help her son due to scepticism in the king’s circle.58 Ernst was less successful with his second claim, that his candidacy for Holy Roman emperor should be discussed at the Imperial Diet of 1594. Although Maria and the Spanish diplomacy had entertained this idea since 1589, the final decision belonged to Rudolf, who showed his characteristic reticence and delay, so that no progress was made.59 There were also no substantial developments regarding Ernst’s possible marriage to the Infanta Isabel. The care with which these matters were handled was dashed by biological chance: Ernst died in Brussels on 20 February 1595, after barely a year in government and at only 42 years of age. After such a severe blow, Maria still had to render one last service to her son by mediating in the dispute between Philip II and Rudolf II over his debts. The empress advocated a Solomonic solution: Philip would settle the debts which Ernst had left in the Netherlands and Rudolf those in

Empress without empire and dynastic turn  209

the Empire. She was also concerned about the image of the dynasty and suggested to Rudolf that his brother should be buried in the cathedral of Prague alongside his father and grandfather, but the emperor refused in order to avoid further expenses.60 With Ernst’s death, his brother Albert became the most obvious candidate to succeed him in the precarious government of the Netherlands, but at first neither he nor Philip II welcomed the idea. Albert had arrived in Madrid in September 1593 as the deputy of an elderly king, whose heir was still an adolescent. He presided over the newly created Junta de Gobierno (Government Board), the informal body which coordinated royal policy, gave audiences to ambassadors, and prepared himself to succeed the dying Cardinal Quiroga as the new Archbishop of Toledo.61 Maria was enthusiastic about her son’s arrival and about having a powerful ally at the top of the monarchy. She had mediated with Philip about her son’s affairs in Portugal and intended to draw him firmly to her side. Khevenhüller reported the joy of the group of the “well-disposed” courtiers and expressed fears that passionate and self-interested individuals would misguide Albert.62 When Albert entered Madrid, he stayed in Juan de Borja’s houses, from where he had direct access to his mother’s quarters, and Khevenhüller instructed him on how to negotiate with the Castilians. However, during his many years in the government of Portugal, Albert had already demonstrated independent thinking and good cooperation with the Castilian ministers, and although his relationship with his mother was very close and they worked together in numerous negotiations, he had his own broad circle at court.63 The empress’s only success was persuading Albert to accept Khevenhüller as the new high steward. Although the latter protested to Rudolf that his position as imperial ambassador would always be a priority, his new appointment confirmed both his status as a dynastic servant and the lack of understanding with his master after the failed trip to Prague. Albert also made use of his mother’s symbolic space as his own: when Cardinal Quiroga died in November 1594, Philip II hastened to appoint his nephew as the new Archbishop of Toledo, and he decided that his profession of faith should not be made in the Royal Alcázar but in the

210  Empress without empire and dynastic turn

FIGURE 8.2

Pedro Pardo, Emperatriz María de Austria (Descalzas Reales, Madrid, 1863) © Patrimonio Nacional

empress’s chamber. His consecration as archbishop was to be held in the church of the Descalzas, but the ceremony was suspended when news of Ernst’s death arrived.64 Albert’s succession in the Netherlands was not immediate. Philip II first ensured that Albert had secured his position as Archbishop of Toledo, while Maria tried to delay the departure of her favourite son “with tears and prayers,” in the autumn of 1595.65 Albert left two agents in Madrid, the secretaries Juan Carrillo de Alderete and Mateo Otthen, who enjoyed the protection of the empress and socialised in her circle. Thanks to the surviving correspondence between Carrillo and Albert, it can be seen how Maria formed an informal council with the two men and Khevenhüller to deliberate on Albert’s affairs and present them to the court ministers under the empress’s authority.66 Maria was a tough mediator in her son’s requests for more funds for the war in Flanders,

Empress without empire and dynastic turn  211

even threatening his resignation if the demands were not met and forcing audiences with the ministers to this purpose. Albert also generously provided money to his mother for her needs from his rich revenues in Toledo.67 In contrast to the constant correspondence with Albert, Maria’s relationship with Rudolf II did not improve substantially, even when he found himself in serious need because of the Long War of Hungary (1592–1606) against the Ottomans. The conflict threatened the eastern frontier of the House of Habsburg. This was considered a target for a crusade, attracting the utmost interest from Pope Clement VIII, who hoped to lead the Catholic princes against the “Infidel” and put an end to the confessional war that was bleeding France dry.68 However, this unprecedented alliance between emperor and pope did not find an ardent supporter in Maria. It is true that she and Albert liaised between Rudolf (again an irregular correspondent) and the royal ministers for his demands to be met and also advised the nuncio Caetani on how to raise the question of the Hungarian War with Philip II.69 Khevenhüller, however, was sceptical of the empress’s actions, as she was too deferential to Philip II and preferred to send him notes rather than speak to him personally. She frankly admitted to the nuncios her impotence, as “deliberations here last forever,” and refused to use her imperial authority with Rudolf, as there was already a Spanish ambassador in Prague.70 Maria appeared more reluctant and less active in this affair than Khevenhüller, whom she advised in September 1595 (together with the extraordinary imperial ambassador Popel von Lobkowicz) that he should not petition for more funds but content himself with what he had already received.71 Papal diplomacy even turned to Margarita de la Cruz to break the stalemate, relying on her pious intercessions to her relatives as a nun. Rudolf II attempted to send more extraordinary ambassadors, but the royal ministers dissuaded him from doing so on the grounds that the empress’s authority and Khevenhüller’s services sufficed for any negotiation.72 Accordingly, Philip II’s support for the Hungarian war was moderate and due more to papal than imperial pressure. In the meantime, the nuncios pointed out that Maria did have the space and interest to negotiate other matters, such as Ernst’s

212  Empress without empire and dynastic turn

candidacy for the throne of France or the granting of the coadjutorship of the Archbishopric of Toledo to Albert.73 Rudolf, however, who was interested in the general pacification of Europe in order to receive help in Hungary, was so far removed from Spain’s strategy in France that he recognised Henry IV as king, while Philip II was at war with him and despite his mother’s harsh warnings.74 At the same time, she devoted herself to the marriage negotiations of Philip II’s children, the area of activity for which she was given the most credit during her life. Her brother gave her the freedom to speak to the Infanta Isabel and the minister Moura in order to define the nature of the imminent dynastic turn, while Rudolf II was left completely out of the picture. The negotiations crystallised at the end of 1596: Philip II offered the hand of his daughter Isabel to Archduke Albert (who, despite being a cardinal, had not taken sacerdotal vows) and chose Gregoria Maximiliana, daughter of his cousin Archduke Karl of Styria, for Prince Philip; upon her untimely death, her sister Margarita was chosen in her stead.75 Rudolf II approved the second marriage without major objections, but firmly opposed the first and sought his mother’s mediation in Madrid to stop it, even though she was the one who had negotiated the agreement. Maria exercised her authority as a matriarch: she refused to accept his arguments, blamed the final outcome on his indecisiveness, and strictly admonished him to name a successor.76 After this last service to the dynasty, Philip II spent the first months of 1598 settling his legacy: on 2 May, he signed the Peace of Vervins with France; on 6 May, he resigned from the government of the Netherlands in favour of Albert and Isabel; and on 8 May, the marriage capitulations were signed, in which Maria represented her son. The Netherlands, the dowry that Rudolf never attained, was granted to his brother Albert as a shared sovereignty.77 While Albert and Margarita were on their way to Spain for their weddings, the dying Philip II retired to El Escorial. The empress bid him farewell on 29 June, fearing that she would never see him again. The king died on 13 September. She was not able to attend his funeral in Madrid, enclosed in the Descalzas and prey to deep melancholy.78

Empress without empire and dynastic turn

213

After seven decades of life in parallel, Maria had lost her most stable family support. It is true that the Dowager Empress was far less functional for Philip in Madrid than in Prague, and therefore the prudent king and his ministers saw fit to curtail her room for manoeuvre through financial and patronage limitations. Furthermore, Philip II resorted to her support only on rare occasions and for dynastic matters. Nonetheless, Maria became a central figure of the Spanish court, as her top rank was indisputable. She used (and was allowed to use) her position to moderately cultivate her confessional and dynastic interests and consolidate the discalced Catholic reform and the political standing of her favourite sons, Ernst and Albert. Thanks to her partial retirement to the Descalzas Reales, Maria led a quite autonomous lifestyle and only joined family, court, and religious events out of the monastery at her convenience. Beyond strategic considerations, Maria found again a peaceful family life in Madrid around her brother and his children, whose company she enjoyed regularly and without visible tensions. This pleasant setting was suddenly interrupted by the death of Philip II, the departure of Infanta Isabel Clara Eugenia to Brussels, and the remarkable change of status of her only grandson, Philip, now the new king.

Notes 1 San Clemente to Zúñiga, Prague, 25/07/1581, Ayerbe, Correspondencia, 292; Marek, La embajada española, 82–88. 2 San Clemente to Juan de Idiáquez, Prague, 04/10/1589, AGS, E, 696, n. 66. 3 Rudolf also reduced the frequency of his requests to Philip II for favours on behalf of private individuals, for which he also used to write to Maria seeking her intercession. Between 1581 and 1599, he wrote to her at least twenty-three times. HHStA, SHK, 2/4–6. 4 Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 18/02/1586 and 16/06/1588, HHStA, SDK, 11/9, 154r–154v and 308r–309r; Alvar Ezquerra, El Embajador, 475, 495–498, 532; Sánchez, “Los vínculos,” 784. 5 Nuncio Piacenza to Cardinal Gallio, Madrid, 24/10/1583, AAV, SS, Sp., 28, 518v and Nuncio Taverna to Cardinal Gallio, Madrid, 30/10/1583, AAV, SS, Sp., 28, 528r; Nuncio Caetani to Cardinal Aldobrandini, Madrid, 17/02/1593 and 23/02/1593, AAV, SS, Sp., 43, 52r and 55r–55v; Nuncio Caetani to Clement VIII, Madrid, 17/07/1593, AAV, SS, Sp., 43, 194r–195r.

214

Empress without empire and dynastic turn

6 Nuncio Taverna to Cardinal Gallio, Madrid, 26/09/1583, AAV, SS, Sp., 28, 495r; Nuncio Speciano to Cardinal Montalto, Madrid, 20/07/1588, AAV, SS, Sp., 34, 429v–430r. 7 Zúñiga to Maria of Austria, Rome, 18/07/1577, BGe, Favre, XXIV, 273r–273v; Nuncio Speciano to Sixtus V, Madrid, 28/05/1588, AAV, SS, Sp., 34, 358r; Cardinal Gesualdo to Maria of Austria, Rome, 10/04/1595, BL, Add. Mss. 28707, 18r; Antonio de Mier to Maria of Austria, Rome, 07/10/1596, BL, Add. Mss. 28707, 41r–43r. Maria Antonietta Visceglia, “International Politics, Factions and Parties in the Roman Curia during the Late 16th Century,” in González Cuerva and Koller, A Europe of Courts, 81. 8 Nuncio Grassi to Cardinal Montalto, Madrid, 16/09/1589, AAV, SS, Sp., 34, 229r; Nuncio Millini to Cardinal Aldobrandini, Madrid, 26/10/1592, AAV, SS, Sp., 40, 41v; Nuncio Speciano to Sixtus V, Madrid, 02/04/1588, AAV, SS, Sp., 34, 254r–254v; Nuncio Caetani to Cardinal Aldobrandini, Madrid, 26/01/1598, BAV, Barb. Lat., 5842, 6v–7v; Cruz Medina, “Margarita de Cardona,” 1288–1296. 9 Nuncio Caetani to Cardinal Aldobrandini, Madrid, 25/08/1598, AAV, FB, III, 81B, 219r. The Savoyard ambassador also recommended Maria’s demands not to keep her offended. Pallavicino to Charles Emmanuel I of Savoy, Madrid, 01/01/1584 and 01/06/1584, ASTo, LM, Sp, 3, unpaginated. 10 Jerónimo Gasol to Mateo Vázquez, Madrid, 20/01/1582, IVDJ, 34–48, n. 39; Maria of Austria to Mateo Vázquez, Madrid, before 13/07/1584 and before 13/03/1589, IVDJ, 41–53, n. 45 and 46; Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 28/07/1584, HHStA, SDK, 11/9, 37r–37v; Martínez Millán, “La emperatriz,” 153–155. 11 Pallavicino to Charles Emmanuel I of Savoy, Madrid, 28/04/1586 and 03/05/1586, ASTo, LM, Sp, 3, unpaginated; Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 15/04/1590, Hofer, “Die Berichte,” 148–149; Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 20/11/1589, HHStA, SDK, 11/9, 391r–392v; Carrillo to Albert of Austria, Madrid, 17/11/1597, AGR, SEG, 489, 179r; Alvar Ezquerra, El Embajador, 488, 549. 12 Argentero to Charles Emmanuel I of Savoy, Madrid, 10/06/1587 and 30/06/1587, ASTo, LM, Sp, 4, unpaginated; Santiago Martínez Hernández, El Marqués de Velada y la corte en los reinados de Felipe II y Felipe III (Valladolid: Junta de Castilla y León, 2004), 247–253. 13 Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 16/06/1593, Lehner, “Johann Khevenhüller,” 253; Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 29/08/1583, Reichl-Ham, “Die Korrespondenz,” 95–96. 14 Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 26/03/1588 and 05/02/1589, HHStA, SDK, 11/9, 300v and 347r; Annemarie Jordan Gschwend and Almudena Pérez de Tudela, “Luxury Goods for Royal Collectors: Exotica, Princely Gifts and Rare Animals Exchanged between the Iberian Courts and Central Europe in the Renaissance (1560–1612),” Jahrbuch des Kunsthistorischen Museums Wien 3 (2001): 66.

Empress without empire and dynastic turn

215

15 Martínez Millán, “La emperatriz,” 153; a looser vision in González Cuerva and Marek, “The Dynastic Network,” 149–150. 16 The Countess of Paredes to Margarita de Cardona, Madrid, 06/04/1582, MZA, RADM, 426, n. 1903/35, 14r–16r; Zúñiga to Castellar, 09/1585, BFZ, Altamira, 87, doc. 46. 17 Baltasar de Zúñiga, Sumario de la descendencia de los Condes de Monterrey…, BNE, Mss., 13319, 152r. 18 Nuncio Ginnasi to Cardinal Aldobrandini, Madrid, 22/02/1597, BAV, Barb. Lat., 5841, 55r; Jesús Gascón Pérez, “Cortesanos, cronistas y poetas: los escritos políticos de los hermanos Argensola en su contexto histórico,” in Campo y campesinos en la España Moderna, eds. María José Pérez Álvarez and Alfredo Martín García (Madrid: FEHM, 2012), 1689–1694; Marek, “Signora,” 281. 19 Owen Rees, The Requiem of Tomás Luis de Victoria (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019), 20–30. 20 Dall’amb.re veneto, 28/11/1588, ASTo, LM, Sp, 4, unpaginated; Argentero to Charles Emmanuel I of Savoy, Madrid, 10/03/1587 and 15/06/1588, ASTo, LM, Sp, 4, unpaginated; Castro, “Confesores franciscanos,” 138–139. 21 For example, the empress had been a forerunner in the defence of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin, which became very influential from 1612 onwards and for which Cristobal Moreno [OFM] dedicated to her the Libro intitulado Limpieza de la Virgen y Madre de Dios… (Valencia: Ioan Nauarro, 1582). Estrella Ruiz-Gálvez Priego, “La Inmaculada, emblema de la Firmeza femenina,” Arenal 13(2) (2006): 299. 22 Nuncio Speciano to Cardinal Montalto, Madrid, 25/06/1588, AAV, SS, Sp., 34, 399r–399v; Martínez Millán, “La emperatriz,” 155–157; Adelina Sarrión Mora, “Identificación de la dinastía con la confesión católica,” in La monarquía de Felipe III, eds. José Martínez Millán and Maria Antonietta Visceglia (Madrid: MAPFRE, 2008), 1:250–251. 23 Fray Luis de León, De la vida, muerte, virtudes y milagros de la Santa Madre Teresa de Jesús: Libro primero, ed. María Jesús Mancho (Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca, 2015 [ca. 1588]), 11–14; Víctor de Lama de la Cruz, “La devoción de la emperatriz María de Austria por Santa Teresa,” in Santa Teresa o la llama permanente: estudios históricos, artísticos y literarios, eds. Esther Borrego and Jaime Olmedo (Madrid: CEEH, 2017), 296–301. 24 Fernando Bouza, “Lectures et espaces féminins autour de la reine Marguerite de Habsbourg-Styrie (1584–1611): À propos de la circulation et de l’imitation des modèles dévotionnels de Cour,” in “La dame de cœur”: Patronage et mécénat religieux des femmes de pouvoir dans l’Europe des xive-xviie siècles, eds. Murielle Gaude-Ferragu and Cécile Vincent-Cassy (Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2016), 145; Hugo Lezcano, “Lecturas espirituales prohibidas en la Real Biblioteca de El Escorial (siglo XVI),” Librosdelacorte.es 6 (2013): 98–104.

216

Empress without empire and dynastic turn

25 Sánchez, “Los vínculos,” 783; in general, see Michaela Hohkamp, “Transdynasticism at the Dawn of the Modern Era: Kinship Dynamics among Ruling Families,” in Transregional and Transnational Families in Europe and Beyond: Experiences since the Middle Ages, eds. Christopher H. Johnson et al. (New York: Berghahn, 2011), 93–105. 26 Ernst of Austria to San Clemente, Vienna, 16/09/1591, Ayerbe, Correspondencia, 187; Maria of Austria to Matthias I, 05/11/1592, HHStA, SHK, 2/7, 49r; Marek, “Signora,” 285–289. 27 Maria of Austria to San Clemente, Madrid, 29/05/1587, Ayerbe, Correspondencia, 5; Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 17/12/1587 and 10/11/1589, HHStA, SDK, 11/9, 279v and 385r; Jordan Gschwend and Pérez de Tudela, “Luxury Goods,” 60–61, 63–64, 69–71; Hodapp, Habsburgerinnen, 82–92. 28 Marek, “Signora,” 284–285; Elisabeth of Austria to Matthias I, 29/05/?, HHStA, FK A, 5-1-4, 27r. 29 Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 01/06/1584, HHStA, SDK, 11/9, 26v; Maria of Austria to Philip II, 1586?, HHStA, SHK, 2/4, 114r. 30 San Clemente to Philip II, Prague, 17/02/1587 and 03/03/1587, AGS, E, 693, n. 36 and 38; Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 18/03/1587, HHStA, SDK, 11/9, 236v–238r; Karl Vocelka, “Matthias contra Rudolf: Zur politischen Propaganda in der Zeit des Bruderzwistes,” Zeitschrift für Historische Forschung 10(3) (1983): 343. The correspondence between Matthias and Maria is preserved in HHStA, FK A, 5-1-25, 30r–43r. 31 Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 27/07/1585, HHStA, SDK, 11/9, 124r. 32 San Clemente to Philip II, Prague, 03/03/1587, AGS, E, 693, n. 47; Maria of Austria to San Clemente, Madrid, 29/05/1587, Ayerbe, Correspondencia, 4–5. Javier Hipólito Villanueva, “El trono de Polonia en disputa: el papel del archiduque Ernesto de Habsburgo, 1587–1592,” Tiempos Modernos 37 (2018): 123–147. 33 Maria of Austria to San Clemente, Madrid, 31/07/1587 and 15/02/1587, Ayerbe, Correspondencia, 11 and 21–23. 34 Maria of Austria to San Clemente, Madrid, 09/1590, Ayerbe, Correspondencia, 14. 35 Maria of Austria to San Clemente, Madrid, 18/03/1587, Ayerbe, Correspondencia, 25–26; Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 22/06/1587 and El Escorial, 18/08/1587, HHStA, SDK, 11/9, 252v and 263v–264r; Argentero to Charles Emmanuel I of Savoy, Madrid, 30/07/1587, ASTo, LM, Sp, 4, unpaginated; Matylda Urjasz-Raczko, “La estrategia diplomática de Felipe II frente a la Tercera Elección Libre en La República Polaco-Lituana, 1586–1589,” Studia historica. Historia moderna 36 (2014): 213–232. 36 Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 18/03/1587 and Segovia, 16/10/1587, HHStA, SDK, 11/9, 234r and 270r–271r; Alvar Ezquerra, El Embajador, 467–469.

Empress without empire and dynastic turn

217

37 Miguel Conde Pazos, “The Hispanic Monarchy Facing the Accession of the Vasa Monarchy. Don Guillén de San Clemente’s Embassy to Poland (1588–1589),” in The House of Vasa and The House of Austria. Correspondence from the Years 1587 to 1668, ed. Ryszard Skowron (Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego, 2016), 1/1:95–114. 38 Alvar Ezquerra, El Embajador, 473; Daniel Stone, The Polish-Lithuanian State, 1386–1795 (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2001), 131–132. 39 When Khevenhüller informed her of the arrest, she responded in tears: “how do you expect me not to be sorry, being Maximilian my father’s grandson.” Alvar Ezquerra, El Embajador, 474. On how Rudolf should act with courage in Poland “as my father’s grandson,” Maria of Austria to San Clemente, Madrid, 06/02/1587, Ayerbe, Correspondencia, 20. 40 Nuncio Speciano to Cardinal Montalto, Madrid, 11/03/1588, AAV, SS, Sp., 34, 214r–214v; Argentero to Charles Emmanuel I of Savoy, Madrid, 07/03/1588, ASTo, LM, Sp, 4, unpaginated. 41 Los que se han hallado en la Junta que se ha hecho en Praga sobre lo de Polonia, 08/1588, AGS, E, 694, n. 100; Vespasiano Gonzaga to Philip II, Prague, 22/11/1588, AGS, E, 694, n. 18. Conde Pazos, “The Hispanic Monarchy,” 110–112. 42 Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 26/03/1588, HHStA, SDK, 11/9, 299r–302v; Alvar Ezquerra, El Embajador, 474; Nuncio Speciano to Cardinal Montalto, Madrid, 06/04/1588, 27/05/1588, and 20/07/1588, AAV, SS, Sp., 34, 258r, 346v, and 429r–429v. 43 San Clemente to Philip II, Prague, 07/06/1588, 18/10/1588, and 13/12/1588, AGS, E, 695, n. 80, 64, and 120; Noflatscher, Glaube, 119–126; Jan Władysław Woś, Santa Sede e corona polacca nella corrispondenza di Annibale di Capua (1586–1591) (Trento: Università di Trento, 2004), 52–57. 44 Maria of Austria to San Clemente, Madrid, 07/01/1591, Ayerbe, Correspondencia, 18. 45 Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 05/11/1588, HHStA, SDK, 11/9, 327r. 46 Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 19/01/1585 and 21/02/1588, HHStA, SDK, 11/9, 80r–86v and 292r–292v; Johann von Trautson to Maria of Austria, Prague, 20/11/1586, HHStA, SDK, 11/4, 83r–84r. 47 Alvar Ezquerra, El Embajador, 502; Jiménez Díaz, El coleccionismo manierista, 166–180. 48 Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 07/08/1589, 20/11/1589, and 23/12/1589, HHStA, SDK, 11/9, 375v, 391r–393r, and 400r–401r; Alvar Ezquerra, El Embajador, 484–488. 49 Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 26/05/1590 and 21/07/1590, Hofer, “Die Berichte,” 160–162 and 175; Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 23/02/1591 and 10/08/1591, Lehner, “Johann Khevenhüller,” 156–159 and 210–211.

218

Empress without empire and dynastic turn

50 San Clemente to Philip II, Prague, 22/09/1592 and 11/10/1592, AGS, E, 699, n. 28 and unpaginated; Nuncio Caetani to Cardinal Aldobrandini, Madrid, 24/05/1593, AAV, SS, Sp., 43, 157v–158r; Alfredo Alvar Ezquerra, “Dependencias, lealtades y discrepancias con su señor: algunas citas del diario secreto del embajador Hans Khevenhüller,” in Construyendo identidades: del protonacionalismo a la nación, eds. José Ignacio Ruiz Rodríguez and Igor Sosa Mayor (Alcalá de Henares: Universidad, 2013), 201–204. 51 Alvar Ezquerra, El Embajador, 520. 52 José Martínez Millán and Carlos de Carlos Morales, eds., Felipe II (1527–1598). La configuración de la monarquía hispánica (Salamanca: Junta de Castilla y León, 1998), 257–261, 401–403. 53 San Clemente to Idiáquez, Prague, 02/08/1588, AGS, E, 694, n. 46; Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 10/11/1589, HHStA, SDK, 11/9, 385r–385v. 54 Badoer to the Doge of Venice, Prague, 19/07/1580, ASVe, DS, Germania, 7, 239v–240r. 55 Ernst of Austria to San Clemente, Vienna, 08/02/1588 and 05/06/1588, Ayerbe, Correspondencia, 112 and 120–121. 56 Philip II to Monteagudo, Madrid, 05/09/1572, CODOIN, 111:3; Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 21/05/1593, Lehner, “Johann Khevenhüller,” 247–252; Hortal Muñoz, Los asuntos, 281–286. 57 Eloy Hortal Muñoz, “La casa del archiduque Ernesto durante su gobierno en los Países Bajos (1593–1595),” in La Monarquía de las Naciones. Patria, nación y naturaleza en la Monarquía de España, eds. Antonio Álvarez-Ossorio and Bernardo García (Madrid: Fundación Carlos de Amberes, 2004), 195–198. 58 Ernst of Austria to Maximilian von Dietrichstein, Brussels, 10/04/1594, Lehner, “Johann Khevenhüller,” 327; Azagra to Ernst of Austria, Madrid, 18/06/1594, AGR, SEG, 479, unpaginated; Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 31/10/1594, Lehner, “Johann Khevenhüller,” 372–373; Hortal Muñoz, Los asuntos, 294–295. 59 Vespasiano Gonzaga to Philip II, Sabbioneta, 16/04/1589, AGS, E, 696, n. 113; Azagra to Ernst of Austria, Madrid, 28/02/1594, AGR, SEG, 479, unpaginated; Turba, “Beiträge,” 344–347. 60 Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 20/05/1595, 25/09/1595, and 03/10/1595, Stieglecker, “Wir haben,” 121, 157, and 163; Hortal Muñoz, “La casa,” 200–202. 61 Martínez Millán and Carlos Morales, Felipe II, 272–276; Duerloo, Dynasty and Piety, 29–30. 62 Nuncio Grassi to Cardinal Montalto, Madrid, 07/06/1589, AAV, SS, Sp., 34, 149r–149v; Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 06/07/1589 and 16/06/1593, HHStA, SDK, 11/9, 371v–372r and Lehner, “Johann Khevenhüller,” 253. 63 Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 29/09/1593, Lehner, “Johann Khevenhüller,” 270–271; Fray Juan de las Cuevas to Diego Sarmiento

Empress without empire and dynastic turn

64

65 66 67 68

69 70 71 72 73 74

75

76

219

de Acuña, Madrid, 17/09/1594, RB, II/2162, doc. 50; Alvar Ezquerra, El Embajador, 523; Hortal Muñoz, “The household,” 120–121. Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 10/12/1594, Lehner, “Johann Khevenhüller,” 378–379; Nuncio Caetani to Cardinal Aldobrandini, Madrid, 03/12/1594, AAV, SS, Sp., 45, 720r–721r; Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 14/01/1595, Stieglecker, “Wir haben,” 76; Duerloo, Dynasty and Piety, 30. Nuncio Caetani to Cardinal Aldobrandini, Madrid, 26/04/1595, AAV, SS, Sp., 46, 269r; Hortal Muñoz, Los asuntos, 335, 344–345. Carrillo to Albert of Austria, Aranjuez, 21/03/1596 and Madrid, 09/06/1597, AGR, SEG, 489, 12v–13r and 121r. Carrillo to Albert of Austria, El Escorial, 20/10/1596 and Madrid, 22/02/1597 and 17/11/1597, AGR, SEG, 489, 64r, 86r, and 179r; Alvar Ezquerra, El Embajador, 557. Jan Paul Niederkorn, Die europäischen Mächte und der “Lange Türkenkrieg” Kaiser Rudolfs II. (1593–1606) (Wien: VÖAW, 1993), 71–90; Peter Bartl, “Der Türkenkrieg: Ein zentrales Thema der Hauptinstruktionen und der Politik Clemens’ VIII.,” in Das Papsttum, die Christenheit und die Staaten Europas. 1592–1605, ed. Georg Lutz (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1994), 67–77. Nuncio Caetani to Cardinal Aldobrandini, Madrid, 01/01/1594, AAV, SS, Sp., 45, 51v–52r; Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 29/01/1594, Lehner, “Johann Khevenhüller,” 306–307. Papal Legate Borghese to Cardinal Aldobrandini, Madrid, 30/01/1594 and 02/02/1594, AAV, FB, III, 94C, 49r and 257r. Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 18/09/1595, Stieglecker, “Wir haben,” 153; Niederkorn, Die europäischen Mächte, 197–198, 208. Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 21/05/1596, Stieglecker, “Wir haben,” 219; Palma, Vida, 98r–99r. Papal Legate Borghese to Cardinal Aldobrandini, Madrid, 14/03/1594 and 14/04/1594, AAV, FB, III, 94C, 264r and 273v. Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 16/07/1594, Lehner, “Johann Khevenhüller,” 361; Rudolf II to Khevenhüller, Prague, 24/08/1595, Stieglecker, “Wir haben,” 146–147; Richard Bruce Wernham, “Queen Elizabeth I, the Emperor Rudolph II, and Archduke Ernest, 1593–94,” in Politics and Society in Reformation Europe, eds. E.I. Kouri and Tom Scott (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1987), 448–449. Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 09/03/1597, Stieglecker, “Wir haben,” 282–283; Albert of Austria to Borja, Brussels, 09/04/1597, IVDJ, 41–53, n. 22; Alvar Ezquerra, El Embajador, 547–551; Palma, Vida, 99v–100v; García Prieto, Una corte en femenino, 129–130; Duerloo, Dynasty and Piety, 52. Rudolf II to Khevenhüller, Prague, 17/04/1597, Stieglecker, “Wir haben,” 291–295; Rudolf II to Maria of Austria, Prague, 17/04/1597, HHStA, SHK, 2/6, 20r; Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 20/06/1597, Stieglecker, “Wir haben,” 305.

220 Empress without empire and dynastic turn

77 Avisos de Madrid, 29/05/1598, AAV, FB, III, 81B, 107r–107v; Alicia Esteban Estríngana, “Los estados de Flandes. Reversión territorial de las provincias leales (1598–1623),” in Martínez Millán and Visceglia, La monarquía, 4:595–640. 78 Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 22/10/1598, in Arthur Stromenger, “Die Berichte Johann Khevenhüllers, des kaiserlichen Gesandten in Spanien, an Rudolf II. 1598–1600” (PhD diss., Universität Wien, 2001), 193.

9 NEW OPPORTUNITIES? THE REIGN OF PHILIP III (1598–1603)

In the four and a half years that remained of her life, the empress saw one of her dreams fulfilled when her only grandson, Philip III (1598–1621), was crowned King of Spain. Under the rule of a young man who had grown up by her side and with whom she was very close, she hoped to take on a more prominent role. Her active participation in the choice of the new queen, her niece Margarita of Austria, also worked in her favour. However, this longed-for female alliance was curtailed by the uncompromising actions of the new royal favourite, the Duke of Lerma, who kept her grandchildren away from Madrid and subjected the elderly empress to increasing isolation until her death in February 1603.

9.1 High expectations (1598–1599) Unlike the experienced and conscientious Philip II, his heir Philip III was twenty years old on his accession, had never left Spain or held government positions, and had lived under the long shadows of his father and, to a lesser extent, his uncle Albert of Austria. In the light of these relationships, Philip III had found domestic shelter in the entourage of his grandmother, Empress Maria, with whom DOI: 10.4324/9781003125693-10

222  New opportunities?

he maintained an affectionate relationship: he enjoyed visiting her in the Descalzas with his sister Isabel Clara Eugenia, gave her the game he hunted, and when negotiations for his marriage began, grandmother and grandson discussed at length with complete candour.1 Many observers at court therefore predicted that the change in power would signal Maria’s renewed prominence. Both the imperial ambassador and the papal nuncio were confident that Maria would have great influence over her grandson and would facilitate relations with the emperor and the pope after Philip II’s distrustful and authoritarian rule. Moreover, by anticipating the power vacuum, she could mitigate the disputes among the ministers.2 The rites of transition to the new reign revealed the empress’s new central role. The royal family arrived in Madrid from El Escorial on 17 September after burying Philip II, and the new king immediately presented himself in the Descalzas to receive Maria’s blessing. Maria took this opportunity to recommend her high steward, Juan de Borja, as counsellor of State, a position which he was immediately granted.3 The king then withdrew to the monastery of San Jerónimo, while his sister Isabel remained in the Descalzas with Maria. Almost every afternoon, Philip III discreetly visited the Descalzas to share the mourning of his grandmother and sister and have long conversations with them.4 Archduke Albert conveyed his requests to the new king through his mother, trusting that “everyone says how much respect he [the king] has for her, and how much he serves her.”5 At the same time, a profound ministerial reshuffle rapidly took place. Philip II’s precautions for his son to retain his group of experienced advisers were in vain, since from the beginning Philip III placed his full confidence in his master of the horse, the Marquis of Denia, who in 1599 was elevated to Duke of Lerma and soon became Philip’s favourite. The replacements were bewildering: the principal minister, Moura, was the primary target and, in only two months, he was assigned as governor to Portugal. A similar fate awaited García de Loaysa, Albert’s coadjutor in Toledo and from 1598 archbishop-elect, who was deprived of his accommodation at court and was sent to his see. Loaysa had been Philip’s preceptor and there were hopes that he would be an alternative favourite to

New opportunities?  223

Lerma or at least a powerful court patron. The empress also had a close relationship with him, and both were expected to support each other.6 One of the few ministers who survived the transition was Juan de Idiáquez, who became the discreet director of foreign policy. Among Lerma’s direct relatives who were promoted was his uncle Juan de Borja, the empress’s high steward. Thanks to her, Juan de Borja quickly attained the position of counsellor of State and secured the marriage of his first-born son to the Princess of Schillace. However, his family ties with the new favourite put his loyalty to the empress to the test, as he obtained many more royal favours through Lerma’s mediation, such as the presidency of the Council of Portugal and the County of Ficalho for his wife Francisca de Aragón.7 The theoretically untouchable position of the empress and her relationship with Lerma has resulted in a rich literature which finds its main reference in the works of Magdalena Sánchez. Thanks to them, female protagonists have been integrated into the dynamics of Philip III’s court and it has been demonstrated that opposition to Lerma was led by the empress and later by Queen Margarita of Austria. It has even been claimed that Maria led a “German party,” an “Austrian” party, or a “pro-Austrian group.”8 This suggests a shift in her role as the alleged head of the Spanish party in the Empire. It cannot be denied that the beginning of Philip III’s reign lent itself more readily to factional behaviour than the relatively stable last phase of Philip II’s government, as he was a young and inexperienced king with deep emotional dependencies.9 However, it will be argued in the following pages that there was no such organised group, that the empress and the new queen, rather than cooperating, kept their spheres and priorities separate, and that the now old Maria was isolated and ignored to a pitiful extent. In addition, her entourage functioned much less as a centre of communication with the imperial court than with the court in the Netherlands, where her beloved son Albert ruled. The main reason for Maria’s defeat was her inability to raise herself above Lerma’s influence. The two were engaged in a silent struggle which she was destined to lose due to the limitations on

224  New opportunities?

movement and communication imposed by her rank. She therefore sought Khevenhüller’s help as a trusted figure, who, in his role as imperial ambassador, frequently visited the king and advised him on various matters of government. Lerma was quick to undermine these visits and make intimate contact between monarch and ambassador more difficult, forcing Maria to abandon her plan.10 The first serious defeat was over the issue of the double royal wedding, which was left pending by the death of Philip II. Archduke Albert and Archduchess Margarita of Austria were on their journey to the Peninsula when on 15 November 1598 Pope Clement VIII married them by proxy in Ferrara to Infanta Isabel and King Philip III, respectively.11 The reception of this retinue in Spain was expected to take place in Barcelona, where the marriages would be consummated. However, the empress had never been so far from the Descalzas and her daughter Margarita de la Cruz, and suggested that the ceremonies be held in Madrid. In this way, she could see her son Albert for the last time and accompany the new queen from the beginning of her reign. Philip III, though, pressed his grandmother in vain to come with him to Barcelona; finally, to the scorn of the Catalans, the ceremonies were held in Valencia, the kingdom where Lerma had the seat of his lordships.12 Most of the court left Madrid in January 1599. After the wedding ceremonies and a tour of Valencia, Catalonia, and Aragon, Philip III returned to Madrid ten months later, accompanied by his wife. During this time, the empress suffered in a state of isolation similar to the one she had experienced when her son Rudolf II left her alone in Prague in 1577–1578. Maria, who depended on personal contact to maintain her intermediary role, had to resort to written correspondence with her grandson, which was obviously less frequent and more superficial, as he was performing the first acts of his reign. Moreover, Lerma controlled the bureaucratic machinery and had managed to become the sole mediator between grandmother and grandson. In fact, Maria’s most efficient avenue of communication was indirect: she ordered Juan de Borja to write her petitions to Lerma, who in turn presented them to the king.13 This filter to the innermost circle of the sovereigns created an insurmountable obstacle for the empress in her efforts to maintain her influence.

New opportunities?  225

Lerma’s ability, however, to exercise control ultimately depended on the will of the members of the dynasty. Thus, he could impede the empress’s contact with her son Albert and her sister-inlaw Maria of Bavaria but not forbid it, since both obtained permission to travel from Valencia to Madrid to visit the monastery of the Descalzas. Throughout his life, Albert proved to be the most loyal, though independent, of Maria’s sons, with whom she maintained a continuous and intense relationship. Albert used his income from the Archbishopric of Toledo and the Portuguese Priory of Crato to help the battered economy of his mother’s household with 600 ducats per month, and she ardently defended his requests at court.14 Albert’s last stay in Spain was brief but intense, as it coincided with his wedding and the organisation of the independent government of the Spanish Netherlands. Even so, in April 1599 he managed to reserve a week to ride to Madrid and say goodbye to his mother forever.15 According to Khevenhüller, those days were spent “dealing with important matters,” which he did not detail, among them the problems of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in Milan which the empress had promised Archbishop Carlo Borromeo to discuss in Madrid.16 The visit of Maria of Bavaria, Maria’s sister-in-law and mother of Queen Margarita, proved more difficult to arrange, as according to the orders that Philip II had left, she could not escort her daughter beyond Milan.17 Her request to come to Spain was finally approved thanks to the empress’s mediation and Khevenhüller’s efforts, although she was only allowed to attend the weddings, after which she had to return to Graz. Lerma viewed with great suspicion any attempt by the experienced archduchess to establish herself at the Spanish court with her daughter and thus become a new formidable rival. However, once they disembarked, and following Queen Margarita’s entreaties to her husband, Maria of Bavaria was also granted permission for a brief visit to Madrid in late April 1599.18 The empress offered her accommodation in the Descalzas, where Maria of Bavaria seems to have hardly left during the short week she spent in Madrid. Khevenhüller, in his usual cryptic manner, claimed that the archduchess “discussed with me all kinds of secret matters, which I later communicated” to the empress. The papal nuncio was interested in knowing, without success, the content of their discussions, which Juan de Borja also kept from his

226  New opportunities?

nephew Lerma. Both Borja and Khevenhüller disapproved of the visit because of its high cost and the poor quality of the gifts that the archduchess had brought.19 The archduchess met with the court again in Barcelona and, to her regret, embarked on her return journey shortly afterwards. Although she continued her contact with her daughter from Graz, there is no record of a correspondence or exchange of gifts with the empress.20

9.2 The itinerant court and the move to Valladolid Philip and Margarita made their entry into Madrid in October 1599. Philip III immediately visited the empress, while the queen soon developed emotional ties with her aunt and her cousin, Margarita de la Cruz, with whom she liked to speak in her native German. Maria had already obtained a papal license for the queen to enter the monastery of the Descalzas with her ladies-in-waiting.21 The households of the empress and the queen were in direct communication, through unknown channels, even before the two sovereigns met, which interfered with Juan de Borja’s ability to control them.22 These intimate links were especially feared by Lerma, who tried to ensure that Queen Margarita and Margarita de la Cruz “saw each other as little as possible,” since he could not forbid them to speak to each other in German.23 The empress was a tired old woman and soon abandoned courtesy and tolerance to confront Lerma directly: on 5 December 1599, barely a month after the family’s reunion and in view of the obstacles she had to overcome daily to speak freely to the king and the queen, she lost her temper during a visit by Philip III and reproached him “that so many changes of ministers make a bad impression, and much worse when it is said that the marquise del Valle governs the world.”24 The king did not know how to respond but betrayed his grandmother’s trust by revealing their conversation to Lerma, causing great turmoil at court as Maria was clearly referring to the ministerial changes undertaken by the royal favourite and the uncomfortable presence of the Marquise del Valle as Lerma’s agent in the queen’s household. Lerma often urged the king to leave Madrid on hunting trips or visits to Castilian cities, in order

New opportunities?  227

to keep him away from the uncontrolled influences to which he was subject in Madrid. Since the beginning of his reign it was noted that Philip III was much fonder of travelling than his father had been; Lerma fed this inclination and encouraged him to resist the empress’s opposition to such excursions.25 During the sixteen months when the court resided in Madrid between 1599 and 1601, Maria met thirty times with the king and twenty-two with the queen.26 Although one cannot speak of confinement, the empress did not have daily contact with them and had to overcome various problems and excuses from Lerma’s entourage to organise these meetings. Perhaps out of desperation, the three women devised a reckless plan at the end of 1600 for the queen and her ladies-in-waiting to go to the Descalzas at the request of Margarita de la Cruz. Lerma foiled their scheme and the abbess of the Descalzas rebuked Margarita de la Cruz for concocting such worldly plans.27 Although Queen Margarita had a close and trusting relationship with both mother and daughter, her greater physical proximity to, and better opportunities for communication with, Philip III was the unintended cause of the empress’s increasing irrelevance as an intercessor. From early on in her marriage, Margarita strove to adapt to her husband’s moods and win his affection. Her mother, Maria of Bavaria, introduced her to the religious and ecclesiastical matters in which she could mediate and, following the dynastic tradition, she justified her interventions on the grounds that “this business is in the service of God.”28 Margarita thus became much sought-after by papal diplomats and the Jesuit generals, as they resorted to her more effective mediation for their petitions in Spain rather than to the isolated empress. One of Margarita’s few successes at keeping her original entourage was retaining her confessor, the Jesuit Richard Haller. This broke with the tradition of Spanish Queens having a Franciscan confessor but helped the Society of Jesus to become more involved in her entourage.29 It seems that the empress and the queen did not coordinate their actions, since their dynastic interests gradually diverged after a certain point. Margarita had to protect her large number of relatives at the court of Graz, led by her brother, Archduke Ferdinand

228  New opportunities?

of Styria (later Emperor Ferdinand II, 1619–1637). When both women sought the same favours for their relatives, the queen was more successful, as can be seen from the financial aids for the Long War of Hungary. Since the arrival of Margarita and her mother Maria of Bavaria in Spain in 1599, both women had coordinated with the nuncio to request the king’s help in the war. In doing this, they acted not on behalf of the temperamental Rudolf II, but of Ferdinand of Austria, who was charged with defending the Balkan border along present-day Slovenia. In the autumn of 1599, Philip III granted the emperor a generous subsidy of 300,000 escudos, both of his own will, as he was more inclined to religious wars than his father, and because of the effective pressure of the empress, who had insisted on the matter ever since they had met in October that year.30 It was not until the beginning of 1601 that Hungary’s affairs regained prominence, when the fall of Canisia (Nagykanizsa, Hungary) threatened southern Austria and, more directly, the lands of Archduke Ferdinand. Philip III sent 6,000 infantrymen (Philip II never moved troops to Hungary) and 60,000 escudos, not to his uncle Rudolf II, who had satisfied none of his demands, but to his brother-in-law Ferdinand. The empress recognised her failure and helplessness compared to Margarita, who was “a powerful petitioner.”31 The struggle over the complex question of the heir to the Holy Roman Empire was subtler. By the end of 1600, Rudolf II had fallen into such a deep depression that the power vacuum he left behind was daunting, and various candidates positioned themselves for the imperial succession. Margarita persuaded her husband to support her brother Ferdinand, while the pope and the empress favoured Archduke Albert. Spanish diplomacy wavered between Albert and Matthias, who was victorious in the end, as he was next in the line of succession and could thus maintain his hereditary right.32 Lerma kept an even closer watch on the queen in light of these events and, according to Khevenhüller, even blackmailed her: if the queen spoke of politics or intercessions with her husband, even in the marriage bed, he would take Philip III on long hunting parties in which she could not take part.33 Lerma was quite capable

New opportunities?  229

of limiting aspects of Margarita’s autonomy, as he was taking control of her household, where he acted as de facto high steward. The queen had earlier been prevented from retaining a German entourage which would have formed a clique around her. In 1596, Philip II had sounded out the ambassador San Clemente in regard to the Central European ladies-in-waiting who spoke Spanish and could accompany his future daughter-in-law, but all the candidates were former ladies-in-waiting of the empress and the issue was not raised again, perhaps to avoid reviving that group. 34 Margarita was only able to keep in Madrid her confessor Richard Haller and two ladies-in-waiting, the sisters Maria Sidonia and Amelia Riederer von Paar.35 Her first lady of the bedchamber was the Duchess of Gandía, who was dismissed in January 1600, after she was accused of secretly conspiring against the royal favourite, much to Margarita’s disappointment. In her stead, Lerma placed his own wife.36 The empress opposed the dismissal of Gandía to no avail in her imprudent conversation with Philip III on 5 December 1599. She also railed against the growing influence of the scheming Marquise del Valle in the queen’s household.37 In her more autonomous status as a dowager empress, Maria did not become the target of any direct attempts by Lerma to control her entourage. Besides, the royal favourite enjoyed the loyal services of his uncle Juan de Borja, who had become a real mole in Maria’s most private sphere, as both he and his wife Francisca de Aragón accurately reported to Lerma the empress’s movements and all the sensitive information that they could extract from her.38 Lerma also asked his uncle to transcribe, or at least open and summarise, the letters that the empress sent him, as Maria’s handwriting deteriorated in her old age and Lerma had no secrets from Borja in this correspondence. Borja reluctantly accepted the role of amanuensis, but acted as a sincere commentator, dismissing Maria’s kind words for Lerma as hypocritical compliments.39 This shift of loyalties caused Borja considerable concern, and he vigorously defended the quality and fidelity of his services to the empress when it was suspected that they collided with those of the king or Lerma.40 Borja even dared to suggest to Lerma that he should favour communication between Philip III and Maria, as the lack of contact

230  New opportunities?

caused her deep melancholy. However, Lerma adhered to his tactic of isolating the empress to almost cruel levels. He prevented Philip III from seeing his grandmother during his visits to Madrid and refrained from asking him to write to her as Borja had suggested.41 The biggest blow came in early 1601, when the rumours circulating for months about the transfer of the court to Valladolid, where it remained until 1606, were officially confirmed. One of the reasons why Lerma pressured Philip III to take this unprecedented decision was, apart from real estate speculation, his wish to control the king more directly in his native city and keep him away from the uncontrollable visits to the Descalzas, as insinuated by both the imperial and Venetian ambassadors.42 The empress’s household remained in Madrid, as well as the imperial ambassador Khevenhüller, whom Maria ordered to stay with her. She only reluctantly allowed him to go to Valladolid for brief periods of time to negotiate urgent imperial business. Rudolf II’s orders in this respect were much less effective than those of Maria, both due to their intermittent and erratic nature and because he did not send extraordinary funds for Khevenhüller’s trips to Valladolid.43 Juan de Borja was more affected by the move of the court. The empress did not permit the high steward to abandon his service for even one day, and his unsuccessful requests for permission to accompany the king on his travels and participate actively in the Council of State clashed with Maria’s implacable authority. In November 1601, she was so upset by what she saw as a betrayal on Borja’s part that she cried until she fainted and refused to see him for days. The mediation of his wife Francisca de Aragón proved equally unsuccessful, and the mutual lack of understanding between the empress and her high steward poisoned their relationship in its final days.44 The royal court did not return to Madrid in the two years that remained of Maria’s life, despite promises to the contrary, and Philip III only visited her unofficially on two brief occasions.45 These meetings, besides those which had been cancelled, were preceded by frantic preparations which kept the empress busy for weeks, as Lerma expected her to move to El Escorial or El Pardo for the king’s visits, even though her health hardly allowed her to

New opportunities?  231

leave her chamber. Her failure to see her grandson plunged her into helplessness and deep psychological distress. Lerma, who had been brought up in Tordesillas in the neglectful household of Juana of Castile, coldly executed these manoeuvres.46

9.3 The empress’s household and council: the last stronghold In her last years, Maria maintained a modest and shrinking household. She had given up her own stables since 1589 and used those of the king, although she had to fight to be allowed to use the carriages.47 She also shared her best servants with the king, such as the accountant Luis de Alarcón and the surgeon Ávila, who hardly ever served her again, especially after the court moved to Valladolid in 1601.48 Nevertheless, the Descalzas played an important role as a complementary and stable female court during the transition between reigns, which Philip III used with great freedom. For example, after the death of his sister, Catalina Micaela, Duchess of Savoy, in 1597 and the dismantling of a substantial part of her household, her ladies-in-waiting stayed in the Descalzas for several months until their future was decided.49 The king also used his grandmother’s help to provide accommodation to ladies-in-waiting before their wedding or to noblewomen on their arrival in Madrid.50 Maria and Borja readily arranged accommodation for these guests, but space was so limited that three of her four stewards and two of her dueñas de honor did not have their own room and had to sleep in uncomfortable conditions. For example, the Countesses of Cerralbo and Santisteban stayed for several years in the Hospital de la Misericordia, which had not been inaugurated yet, and when it began to operate in 1601, Maria and Borja sought in vain to occupy the Casa de los Capellanes, the lodging of the chaplains of the Descalzas, for her household.51 The empress shared her last days with some of her most loyal servants from the three lineages that had served her for half a century: Margarita Laso de Castilla, Countess Dowager of Trivulzio, who entered her service again in 1593; Johanna von Pernstein-Manrique

232  New opportunities?

de Lara, Duchess Dowager of Villahermosa, who had also returned; and since 1595 Margarita de Cardona, who moved back to Spain after the death of her husband, Adam von Dietrichstein.52 The empress was always willing to intercede on behalf of these women, as in the case of the imprisonment and reinstatement of the Duke of Villahermosa. After this, she continued to support Johanna’s lawsuits in Aragon and even pressured the viceroy to accelerate a trial, so that she could return to Madrid sooner. Lerma refused to convey the empress’s unusual request, justifying his decision with arguments from moral theology: he presented the matter as a case of conscience and attached a report by the royal confessor, Gaspar de Córdoba, who rejected such intercession as a disservice to God.53 Feeling constantly threatened by Maria’s presence and potential influence, the royal favourite often used this moral pretext to block even the most personal of the empress’s petitions, such as the change of confessor. After the death of Antonio de Aguilar in 1600, Maria was assigned a new confessor, Juan de Portocarrero, with whom she did not share a mutual understanding, thus seeking his replacement by the Portuguese Jerónimo de Gouvea. Her petition was delayed, to her distress, for almost a year, as Lerma aroused the king’s reservations with a new report by the confessor Gaspar de Córdoba. Maria did not recognise Córdoba’s authority and proposed that the pope be consulted. Lerma was forced to change his tactics and repeatedly claimed that he was taking care of the matter when in fact he had not done anything, as the son of Juan de Borja fortuitously discovered. Meanwhile, Maria resorted to a policy of fait accompli, and Gouvea, who was on his way to Ceuta to take possession of the local bishopric, was told by an unidentified source to return to Madrid near the empress.54 When Maria succeeded in her traditional role as a matchmaker, it was not without great effort or opposition from within the court, as in the case of the marriage between Isabel Verdugo, daughter of her keeper of the jewels, Francisco Verdugo, and Pedro de Ledesma, who was seeking a position in the Council of the Indies. According to Ledesma’s rival, Juan de Ibarra, Ledesma’s only merit was his network of relations, in particular his female acquaintances, as he had obtained the office of chamber clerk of the Council of the

New opportunities?  233

Indies in 1595 thanks to the empress’s pressure on Philip II, Moura, and the latter’s wife. Ledesma had entered Maria’s circle through one of his aunts, Francisca de Aragón, wife of Juan de Borja, while the Duchess of Villahermosa had also helped with his marriage. In 1599, the empress intended her protégé for the position of secretary of the Council of the Indies, which the President of Castile, Count of Miranda, opposed, threatening to review his past offences. Borja avoided conflict with Miranda and was of no help, so Maria only obtained Ledesma’s nomination by directly supplicating Philip III and after a whole year of anguished and monotonous pleas to the ministers involved. The empress complained to Borja about how difficult it was for her to recommend her servants, a protest which he, in turn, mentioned to Lerma in a letter that the latter showed to the king to convince him of how ungrateful his grandmother was.55 It remains to be seen how Maria exercised her role as a matriarch without leading an “Austrian party.” Maria’s diplomatic relevance in the preceding decades had largely depended on how her male relatives used her as a mediator, a role she hardly played in the tortuous relationship between Philip III and Rudolf II. The emperor was interested in his mother’s aid not only in the Long War of Hungary, but also in more private matters. She helped him to acquire paintings from Spain, despite recognising how little he deserved them, and to try to find a position for his illegitimate son, Julius Caesar of Austria, in the Iberian Peninsula, an expectation which Maria could not satisfy, while Lerma governed.56 The empress did not make any further marriage arrangements for Rudolf after the tumultuous end of his engagement with Isabel Clara Eugenia. Her opinion on this matter was always based on dynastic priorities: she recommended a Styrian archduchess, as she had done with Philip III, but in view of Rudolf ’s lack of interest in intra-dynastic marriages, she saw Maria de’ Medici as a better candidate than Catherine of Lorraine and advised against plans with princesses from Wallachia or Muscovy.57 Maria does not seem to have had much influence over her first-born son, considering their irregular and inconclusive correspondence, or confidence in his ministers, especially when in

234  New opportunities?

1600 Rudolf expelled his two main ministers, Rumpf and Trautson, questioning their loyalty and their dealings with Spain and the other archdukes.58 During the period of his deep depression in 1599–1600, Rudolf did not even receive the ambassador San Clemente. He agreed to communicate with him again only after Maria and Khevenhüller’s clear warning about the risk of a serious breakdown in relations. Given the power vacuum, it was believed in Madrid that the authority of the empress should be used to legitimise the dispatch of Khevenhüller back to Prague to establish clearly the imperial succession, a daring plan never executed.59 What remained for Maria were the legitimacy of her title and the prestige of being the only survivor of the thirty-nine grandchildren of Philip I (“the Handsome”) and Juana of Castile. Her dynastic authority meant that she was consulted on various questions of protocol as the guardian of the Spanish tradition and was asked to give advice, adducing cases she remembered from thirty years earlier.60 Her status as a matriarch was recognised particularly by her sons Maximilian and Albert. After his failed attempt for the throne of Poland and after almost twenty years without seeing his mother, Maximilian travelled incognito to Madrid in July 1600. Borja and the papal diplomats were suspicious of his true political aims, but he was no more than a son wishing to say goodbye to his mother, whose visit brought relief for Maria from her melancholy during those three weeks.61 The visit of her grandnephew Ranuccio I, Duke of Parma, in 1601 followed the same domestic and affectionate pattern; in both cases the visitors stayed at the house of Juan de Borja.62 Albert’s case was completely different, since the new co-sovereign of the Spanish Netherlands relied on his mother as his main representative at the Spanish court, and gave her the necessary room for manoeuvre to carry out her activities. The change of sovereignty in the Netherlands did not reduce demands for financial help, as the war against the Dutch was mainly financed through monthly subsidies of 250,000 escudos whose collection and shipment were a nightmare for the Spanish royal treasury. Maria devoted herself to securing aid for Albert with much more zeal than for the war against the Ottomans in Hungary. Her melancholy was

New opportunities?  235

dispelled by these negotiations, and she advised Albert with “motherly and pious care.”63 As in the 1570s, Maria distributed tasks among her male servants and inconvenienced as many ministers as possible. In addition to Borja and Khevenhüller, who had conflicting interests with Lerma and Rudolf II, the key mediator was Juan Carrillo, canon of Toledo, who was Albert’s agent in Madrid and secretary to the empress. Carrillo held many responsibilities and was in charge of rewarding the ministers who collaborated with him with gifts, a common tactic of the empress, which Khevenhüller, however, discouraged with respect to Rudolf II’s activities.64 Despite these efforts, the real problem was not one of factional correlations, but simply the lack of available money to honour Philip III’s commitments.65 Maria did not provide new solutions or resources, but only showed insistence and authority. The by now distant Borja censured her for her close-mindedness and lack of knowledge of the state of the treasury: “she does not know what to say about any issue whatsoever other than it should be addressed and that the best possible course of action should be taken.”66 Nevertheless, Maria’s activism resulted in the recognition of the “Council of the empress” as an unofficial government body after Philip III’s return to Madrid at the end of 1599. Carrillo, Borja, and Khevenhüller worked in collaboration with each other and deliberated in Maria’s presence before proposing decisions on the financial and military relations with the Netherlands, as if they were a Council of State. On occasion, Carrillo and Khevenhüller prepared texts on the Flemish issues which the empress forwarded through Borja and Lerma and which were presented at the Council of State through Borja himself. On the occasion of the mission of Rodrigo Laso sent by Albert in the spring of 1601, Philip III wanted to know his grandmother’s opinion on such delicate matters as the suggestion of possible alternatives for the financial drain caused by the Dutch War. Under her guidance, her council opted for realistic solutions, such as the negotiation of a truce with the rebels or even the abandonment of the provinces, so that Albert and Isabel could position themselves for either the imperial or the English successions. Maria’s defeatist attitude and implicit criticism

236  New opportunities?

of the prevailing policy greatly displeased Idiáquez and Lerma, who preferred her to help by entrusting herself to God.67 The king’s planned visit to his grandmother in the autumn of 1601 also included discussions on how to administer the government of the Netherlands (there was no mention of aid for Hungary), as Albert had asked Philip III to take no decision without Maria’s consent. The empress’s male servants, loosely defined as “those from Madrid” (Carrillo, Borja, and Khevenhüller), were supposed to meet with the royal confessor Córdoba, the secretary Franqueza, and the minister Juan de Idiáquez to resolve these issues, but the meeting never took place due to Lerma’s timely intervention. In the end, the traditional system of military allocations was retained, lightened thanks to the aides granted to Albert and Isabel by the States General of the Netherlands.68

9.4 Death, heritage, posterity In January 1603, a few days before her death, the empress was still insisting on the issues that had become her obsession in this last stage of her life: she wished to see her grandson Philip III again, Albert should be paid what was owed to him, and Rudolf should help him in Flanders and, if the latter did not marry a Styrian archduchess, he should at least help his cousins have good marriages. In none of her last intercessions was she able to exercise any influence. Borja’s letters offer an obsessive and senile image of her last days, coupled with physical deterioration.69 In mid-February 1603, a cold from which she did not recover plunged her into agony. Philip III made hesitant preparations to visit her which did not materialise, as his new-born daughter, Maria, was also dying. Khevenhüller, who was on his way to Valladolid, had to return in haste. Together with Borja, the two ambassadors who had accompanied Maria for decades rendered her a last service. Margarita de la Cruz, the daughter who was destined to take care of her all her life, fulfilled her mission “by helping her to die well and being by her side, and when she expired, [Margarita] closed her eyes and left.” 70 She passed away at five o’clock in the morning on 26 February 1603. She was seventy-four years old.

New opportunities?  237

FIGURE 9.1

Imperial Crown from Empress Maria’s catafalque (Descalzas Reales, Madrid) © Patrimonio Nacional

Maria’s death opened a final phase of negotiations in which her legacy was put in order. In the dispute over the fate of her body, Maria posthumously imposed herself on Lerma. The royal order to lay her body in the Church of the Descalzas and then transfer it to El Escorial allegedly arrived during her humble burial in the ground of the lower cloister of the monastery, as she had instructed. Lerma was scandalised by the delay of the order and the speed of the ceremony but had to accept the fait accompli for one last time.71 In 1615, Philip III had her body moved to a more appropriate tomb in the nuns’ choir. In 1632, it was placed in the sumptuous stone and bronze urn in which it still remains. During both translations, Margarita kissed her mother’s mummified hand before closing the tomb. Maria was laid to rest next to her sister and her little daughter, thus stressing the scope of her actions by creating in the Descalzas a sacred female pantheon, alternative to El Escorial.72

238  New opportunities?

FIGURE 9.2

Sepulchre of Empress Maria (Descalzas Reales, Madrid) © Patrimonio Nacional

The mourning for the empress at the court of Valladolid was overshadowed by the simultaneous death of the Infanta Maria. A solemn funeral service was held on 22 March in San Benito el Real with a conventional sermon by the Dominican Jerónimo de Tiedra, comparing her to Judith, Esther, and Saint Elena.73 In Madrid, on the fringe of the court circle, three different ceremonies were rapidly organised: by the municipal authorities on 20–21 March and, most importantly, by the Descalzas on 19–20 March, and by the Jesuit College on 21 April, with sermons by two renowned theologians, the Franciscan Juan de los Ángeles and the Jesuit Jerónimo de Florencia, respectively. In this duel between Franciscans and Jesuits, the former won in the musical part, as the Officium Defunctorum (Office of the Dead), one of the pinnacles of Western sacred music composed by the empress’s chaplain, Tomás Luis de Victoria, is supposed to have been performed for the first time for the occasion. The Jesuits, who published a Libro de las honras (Book of Honors),

New opportunities?  239

distinguished themselves in the visual part. The book contained illustrations of the sumptuous Castrum Doloris (castle of grief ) built in their church and thirty-six emblems which emphasised Maria’s role as imperial matriarch and shield of the Jesuits against the arrows of their enemies.74 Outside this circle, in Vienna and Brussels, the funerals were mere protocol events, while none was celebrated in Rome to avoid establishing a precedent. Only the Jesuits of the Empire paid a special tribute by honouring their protector, as in Linz.75 After the funeral rites, there was still the long and irritating task of executing Maria’s will. Albert, her favourite son and the one who cared most for her, appeared as the first beneficiary and exercised much of the family authority that the first-born Rudolf lacked. Faithful to her liberality, Maria generously rewarded her remaining 102 servants and issued a multitude of pious bequests. A clear authority was needed to prioritise payments and ensure the fulfilment of the empress’s wishes, and Margarita de la Cruz occupied this crucial role. Half of what was left of the inheritance was to be used for Maria’s pious commissions and the other half was to be divided among her four sons and her grandson Philip III.76 This generated a copious correspondence over the years between Madrid, Prague, and Brussels. Albert supervised the entire process, while Borja, Khevenhüller, and the accountant Alarcón acted as the main executors.77 As a nun, Margarita de la Cruz was not included among the heirs and received only a small pension which left her in some financial distress. Philip III, however, kept a small retinue for her representation needs as an infanta-archduchess, despite her status as a cloistered nun. In this way, she was able to manage the funds that her mother had left her for the distribution of alms and preserve a remnant of the empress’ entourage. Meanwhile, Queen Margarita was building her own space in the Palace, which culminated in the foundation of her own monastery, that of the Encarnación, for Augustinian Recollect nuns.78 Maria’s two richest bequests had the greatest continuity and summarised her spiritual priorities with Franciscans and Jesuits. She endowed the Descalzas with a pious foundation and financed

240

New opportunities?

the Jesuit College in Madrid with 6,000 ducats a year, which elevated her to the rank of foundress and patroness. Thus, the College of St Peter and St Paul became the Imperial College of Madrid. As the income of the empress was not enough, her beneficiaries were involved in lawsuits against the Imperial College for 200 years regarding its distribution. The pious foundation of the Descalzas functioned for two centuries and financed pious works and a chaplaincy, in which outstanding musicians such as José de Nebra (1718) served. As for the Imperial College, it was the main educational centre of Baroque Madrid, then the city’s first cathedral and today a secondary school. Maria did not have the same organisational drive as her female relatives, but her legacy allowed her to have her coat of arms on one of the main monuments of old Madrid.

Notes 1 Argentero to Charles Emmanuel I de Savoy, Madrid, 12/10/1588, ASTo, LM, Sp, 4, unpaginated; Nuncio Caetani to Cardinal Aldobrandini, Madrid, 06/12/1597, AAV, FB, II, 14, 182r; Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 24/02/1598, Stieglecker, “Wir haben,” 343. 2 Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 14/09/1598 and 23/09/1598, Stieglecker, “Wir haben,” 393–394 and Stromenger, “Die Berichte,” 182; Martínez Millán and Jiménez Pablo, “La Casa de Austria,” 26. 3 Soranzo to the Doge of Venice, Madrid, 18/09/1598, ASVe, DS, Spagna, 30, n. 62. 4 Lerma to Borja, El Escorial, 14/09/1598, BL, Add. Mss., 28422, 6r; Avisos de Madrid, 30/09/1598, AAV, FB, III, 81B, 280r–282r; Elisa García Prieto, “Antes de Flandes. La correspondencia de Isabel Clara Eugenia con Felipe III desde las Descalzas Reales en el otoño de 1598,” Chronica nova 40 (2014): 345. 5 Albert of Austria to Borja, Milan, 23/12/1598, IVDJ, 41–53, n. 27. 6 Soranzo to the Doge of Venice, Madrid, 31/08/1598, ASVe, DS, Spagna, 30, n. 53; Patrick Williams, The Great Favourite: The Duke of Lerma and the Court and Government of Philip III of Spain, 1598–1621 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2006), 54–57; Santiago Martínez Hernández, “‘Ya no hay Rey sin Privado’: Cristóbal de Moura, un modelo de privanza en el Siglo de los Validos,” Librosdelacorte.es 2 (2010): 31. 7 The Count of Olivares to Maria of Austria, Naples, 21/08/1598, BL, Add. Mss., 28707, 22r; Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 09/10/1599, Stromenger, “Die Berichte,” 293; Antonio Feros, Kingship and Favoritism in the Spain of Philip III, 1598–1621 (Cambridge:

New opportunities?

8

9

10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17

18 19

20

241

Cambridge University Press, 2000), 133, 150–151; Williams, The Great Favourite, 48–49, 111–114. See, respectively, Edouard Rott, “Philippe III et le Duc de Lerme: (1598 1621): étude historique d’après des documents inédits,” Revue d’histoire diplomatique 3 (1887): 373; Sánchez, The Empress, 36–38 and more nuanced in 55–56; and Alvar Ezquerra, El Embajador, 109–111. Alastair Malcolm, “Spanish Queens and Aristocratic Women at the Court of Madrid, 1598–1665,” in Studies on Medieval and Early Modern Women 4. Victims or Viragos?, eds. Christine Meek and Catherine Lawless (Dublin: Four Courts, 2005), 167. Relación que haze el conde de Franquenburg al emp[erad]or del modo y gouierno que al p[re]sente tienen los reynos de España, Valladolid, 01/01/1606, Khevenhüller, Diario, 618. María Jesús Pérez Martín, Margarita de Austria, Reina de España (Madrid: Espasa Calpe, 1961), 38–45; Duerloo, Dynasty and Piety, 54–55. Soranzo to the Doge of Venice, Madrid, 23/09/1598 and 06/10/1598, ASVe, DS, Spagna, 30, n. 64 and 68; Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 23/09/1598, Stromenger, “Die Berichte,” 184; Khevenhüller, Diario, 613. Borja to Lerma, Madrid, 01/11/1598 and 21/08/1599, BL, Add. Mss., 28422, 12r–12v and 122v–123r; Lerma to Borja, Valencia, 29/03/1599, BL, Add. Mss., 28422, 51r. Carrillo to Albert of Austria, Toledo, 04/09/1599, Madrid, 20/09/1600, and Valladolid, 21/12/1602 and 23/02/1603, AGR, SEG, 490, 7r and 198r; 492, 128r–128v and 164r. Nuncio Caetani to Cardinal Aldobrandini, Valencia, 08/04/1599, BAV, Barb. Lat., 5843, 112–114r; Lerma to Borja, Valencia, 19/04/1599, BL, Add. Mss., 28422, 59r. Alvar Ezquerra, El Embajador, 568; Nuncio Caetani to Cardinal Aldobrandini, Barcelona, 22/05/1599, BAV, Barb. Lat., 5843, 203r–203v. San Clemente to Maria of Bavaria, Graz, 18/09/1598, HHStA, Spanien Varia, 3/4, 100r–102v; Magdalena Sánchez, “A Woman’s Influence: Archduchess Maria of Bavaria and the Spanish Habsburgs,” in The Lion and the Eagle: Interdisciplinary Essays on German-Spanish Relations Over the Centuries, eds. Conrad Kent et al. (New York: Berghahn Books, 2000), 96–99. Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 12/10/1598 and 15/04/1599, Stromenger, “Die Berichte,” 191 and 239. Alvar Ezquerra, El Embajador, 568; Nuncio Caetani to Cardinal Aldobrandini, Barcelona, 30/05/1599, BAV, Barb. Lat., 5843, 220r; Katrin Keller, Erzherzogin Maria von Innerösterreich (1551–1608): zwischen Habsburg und Wittelsbach (Wien: Böhlau, 2012), 202–203, 217–218. Borja to Lerma, Madrid, 06/05/1599, BL, Add. Mss., 28422, 63r–63v; Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 14/08/1599, Stromenger, “Die Berichte,” 277; Francesco Guicciardini to Ferdinand I of Tuscany,

242

21 22 23 24 25

26 27 28

29

30

31

32

New opportunities?

Barcelona, 01/06/1599, ASFi, MP, 4927, 274v; Sánchez, “A Woman’s Influence,” 99–100. Cardinal Aldobrandini to Nuncio Caetani, Rome, 06/06/1599, BAV, Barb. Lat., 5846/3, 59v; the Duke of Sessa to Maria of Austria, Rome, 08/12/1601, BGe, Favre, LIII, 181r. Borja to Lerma, Madrid, 04/09/1599, BL, Add. Mss., 28422, 130v. Khevenhüller, Diario, 619; Sánchez, The Empress, 99–100. Khevenhüller, Diario, 620. Once, Lerma said to the king before entering the Descalzas: “Stand firm, my Lord, beware that your grandmother does not change [your plan].” Carrillo to Albert of Austria, Madrid, 12/02/1600, AGR, SEG, 490, 47r; Nuncio Caetani to Cardinal Aldobrandini, Barcelona, 22/05/1599, BAV, Barb. Lat., 5843, 208r. Patrick Williams, “Lerma, Old Castile and the Travels of Philip III of Spain,” History 239 (1988): 379. According to the records of Khevenhüller’s diary, Philip III visited her ten times in 1599 and twenty times in 1600; Margarita eight in 1599 and fourteen in 1600. Alvar Ezquerra, El Embajador, 570–582. Borja to Lerma, Madrid, 02/02/1600 and 06/11/1600, BL, Add. Mss., 28422, 278r and 28423, 306r–306v. Queen Margarita of Austria to Sessa, Madrid, 27/05/1600, BGe, Favre, LIII, 170r; Nuncio Caetani to Cardinal Aldobrandini, Barcelona, 22/05/1599 and Zaragoza, 07/09/1599, BAV, Barb. Lat., 5843, 203v–204r and Archivio Doria Pamphilj, Fondo Aldobrandini, 7, 2r. General Aquaviva SJ to the Count of Miranda, Rome, 29/03/1599, ARSI, Tol., 5 I-II, 542v–543r; General Aquaviva SJ to the father visitator, provincial and Madrid’s rector, Rome, 21/06/1599, ARSI, Tol., 5 I-II, 553r–553v; General Aquaviva SJ to Francisco Antonio SJ, Rome, 13/12/1599, ARSI, Tol., 5 I-II, 581r; Esther Jiménez Pablo, “Los jesuitas en la corte de Margarita de Austria: Ricardo Haller y Fernando de Mendoza,” in Martínez Millán and Lourenço, Las relaciones discretas, 2:1071–1120. Nuncio Caetani to Cardinal Aldobrandini, Barcelona, 14/06/1599 and Madrid, 09/10/1599, BAV, Barb. Lat., 5843, 235r and 370r–370v; Soranzo to the Doge of Venice, Madrid, 15/10/1599, ASVe, DS, Spagna, 31, n. 63; Sánchez, The Empress, 45–54; Rubén González Cuerva, “Cruzada y dinastía: Las mujeres de la Casa de Austria ante la larga guerra de Hungría,” in Martínez Millán and Lourenço, Las relaciones discretas, 2:1172–1176. Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 29/08/1602, in Tatjana Lehner, “Die Regierungszeit Philipps III. (1601–02) in den Berichten Johann Khevenhüllers an Kaiser Rudolf II.” (MA diss., Universität Wien, 2001), 247. Nuncio Ginnasi to Cardinal Aldobrandini, Valladolid, 25/02/1601, BAV, Barb. Lat., 5848, 25r; Niederkorn, Die europäischen Mächte, 227, 247; González Cuerva, “Cruzada y dinastía,” 1179–1180. Consultation of the Council of State, 25/11/1600, AGS, E, 2323, n. 116; Soranzo to the Doge of Venice, Madrid, 03/02/1601, ASVe, DS, Spagna, 32, n. 65; Duerloo, Dynasty and Piety, 251–256.

New opportunities?

243

33 Khevenhüller, Diario, 615–616; Sánchez, The Empress, 99–100. 34 San Clemente to Philip II, Prague, 20/03/1596, Meysztowicz, Elementa ad fontium, 77–79. 35 Cristóbal Marín Tovar, “Doña María Sidonia Riederer de Paar, dama de la reina Margarita de Austria y condesa de Barajas,” in Martínez Millán and González Cuerva, La dinastía de los Austria, 1:671–700. 36 Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 07/12/1599, Stromenger, “Die Berichte,” 312; Nuncio Caetani to Cardinal Aldobrandini, Madrid, 07/12/1599, BAV, Barb. Lat., 5843, 417v. Pérez Martín, Margarita de Austria, 99–101. 37 Khevenhüller, Diario, 620; Pérez Martín, Margarita de Austria, 121. The Marquise del Valle was also expelled in October 1603, as she had become an independent and uncontrollable agent for Lerma. Michele Olivari, “La Marquesa del Valle: un caso de protagonismo político femenino en la España de Felipe III,” Historia Social 57 (2007): 109–113. 38 Borja to Lerma, Madrid, 06/05/1599, 06/11/1600, and 08/12/1601, BL, Add. Mss., 28422, 64r–64v; 28423, 306v; and 28424, 226r. 39 Lerma to Borja, Denia, 10/08/1599, BL, Add. Mss., 28422, 106v–107r; Borja to Lerma, Madrid, 21/08/1599 and 13/04/1602, BL, Add. Mss., 28422, 119r–122v and 28424, 310v. 40 Borja to Lerma, Madrid, 21/03/1601 and 14/07/1601, BL, Add. Mss., 28423, 457v–458r and 28424, 105r. 41 Lerma to Borja, Madrid, 12/04/1600, BL, Add. Mss., 28422, 375r; Borja to Lerma, Madrid, 24/08/1600 and 04/11/1601, BL, Add. Mss., 28423, 184v and 28424, 198r. 42 Soranzo to the Doge of Venice, Madrid, 18/01/1601, ASVe, DS, Spagna, 32, n. 62; Khevenhüller, Diario, 615; Ciriaco Pérez Bustamante, Felipe III: semblanza de un monarca y perfiles de una privanza (Madrid: Real Academia de la Historia, 1950), 74. 43 Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 21/01/1599, Stromenger, “Die Berichte,” 219; Carrillo to Albert of Austria, Madrid, 02/02/1601, AGR, SEG, 491, 28r; Borja to Lerma, Madrid, 23/05/1601, BL, Add. Mss., 28424, 52r–52v. 44 Borja to Lerma, Madrid, 16/06/1600, 24/11/1601, 29/11/1601, and 16/03/1602, BL, Add. Mss., 28423, 59r; 28424, 217r, 220r–222r, and 285v; Magdalena Sánchez, “Melancholy and Female Illness. Habsburg Women and Politics at the Court of Philip III,” Journal of Women’s History 8(2) (1996): 88. 45 Avisos de Valladolid, 08/05/1602, BAV, Barb. Lat., 5849, 212v; Lerma to Borja, El Pardo, 11/07/1602, BL, Add. Mss., 28424, 360r. 46 Lerma to Borja, Buitrago, 15/05/1601, BL, Add. Mss., 28424, 43r; Borja to Lerma, Madrid, 29/09/1601, 28/10/1601, and 18/11/1601, BL, Add. Mss., 28424, 169r–170r, 181r–183r, and 210r; Carrillo to Albert of Austria, Valladolid, 31/10/1601, AGR, SEG, 491, 193r; Aram, Juana the Mad, 120–129, 146. 47 Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 16/09/1589, HHStA, SDK, 11/9, 380r; Borja to Lerma, Madrid, 05/08/1600, BL, Add. Mss., 28423, 165v.

244

New opportunities?

48 Borja to Lerma, Madrid, 04/06/1600, 21/03/1601, and 23/05/1601, BL, Add. Mss., 28423, 36r, 457v–458r, and 28424, 55r; Lerma to Borja, Valladolid, 05/03/1601, BL, Add. Mss., 28423, 417r. 49 Avisos de Madrid, 11/07/1598, BAV, Barb. Lat., 5842, 130v; Borja to Lerma, Madrid, 21/08/1599, BL, Add. Mss., 28422, 122r–123r; José Martínez Millán, “La casa de Catalina Micaela y sus hijos,” in Martínez Millán and Visceglia, La Monarquía de Felipe III, 1:1065–1067. 50 The respective cases of Isabel Mejía and the Countess of Laconi: Borja to Lerma, Madrid, 13/02/1600 and 09/06/1602, BL, Add. Mss., 28422, 298r–298v and 28424, 346r. 51 Relaçión de los criados que tiene la Emperatriz n[uest]ra señora a quien se da casas de Aposiento, ca. 1601, ed. in Ferran Escrivà Llorca, “La vida en las Descalzas Reales a través de los epistolarios de Juan de Borja (1584–1604),” in Tomás Luis de Victoria: Estudios/Studies, eds. Javier Suárez-Pajares and Manuel del Sol (Madrid: ICCMU, 2013), 446; Borja to Lerma, Madrid, 17/07/1599, 21/03/1601, 11/04/1601, and 30/07/1602, BL, Add. Mss., 28422, 84r–84v; 28423, 457r; 28424, 21v and 365r–365v; Muñoz de la Nava, “Monasterio de las Descalzas,” 92–93. 52 Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 06/11/1593 and 25/02/1595, Lehner, “Johann Khevenhüller,” 288 and Stieglecker, “Wir haben,” 82; Margarita de la Cruz to Albert of Austria, Madrid, 09/12/1607, AGR, SEG, 502, unpaginated; Marek, “Signora di molta stima,” 281; Cruz Medina, “Margarita de Cardona,” 1285–1288. 53 Borja to Lerma, Madrid, 04/07/1601 and 18/09/1602, BL, Add. Mss., 28424, 94r–96r and 411r; Sánchez, The Empress, 161 interprets that Lerma negotiated this issue, but the document shows the contrary. For theological opinions as key in Philip III’s decision-making, see Reinhardt, Voices of Conscience, 73–77, 202–202. 54 Borja to Lerma, Madrid, 20/06/1601, 06/10/1601, 31/10/1601, and 06/04/1602, BL, Add. Mss., 28424, 79r–79v, 173r–173v, 196v–197r, and 305r–305v; Castro, “Confesores Franciscanos,” 145–148. 55 Lerma to Borja, Valladolid, 05/12/1601, BL, Add. Mss., 28424, 223r. Sánchez, The Empress, 87–88; José Antonio Escudero, Estudios de Historia del Derecho (Madrid: BOE, 2016), 528; Eloy Hortal Muñoz, “Pedro de Ledesma,” Diccionario Biográfico Español, Real Academia de la Historia, http://dbe.rah.es/biografias/61987/pedro-de-ledesma. 56 Borja to Lerma, Madrid, 05/06/1602, BL, Add. Mss., 28424, 337v; Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 25/07/1601 and 01/01/1602, Lehner, “Die Regierungszeit,” 167–168 and 211–212. 57 Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 29/12/1598, 22/05/1600, and 20/08/1600, Stromenger, “Die Berichte,” 211, 366–368, and 388–390; Stieve, Die Verhandlungen, 46–47. 58 Borja to Lerma, Madrid, 05/08/1602, BL, Add. Mss., 28424, 366r–366v; Heinz Noflatscher, “Regiment aus der Kammer? Einflußreiche Kleingruppen am Hof Rudolfs II.,” in Der Fall des

New opportunities?

59

60 61

62 63

64 65 66 67 68

69 70

71

245

Günstlings. Hofparteien in Europa vom 13. bis zum 17. Jahrhundert, eds. Jan Hirschbiegel and Werner Paravicini (Stuttgart: Jan Thorbecke, 2004), 225–227. Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 03/03/1600, Stromenger, “Die Berichte,” 346–347; San Clemente to Philip III, Prague, 10/06/1600, AGS, E, 706, n. 17; Consultation of the Council of State, 25/11/1600, AGS, E, 2323, n. 116. Gebke, “Frühneuzeitliche Politik,” 109–110. Lerma to Borja, Valladolid, 01/08/1601, BL, Add. Mss., 28424, 119r–119v; Borja to Lerma, Madrid, 10/10/1601 and 02/01/1602, BL, Add. Mss., 28424, 166v and 258v. Borja to Lerma, Madrid, 14/07/1600, BL, Add. Mss., 28423, 121r–122v; Nuncio Ginnasi to Cardinal Aldobrandini, Madrid, 18/07/1600, BAV, Barb. Lat., 5847, 160r; Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 18/07/1600, Stromenger, “Die Berichte,” 379–380. Carrillo to Albert of Austria, Valladolid, 17/10/1601, AGR, SEG, 491, 190r; Borja to Lerma, Madrid, 10/10/1601, BL, Add. Mss., 28424, 166v–167v. Carrillo to Albert of Austria, Madrid, 20/11/1600, AGR, SEG, 490, 228v; Nuncio Bastoni to Cardinal Aldobrandini, Madrid, 23/01/1599, AAV, FB, I, 682, 38r–39r; Borja to Lerma, Madrid, 21/08/1599, BL, Add. Mss., 28422, 119r–119v; Bernardo García, La pax hispánica: política exterior del Duque de Lerma (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996), 50–52. Carrillo to Albert of Austria, Madrid, 14/09/1600 and Valladolid, 28/04/1601 and 27/06/1601, AGR, SEG, 490, 179r and 491, 72r–85r and 110v; Khevenhüller, Diario, 620; Sánchez, The Empress, 182. Sánchez, The Empress, 90; Duerloo, Dynasty and Piety, 137. Borja to Lerma, Madrid, 24/11/1601, BL, Add. Mss., 28424, 217v. Carrillo to Albert of Austria, Madrid, 05/12/1599, 30/07/1600, and 21/03/1601, AGR, SEG, 490, 33r–33v and 136v; and 491, 63r–63v; Borja to Lerma, Madrid, 01/04/1601, BL, Add. Mss., 28424, 5r–6r. Carrillo to Albert of Austria, Valladolid, 23/11/1601, AGR, SEG, 491, 202r–206r. Laso returned with an aid of 1.5 million escudos. Borja to Lerma, Madrid, 02/01/1602, BL, Add. Mss., 28424, 258r; García, La pax hispánica, 369. Borja to Lerma, Madrid, 27/03/1602 and 10/01/1603, BL, Add. Mss., 28424, 303v and 28425, 4r; Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 31/01/1603, HHStA, SDK, 13/1, 161v–163r. Borja to Lerma, Madrid, 26/02/1603, BL, Add. Mss., 28425, 32v; La relacion de los medicos de la enfermedad de Su Magd. la Emperatriz nuestra Señora, HHStA, FA, 65-10; Carrillo to Albert of Austria, Madrid [sic], 01/03/1603, AGR, SEG, 492, 172r–172v. Escrivà Llorca, “La vida en las Descalzas,” 449. Orden que dió Su Majestad para el entierro de la emperatriz su abuela, Palacio, 28/02/1603, Archivo Histórico del Santuario de Loyola, Andrés de Prada, 10, n. 33, 267r–267v; Borja to Lerma, Madrid,

246

72

73

74

75

76

77 78

New opportunities?

01/03/1603, BL, Add. Mss., 28425, 43r–44r; Escrivà Llorca, “La vida en las Descalzas,” 449–451. Elías Tormo, En las Descalzas Reales de Madrid, vol. 1 (Madrid: Junta de Iconografía Nacional, 1917), 202–204; Ana García Sanz, “Una ‘Oración en El Huerto’ sobre el sepulcro de la Emperatriz María,” Reales Sitios 113 (1992): 58–59; Juan Luis Blanco Mozo, “El sepulcro de la emperatriz María en las Descalzas Reales: ensayo e interpretación,” Reales Sitios 203 (2015): 14–21; Hodapp, Habsburgerinnen, 373–376. Gerónimo de Tiedra, Sermon que predico el maestro fray Geronimo de Tiedra, de la Orden de Santo Domingo… en las honras que se celebraron a la muerte de… La serenissima Emperatriz doña Maria (Valladolid: Luis Sanchez, 1603). Juan de los Ángeles, Sermón en las honras de la católica cesárea Magestad de la Emperatriz nuestra reina (Madrid: Juan de la Cuesta, 1604); Antonio Bernat Vistarini et al., eds., Book of Honors for Empress Maria of Austria Composed by the College of the Society of Jesus of Madrid on the Occasion of her Death, 1603 (Philadelphia, PA: Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011); Rees, The Requiem, 46–66. For Vienna, Brussels, Rome, and Linz, see, respectively, Géza Pálffy, “Kaiserbegräbnisse in der Habsburgermonarchie – Königskrönungen in Ungarn,” Frühneuzeit-Info 19 (2008): 43; Inventaire sommaire des Archives départementales antérieures à 1790, Nord: Nos. 2788 à 3228 (Lille: L. Danel, 1888), 21; Nuncio Ginnasi to Cardinal Aldobrandini, Valladolid, 18/05/1603, BAV, Barb. Lat., 5850, 140r; and Georg Scherer, Christliche Leichpredigt, Bey der Käyserlichen Besing- vnd Begängnuß… (Ingolstadt: Eder, 1603). Second testament, Madrid, 25/02/1594, BNE, R/39135, 4r–4v. The first testament (1581) was changed in 1594 and codicils were added in 1593 and 1600. HHStA, UR/FUK, 1425, 1457 and 1495; Documentos de cargo y data de la testamentaría de la emperatriz, María de Austria, BNE, Mss., 18639/60. AGR, Audience, 640/B and 480; Autos originales de la partición de la hacienda de la Emperatriz, 25/06/1605, AGS, PR, 31, doc. 28, 253r–665v. Khevenhüller? to Lerma, Aranjuez (?), undated, BL, Add. Mss., 28707, 54r–54v; Palma, Vida, 119v–125r; Sánchez Hernández, Patronato Regio, 36–42.

CONCLUSIONS

Juan Carrillo wrote in a letter of condolence to Archduke Albert on his mother’s death that “Your Highness has Her Imperial Majesty [Maria] before God and she will help every action of Your Highness through her intercession.”1 Empress Maria’s lifelong mission, to intercede on behalf of her family, would continue in eternal life with divine help. This theological image of intercession, based on the model of her namesake, the Virgin Mary, represented an ideal which she had not only fulfilled in life, but also surpassed. This was precisely the idea of “power” that contemporary men accepted for a figure like Empress Maria, to lovingly mediate between her male relatives. To achieve this, she possessed a delicate resource which was subject to negotiation and discussion, her personal authority. This authority derived from her prerogatives as a Spanish infanta and empress, not from jurisdictional privileges. She neither ruled over territories nor had feudal jurisdictions, and when offered the possibility to hold direct political power as vicereine (Portugal 1581), she sharply refused. The experience of the governorship of the Iberian Kingdoms in 1548–1551 had probably been too negative for her.2 DOI: 10.4324/9781003125693-11

248 Conclusions

Maria usually did not order or decide on her own but enjoyed a relational power, activating other individuals, mainly her brother Philip II and her husband Maximilian II. Educating her children, marrying her daughters, and finding top positions for her sons were not personal decisions, but she intervened very actively in the process. As empress, she resolutely defended her prerogatives and intangible prestige since they marked her social rank. Maria carefully analysed the intentions of the agents of other rulers and refused to receive them if they did not compliment her as she expected. This applied particularly to the Italian states under imperial sovereignty, whom Maria treated as vassals. While Savoyard representatives respected her requirements to be honoured, the Genoese caused recurrent protocol crises due to their reluctance to act as Maria’s subjects.3 Moreover, she was fully aware that the other rulers ought to answer her letters graciously and take her recommendations into consideration if they did not want to cause a potential conflict with the House of Austria. Thus, when the Venetian ambassador reported that some of Empress Maria’s closest associates (Count Trivulzio and Marquis Castiglione) had asked for a complicated favour from the Republic of Venice, he added that no negotiation would begin without a letter of recommendation by the Empress herself. It did not matter who the beneficiary was, but whether to count on dynastic support or not.4 However, Maria and her entourage were careful to keep an image of disinterest in political affairs and communicate in a kind and affectionate language. Maria embodied the subordinate model of the obedient wife and pious mother, but she performed and adapted it – depending on the male authorities nearby – to gain the moral authority required for managing her household and her children’s life.5 Fully exploiting the possibilities of domestic government, as was acceptable for early modern royal women, Maria explored her own room for manoeuvre and demonstrated the permeable access to the political arena under such criteria. In this light, the traditional identification of the female as informal (in contrast to formal male politics) should be reconsidered. The true division was not between the male and female spheres of power, but between the authorities (the few individuals entitled to

Conclusions  249

decide and give orders) and the members of the political arena. The latter included a multiform and ambiguous group of people linked to the authorities through ties of patronage and family who, as in the feudal tradition, were required to help and advise the rulers (auxilium et consilium). Maria’s entourage was an integral part of that political arena and cannot be defined as an informal group because it constituted a formal and legitimate institution, the empress’s household, whose members were carefully chosen, performed oath-taking ceremonies, and received detailed instructions as well as regulated salaries and allowances.6 As director of this institution, Maria exercised her authority by negotiating the marriages of her ladies-in-waiting with leading aristocrats, organising an imperial chapel with a tendency towards spiritual reformation, discussing financial concerns with her male relatives, and building an extensive network of social and cultural patronage. Moreover, the empress’s household maintained a complex complementary relation with the dynastic embassies (the Spanish embassy in the Empire and the imperial embassy in Spain). In Vienna, her household chronologically preceded and somehow provided the infrastructure for the Spanish embassy, which progressively became an adjunct to the empress’s service. Depending on the situation, Empress Maria benefited from the embassy and occasionally exploited it for her own goals, as happened in the negotiations for the throne of Poland in 1575. In Madrid, ambassador Khevenhüller and Maria often combined their initiatives as a well-coordinated working couple. The ambiguities and openness of the court system permitted such dynamic structures of policymaking, so difficult to justify from the perspective of a teleological model of state-building. Rigid institutionalisation and the rise of abstract loyalties to the State or the Nation had not yet prevailed. Instead, we can see at play a personal-courtier style of rule based on mutual ties of fidelity and the exchange of services for graces. According to this paternalist logic of domestic economy, political success was measured by the ability to employ and reward servants.7 Maria took full part in this expansion of the domestic sphere to encompass European diplomacy. Taking advantage of her experience ruling her household, she was entitled – and even required –

250 Conclusions

to have a say in dynastic marriages and the organisation of the households of her children. She was also expected to forge close relationships among the more or less related members of the House of Austria. By doing so, she led a “plan B” to keep contact with Portugal, France, Saxony, or Poland through female networks.8 Despite her occasional failures, her efforts reveal an understanding of policymaking in which every single member of the ruling families was a useful agent in facilitating political communications. Throughout her adult life, Maria did not show any interest or appreciation of jurisdictional, financial, and international politics as they are understood nowadays, but intervened in these fields as far as her domestic interests were concerned. As one of the heads of the most powerful dynasty in sixteenth-century Europe, her family concerns were inherently political, but Maria always dealt with them without regard for the wider implications they had for European balances. She and her relatives deliberately blurred the relatively clear distinction between interceding and negotiating, when circumstances required. In any case, it is impossible to grasp the true scope of her activities, as they were oral and private dealings forbidden to be recorded in writing. In the cases in which her manuscript notes were indispensable, the order was to burn them after reading. Even so, we can witness the rise and decay of a very active stateswoman, more stubborn than resourceful, audacious when her dearest interests were at stake, maybe too confident in the extensive rights inherent to her high position. There were no underlying sophisticated political plans, only general guidelines rooted in a patrimonial logic of preserving the dynasty and the Catholic faith; according to her simple motto, “may we all serve what we must.”9 When decisions had to be made, her priority was her children’s success, according to a dynamic ranking in which Albert and Ernst came first and Matthias last. Looking after her children meant, first, providing them with a rigid Catholic education and even sending them to Spain to become acquainted with the core of the dynastic patrimony. Second, it required marrying her daughters in order for them to become queens, while her sons had to be kings or top prelates. She fought three times for Ernst (and then for Maximilian) to be elected King of Poland,

Conclusions  251

for Albert to become a cardinal, and for Wenzel to become Grand Prior of Malta.

Dynastic mediator Maria’s activities largely depended on her closeness to, and personal rapport with, her relatives. Despite the static and simple view of her actions as a Spanish Trojan horse in the Empire, we have seen how her dealings were intimately bound to the personal leanings of her relatives and the dynamics of their relationships. Facing this constraint, Maria’s room for manoeuvre was conditioned by the need of others to coordinate the different dynastic actors. Throughout her life, Maria’s initiatives and advice were shaped by

FIGURE C.1

Pompeo Leoni, Cenotafio de Carlos V y su familia (Basílica de San Lorenzo de El Escorial, 1592–1598) © Patrimonio Nacional

252 Conclusions

the example of her father Charles V. Although they did not live together for long, she was imbued with his merits and considered him to be the correct model to follow, thus preserving the memory of his priorities and deeds for the rest of her family. In 1573, she confessed to Philip II her desire for a solution to the Dutch Revolt and remembered that Charles V “loved them very much and did many things for them.”10 The following year, she lamented the loss of the Tunisian stronghold of La Goleta, since its conquest “cost our father so much work, which is the greatest care that I now have.”11 Her brother Philip II inherited that patriarchal role and kept close ties with his sister for seventy years. Although political misunderstandings and divergent priorities recurrently affected them, Philip II and Maria cared for each other and were loyal and sincere in their dealings with one another throughout their lives. This fraternal bond and its political value have been repeatedly emphasised, but it seems that Maria’s most solid and closest family relationship was her only sister Juana, on whose death she admitted “that I find myself very lonely without her no matter how far away we were.”12 However, only indirect testimonies bear witness to the large correspondence between the two sisters, which today is almost entirely lost: only two private letters that were addressed by Maria to Juana are preserved, and these two survived because they were sent after Juana had died, and so were not destroyed by her.13 Maria’s good relationship with her biological family should not overshadow her tighter and more constant ties with her husband Maximilian II. The emperor may have faced serious financial and governmental limitations, but the ambassadors acknowledged that he was a subtle and intelligent statesman.14 It is therefore hard to believe that he ignored the fact that his loving wife was almost a secret agent of the Spanish Habsburgs. It seems more credible that emperor and empress acted as a working couple with a tacit and relatively ambiguous allocation of roles. Thanks to his wife’s mediation, Maximilian II had an easier and more discreet access to Philip II’s patronage than he might otherwise have enjoyed, but rather than acting as plotting spouses who used each other, Maria and Maximilian established a precarious status quo: she had room

Conclusions  253

for proposing policies, while he could either profit from them or plainly reject them, as he was the only one entitled to take decisions. Occasionally, the Spanish ambassadors suspected that Maximilian dictated some of Maria’s bold initiatives, in which merciful female mediators were careful not to put the emperor’s reputation at risk. Notable examples are the negotiations for the throne of Poland in 1575 or the acknowledgement of the grand ducal title for Francis I of Tuscany in 1574–1576. In the first case, Maria asked her brother Philip II for financial help to support her son Ernst’s candidacy to Poland instead of Maximilian having to humiliate himself begging his brother-in-law for money. In the second case, Maximilian II pursued a different approach to a deadlock: in lieu of admitting that he and Philip II had failed against Francis I – and the Pope – regarding the use of the grand ducal title without Habsburg consent, he disguised his moves behind Maria’s intercession: both Habsburg sovereigns would grant the use of the grand ducal title as a grace asked by Maria for Giovanna of Austria, Francis I’s wife and her sister-in-law. The plan, however, was complicated and risky and did not prosper. Maria was always loyal to her husband, even though his dubious Catholicism was her overriding concern, and was ready to sacrifice any State interest for the salvation of his soul. On one occasion, she confessed her desire that Maximilian “be saved and let the States and everything else go as it will.”15 In the case of disagreement between Philip II and Maximilian II, she sided with her husband. For example, when the latter made it clear that Maria’s journey to Spain in 1570 was unacceptable, she did not even attempt to disobey him. The question of how she employed her abilities for mediation became thornier after Maximilian II’s death in 1576. On the one hand, Maria had more authority in her new status as a widow and made ample use of her space for manoeuvre. She obstinately reserved for herself the right to decide the destiny of her single daughters Eleonore and Margarita, and sought ecclesiastical careers for most of her sons. She felt empowered enough to send Gaspar de Santiago, her own agent, to Madrid and Rome and meddle with the “official” Spanish and Imperial diplomacy in order to advance her family goals. Gaspar de Santiago may have been unsuccessful

254 Conclusions

in his dealings on behalf of Maria, but he was acknowledged as her legitimate representative. On the other hand, the key factor for maintaining an authoritative position was missing: Maria had created an effective working partnership with her husband Maximilian II, but she found it impossible to replicate it with her son Rudolf II. Even though the new emperor wanted his mother’s constant presence at the court of Prague, he was not willing to share the reins of power with her. Maria was ready to obey – albeit reluctantly – her father, her elder brother, or her husband, but not her sons. She defended her decision to retire to Madrid against all odds, and when the confluence of interests with Philip II allowed this to happen, Rudolf interpreted his mother’s return to Spain almost as a personal treason. Mother and son were more alike than either of them would have cared to admit: in 1599–1602, Maria forbade her veteran high steward, Juan de Borja, to be separated from her even for a single day, and when he requested a leave, she burst out angrily against him speaking of treason. After Maria and Rudolf ’s separation in 1581, the relationship between mother and son never recovered: although there were always topics to discuss and material objects to exchange, confidence was lost. Today, both of them would probably be diagnosed with depression. Rudolf exhibited a pathological mistrust which severely hindered his relationship not only with his mother but also with his brothers and sisters. Duerloo is right in stating that the main weakness of the House of Austria at the beginning of the seventeenth century was not the lack of understanding between the Spanish and the Imperial branches, but the lack of unity among the sons of Maximilian II and Maria.16 Maria became less central to dynastic mediations once she retired from Prague in 1581, especially due to the complicated relationship between Philip II and Rudolf II, in which an authoritative uncle clashed with a distrustful nephew. Furthermore, Philip II was extremely intolerant of family influences and the royal ministers prevented Maria from developing an autonomous space of action in Madrid.17 It is true that she was an ardent advocate of the interests of her beloved sons Ernst and Albert, who fully enjoyed Philip II’s

Conclusions  255

grace, but Maria’s influence was secondary in Madrid and almost inexistent in Prague. The accession to the throne of her only grandson Philip III in 1598 awakened vain hopes. This part of her life has attracted most of the scholarly attention, leading to the image of an influential and decisive figure, but when compared to the earlier periods of her life we witness, in fact, the pitiful decline of the empress. She had lost most of her familial power: Rudolf II was mentally unstable and unable to coordinate with her a coherent political line; Philip III was inexperienced, and although affectionate towards her, his favourite, the Duke of Lerma, worked hard to isolate her and thus eliminate the most dangerous potential rival to his regime. In her last days, Maria was a suffering old woman with a tightly limited room for action, and not a scheming mastermind, who coldly used emotions to advance her goals. Maria was probably unfair and abusive to Philip III, but she truly felt abandoned by her family. The use of emotions had been central for her to express her priorities and attract the attention of her relatives, in line with the personal nature of the system and the traditional stereotype that women were more subject to passions. She does not seem to have been an imaginary invalid: since she was a teenage orphan, her bad health and melancholic crises were a recurrent phenomenon and served as arguments for pleading for her relatives’ support. This showed how limited and desperate her resources were. In Vienna she was described as a melancholic woman and suffered depressive episodes, especially after she became a widow, which severely affected her ability to manage her affairs.18 She had experienced successive crying and fainting episodes with her father, brother, husband, and sons, but Philip III and Lerma seemed remorseless in leaving her aside.

Confessional agent After dynasty, confession was the second axis around which her activities revolved, and while we have a nuanced picture of the former, the latter needs a deeper re-evaluation. Maria was a

256 Conclusions

zealous Catholic and a lifelong supporter of the Jesuits, but her political considerations went beyond a rigid confessionalism.19 Spiritual concerns have been overemphasised since the hagiographies written after her death, in which she was celebrated as a devout empress who never accepted conversations with Protestant ladies or entered peace negotiations with heretical princes.20 In fact, she forged a longstanding friendship with the Lutheran Duchess of Saxony in which confessional concerns were absent and, in her last years, she encouraged her son Albert to sign truces with the Dutch rebels and free himself from his unbearable obligations in the Netherlands. The pious image of her entourage is also in need of revision. Although it is true that her chamber refrained from sensuous amusements such as dancing and partying, its composition was nevertheless subject to suspicion.21 As had happened under her father-in-law, Ferdinand I, the Austrian court was not a promising destination for Iberian aristocrats and thus the standards for the servants were lowered. While Ferdinand I was surrounded by individuals suspected of Jewish origins, Maria’s most trusted ladies-in-waiting (María Manrique de Lara and Margarita de Cardona) were daughters of women with controversial inquisitorial antecedents. The confessional heterodoxy of the Imperial court also affected several Spanish clerics linked to Maria. In 1578, the Valencian Pedro Jimeno, Provincial of the Augustine Order in Austria, fled with all the money he could gather and took refuge among well-known Protestants in Hungary.22 Pedro Cornejo, who dedicated a book to the empress and claimed to be her chaplain, was an adventurer and a suspected Calvinist who had escaped from Spain. Maria did not display a marked crusading spirit or interest in the war against Muslim states. As Governors of the Iberian realms (1548–1551), Maximilian and Maria expressed their concern about the Algerian corsairs but did not propose a campaign against the Maghreb powers. Instead, they scrupulously respected the truces with the Ottoman Empire, and Maria showed little interest in defending the stronghold of Mahdia (Tunis). By contrast, when her sister Juana became governor in 1554–1559, she personally authorised

Conclusions  257

the failed attack against Mostaganem (1558) and the alliance with the Sharif of Fez, even against Philip II’s express command.23 At the imperial court, Maria was also not an ardent advocate of the Turkish wars. In the context of the battle of Lepanto (1571), the Venetian ambassadors were scandalised, as both the empress and the Spanish ambassador Monteagudo hindered Maximilian II’s entry into the Holy League, which was formed by the pope, Philip II and Venice. Both branches of the dynasty were uninterested in imperial participation in the Holy League for different reasons, and Empress Maria echoed this: her mediation with Maximilian II regarding military involvement was as half-hearted as was Philip II’s pressure.24 Maria, therefore, adapted to her brother’s rather than the pope’s interests. In fact, the legate extraordinary, Commendone, did not even petition for her help in the affairs of the Holy League, as he did for other negotiations.25 When an Ottoman embassy arrived in Prague in 1575, she apparently accepted the Turkish presents without reservations.26 Back in Spain, Maria did channel Rudolf II’s pleas for military support for the Long War of Hungary against the Turks (1592– 1606). However, the nuncios implicitly admitted that she strove more to gain Philip II’s and Philip III’s support for the Dutch theatre of war. It was not a geostrategic issue but a family priority: the empress was more receptive to the needs of her sons Ernst and Albert (successive Governors of the Netherlands) than to Emperor Rudolf ’s hardships in Hungary. For this reason, in 1594 Maria concentrated her energies more on promoting Ernst to the throne of France and Albert to the Archbishopric of Toledo than on supporting Rudolf II’s requests for assistance against the Turks. Intimately related to this question are Maria’s ties with the Holy See. The generally accepted image of the obedient daughter of the Catholic Church should be reconsidered, as she acted more as a demanding patroness who expected a quid pro quo relationship with Roman diplomacy. In Vienna and Prague, she discussed confessional policy with the Spanish ambassadors and pressed the imperial agenda according to the interests of the dynasty rather than pressure from Rome. The empress, her chapel, and the Spanish embassy directed a diligent confessional policy without coordinating

258 Conclusions

with the Papal nunciature, which acted in parallel and with less success. Maria proved particularly zealous and active in promoting ecclesiastical affairs as protector of the Jesuits and the Poor Clares, thus revealing her spiritual leanings and her status as patroness.27

Cultural and social transfer Finally, Maria functioned as an unintentional agent of cultural circulation, especially in the imperial court, both in spiritual terms and in the field of fashion. Her efforts to consolidate Catholic sociability as a court standard began with her household and the education of her children, often with the help of Iberian and Italian priests due to the lack of trustworthy German clerics. Apart from supporting the activities of the Jesuits, and even attempting to save the souls of the agonising Protestants in Vienna’s Kaiserspital, she contributed to the creation of a social environment that was essential for the foundation of the Corpus Christi Brotherhood in Prague. This pious confraternity replicated the cosmopolitan courtly entourage she had helped to preserve. Although her personal influence should not be exaggerated, several of the protagonists of the Bohemian and Austrian Re-Catholicisation of the first third of the seventeenth century, such as Cardinal Dietrichstein and the Lobkowicz-Pernstein family, were related to the empress’s circle. Maria led the defence in a confessional battlefield which she in fact did not feel as her own: while her daughter Elisabeth founded Königinkloster in Vienna as a stronghold in the spiritual avant-garde, Maria preferred a quieter life in Madrid after she became a widow. In Spain, she demonstrated her greater room for manoeuvre by defending the discalced reform of the Carmelites, the Jesuits, and the vernacular reading of the Psalms. Although these practices became standard in seventeenth-century Catholic spirituality, at this time they were still the objects of inquisitorial and royal suspicion. The courtly nature of her cultural mediations is also evident in the field of “Spanish fashion.” During her years at the imperial court – and even after that – she dictated good taste by following closely the lavish trends of the court of Madrid. When the future Queen Margarita of Austria prepared her journey to Spain in 1598,

Conclusions  259

she sent Maria several mannequins to be returned to her dressed according to the Castilian styles current at that time.28 This cultural transfer has been studied in detail, along with the literary and artistic works to which it gave rise.29 However, it did not take place against the backdrop of a proto-national juxtaposition between Spanish and German culture, but of the courtly and confessional culture of the household of Empress Maria, and this without implying a detailed propagandistic plan. The close relationship between the Spanish embassy and the empress’s household originated in a political-cultural centre which was more dynastic in character than Spanish, as it was flexible and open to those gentlemen, ladies, and clerics from Central Europe who accepted to serve Philip II and a rigorous Catholic spirituality, and, if possible, express themselves in Spanish. Emperor Rudolf II could consequently follow the fashion of Madrid but not the political line of Philip II. Likewise, the latent tensions between the cosmopolitan pretensions of the Spanish style and the clash with national imaginaries cannot be overlooked, since the perception of the Spanish as arrogant and invasive contrasted with the German/Bohemian identity.30 Nevertheless, this fruitful bond went beyond the personal taste of Central European Habsburgs: for the imperial court, the Spanish style was a matter of dynastic identity and embodied the greatness of the House of Austria. They did not seek a Spanish national culture, but the cosmopolitan style of the court of Madrid, which included Burgundian ritual, luxury artefacts from Italy and the Netherlands, and exotic goods from the Indies. The overwhelming presence of practices and material culture from Spain at the imperial court was not reciprocal. Apparently, apart from relics and pious images, the only tradition Maria imported to Madrid from the imperial court was that of sending gifts after a bloodletting. This practice was welcomed with curiosity but was not continued after Maria’s death.31 The difference between politics and identity is also visible in the case of Maria. She self-identified as a Spaniard, only spoke Spanish fluently, and always asked to be surrounded by Spanish servants. However, she always declared to serve the House of Austria and the Catholic faith, not the Monarchy of Spain, whose territorial

260 Conclusions

priorities were alien to her interests. Maria was a Castilian deeply attached to her native kingdom, but at the same time she was very close to Portuguese servants in her youth and, as an adult, she was especially served by aristocrats from the Crown of Aragon and confided in Austrian and Bohemian gentlemen like Hans Khevenhüller, Vratislav von Pernstein, and Adam von Dietrichstein. Spirituality and fashion were manifestations of a deeper social movement. The dynastic system did not work through bilateral communication between two crowned sovereigns but through intertwining collateral branches and individuals, who negotiated their interests and needs with unequal success. For that reason, a supposedly discrete figure such as Empress Maria became the central driving force, mobilising her relatives to coordinate their broadly coinciding goals. In the lower echelons, a multitude of servants from the administration and the households of these individuals constituted a dynastic network circulating between the constellation of courts of the House of Austria and reinforcing their shared identity and interests.32 Maria’s transformation by the imperial side into an anti-model to be avoided can help us appreciate the significance and extension of her network. The case of Maria Anna of Austria (1606–1646), the next Spanish princess to marry a future emperor (Ferdinand III, in 1631), is particularly illuminating. Maria Anna’s father-in-law, Emperor Ferdinand II, did not follow the model of Empress Maria in establishing the ordinances of his daughter-in-law’s household but that of his sister, the Spanish Queen Margarita of Austria, who faced severe restrictions on the control of her entourage.33 During the marriage negotiations between Ferdinand III and Maria Anna of Austria, the imperial ambassador Franz Christoph Khevenhüller emphasised that the example of Maria of Austria and her ladies, which was still remembered as a negative precedent fifty years later, had to be avoided.34 Maria Anna’s ladies therefore did not marry in the Empire, but returned to Spain after the end of their service. 35 This situation sharply contrasted with Maria of Austria’s unheard-of attitude; she managed to see three of the four senior court officials of her son Rudolf II marry former ladies in her service. When she returned to Spain, the image of her imposing retinue was almost

Conclusions  261

military, “so many families transplanted from the North to the West; an army of noble women through such rough roads.”36 This situation led to an interesting correlation: wherever there were Spaniards or Spanish was spoken, it was assumed that there was a “Spanish faction” (especially in Vienna, Prague, and Brussels). Seen through the lens of the nation-state, this implies the coordination of elite groups acting in the interest of the Spanish King and supporting the consolidation of his monarchy. This assumption is misleading in two ways. First, the cultures of decision-making were too complex, and the competing priorities of a global monarchy made it very difficult to ascertain the nature of those Spanish interests. Second, the organisation and disciplining of these individuals into a court faction was almost impossible, although it had a cultural justification: Philip II and his ministers relied heavily on these españolados not for reasons of linguistic convenience, but because of their religious-ideological reliability. In general, not all groupings or court sympathies constitute a faction, as factions require a failure of the political body and the existence of alternative heads and oppositions. Moreover, the tendency to classify the complex court dynamics according to national preferences is reductionist since it does not encapsulate the different layers of action and polarisation at work. In addition, this factionary vision reflects an excessive dependence on diplomatic sources, especially from the Italian ambassadors, very sharp observers who tended to apply their local binary logic between Guelphs and Ghibellines.37 Maria was in fact above factional struggles, especially in the court of Philip II. Although she felt closer and more supported by the group of the Prince of Eboli, she resorted to the better disposed servants rather than led a group, and asked Alba (the head of the rival faction) and his followers for favours. Having examined the evidence, it is difficult to maintain that Maria led both a Spanish faction in the Empire and an Austrian faction in Spain. Instead, she fostered the circulation of a wider dynastic network.38 At the court of Madrid, in particular, she lacked shared interests and a fruitful political communication with Rudolf II to head an organised Austrian-Imperial group. Her relationship with the leading imperial

262 Conclusions

ministers was not better: underneath their self-image as devout servants, Maria’s patronage was of little value to them in that new context. They fought for their own interests and had broader court connections. The imperial favourite, Wolfgang Rumpf, a minister supported in his youth by Empress Maria and married to one of her former ladies-in-waiting, bitterly criticised his patroness’s initiatives and acted as an effective mediator on behalf of the ambassador of Tuscany against Maria’s negotiations. For the Spanish ambassador San Clemente, paying Rumpf a regular pension was equal to “throwing it to a river.”39 That was the dynamic and paradoxical reality behind the general label of a “Spanish faction.” During her last years in Madrid, Maria was part of an interesting female royal network but did not head a court faction, since neither did she have a sizeable clientele at her disposal nor did the actors involved acknowledge her political authority. Her household was diminishing, poorly paid, and not even decently lodged. Neither King Philip III nor Emperor Rudolf II authorised her; only her loving son Albert, then co-sovereign of the Southern Netherlands, empowered her to act as a selfless mediator between Brussels and Madrid. Thanks to Albert’s support, a para-institutional council formed around the empress advised and pressed the king on the Netherlands. However, it was not interpreted as a “Flemish Party.” After Maria’s death, the Spanish court lacked a circle of advisers and experts on northern Europe and the royal favourite Lerma showed little interest in forging dynastic relations. When in the 1610s Lerma’s regime decayed and both branches of the House of Austria approached each other again, the absence of suitable mediators was palpable. Baltasar de Zúñiga, the outgoing Spanish ambassador in the Empire, became almost a factotum in dynastic affairs due to the absence of alternative experts. What was Maria’s contribution as a dynastic networker? She had no specific role but was a central piece in keeping these dynastic and confessional entities working. Geevers has characterised the dynastic ingredient not in terms of mere state-building but as a process of “patrimonialisation” which does not mean “centralisation.”40 The Spanish empire-building in the sixteenth century was a side effect of a more deliberate process of dynasty-building in

Conclusions  263

which the Habsburg networks of patronage (particularly Maria’s) were not differentiated: Archduke Ernst served as a governor for both branches, the conquest of the throne of Poland was a shared dynastic enterprise, and the rule over the Spanish Netherlands functioned as the perfect pool for Austrian Habsburgs like Ernst, Albert, and their cousin Cardinal Andrew of Austria.41 Well into the 1570s the possibility of reuniting Charles V’s patrimony was alive and the establishment of an autonomous court in Brussels under Albert and Isabel showed the porosity and continuity of intra-dynastic communication. Only retrospectively can one discern an irreversible separation between both branches as founders of the modern Spanish and Austrian states. Despite Maria’s resounding failure to marry Emperor Rudolf II to Infanta Isabel and guarantee the continuity of the imperial branch, she decisively helped to arrange the double marriage between Philip III and Margarita of Austria, and Archduke Albert and Infanta Isabel. Consequently, she contributed to the rapprochement between the Spanish and Styrian lines of the House of Austria (a central issue in explaining dynastic coordination in the Thirty Years’ War) and the dynastic turn of these decades: Philip II and his heirs had to acknowledge that the patrimony of the House of Austria was a unity, and their main duty was to preserve it with the help of all their relatives, not to constitute a national Monarchy of Spain. In the spiritual sphere, Maria devoted all her energies to the advancement of the Catholic reform at the imperial court, precisely during the time when it became the central arena of social promotion for the Hereditary Lands.42 Both the dynastic entente and the spread of Catholic confessionalism in Bohemia and Austria fuelled the crisis behind the Defenestration of Prague and the Thirty Years War. To modern readers, the dynastic and confessional coordinates familiar to Empress Maria seem quite exotic, although increasingly less so. A powerful woman devoted to her God and her family who intervened in European politics as a careless actress for the glory of both, blind to the subtleties of political balance and competing interests. Her last portrait, this book’s cover image, emphasises with simple means the symbols of Maria’s life by depicting an old woman dressed as a nun, staring authoritatively, and holding a

264

Conclusions

rosary while pointing at an imperial crown. This creates an apparent contrast between Christian humility and monarchical grandeur which Maria faced with relative success throughout her life. She and her relatives have been until recently the invisible half of the House of Austria and dynastic Europe. Without her – and their – discreet and constant activity keeping the communications and patronage among the courts and households which constituted the society of princes, the micropolitical foundations of early modern Europe would not be fully within our grasp.

Notes 1 Carrillo to Albert of Austria, Madrid [sic], 01/03/1603, AGR, SEG, 492, 172r. 2 Hannah Arendt, “What Is Authority?” in Idem, Between Past and Future: Six Exercises in Political Thought (New York: The Viking Press, 1961), 92–93. 3 Khevenhüller to Rudolf II, Madrid, 22/02/1587, 30/01/1591, and 14/05/1591, HHStA, SDK, 11/9, 226v and Lehner, “Johann Khevenhüller,” 146 and 186–187. 4 Zane to the Doge of Venice, Madrid, 02/09/1583, ASVe, DS, Spagna, 16, n. 34. 5 Marta Vicente and Luis Corteguera, “Women in Texts: From Language to Representation,” in Women, Texts and Authority in the Early Modern Spanish World, eds. Marta Vicente and Luis Corteguera (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003), 3–4, 11. 6 Jeroen Duindam, “The Politics of Female Households: Afterthoughts,” in Akkerman and Houben, The Politics of Female Households, 367. Filippo de Vivo, “Public Sphere or Communication Triangle? Information and Politics in Early Modern Europe,” in Beyond the Public Sphere. Opinions, Publics, Spaces in Early Modern Europe, ed. Massimo Rospocher (Bologna and Berlin: Il Mulino and Duncker & Humblot, 2012), 127–129. 7 Bartolomé Clavero, Antidora. Antropología católica de la economía moderna (Milán: Giuffrè, 1991), 63–65. 8 Simon Hodson, “The Power of Female Dynastic Networks: A Brief Study of Louise de Coligny, Princess of Orange, and Her Stepdaughters,” Women’s History Review 16 (2007): 337. 9 Maria of Austria to Philip II, Vienna, 28/02/1568, CODOIN, 101:382. 10 Maria of Austria to Philip II, Vienna, 12/02/1573, CODOIN, 111:142. 11 Maria of Austria to Philip II, Vienna, 07/09/1574, CODOIN, 111:458. 12 Maria of Austria to Philip II, Vienna, 29/11/1573, Galende and Salamanca, Epistolario de la emperatriz, 263. 13 Galende and Salamanca, Epistolario de la emperatriz, 247–261.

Conclusions 265

14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23

24

25 26 27 28 29 30

31 32

33

Fichtner, Emperor Maximilian II, 9–10. Maria of Austria to Philip II, Vienna, 31/07/1573, AGS, E, 669, n. 4. Duerloo, Dynasty and Piety, 241. González Cuerva, “Anne, Margaret and Marianne,” 61–62. Sánchez, “Melancholy,” 81–88; Gebke, “Frühneuzeitliche Politik,” 112. I follow Schilling’s proposal of “four driving forces” for the building and dynamics of the modern international system: dynasty, confession, state interest, and tradition. Heinz Schilling, Konfessionalisierung und Staatsinteressen: internationale Beziehungen 1559–1660 (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2007), 149. Tiedra, Sermon, 24r and 27v. Nuncio Biglia to Cardinal Alessandrino, Vienna, 14/08/1566, NBD, 2/6: 16. Borja to Philip II, Vienna, 22/02/1578, AGS, E, 682, unpaginated. Beatriz Alonso Acero, “Cristiandad versus Islam en el gobierno de Maximiliano y María (1548–1551),” in Carlos V, europeísmo y universalidad, eds. Francisco Sánchez-Montes and Juan Luis Castellano (Madrid: SECCe, 2001), 3:18–20, 27; Rodríguez-Salgado, Un imperio en transición, 414–426. Maria of Austria to Philip II, Vienna, 16/01/1572 and 12/02/1573, Galende and Salamanca, Epistolario de la emperatriz, 233 and CODOIN, 111:141. Stefan Hanß, Lepanto als Ereignis: Dezentrierende Geschichte(n) der Seeschlacht von Lepanto (1571) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017), 268–278. Relatione del nob. huomo S. Zuan Michiel, 1571, Fiedler, Relationen, 303; Papal legate Commendone to Cardinal Rusticucci, Vienna, 17/11/1571, NBD, 2/8:169. Nuncio Dolfin to Cardinal Gallio, Prague, 11/03/1575, NBD, 3/8:87. Nuncio Biglia to Cardinal Alessandrino, Vienna, 08/07/1568, NBD, 2/6:158. Sánchez, “Los vínculos de sangre,” 783–784. Jiménez Díaz, El coleccionismo, 73–123; Sellés-Ferrando, Spanisches Österreich, 193–268. Sellés-Ferrando, Spanisches Österreich, 224–231; Robert von Friedeburg, “The Making of Patriots: Love of Fatherland and Negotiating Monarchy in Seventeenth-Century Germany,” Journal of Modern History 77(4) (2005): 914–916. Philip II to the infantas, Lisbon, 25/06/1582, Bouza, Cartas, 87; Borja to Lerma, Madrid, 12/06/1600, BL, Add. Mss., 28423, 39r; Carrillo to Albert of Austria, Madrid, 08/07/1600, AGR, SEG, 490, 127r. Dries Raeymaekers, “In the Service of the Dynasty: Building a Career in the Habsburg Household, 1550–1650,” in Monarchy Transformed: Princes and their Elites in Early Modern Western Europe, eds. Robert von Friedeburg and John Morrill Lincoln (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 246–247. Información y proposición sobre la casa de la reina de Hungría, ca. 1629, HHStA, OMeA/SR, 75/1, unpaginated.

266 Conclusions

34 Franz Christoph Khevenhüller to the Countess of Olivares, Madrid, 30/04/1628, cit. in Cruz Medina, “In service to My Lady,” 119. 35 Katrin Keller, Hofdamen: Amtsträgerinnen im Wiener Hofstaat des 17. Jahrhunderts (Wien: Böhlau, 2005), 100–101; Bianca Maria Lindorfer, “Las redes familiares de la aristocracia austriaca y los procesos de transferencia cultural entre Madrid y Viena, 1550–1700,” in Las redes del imperio: élites sociales en la articulación de la Monarquía Hispánica, 1492–1714, ed. Bartolomé Yun Casalilla (Madrid: Marcial Pons, 2009), 264–265, 273. 36 Palma, Vida, 23r. 37 Rubén González Cuerva and Alexander Koller, “Photography of a Ghost: Factions in Early Modern Courts,” in González Cuerva and Koller, A Europe of Courts, 1–19 and Toby Osborne, “Delineating Early Modern Factions: A Unique 17th Century Document,” in ibid., 219–250. 38 González Cuerva and Marek “The Dynastic Network,” 149–150. 39 San Clemente to Idiáquez, Graz, 26/04/1593, AGS, E, 700, n. 76, 1v. 40 Liesbeth Geevers, “Dynasty and State Building,” 292. 41 Nuncio Caetani to Cardinal Aldobrandini, Madrid, 26/04/1595, AAV, SS, Sp., 46, 269r–269v. 42 Karin MacHardy, War, Religion and Court Patronage in Habsburg Austria: The Social and Cultural Dimensions of Political Interaction, 1521–1622 (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), 4–7, 15–18, 125–133, 151–164.

SOURCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Unprinted primary sources Archivo Apostolico Vaticano, Vatican State Armadio XLIV. Epistolae ad Principes, 1. Fondo Borghese, I 682, II 14, III 81B, III 94C, III 122. Segreteria di Stato, Spagna, 19, 27–28, 31–32, 34, 40, 43, 45–46. Archivo de la Corona de Aragón, Barcelona Consejo de Aragón, 267. Archivio Doria Pamphilj, Roma Fondo Aldobrandini, 7. Archivio Fondazione Trivulzio, Milan Codici, 2088. Archivo General de Indias, Seville Indiferente, 424, 737, 740. Justicia, 811. Lima, 177, 566–567. México, 1089. Archivo General y Real de Navarra, Pamplona Diputados y agentes, 1. Tribunales Reales, F017/095976. Archives Générales du Royaume, Brussels Audience, 480, 640/B. Secrétairerie d’état et de guerre, 479, 489–492, 502. Archivo General de Simancas Casa y Sitios Reales, 63, 103.

268  Sources and bibliography

Estado, 16, 20, 34, 45, 49–51, 54, 60, 64, 67, 70, 72–73, 76–77, 81, 641bis, 645, 649–677, 679–680, 682–685, 687–689, 693–696, 699–700, 706, 1377, 1380, 2323. Patronato Real, 26, 31, 46, 50, 56–57. Archivo Histórico Nacional, Madrid Estado, leg. 2033. Órdenes Militares, Caballeros de Santiago, 8782. Archivo Histórico de la Nobleza, Toledo Luque, 185. Archivo Histórico del Santuario de Loyola, Azpeitia Andrés de Prada, 10. Archivum Romanum Societatis Iesu, Rome Assistentia Germaniae Provincia Austriaca, 1-I. Assistentia Hispaniae Provincia Toletana, 5 I-II. Epistolae Externorum, 27–28. Archivio di Stato di Firenze Mediceo del Principato, 4324, 4334, 4914, 4927. Archivio di Stato di Modena Germania, 33–34. Archivio di Stato di Torino Lettere Ministri, Austria, 5. Lettere Ministri, Spagna, 3–4. Lettere Principi Forestieri, 2. Archivio di Stato di Venezia Dispacci Senato, Germania, 5–8. Dispacci Senato, Spagna, 15–16, 30–32. Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Barberiniani Latini, 5841–5843, 5846–5848, 5850. Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, Munich Kurbayern Äußeres Archiv, 4461. Biblioteca Francisco de Zabálburu, Madrid Altamira, 72, 81, 87, 153, 157. Bibliothèque de Genève Favre, XIV, XVII, XIX, XXI, XXIV–XXV, LIII. British Library, London Additional Manuscripts, 28422–284245, 28707. Biblioteca Nacional de España, Madrid Manuscritos, 7413, 13319, 18632/80, 18639/60. Raros, 39135. Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv, Vienna Familienakten, 65-10.

Sources and bibliography  269

Familienkorrespondenz A, 4–7, 5-1-4, 5-1-25, 31–2-1, 31–2–3. Hausarchiv, Sammelbände, 1/1. Obersthofmeisteramt/Sonderreihen des Obersthofmeisteramtes, 75, 182. Reichshofrat, Judicialia, Alte Prager Akten, 35-11, 114-11. Reichshofrat, Judicialia Antiqua, 295. Spanien, Diplomatische Korrespondenz, 1, 3–6, 8–9, 11, 13, 16. Spanien, Hofkorrespondenz, 1–2, 10–11. Spanien Varia, 3. Urkundenreihen Familienurkunden, 1425, 1438, 1457, 1464, 1495. Instituto Valencia de Don Juan, Madrid Envíos 5–7, 21, 24, 34, 41, 109. Moravský zemský archiv, Brno Rodinný archive Ditrichštejnů Mikulov, 421, 423–424, 426. Real Academia de la Historia, Madrid Colección Salazar y Castro, A-50, M-1. Real Biblioteca, Madrid II/2096, II/2162, II/2250–2251, II/2258, II/2285–2286, II/2291, II/2302, II/3127; MD/F/149.

Printed primary sources Albèri, Eugenio, ed. Relazioni degli ambasciatori veneti al Senato durante il secolo decimosesto. 15 vols. Firenze: Società editrice fiorentina [etc.], 1839–1863. Alvar Ezquerra, Alfredo, ed. El Embajador Imperial Hans Khevenhüller (1538–1606) en España. Madrid: BOE, 2015. Ángeles, Juan de los. Sermón en las honras de la católica cesárea Magestad de la Emperatriz nuestra reina. Madrid: Juan de la Cuesta, 1604. Ayerbe, Marqués de, ed. Correspondencia de Guillén de San Clemente, embajador en Alemania de Felipe II y III. Zaragoza: La Derecha, 1892. Bernat Vistarini, Antonio, et al., eds. Book of Honors for Empress Maria of Austria Composed by the College of the Society of Jesus of Madrid on the Occasion of her Death, 1603. Philadelphia, PA: Saint Joseph’s University Press, 2011. Besozzi, Cerbonio. El archiduque Maximiliano, gobernador de España: su viaje a Valladolid en 1548 y su boda con la infanta María. Barcelona: Argos, 1946. Bezold, Friedrich von, ed. Briefe des Pfalzgrafen Johann Casimir mit verwandten Schriftstücken. 2 vols. München: Gustav Himmer, 1882. Bibl, Viktor, ed. Die Korrespondenz Maximilians II. 2 vols. Wien: A. Holzhausen, 1916–1921. Bouza, Fernando, ed. Cartas de Felipe II a sus hijas. Madrid: Akal, 1998.

270  Sources and bibliography

Bucholtz, Franz Bernhard von. Geschichte der Regierung Ferdinand des Ersten. 8 vols. Wien: bei Schaumburg und Compagnie, 1831–1838. Butler, Arthur John, ed., Calendar of State Papers Foreign: Elizabeth. Vol. 12. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1901. Cabrera de Córdoba, Luis. Historia de Felipe II, rey de España. Valladolid: Junta de Castilla y León, 1998 [1619]. Carrillo, Juan. Relacion historica de la Real Fundacion del monasterio de las Descalças…. Madrid: Luis Sánchez, 1616. Checa Cremades, Fernando, ed., Los inventarios de Carlos V y la familia imperial. 3 vols. Madrid: Fernando Villaverde, 2010. Colección de Documentos Inéditos para la Historia de España. 113 vols. Madrid, 1842–1895. (Cordubensis), Franciscus. Sermo Habita Francofordiae in solenni Omnium Sanctorum festo… Francofordiae: Egenolff, 1562. (Cordubensis), Franciscus. Annotationes Catholicae, in Religionis articulos a Sectarijs controuersos. Viennæ: Casparus Stainhofer, 1567. Cornejo, Pedro. Historia de las civiles guerras y rebelion de Flandes… Praga: Jorge Nigrin, 1581. Cuesta Astobiza, José Ramón, ed. Epistolario político de Juan Alonso de Gámiz, secretario destacado a la Corte del emperador Carlos V, en el Archivo Histórico Provincial de Álava. Vitoria: Diputación Foral de Álava, 2002. Edelmayer, Friedrich, ed. Die Krönungen Maximilians II. zum König von Böhmen, Römischen König und König von Ungarn (1562/63) nach der Beschreibung des Hans Habersack, ediert nach CVP 7890. Wien: VÖAW, 1990. Enríquez, Alonso. Libro de la vida y costumbres de Don Alonso Enriquez Caballero, Noble Desbaratado. Vol. 85 of CODOIN. Madrid: Imprenta de Miguel Ginesta, 1886. Epistolae mixtae ex variis Europae locis ab anno 1537 ad 1556 scriptae… Matriti: A. Avrial, 1898. Espinosa, Juan de. Diálogo en laude de las mugeres intitulado Ginaecepaenos en V partes. Milán: Michel Tini, 1580. Faber, Petrus. Beati Petri Fabri epistolae, memoriale et processus…. Matriti: Lopez del Horno, 1914. Fernández Álvarez, Manuel, ed., Corpus documental de Carlos V, 5 vols. Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca, 1973–1981. Fiedler, Joseph, ed. Relationen venetianischer Botschafter über Deutschland und Österreich im sechzehnten Jahrhundert. Wien: Kaiserlich-Königlichen Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, 1870. Galende, Juan Carlos, and Manuel Salamanca, eds. Epistolario de la emperatriz María de Austria. Madrid: Nuevos Escritores, 2004. García López, Consuelo. Inventario de los fondos documentales de los Reales Patronatos. Madrid: Patrimonio Nacional, 2003.

Sources and bibliography  271

Gerlach, Stephan. Tage-Buch. Franckfurt am Mayn: Zunner, 1674. Girón, Pedro. Crónica del emperador Carlos V. Madrid: CSIC, 1962. Giussano, Giovanni Pietro. Vita Di S. Carlo Borromeo. Roma: Stamp. della Camera Apostolica, 1610. Goetz, Helmut. “Die Finalrelation des venezianischen Gesandten Michele Suriano von 1555.” Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 41 (1961): 235–322. Hofer, Karin. “Die Berichte von Johann Khevenhüller, kaiserlicher Gesandter in Spanien, an Rudolf II. (1589–1590).” MA diss., Universität Wien, 1997. Inventaire sommaire des Archives départementales antérieures à 1790, Nord: Nos. 2788 à 3228. Lille: L. Danel, 1888. Khevenhüller, Hans. Diario de Hans Khevenhüller: embajador imperial en la Corte de Felipe II. Madrid: SECCe, 2001. Lehner, Tatjana. “Die Regierungszeit Philipps III. (1601–02) in den Berichten Johann Khevenhüllers an Kaiser Rudolf II.” MA diss., Universität Wien, 2001. Lehner, Tatjana. “Johann Khevenhüller - ein Diplomat am Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts: seine Briefe an Rudolf II. 1591–1594.” PhD diss., Universität Wien, 2007. León, Fray Luis de. De la vida, muerte, virtudes y milagros de la Santa Madre Teresa de Jesús: Libro primero, ed. María Jesús Mancho. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca, 2015 [ca. 1588]. Litterae quadrimestres ex universis…. Matriti: excudebat Augustinus Avrial, 1894. Loserth, Johann, ed. Die Registratur Erzherzog Maximilians (Maximilians II.) aus den Jahren 1547–1551. Wien: Gerold’s Sohn, 1896. March, José María. Niñez y juventud de Felipe II. 2 vols. Madrid: Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores, 1942. Martínez Silíceo, Juan. “Salutationis Angelicae ad Deiparam Virginem expositio.” In his De diuino nomine Iesus. Toledo: Juan Ferrer, 1550. Modern edition by Jesús Pérez Mimbrero in Helmántica 197 (2016): 250–271. Mendes Silva, Rodrigo. Admirable vida, y heroycas virtudes de… la esclarecida emperatriz María. Madrid: Diego Diaz de la Carrera, 1655. Meysztowicz, Valerianus, ed. Elementa ad fontium editions VIII. Documenta Polonica ex Archivo Generali Hispaniae in Simancas. III Pars. Romae: Institutum Historicum Polonicum Romae, 1964. Montemayor, Jorge de. Los siete libros de la Diana. Madrid: Cátedra, 1991 [1561]. Monumenta Ignatiana, ex autographis vel ex antiquioribus exemplis collecta. Series quarta. Scripta de sancto Ignatio de Loyola. Vol. 2. Madrid: Typis G. López del Horno, 1918.

272  Sources and bibliography

Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland nebst ergänzenden Aktenstücken. 37 vols. 1892–2016. Ochoa, Eugenio de, ed., Colección de cartas de españoles ilustres antiguos y modernos. Vol. 13 of Biblioteca de Autores Españoles. Madrid: Atlas, 1945. Palma, Juan de. Vida de la serenissima infanta Sor Margarita de la Cruz. Madrid: Inprenta Real, 1636. Pérez de Moya, Juan. Varia historia de sanctas e illustres mugeres en todo genero de virtudes. Madrid: por Francisco Sanchez, 1583. Reichl-Ham, Claudia. “Die Korrespondenz zwischen Kaiser Rudolf II. und Johann Khevenhüller, seinem Gesandten in Spanien (1583).” State diss., Universität Wien, 1995. Ribadeneyra, Petro de. Vita Ignatii Loyolae, ed. Candidus de Dalmases. Romae: Monumenta Historica Societatis Iesu, 1965. Rodríguez Raso, Rafaela, ed. Maximiliano de Austria gobernador de Carlos V en España: cartas al emperador. Madrid: CSIC, 1963. Rodríguez Villa, Antonio, ed. El emperador Carlos V y su corte según las cartas de don Martin de Salinas. Madrid: Fortanet, 1905. Salazar y Castro, Luis. Los comendadores de la orden de Santiago. 2 vols. Madrid: Patronato de la Biblioteca Nacional, 1949. Sánchez, Pedro. Historia moral y philosophica… Toledo: Viuda de Juan de la Plaça, 1590. Sandoval, Fray Prudencio de. Historia del Emperador Carlos V, Rey de España. Madrid: Atlas, 1956 [1634]. Scherer, Georg. Christliche Leichpredigt, Bey der Käyserlichen Besing- vnd Begängnuß… Ingolstadt: Eder, 1603. Schoder, Elisabeth. “Die Berichte von Johann Khevenhüller, kaiserlicher Gesandter in Spanien, an Rudolf II. (1581).” State diss., Universität Wien, 1995. Schwarz, Wilhelm E., ed. Briefe und Akten zur Geschichte Maximilians II. 2 vols. Paderborn: Bonifacius-Druckerei, 1889–1891. Stieglecker, Maria. “Die Berichte von Johann Khevenhüller, kaiserlicher Gesandter in Spanien, an Rudolf II. (1579).” State diss., Universität Wien, 1995. Stieglecker, Maria. “Wir haben dein gehorsames schreiben empfangen: die Korrespondenz Rudolfs II. mit Johann Khevenhüller, seinem Gesandten in Spanien 1595–1598.” PhD diss., Universität Wien, 2002. Strohmeyer, Arno, ed. Der Briefwechsel zwischen Ferdinand I., Maximilian II. und Adam von Dietrichstein 1563–1565. Wien: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik, 1997. Stromenger, Arthur. “Die Berichte Johann Khevenhüllers, des kaiserlichen Gesandten in Spanien, an Rudolf II. 1598–1600.” PhD diss., Universität Wien, 2001.

Sources and bibliography  273

Teresa de Jesús, Santa. Libro de la Vida, ed. Fidel Sebastián Mediavilla. Madrid: RAE, 2014. Tiedra, Gerónimo de. Sermon que predico el maestro fray Geronimo de Tiedra, de la Orden de Santo Domingo… en las honras que se celebraron a la muerte de… La serenissima Emperatriz doña Maria. Valladolid: Luis Sanchez, 1603. Turba, Gustav, ed. Venetianische Depeschen vom Kaiserhofe. 2 vols. Wien: F. Tempsky, 1892. Ulloa, Alfonso. Vita del potentissimo, e christianiss. imperatore Ferdinando Primo. Venetia: Appresso Camilo, Francesco Franceschini Fratelli, 1565. Viaud, Aude, ed. Lettres des souverains portugais à Charles Quint et à l’impératrice (1528–1532): suivies en annexe de lettres de D. Maria de Velasco et du Duc de Bragance: conservées aux archives de Simancas. Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, 1994. Weiss, Charles, ed. Papiers d’État du cardinal de Granvelle. 9 vols. Paris: Imprimerie Royale, Imprimerie nationale, 1841–1852.

Secondary sources Abad, Camilo. “Un embajador español en la Corte de Maximiliano II: don Francisco Hurtado de Mendoza (1570–1576).” Miscelánea Comillas 43 (1965): 23–94. Aguirre Landa, Isabel. “La correspondencia de Fernando de Austria conservada en el Archivo General de Simancas.” In Fernando I, 1503– 1564: socialización, vida privada y actividad pública de un Emperador del Renacimiento, eds. Friedrich Edelmayer and Alfredo Alvar Ezquerra, 287–308. Madrid: Sociedad Estatal de Conmemoraciones Culturales, 2004. Almási, Gábor. The Uses of Humanism: Johannes Sambucus (1531–1584), Andreas Dudith (1533–1589), and the Republic of Letters in East Central Europe. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Alonso Acero, Beatriz. “Cristiandad versus Islam en el gobierno de Maximiliano y María (1548–1551).” In Carlos V, europeísmo y universalidad, eds. Francisco Sánchez-Montes and Juan Luis Castellano, 3:15–29. Madrid: SECCe, 2001. Alvar Ezquerra, Alfredo. La emperatriz. Isabel y Carlos V: Amor y gobierno en la corte española del Renacimiento (1503–1539). Madrid: La esfera de los libros, 2012. Alvar Ezquerra, Alfredo. “Dependencias, lealtades y discrepancias con su señor: algunas citas del diario secreto del embajador Hans Khevenhüller.” In Construyendo identidades: del protonacionalismo a la nación, eds.

274  Sources and bibliography

José Ignacio Ruiz Rodríguez and Igor Sosa Mayor, 191–204. Alcalá de Henares: Universidad, 2013. Alvar Ezquerra, Alfredo. “Intercambios culturales tangibles e intangibles: algunos datos sobre la Emperatriz viuda María en Madrid, 1582–1603.” In Carolus: Homenaje a Friedrich Edelmayer, ed. Francisco Toro Ceballos, 21–36. Alcalá la Real: Ayuntamiento, 2017. Andrés, Gregorio de. “Leonor Mascareñas, Aya de Felipe II y fundadora del Convento de los Ángeles de Madrid.” Anales del Instituto de Estudios Madrileños 34 (1994): 355–368. Aram, Bethany. Juana the Mad. Sovereignty and Dynasty in Renaissance Europe. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005. Arendt, Hannah. “What Is Authority?.” In Idem, Between Past and Future: Six Exercises in Political Thought, 91–141. New York: The Viking Press, 1961. Astrain, Antonio. Historia de la Compañía de Jesús en la asistencia de España. Vol. 1. Madrid: Razón y Fe, 1905. Babel, Rainer. “Francia y Carlos V (1519–1559).” In Carlos V/Karl V. 1500–2000, ed. Alfred Kohler, 411–441. Madrid/Wien: SECCe/ VÖAW, 2001. Baďura, Bohumil. “La casa de Dietrichstein y España.” Ibero-Americana Pragensia 33 (1999): 47–67. Baďura, Bohumil. “Los Borja y el reino de Bohemia.” Ibero-Americana Pragensia 39 (2005): 43–72. Bardoňová, Martina. “‘Por tener tantos y tan diversos gastos forçosos…’ La embajada y sus finanzas (La embajada española en Praga 1608–1617).” In Líneas recientes de investigación en Historia Moderna, ed. Félix Labrador Arroyo, 205–222. Madrid: Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, 2015. Barrio Gozalo, Maximiliano. El Real Patronato y los obispos españoles del Antiguo Régimen (1556–1834). Madrid: CEPC, 2004. Bartl, Peter. “Der Türkenkrieg: Ein zentrales Thema der Hauptinstruktionen und der Politik Clemens’ VIII.” In Das Papsttum, die Christenheit und die Staaten Europas. 1592–1605, ed. Georg Lutz, 67–77. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1994. Bastl, Beatrix. “Das Österreichische Frauenzimmer. Zum Beruf der Hofdame in der Frühen Neuzeit.” In Frauenzimmer: Die Frau bei Hofe in Spätmittelalter und früher Neuzeit, eds. Jan Hirschbiegel and Werner Paravicini, 355–374. Stuttgart: Jan Thorbecke, 2000a. Bastl, Beatrix. Tugend, Liebe, Ehre: die adelige Frau in der frühen Neuzeit. Wien: Böhlau, 2000b. Beard, Mary. Women & Power: A Manifesto. London: Profile Books, 2017. Becker, Anna. “Der Haushalt in der politischen Theorie der Frühen Neuzeit.” In Haus im Kontext, eds. Joachim Eibach and Inken SchmidtVoges, 667–683. München: De Gruyter, 2015.

Sources and bibliography  275

Becker, Thomas. “Der Kölner Pazifikationskongress von 1579 und die Geburt der Niederlande.” In Frühneuzeitliche Friedensstiftung in landesgeschichtlicher Perspektive, ed. Michael Rohrschneider, 99–118. Wien: Böhlau, 2019. Bepler, Jill. “Dynastic Positioning and Political Newsgathering: Hedwig Eleonora of Schleswig-Gottorf, Queen of Sweden, and Her Correspondence.” In Queens Consort, Cultural Transfer and European Politics, c.1500–1800, eds. Helen Watanabe-O’Kelly and Adam Morton, 132–152. London: Routledge, 2017. Bibl, Viktor. Die Erhebung Herzog Cosimos von Medici zum Grossherzog von Toscana und kaiserliche Anerkennung (1569–1576). Wien: Alfred Hölder, 1911. Bibl, Viktor. “Zur Frage der religiösen Haltung K. Maximilians II.” Archiv für österreichische Geschichte 106 (1918): 289–425. Birk, Ernst. Materialien zur Topographie der Stadt Wien in den Jahren 1563 bis 1587. Wien: A. Pichler, 1867. Birriel Salcedo, Margarita. “El cónyuge supérstite en el derecho hispano.” Chronica nova 34 (2008): 13–44. Blanco Mozo, Juan Luis. “El sepulcro de la emperatriz María en las Descalzas Reales: ensayo e interpretación.” Reales Sitios 203 (2015): 8–27. Blas y Díaz-Jiménez, María del Camino de. “La Emperatriz Doña María de Austria.” PhD diss., Universidad de Madrid, 1950. Bosbach, Ernst. “Ernst, Herzog von Bayern.” In Die Bischöfe des Heiligen Römischen Reiches 1448 bis 1648, ed. Erwin Gatz, 163–171. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1996. Bourdeu, Étienne. “Redéfinition du projet impérial ou construction d’un réseau de clients? Les étapes allemandes du voyage du prince Philippe aux Pays-Bas (1548–1552).” Mélanges de la Casa de Velázquez 42(2) (2012): 183–200. Bourdeu, Étienne. Les archevêques de Mayence et la présence espagnole dans le Saint-Empire (XVIe-XVIIe siècle). Madrid: Casa de Velázquez, 2015. Bouza, Fernando. “Docto y devoto. La biblioteca del Marqués de Almazán y Conde de Monteagudo (Madrid, 1591).” In Hispania-Austria II. Die Epoche Philipps II (1556–1598), ed. Friedrich Edelmayer, 258–276. Wien: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik, 1999. Bouza, Fernando. “Lectures et espaces féminins autour de la reine Marguerite de Habsbourg-Styrie (1584–1611): À propos de la circulation et de l’imitation des modèles dévotionnels de Cour.” In «La dame de cœur»: Patronage et mécénat religieux des femmes de pouvoir dans l’Europe des xivexviie siècles, eds. Murielle Gaude-Ferragu and Cécile Vincent-Cassy, 137–151. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2016. Bues, Almut. Die habsburgische Kandidatur für den polnischen Thron während des Ersten Interregnums in Polen 1572/1573. Wien: VWGÖ, 1984.

276  Sources and bibliography

Carlos Morales, Carlos de. El precio del dinero dinástico: endeudamiento y crisis financieras en la España de los Austrias, 1557–1647. Madrid: Banco de España, 2016. Carrera, Elena. “Madness and Melancholy in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Spain: New Evidence, New Approaches.” Bulletin of Spanish Studies 87(8) (2010): 1–15. Casado Quintanilla, Blas. “Claudio Fernández Vigil de Quiñones, Conde de Luna, Embajador de Felipe II en el Imperio y en el Concilio de Trento (III etapa).” PhD diss., Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 1982. Castro, Manuel. “Francisco de Córdoba OFM, censor de Trento.” Revista Española de Teología 44(2) (1984): 515–552. Castro, Manuel. “Confesores franciscanos de la Emperatriz María de Austria.” Archivo Ibero-Americano 45 (1985): 113–152. Ceñal Lorente, Rafael. “La emperatriz María de Austria, su personalidad política y religiosa.” PhD diss., Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 1991. Černušák, Tomáš, and Pavel Marek. Gesandte und Klienten. Die päpstlichen und spanischen Diplomaten im Umfeld des Kaiserhofs Rudolfs II. Stuttgart: De Gruyter, 2020. Chabod, Federico. “¿Milán o los Países Bajos? Las discusiones en España sobre la ‘alternativa’ de 1544.” In Carlos V (1500–1558): homenaje de la Universidad de Granada, 331–372. Granada: Universidad de Granada, 1958. Chamorro Esteban, Alfredo. “El paso de las infantas de la Casa de Austria por Barcelona (1551–1666).” In De la tierra al cielo. Líneas recientes de investigación en historia moderna, ed. Eliseo Serrano, 495–513. Zaragoza: Institución Fernando el Católico, 2013. Checa Cremades, Fernando, ed. La otra Corte. Mujeres de la Casa de Austria en los Monasterios Reales de las Descalzas y la Encarnación. Madrid: Patrimonio Nacional, 2019. Cherry, Peter, and Arantza Mayo. “The Fabric of Saintly Proof: Leocadia of Toledo from Orrente to Calderón.” Bulletin of Spanish Studies 93(7–8) (2016): 1339–1370. Chudoba, Bohdan. Španělé na Bílé hoře. Praha: Vyšehrad, 1945. Clavero, Bartolomé. Antidora. Antropología católica de la economía moderna. Milán: Giuffrè, 1991. Coelho, Maria Helena da Cruz. “O protagonismo da mulher na politica da dinastía de Avis.” In Las mujeres en la Edad Media, eds. M.ª Isabel del Val Valdivieso and Francisco Javier Jiménez Alcázar, 243–258. Murcia: Sociedad Española de Estudios Medievales, 2013. Conde Pazos, Miguel. “The Hispanic Monarchy Facing the Accession of the Vasa Monarchy. Don Guillén de San Clemente’s embassy to Poland (1588–1589).” In The House of Vasa and the House of Austria.

Sources and bibliography  277

Correspondence from the Years 1587 to 1668, ed. Ryszard Skowron, 1/1:95–114. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego, 2016a. Conde Pazos, Miguel. “La Monarquía católica y los confines orientales de la Cristiandad. Relaciones entre la Casa de Austria y los Vasa de Polonia.” PhD diss., Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 2016b. Contini, Alessandra. “La concessione del titolo di granduca e la ‘coronazione’ di Cosimo I fra papato e Impero (1569–1572).” In L’Impero in Italia nella prima età moderna. Reichsitalien in der frühen Neuzeit, eds. Matthias Schnettger and Marcello Verga, 417–438. Bologna: Il Mulino, 2006. Creasman, Allyson F. Censorship and Civic Order in Reformation Germany, 1517–1648: ‘Printed Poison & Evil Talk’. Farnham: Ashgate, 2012. Cruz, Anne, and Maria Galli Stampino, eds. Early Modern Habsburg Women: Transnational Contexts, Cultural Conflicts, Dynastic Continuities. Farnham: Ashgate, 2013. Cruz Medina, Vanesa de. “Margarita de Cardona y sus hijas, damas entre Madrid y el Imperio.” In Las relaciones discretas entre las Monarquías Hispana y Portuguesa: Las Casas de las Reinas (siglos XV-XIX), eds. José Martínez Millán and Maria Paula Marçal Lourenço, 2:1267–1300. Madrid: Polifemo, 2009. Cruz Medina, Vanesa de. “In Service to My Lady, the Empress, as I Have Done Every Other Day of My Life: Margarita of Cardona, Baroness of Dietrichstein and Lady-in-Waiting of Maria of Austria.” In The Politics of Female Households. Ladies-In-Waiting Across Early Modern Europe, eds. Nadine Akkerman and Birgit Houben, 99–119. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Danvila, Alfonso. Don Cristobal de Moura: Primer marqués de Castel Rodrigo (1538–1613). Madrid: Fortanet, 1900. Díaz Medina, Ana. “El gobierno en España de Maximiliano II (1548– 1551).” In Kaiser Maximilian II. Kultur und Politik im 16. Jahrhundert, eds. Friedrich Edelmayer and Alfred Kohler, 38–54. Wien: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik, 1992. Donnet, Fernand. “Flaminio Garnier, sa Famille et son Monument dans l’église du Sablon à Bruxelles.” Annales de la Société royale d’archéologie de Bruxelles 25 (1911): 137–228. Duerloo, Luc. Dynasty and Piety. Archduke Albert (1598–1621) and Habsburg Political Culture in an Age of Religious Wars. Farnham: Ashgate, 2012. Duindam, Jeroen. “The Habsburg Court in Vienna: Kaiserhof or Reichshof.” In The Holy Roman Empire, 1495–1806: A European Perspective, eds. Richard Evans and Peter Wilson, 91–120. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Duindam, Jeroen. “The Politics of Female Households: Afterthoughts.” In The Politics of Female Households: Ladies-In-Waiting across Early Modern Europe, eds. Nadine Akkerman and Birgit Houben, 365–370. Leiden: Brill, 2014.

278  Sources and bibliography

Duindam, Jeroen. Dynasties: A Global History of Power, 1300–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. Earenfight, Theresa. “A Precarious Household: Catherine of Aragon in England, 1501–1504.” In Royal and Elite Households in Medieval and Early Modern Europe: More than Just a Castle, ed. Theresa Earenfight, 338–356. Leiden: Brill, 2018. Echevarría Bacigalupe, Miguel Ángel. “Isabel Clara Eugenia, el archiduque Alberto y el gobierno de Flandes (1599–1621).” Torre de los Lujanes 66 (2010): 111–124. Edel, Andreas. Der Kaiser und Kurpfalz: eine Studie zu den Grundelementen politischen Handelns bei Maximilian II. (1564–1576). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. Edelmayer, Friedrich. Maximilian II., Philipp II. und Reichsitalien. Die Auseinandersetzungen um das Reichslehen Finale in Ligurien. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1988. Edelmayer, Friedrich. “Maria de Austria.” Neue Deutsche Biographie 16 (1990): 174–175. Edelmayer, Friedrich. “Honor y dinero. Adán de Dietrichstein al servicio de la Casa de Austria.” Studia Historica. Historia Moderna 11 (1993): 89–116. Edelmayer, Friedrich. “Wolf Rumpf Wielross y la España de Felipe II y Felipe III.” Pedralbes 16 (1996): 133–164. Edelmayer, Friedrich, and José Rueda Fernández. “Del caos a la normalidad: los inicios de la diplomacia moderna entre el Sacro Imperio y la Monarquía Hispánica.” In Disidencias y exilios en la España moderna, ed. Pablo Fernández Albaladejo, 1:631–640. Alicante: Caja de Ahorros del Mediterráneo, 1997. Edelmayer, Friedrich. “El ducado de Baviera en la red clientelar de Felipe II en el Sacro Imperio.” In Felipe II (1598–1998), Europa y la Monarquía católica, ed. José Martínez Millán, 1:169–186. Madrid: Parteluz, 1998. Edelmayer, Friedrich. Söldner und Pensionäre: das Netzwerk Philipps II. im Heiligen Römischen Reich. Wien: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik, 2002. Edwards, John. Mary I: England’s Catholic Queen. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2011. Escrivà Llorca, Ferran. “La vida en las Descalzas Reales a través de los epistolarios de Juan de Borja (1584–1604).” In Tomás Luis de Victoria: Estudios/Studies, eds. Javier Suárez-Pajares and Manuel del Sol, 437– 452. Madrid: ICCMU, 2013. Escudero, José Antonio. Estudios de Historia del Derecho. Madrid: BOE, 2016. Esteban Estríngana, Alicia. “Los estados de Flandes. Reversión territorial de las provincias leales (1598–1623).” In La monarquía de Felipe III, eds.

Sources and bibliography  279

José Martínez Millán and Maria Antonietta Visceglia, 4:593–682. Madrid: MAPFRE, 2008. Evans, Robert J.W. Rudolf II and His World: A Study in Intellectual History, 1576–1612. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973. Evans, Robert J.W. The Making of the Habsburg Monarchy 1550–1700: An Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979. Ezquerra, Ignacio. “La asistencia doméstica del resto de miembros de la familia imperial.” In La corte de Carlos V, ed. José Martínez Millán, 1/2:225–249. Madrid: SECCe, 2000a. Ezquerra, Ignacio. “La Casa de las infantas doña María y doña Juana.” In La corte de Carlos V, ed. José Martínez Millán, 1/2:125–152. Madrid: SECCe, 2000b. Ezquerra, Ignacio. “Los intentos de la corona por controlar la orden de San Juan: la ‘expectativa’ del archiduque Wenceslao de Austria en el Gran Priorato de Castilla y León.” In La Orden de San Juan entre el Mediterráneo y La Mancha, eds. Francisco Ruiz and Jesús Molero, 401–430. Cuenca: Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, 2009. Fernández, Luis. “Pensiones a favor de eclesiásticos extranjeros cargadas sobre las diócesis de la Corona de Castilla.” Hispania 128 (1974): 509–577. Fernández Álvarez, Manuel. La España del Emperador Carlos V. Vol. 18 of Historia de España, ed. Ramón Menéndez Pidal. Madrid: Espasa Calpe, 1966. Fernández Conti, Santiago. Los Consejos de Estado y Guerra de la monarquía hispana durante la época de Felipe II (1548–1598). Valladolid: Junta de Castilla y León, 1998. Fernández Conti, Santiago. “La introducción de la etiqueta borgoñona y el viaje de 1548–1551.” In La corte de Carlos V, ed. José Martínez Millán, 1/2:209–225. Madrid: SECCe, 2000. Fernández Merino, Eduardo. La Virgen de Luto. Madrid: Visión Libros, 2012. Fernández de Retana, Luis. Juana de Austria. Madrid: El Perpetuo Socorro, 1955. Fernández Terricabras, Ignasi. “Felipe II versus Fernando I y Maximiliano II. Divergencias sobre la Reforma en el Imperio durante el pontificado de Pío IV (1559–1565).” In La dinastía de los Austria: las relaciones entre la Monarquía Católica y el Imperio, eds. José Martínez Millán and Rubén González Cuerva, 1:83–108. Madrid: Polifemo, 2011. Feros, Antonio. Kingship and Favoritism in the Spain of Philip III, 1598–1621. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

280  Sources and bibliography

Ferrari, Catherine. “Kinship and the Marginalized Consort: Giovanna d’Austria at the Medici Court.” Early Modern Women 11(1) (2016): 45–68. Fichtner, Paula. “Dynastic Marriage in Sixteenth-Century Habsburg Diplomacy and Statecraft: An Interdisciplinary Approach.” American Historical Review 81(2) (1976): 243–265. Fichtner, Paula. Ferdinand I of Austria: The Politics of Dynasticism in the Age of the Reformation. Boulder, CO: East European Quarterly, 1982. Fichtner, Paula. Emperor Maximilian II. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001. Fita, Fidel. “San Luis Gonzaga en Zaragoza y Madrid.” Boletín de la Real Academia de la Historia 18 (1891): 55–75. Fosalba Vela, Eugenia. “La Égloga Dafne. Algunas precisiones sobre su representación, fecha de composición y posible, aunque no demostrada, autoría.” Propaldia 2 (2008): 1–25. Foster, Susan Leigh. “Pygmalion’s No-Body and the Body of Dance.” In Performance and Cultural Politics, ed. E. Diamond, 133–154. London: Routledge, 1996. Franganillo Álvarez, Alejandra. “The Education of an Heir to the Throne: Isabel of Borbón and Her Influence on Prince Baltasar Carlos.” In The Formation of the Child in Early Modern Spain, ed. Grace Coodlige, 143–164. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2014. Freist, Dagmar. “Religious Difference and the Experience of Widowhood in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Germany.” In Widowhood in Medieval and Early Modern Europe, Sandra Cavallo and Lyndan Warner, 164–177. London: Pearson, 1999. Friedeburg, Robert von. “The Making of Patriots: Love of Fatherland and Negotiating Monarchy in Seventeenth-Century Germany.” Journal of Modern History 77(4) (2005): 881–916. Friedensburg, Walter. “Karl V. und Maximilian II. (1551). Ein venetianischer Bericht über vertrauliche Äußerungen des letzteren.” Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 4 (1902): 72–81. Fulton, Elaine. Catholic Belief and Survival in Late Sixteenth-Century Vienna: The Case of Georg Eder (1523–87). Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007. Fulton, Elaine. “Mutual Aid: The Jesuits and the Courtier in Sixteenth-Century Vienna.” In Communities of Devotion: Religious Orders and Society in East Central Europe, 1450–1800, eds. Maria Craciun and Elaine Fulton, 171–196. Farnham: Ashgate, 2011. Galende, Juan Carlos, and Manuel Salamanca. “Las misivas reales durante la segunda mitad del siglo XVI: historia, diplomática y cultura escrita a través de la correspondencia de la emperatriz María de Austria.” In IV Jornadas Científicas sobre Documentación de Castilla e Indias en el siglo XVI, eds. Juan Carlos Galende et al., 163–213. Madrid: UCM, 2005.

Sources and bibliography  281

Ganzer, Klaus. “Ein unbequemer Reformer am Rande des Konzils von Trient: Der Franziskaner Franziskus von Córdoba als Berater Kaiser Ferdinands I.” Historisches Jahrbuch 104(2) (1984): 309–347. García, Bernardo. La pax hispánica: política exterior del Duque de Lerma. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996. García Hernán, Enrique. “Francisco de Borja y Portugal.” In A Companhia de Jesus na Península Ibérica nos sécs. XVI e XVII: espiritualidade e cultura, 189–219. Porto: Universidade do Porto, 2004. García Hernán, Enrique. Ignacio de Loyola. Madrid: Taurus, 2013. García López, Consuelo. “La Testamentaría de la Emperatriz María y su largo pleito contra el Colegio Imperial de Madrid,” Reales Sitios 142 (1999): 55–66. García Prieto, Elisa. “Antes de Flandes. La correspondencia de Isabel Clara Eugenia con Felipe III desde las Descalzas Reales en el otoño de 1598.” Chronica nova 40 (2014): 327–349. García Prieto, Elisa. Una corte en femenino. Servicio áulico y carrera cortesana en tiempos de Felipe II. Madrid: Marcial Pons Historia, 2018. García Sanz, Ana. “Una ‘Oración en El Huerto’ sobre el sepulcro de la Emperatriz María.” Reales Sitios 113 (1992): 58–59. Gascón Pérez, Jesús. “Cortesanos, cronistas y poetas: los escritos políticos de los hermanos Argensola en su contexto histórico.” In Campo y campesinos en la España Moderna, eds. María José Pérez Álvarez and Alfredo Martín García, 1687–1696. Madrid: FEHM, 2012. Gebke, Julie. “Frühneuzeitliche Politik und weibliche Melancholie: Kaiserin Maria von Spanien (1528‒1603) im Spiegel diplomatischer Korrespondenz.” Frühneuzeit-Info 29 (2018): 98–115. Gebke, Julia. “Auf den Spuren der ‘weiberhandlung’. Gender, Space und Agency in der Casa de Austria im 16. Jahrhundert.” L’Homme 30(2) (2019): 37–56. Geevers, Liesbeth. “Dynasty and State Building in the Spanish Habsburg Monarchy: The Career of Emanuele Filiberto of Savoy (1588–1624).” Journal of Early Modern History 20(3) (2016): 267–292. Gillet, J.F.A. Crato von Crafftheim und seine Freunde: ein Beitrag zur Kirchengeschichte: nach handschriftlichen Quellen. 2 vols. Frankfurt am Main: Brönner, 1861. González Cuerva, Rubén. “Cruzada y dinastía: Las mujeres de la Casa de Austria ante la larga guerra de Hungría.” In Las relaciones discretas entre las Monarquías Hispana y Portuguesa: Las Casas de las Reinas (siglos XV-XIX), eds. José Martínez Millán y Maria Paula Marçal Lourenço, 2:1149–1186. Madrid: Polifemo, 2009. González Cuerva, Rubén. “Anne, Margaret and Marianne of Austria: Queens of Spain, Archduchesses of Austria and Dynastic Links.” In Nur die Frau des Kaisers? Kaiserinnen in der Frühen Neuzeit, eds. Bettina

282  Sources and bibliography

Braun, Katrin Keller, and Matthias Schnettger, 49–60. Wien: Böhlau, 2016. González Cuerva, Rubén, and Alexander Koller. “Photography of a Ghost: Factions in Early Modern Courts.” In A Europe of Courts, a Europe of Factions: Political Groups at Early Modern Centres of Power (1550–1700), eds. Rubén González Cuerva and Alexander Koller, 1–19. Leiden: Brill, 2017. González Cuerva, Rubén, and Pavel Marek. “The Dynastic Network between the Imperial and the Spanish Courts (1556–1619).” In A Europe of Courts, a Europe of Factions: Political Groups at Early Modern Centres of Power (1550–1700), eds. Rubén González Cuerva and Alexander Koller, 130–155. Leiden: Brill, 2017. González Cuerva, Rubén, and Luis Tercero Casado. “The Imperial Court during the Thirty Years War: A Battleground for Factions?.” In Factional Struggles: Divided Elites in European Cities & Courts (1400–1750), ed. Mathieu Caesar, 155–175. Leiden: Brill, 2017. González García, Juan Luis. “Caída y auge de don Carlos. Memorias de un príncipe inconstante, antes y después de Gachard.” In España ante sus críticos: las claves de la leyenda negra, eds. Yolanda Rodríguez Pérez, Antonio Sánchez Jiménez, and Harm den Boer, 163–192. Madrid/ Frankfurt am Main: Iberoamericana/Vervuert, 2015. González Heras, Natalia. “Sor Margarita de la Cruz, ¿un modelo de mujer ortodoxo?.” In Mujeres en la Corte de los Austrias: una red social, cultural, religiosa y política, ed. Leticia Sánchez Hernández, 597–614. Madrid: Polifemo, 2019. Gonzalo Sánchez-Molero, José Luis. Felipe II: la mirada de un rey (1527– 1598). Madrid: CSIC, 2014. Gotthard, Axel. Der Augsburger Religionsfrieden. Münster: Aschendorff, 2004. Haan, Bertrand. L’amitié entre princes: une alliance franco-espagnole au temps des guerres de religion, 1560–1570. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 2011. Haberer, Michael. Ohnmacht und Chance: Leonhard von Harrach (1514–1590) und die erbländische Machtelite. Wien: Böhlau, 2011. Hanß, Stefan. Lepanto als Ereignis: Dezentrierende Geschichte(n) der Seeschlacht von Lepanto (1571). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017. Hausenblasová, Jaroslava. Der Hof Kaiser Rudolfs II. Eine Edition der Hofstaatsverzeichnisse 1576–1612. Prag: Artefactum, 2002. Hengerer, Mark. “Access at the Court of the Austrian Habsburg Dynasty (Mid-Sixteenth to Mid-Eighteenth Century): A Highway from Presence to Politics?.” In The Key to Power? The Culture of Access in Princely

Sources and bibliography  283

Courts, 1400–1750, eds. Dries Raeymaekers and Sebastiaan Derks, 124–154. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Hirn, Josef. Erzherzog Ferdinand II. von Tirol. 2 vols. Innsbruck: Wagner, 1885–1888. Hodapp, Julia. Habsburgerinnen und Konfessionalisierung im späten 16. Jahrhundert. Münster: Aschendorff, 2018. Hodson, Simon. “The Power of Female Dynastic Networks: A Brief Study of Louise de Coligny, Princess of Orange, and Her Stepdaughters.” Women’s History Review 16 (2007): 335–351. Hoffmann-Rehnitz, Philip, André Krischer, and Matthias Pohlig. “Entscheiden als Problem der Geschichtswissenschaft.” Zeitschrift für Historische Forschung 45 (2018): 217–281. Hohkamp, Michaela. “Transdynasticism at the Dawn of the Modern Era: Kinship Dynamics among Ruling Families.” In Transregional and Transnational Families in Europe and Beyond: Experiences since the Middle Ages, eds. Christopher H. Johnson et al., 93–105. New York: Berghahn, 2011. Holtzmann, Robert. Kaiser Maximilian II. bis zu seiner Thronbesteigung (1527–1564). Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Übergangs von der Reformation zur Gegenreformation. Berlin: C. A. Schwetschke und sohn, 1903. Honisch, Erika Supria. “Hearing the Body of Christ in Early Modern Prague.” Early Music History 38 (2019): 51–105. Hopfen, Otto Helmut. Kaiser Maximilian II. und der Kompromißkatholizismus. München: Rieger, 1895. Hortal Muñoz, Eloy. “La casa del archiduque Ernesto durante su gobierno en los Países Bajos (1593–1595).” In La Monarquía de las Naciones. Patria, nación y naturaleza en la Monarquía de España, eds. Antonio Álvarez-Ossorio and Bernardo García, 193–213. Madrid: Fundación Carlos de Amberes, 2004. Hortal Muñoz, Eloy. “Organización de una Casa. El Libro de Veeduría de la reina Ana de Austria.” In Las relaciones discretas entre las Monarquías Hispana y Portuguesa: Las Casas de las Reinas (siglos XV-XIX), eds. José Martínez Millán and Maria Paula Marçal Lourenço, 1:275–311. Madrid: Polifemo, 2009. Hortal Muñoz, Eloy. Los asuntos de Flandes. Las relaciones entre las Cortes de la Monarquía Hispánica y de los Países Bajos durante el siglo XVI. Saarbrücken: EAE, 2011. Hortal Muñoz, Eloy. “Pedro de Ledesma.” Diccionario Biográfico Español, http://dbe.rah.es/biografias/61987/pedro-de-ledesma. Hortal Muñoz, Eloy. “The Household of Archduke Albert of Austria from His Arrival in Madrid Until His Election as Governor of the Low

284  Sources and bibliography

Countries: 1570–1595.” In A Constellation of Courts. The Courts and Households of Habsburg Europe, 1555–1665, eds. René Vermeir, Dries Raeymaekers, and Eloy Hortal Muñoz, 101–122. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2014. Hortal Muñoz, Eloy, and Félix Labrador Arroyo, eds. La Casa de Borgoña: la Casa del Rey de España. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2014. Janssens, Gustaaf. “The Duke of Alba: Governor of the Netherlands in Times of War.” In Alba. General and Servant to the Crown, eds. Maurits Ebben, Margriet Lacy-Bruijn, and Rolof van Hövelle tot Westerflier, 90–115. Rotterdam: Karawansaray, 2013. Jauralde Pou, Pablo. “El teatro en los palacios.” Teatro: revista de estudios teatrales 1 (1992): 33–56. Jiménez Díaz, Pablo. El coleccionismo manierista de los Austrias entre Felipe II y Rodolfo II. Madrid: SECCe, 2001. Jiménez Pablo, Esther. “Los jesuitas en la corte de Margarita de Austria: Ricardo Haller y Fernando de Mendoza.” In Las relaciones discretas entre las Monarquías Hispana y Portuguesa: Las Casas de las Reinas (siglos XVXIX), eds. José Martínez Millán and Maria Paula Marçal Lourenço, 2:1071–1120. Madrid: Polifemo, 2009. Jordan Gschwend, Annemarie. “Las dos águilas del emperador Carlos V. Las colecciones y el mecenazgo de Juana y María de Austria en la corte de Felipe II.” In La monarquía de Felipe II a debate, ed. Luis Ribot, 429– 472. Madrid: SECCe, 2000. Jordan Gschwend, Annemarie. The Story of Süleyman. Celebrity Elephants and Other Exotica in Renaissance Portugal. Zurich: Pachyderm Productions, 2010. Jordan Gschwend, Annemarie. “The Monastery I Have Built in This City of Madrid: Mapping Juana de Austria’s Royal Spaces in the Descalzas Reales Convent.” In Representing Women’s Political Identity in the Early Modern Iberian World, eds. Jeremy Roe and Jean Andrews, 127–145. London: Routledge, 2020. Jordan Gschwend, Annemarie, and Almudena Pérez de Tudela. “Luxury Goods for Royal Collectors: Exotica, Princely Gifts and Rare Animals Exchanged between the Iberian Courts and Central Europe in the Renaissance (1560–1612).” Jahrbuch des Kunsthistorischen Museums Wien 3 (2001): 1–127. Jungnitz, Joseph. Martin von Gerstmann, Bischof von Breslau. Ein Zeit- und Lebensbild aus der schlesischen Kirchengeschichte des 16. Jahrhunderts. Breslau: Aderholz, 1898. Kamen, Henry. Philip of Spain. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997.

Sources and bibliography  285

Karner, Herbert, ed. Die Wiener Hofburg 1521–1705: Baugeschichte, Funktion und Etablierung als Kaiserresidenz. Wien: VÖAW, 2014. Kasparová, Jaroslava. “Los impresos españoles del siglo XVI procedentes de la tipografía praguense de Jorge Nigrin.” Ibero-Americana Pragensia 22 (1988): 147–154. Kellenbenz, Hermann. Los Fugger en España y Portugal hasta 1560. Salamanca: Junta de Castilla y León, 2000. Keller, Katrin. Hofdamen: Amtsträgerinnen im Wiener Hofstaat des 17. Jahrhunderts. Wien: Böhlau, 2005. Keller, Katrin. “Les réseaux féminins: Anne de Saxe et la cour de Vienne.” In Femmes & pouvoir politique. Les princesses d’Europe, eds. Isabelle Poutrin and Marie-Karine Schaub, 164–180. Rosny-sous-Bois: Bréal, 2007. Keller, Katrin. Erzherzogin Maria von Innerösterreich (1551–1608): zwischen Habsburg und Wittelsbach. Wien: Böhlau, 2012. Keller, Katrin. “Gender and Ritual: Crowning Empresses in the Holy Roman Empire.” German History 37(2) (2019a): 172–185. Keller, Katrin. “Die Hofstaaten der Kaiserinnen und der Kaiserin-Witwen.” In Verwaltungsgeschichte der Habsburgermonarchie in der Frühen Neuzeit, eds. Michael Hochedlinger, Petr Mata, and Thomas Winkelbauer, 243–253. Wien: Böhlau, 2019b. Koller, Alexander. “Der Kaiserhof am Beginn der Regierung Rudolfs II. in den Berichten der Nuntien.” In Kaiserhof - Papsthof (16.–18. Jahrhundert), eds. Richard Bösel et al., 13–24. Wien: VÖAW, 2006. Koller, Alexander. “La facción española y los nuncios en la corte de Maximiliano II y de Rodolfo II. Maria de Austria y la confesionalización católica del Imperio.” In La dinastía de los Austria: las relaciones entre la Monarquía Católica y el Imperio, eds. José Martínez Millán and Rubén González Cuerva, 1:109–124. Madrid: Polifemo, 2011. Koller, Alexander. “Einleitung.” In his Nuntiaturen des Orazio Malaspina und des Ottavio Santacroce. Interim des Cesare dell’Arena (1578–1581). Vol. 3/10 of NBD, ix–lxxxviii. Berlin/Boston, MA: De Gruyter, 2012. Koller, Alexander. “Maria von Spanien, die katholische Kaiserin.” In Nur die Frau des Kaisers? Kaiserinnen in der Frühen Neuzeit, eds. Bettina Braun, Katrin Keller, and Matthias Schnettger, 85–97. Wien: Böhlau, 2016. Ladrón de Guevara, Alfonso. “El embajador Juan Alonso de Gámiz. Aportación al estudio de su figura y legado material.” In Estudios de historia del arte en memoria de la profesora Micaela Portilla, eds. José Javier Vélez Chaurri et al., 141–148. Vitoria: Diputación Foral de Álava, 2008. Laferl, Christopher. Die Kultur der Spanier in Österreich unter Ferdinand I. 1522–1564. Wien/Köln/Weimar: Böhlau, 1997.

286  Sources and bibliography

Laferl, Christopher. “…y en la corte donde están se tienen por peregrinos. Zu den konfessionellen Differenzerfahrungen spanischer Hofleute und Diplomaten im Umfeld Karls V. und Ferdinands I.” In Wahrnehmungen des Fremden. Differenzerfahrungen von Diplomaten im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert, ed. Arno Strohmeyer, 147–170. Münster: Aschendorff, 2007. Lama de la Cruz, Víctor de. “La devoción de la emperatriz María de Austria por Santa Teresa.” In Santa Teresa o la llama permanente: estudios históricos, artísticos y literarios, eds. Esther Borrego Gutiérrez and Jaime Olmedo Ramos, 287–304. Madrid: CEEH, 2017. Lanzinner, Maximilian. “Geheime Räte und Berater Kaiser Maximilians II. (1564–1576).” Mitteilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung 102 (1994): 296–315. Lanzinner, Maximilian. “Der Landsberger Bund und seine Vorläufer.” In Alternativen zur Reichsverfassung in der Frühen Neuzeit?, ed. Volker Press, 65–79. München: Oldenbourg, 1995. Laubach, Ernst. Ferdinand I. als Kaiser: Politik und Herrscherauffassung des Nachfolgers Karls V. Münster: Aschendorff, 2001. Lazcano, Rafael. “Colegio de doña María de Aragón (Madrid): de los orígenes a la desamortización de Mendizábal.” In La desamortización: el expolio del patrimonio artístico y cultural de la Iglesia en España, 369–412. El Escorial: RCU Escorial-Mª Cristina, 2007. Levin, Michael J. Agents of Empire: Spanish Ambassadors in Sixteenth Century Italy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2005. Lezcano, Hugo. “Lecturas espirituales prohibidas en la Real Biblioteca de El Escorial (siglo XVI).” Librosdelacorte.es 6 (2013): 76–120. Lindorfer, Bianca Maria. “Las redes familiares de la aristocracia austriaca y los procesos de transferencia cultural entre Madrid y Viena, 1550–1700.” In Las redes del imperio: élites sociales en la articulación de la Monarquía Hispánica, 1492–1714, ed. Bartolomé Yun Casalilla, 261– 288. Madrid: Marcial Pons, 2009. Livingstone, Amy. “Recalculating the Equation: Powerful Woman = Extraordinary.” Medieval Feminist Forum 51(2) (2016): 17–29. Louthan, Henry. The Quest for Compromise: Peacemakers in Counter-Reformation Vienna. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Luttenberger, Albrecht P. “Reichspolitik und Reichstag unter Karl V. Formen zentralen politischen Handelns.” In Aus der Arbeit an den Reichstagen unter Kaiser Karl V., eds. Heinrich Lutz and Alfred Kohler, 18–68. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. Lutz, Heinrich. Christianitas afflicta: Europa, das Reich und die päpstliche Politik im Niedergang der Hegemonie Kaiser Karls V. (1552–1556). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964.

Sources and bibliography  287

MacHardy, Karin. War, Religion and Court Patronage in Habsburg Austria: The Social and Cultural Dimensions of Political Interaction, 1521–1622. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. Malcolm, Alastair. “Spanish Queens and Aristocratic Women at the Court of Madrid, 1598–1665.” In Studies on Medieval and Early Modern Women 4. Victims or Viragos?, eds. Christine Meek and Catherine Lawless, 160–180. Dublin: Four Courts, 2005. Marek, Pavel. “Luisa de las Llagas. La abadesa de las Descalzas y el proceso de la comunicación política y cultural entre la corte real española y la imperial.” Pedralbes 31 (2011): 47–90. Marek, Pavel. La embajada española en la corte imperial 1558–1641. Figuras de los embajadores y estrategias clientelares. Praga: Karolinum, 2013. Marek, Pavel. “Španělská strana na císařském dvoře? K problematice jednoho pojmu z politických dějin.” Český časopis historický 113(4) (2015): 965–990. Marek, Pavel. “‘Tre bone amye’. Alžběta z Pernštejna pohledem korespondence Alžběty Habsburské.” In Gender History – to přece není nic pro feministky, eds. Tomáš Jiránek, Karel Rýdl, and Petr Vorel, 31–47. Pardubice: Univerzita Pardubice, 2017. Marek, Pavel. Pernštejnské ženy: Marie Manrique de Lara a její dcery ve službách habsburské dynastie. Praha: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny, 2018. Marek, Pavel. “‘Signora di molta stima in questa corte’. La duquesa de Villahermosa Juana de Pernstein a través del epistolario conservado en el Archivo de la Casa de Alba.” In De puño y letra: cartas personales en las redes dinásticas de la Casa de Austria, eds. Bernardo García et al., 275–298. Madrid: Iberoamericana, 2019. Marín Tovar, Cristóbal. “Doña María Sidonia Riederer de Paar, dama de la reina Margarita de Austria y condesa de Barajas.” In La dinastía de los Austria: las relaciones entre la Monarquía Católica y el Imperio, eds. José Martínez Millán and Rubén González Cuerva, 1:671–700. Madrid: Polifemo, 2011. Marini, Mirella. “Dynastic Relations on an International Stage: Margaret de la Marck (1527–1599) and Arenberg Family Strategy during the Dutch Revolt.” In Women, Diplomacy and International Politics since 1500, eds. Glenda Sluga and Carolyn James, 46–67. Abingdon: Routledge, 2016. Marshall, Rosalind K. “In Search of the Ladies-in-Waiting and Maids of Honour of Mary, Queen of Scots: A Prosoprographical Analysis of the Female Household.” In The Politics of Female Households. Ladies-In-Waiting across Early Modern Europe, eds. Nadine Akkerman and Birgit Houben, 209–230. Leiden: Brill, 2013.

288  Sources and bibliography

Martels, Zweder von. “On His Majesty’s Service. Augerius Busbequius, Courtier and Diplomat of Maximilian II.” In Kaiser Maximilian II. Kultur und Politik im 16. Jahrhundert, eds. Friedrich Edelmayer and Alfred Kohler, 169–181. Wien/München: Oldenbourg, 1992. Martínez-Burgos García, Palma. “Viudas ejemplares: la princesa doña Juana de Austria, mecenazgo y devoción.” Chronica nova 34 (2008): 63–89. Martínez Hernández, Santiago. El Marqués de Velada y la corte en los reinados de Felipe II y Felipe III. Valladolid: Junta de Castilla y León, 2004. Martínez Hernández, Santiago. “‘Ya no hay Rey sin Privado’: Cristóbal de Moura, un modelo de privanza en el Siglo de los Validos.” Librosdelacorte.es 2 (2010): 21–37. Martínez Millán, José. “Familia real y grupos políticos: La princesa Doña Juana de Austria (1535–1573).” In La corte de Felipe II, ed. José Martínez Millán, 73–106. Madrid: Alianza, 1994. Martínez Millán, José. “El control de las normas cortesanas y la elaboración de la pragmática de cortesías (1586).” Edad de oro 18 (1999a): 103–133. Martínez Millán, José. “La emperatriz María y las pugnas cortesanas en tiempos de Felipe II.” In Felipe II y el Mediterráneo, ed. Ernest Belenguer Cebrià, 3:143–162. Madrid: SECCe, 1999b. Martínez Millán, José. “La corte de Felipe II: la casa de la reina Ana.” In La monarquía de Felipe II a debate, ed. Luis Ribot García, 159–184. Madrid: SECCe, 2000a. Martínez Millán, José. “La sucesión en el imperio y el reajuste de los intereses religiosos y dinásticos.” In La corte de Carlos V, ed. José Martínez Millan, 1/2:267–277. Madrid: SECCe, 2000b. Martínez Millán, José. “La casa de Catalina Micaela y sus hijos.” In La monarquía de Felipe III, eds. José Martínez Millán and Maria Antonietta Visceglia, 1:1064–1071. Madrid: MAPFRE, 2008. Martínez Millán, José. “El triunfo de Roma. Las relaciones entre el Papado y la Monarquía Católica durante el siglo XVII.” In Centros de poder italianos en la monarquía hispánica (siglos XV-XVIII), eds. José Martínez Millán and Manuel Rivero, 1:549–682. Madrid: Polifemo, 2010. Martínez Millán, José. “Factions and Political Groups at Philip II’s Court: Albists vs Ebolists.” In A Europe of Courts, a Europe of Factions: Political Groups at Early Modern Centres of Power (1550–1700), eds. Rubén González Cuerva and Alexander Koller, 109–129. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Martínez Millán, José, and Carlos de Carlos Morales, eds. Felipe II (1527– 1598). La configuración de la monarquía hispánica. Salamanca: Junta de Castilla y León, 1998.

Sources and bibliography  289

Martínez Millán, José, and Santiago Fernández Conti, eds., La monarquía de Felipe II: la casa del rey. 2 vols. Madrid: Fundación Mapfre Tavera, 2005. Martínez Millán, José, and Esther Jiménez Pablo. “La Casa de Austria: una justificación político-religiosa.” In La dinastía de los Austria: las relaciones entre la Monarquía Católica y el Imperio, eds. José Martínez Millán and Rubén González Cuerva, 1:9–58. Madrid: Polifemo, 2011. Maurenbrecher, Wilhelm. “Beiträge zur Geschichte Maximilians II.” Historische Zeitschrift 32 (1874): 221–298. Mayer-Löwenschwerdt, Ervin. “Der Aufenthalt der Erzherzöge Rudolf und Ernst in Spanien.” Sitzungsberichte der Wiener Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philos. hist. Klasse 206(5) (1927): 1–64. Menéndez Pidal, José. “Don Francesillo de Zúñiga, bufón de Carlos V. Cartas inéditas.” Revista de Bibliotecas, Archivos y Museos 21 (1909): 72–95. Midelfort, Erik. Mad Princes of Renaissance Germany. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1996. Mooney, Catherine M. “Imitatio Christi or ‘Imitatio Mariae’? Clare of Assisi and Her Interpreters.” In Gendered Voices: Medieval Saints and Their Interpreters, ed. Catherine M. Mooney, 52–77. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999. Moreno, Doris. “El protestantismo castellano revisitado: geografía y recepción.” In Reforma y disidencia religiosa: La recepción de las doctrinas reformadas en la península ibérica en el siglo XVI, eds. Michel Boeglin et al., 181–197. Madrid: Casa de Velázquez, 2018. Muñoz Fernández, Ángela. “La mediación femenina como forma de acción política. Tiempos, contextos y transformaciones de un rol político (Castilla, siglos xiv y xv).” e-Spania 20 (2015), https://doi. org/10.4000/e-spania.24146 Muñoz de la Nava, José Miguel. “Monasterio de las Descalzas Reales de Madrid. La Casa de Capellanes y la de Misericordia.” Anales del Instituto de Estudios Madrileños 51 (2011): 57–99. Nevile, Jennifer. “Dance and Society in Quattrocento Italy.” In Dance, Spectacle, and the Body Politic, 1250–1750, ed. Jennifer Nevile, 80–93. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2008. Niederkorn, Jan Paul. Die europäischen Mächte und der “Lange Türkenkrieg” Kaiser Rudolfs II. (1593–1606). Wien: VÖAW, 1993. Noflatscher, Heinz. Glaube, Reich und Dynastie. Maximilian der Deutschmeister (1558–1618). Marburg: N.G. Elwert, 1987. Noflatscher, Heinz. “Regiment aus der Kammer? Einflußreiche Kleingruppen am Hof Rudolfs II.” In Der Fall des Günstlings. Hofparteien in

290  Sources and bibliography

Europa vom 13. bis zum 17. Jahrhundert, eds. Jan Hirschbiegel and Werner Paravicini, 209–234. Stuttgart: Jan Thorbecke, 2004. Olivari, Michele. “La Marquesa del Valle: un caso de protagonismo político femenino en la España de Felipe III.” Historia Social 57 (2007): 99–126. Opll, Ferdinand, and Karl Rudolf, España y Austria. Madrid: Cátedra, 1997. Osborne, Toby. “Delineating Early Modern Factions: A Unique 17th Century Document.” In A Europe of Courts, a Europe of Factions: Political Groups at Early Modern Centres of Power (1550–1700), eds. Rubén González Cuerva and Alexander Koller, 219–250. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Pálffy, Géza. “Kaiserbegräbnisse in der Habsburgermonarchie – Königskrönungen in Ungarn.” Frühneuzeit-Info 19 (2008): 41–66. Pálffy, Géza. “III. Károly 1712. évi koronázásának 16. századi gyökerei. Régi hagyományok és új szokások az első pozsonyi Habsburg-királykoronázáson 1563-ban [The Sixteenth Century Roots of the Coronation of Charles III in 1712. Old Traditions and New Customs at the First Habsburg Royal Coronation in Bratislava in 1563].” In Ius coronandi. Katalógus az Esztergom-Budapesti Főegyházmegye gyűjteményeinek koronázási emlékeiből rendezett kiállításhoz, 15–26. Esztergom: Esztergom-Budapesti Főegyházmegye Főszékesegyházának Kincstára, 2012. Pánek, Jaroslav. Výprava české šlechty do Itálie v letech 1551–1552. Praha: Veduta, 1987. Pánek, Jaroslav. “Maximilian II. als König von Böhmen.” In Kaiser Maximilian II. Kultur und Politik im 16. Jahrhundert, eds. Friedrich Edelmayer and Alfred Kohler, 55–69. Wien/München: Oldenbourg, 1992. Paranque, Estelle. “Elisabeth of Austria and Marie-Elisabeth of France: Represented and remembered.” In Forgotten Queens in Medieval and Early Modern Europe: Political Agency, Myth-Making, and Patronage, eds. Valerie Schutte and Estelle Paranque, 114–128. Abingdon: Routledge, 2019. Parker, Geoffrey. Imprudent King: A New Life of Philip II. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2014. Parker, Geoffrey. Emperor: A New Life of Charles V. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2019. Patrouch, Joseph. “The Investiture Controversy Revisited: Religious Reform, Emperor Maximilian II, and the Klosterrat.” Austrian History Yearbook 25 (1994): 59–77. Patrouch, Joseph. Queen’s Apprentice: Archduchess Elizabeth, Empress María, the Habsburgs, and the Holy Roman Empire, 1554–1569. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Pelaz Flores, Diana. La casa de la reina en la Corona de Castilla (1418–1496). Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid, 2017.

Sources and bibliography  291

Pérez Bustamante, Ciriaco. Felipe III: semblanza de un monarca y perfiles de una privanza. Madrid: Real Academia de la Historia, 1950. Pérez Martín, María Jesús. Margarita de Austria, Reina de España. Madrid: Espasa Calpe, 1961. Pérez de Tudela, Almudena. “La reina Anna de Austria (1549–1580), su imagen y su colección artística.” In Las relaciones discretas entre las Monarquías Hispana y Portuguesa: Las Casas de las Reinas (siglos XV-XIX), eds. José Martínez Millán and Maria Paula Marçal Lourenço, 3:1563– 1616. Madrid: Polifemo, 2009. Pérez de Tudela, Almudena. “Algunas joyas y relicarios de la reina Ana de Austria (1549–1580).” In Estudios de platería: San Eloy 2012, ed. Jesús Rivas Carmona, 455–473. Murcia: Universidad de Murcia, 2012. Peyronel Rambaldi, Susanna. Una gentildonna irrequieta. Giulia Gonzaga fra reti familiari e relazioni eterodosse. Rome: Viella, 2012. Pfandl, Ludwig. Felipe II: bosquejo de una vida y de una época. Madrid: Cultura Española, 1942. Pizarro, Henar. Un gran patrón en la corte de Felipe II: Don Gaspar de Quiroga. Madrid: Universidad Pontificia Comillas, 2004. Raeymaekers, Dries. “In the Service of the Dynasty: Building a Career in the Habsburg Household, 1550–1650.” In Monarchy Transformed: Princes and their Elites in Early Modern Western Europe, eds. Robert von Friedeburg and John Morrill Lincoln, 244–266. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Rassow, Peter. “Karls V. Tochter Maria als Eventual-Erbin der spanischen Reiche.” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 49 (1959): 161–168. Rauscher, Peter. “Kaisertum und hegemoniales Königtum: Die kaiserliche Reaktion auf die niederländische Politik Philipps II. von Spanien.” In Hispania-Austria II. Die Epoche Philipps II. (1556–1598), ed. Friedrich Edelmayer, 57–88. Wien: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik, 1999. Raviola, Blythe Alice, and Franca Varallo, eds. L’infanta: Caterina d’Austria, duchessa di Savoia (1567–1597). Roma: Carocci, 2013. Redondo Cantera, María José. “Palacios para una Emperatriz itinerante. Usos residenciales de Isabel de Portugal (1526–1539).” In Matronazgo y Arquitectura. De la Antigüedad a la Edad Moderna, eds. Cándida Martínez López and Felipe Serrano Estrella, 249–299. Granada: Universidad de Granada, 2016. Rees, Owen. The Requiem of Tomás Luis de Victoria. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019. Reinhard, Wolfgang. “Die Nase der Kleopatra. Geschichte im Lichte mikropolitischer Forschung. Ein Versuch.” Historische Zeitschrift 293(3) (2011): 631–666.

292  Sources and bibliography

Reinhardt, Nicole. Voices of Conscience: Royal Confessors and Political Counsel in Seventeenth-Century Spain and France. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Río Barredo, María José del. Madrid, urbs regia: la capital ceremonial de la Monarquía Católica. Madrid: Marcial Pons, 2000. Rivero, Manuel. La monarquía de los Austrias. Madrid: Alianza, 2017. Rivero, Manuel, and José Martínez Millán, “La coronación imperial de Bolonia y el final de la vía flamenca (1526–1530).” In Carlos V y la quiebra del humanismo político en Europa (1530–1558), ed. José Martínez Millán, 131–150. Madrid: SECCe, 2001. Rodríguez G. de Ceballos, Alfonso. “El colegio Imperial de Madrid.” Miscelánea Comillas 54 (1970): 407–444. Rodríguez García, Justina, and Pedro Rodríguez. “La Corte de Carlos IX de Francia: Los Advertimientos de D. Francés de Álava, embajador de Felipe II.” Espacio, tiempo y forma. Serie IV, Historia moderna 11 (1998): 111–146. Rodríguez de la Torre, Fernando. “Pedro Álvarez de Acosta (o Dacosta).” Diccionario Biográfico Español, Real Academia de la Historia, http://dbe. rah.es/biografias/46241/pedro-alvarez-de-acosta-o-dacosta. Rodríguez Pérez, Raimundo. “Servir al Rey, servir a la Casa. La embajada extraordinaria del III marqués de los Vélez en Viena y Polonia (1572–1575).” In La dinastía de los Austria: las relaciones entre la Monarquía Católica y el Imperio, eds. José Martínez Millán and Rubén González Cuerva, 1:439–478. Madrid: Polifemo, 2011. Rodríguez Raso, Rafaela. “Maximiliano y María de Austria, gobernadores de España 1548–1551: estudio a través de su correspondencia con Carlos V.” PhD diss., Universidad de Madrid, 1957. Rodríguez-Salgado, María José. Un imperio en transición: Carlos V, Felipe II y su mundo. Barcelona: Crítica, 1992. Rodríguez-Salgado, María José. “‘Una perfecta princesa’: casa y vida de la reina Isabel de Valois (1559–1568). Segunda parte.” Cuadernos de Historia Moderna 28 (2003): 71–98. Rodríguez-Salgado, María José. “‘I Loved Him as a Father Loves a Son… Europe, Damn Me Then, But I Deserve His Thanks’: Philip II’s relations with Rudolf II.” In La dinastía de los Austria: las relaciones entre la Monarquía Católica y el Imperio, eds. José Martínez Millán and Rubén González Cuerva, 1:335–390. Madrid: Polifemo, 2011. Romero-Díaz, Nieves. “On Female Political Alliances: Sor María de Ágreda’s Communities of Letters.” Hispanic Review 86(1) (2018): 91–111. Roşu, Felicia. Elective Monarchy in Transylvania and Poland-Lithuania, 1569–1587. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.

Sources and bibliography  293

Rott, Edouard. “Philippe III et le Duc de Lerme: (1598 1621): étude historique d’après des documents inédits.” Revue d’histoire diplomatique 3 (1887): 363–384. Ruiz-Gálvez Priego, Estrella. “La Inmaculada, emblema de la Firmeza femenina.” Arenal 13(2) (2006): 291–310. Rummel, Erika. The Confessionalization of Humanism in Reformation Germany. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Sablof, Paula L.W. “The Political Agency of Royal Women: A Comparative Analysis of Eight Premodern States According to Societal Rules and Roles.” Journal of Archaeological Research 28 (2020): 53–97. Sáez García, María Ángeles. “Isabel de Josa, una insòlita dona catalana del segle XVI.” MA diss., Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 2015. Sáez García, María Ángeles. “Isabel de Josa y de Cardona. Una ‘puella docta’ predicadora del siglo XVI.” Boletín de la Real Academia de la Historia 213 (2016): 189–215. Sánchez, Magdalena. “Melancholy and Female Illness. Habsburg Women and Politics at the Court of Philip III.” Journal of Women’s History 8(2) (1996): 81–102. Sánchez, Magdalena. The Empress, the Queen, and the Nun. Women and Power at the Court of Philip III of Spain. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 1998a. Sánchez, Magdalena. “Los vínculos de sangre: la emperatriz María, Felipe II y las relaciones entre España y Europa central.” In Felipe II (1527–1598): Europa y la monarquía católica, ed. José Martínez Millán, 1/2:777–794. Madrid: Parteluz, 1998b. Sánchez, Magdalena. “A Woman’s Influence: Archduchess Maria of Bavaria and the Spanish Habsburgs.” In The Lion and the Eagle: Interdisciplinary Essays on German-Spanish Relations Over the Centuries, eds. Conrad Kent et al., 91–107. New York: Berghahn Books, 2000. Sánchez, Magdalena. “Where Palace and Convent Met: The Descalzas Reales in Madrid.” Sixteenth-Century Journal 46 (2015): 53–82. Sánchez, Magdalena. “‘She Grows Careless’: The Infanta Catalina and Spanish Etiquette at the Court of Savoy.” In Early Modern Dynastic Marriages and Cultural Transfer, eds. Joan-Lluís Palos and Magdalena Sánchez, 21–43. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2016. Sánchez Hernández, María Leticia. Patronato regio y órdenes religiosas femeninas en el Madrid de los Austrias: Descalzas Reales, Encarnación y Santa Isabel. Madrid: FUE, 1997. Sánchez Hernández, María Leticia. “Servidoras de Dios, leales al Papa: las monjas de los Monasterios Reales.” Librosdelacorte.es Extra 1 (2014): 293–318.

294  Sources and bibliography

Sánchez Hernández, María Leticia. “El proceso de beatificación de sor Margarita de la Cruz y Austria.” In Subir a los altares. Modelos de santidad en la Monarquía Hispánica (S. XVI-XVIII), eds. Inmaculada Arias de Saavedra et al., 133–154. Granada: Universidad de Granada, 2018. Sánchez Hernández, María Leticia, ed. Mujeres en la Corte de los Austrias: una red social, cultural, religiosa y política. Madrid: Polifemo, 2019. Sarrión Mora, Adelina. “Identificación de la dinastía con la confesión católica.” In La monarquía de Felipe III, eds. José Martínez Millán and Maria Antonietta Visceglia, 1:246–299. Madrid: MAPFRE, 2008. Schilling, Heinz. Konfessionalisierung und Staatsinteressen: internationale Beziehungen 1559–1660. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2007. Schlögl, Rudolf. Anwesende und Abwesende. Grundriss für eine Gesellschaftsgeschichte der Frühen Neuzeit. Konstanz: Konstanz University Press, 2014. Schmidt, Peer. “Infans sum Hispaniarum: la difícil germanización de Fernando I.” In Fernando I, 1503–1564: socialización, vida privada y actividad pública de un Emperador del Renacimiento, eds. Friedrich Edelmayer and Alfredo Alvar Ezquerra, 273–286. Madrid: Sociedad Estatal de Conmemoraciones Culturales, 2004. Schnettger, Matthias. “Weibliche Herrschaft in der Frühen Neuzeit. Einige Beobachtungen aus verfassungs- und politikgeschichtlicher Sicht.” Zeitenblicke 8(2) (2009), http://www.zeitenblicke.de/2009/2/ schnettger/index_html. Schoder, Elisabeth. “Die Reise der Kaiserin nach Spanien (1581/82).” In Hispania-Austria II. Die Epoche Philipps II. (1556–1598), ed. Friedrich Edelmayer, 151–180. Wien: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik, 1999. Schrauf, Karl, ed. Der Reichshofrath Dr. Georg Eder. Wien: Holzhausen, 1904. Sebastián Lozano, Jorge. “Francisco de Borja, de criado a maestro espiritual de las mujeres Habsburgo.” In San Francisco de Borja Grande de España. Arte y espiritualidad en la cultura hispana de los siglos XVI y XVII, eds. Ximo Company and Joan Aliaga, 67–90. Lleida: Universitat de Lleida, 2010. Sellés-Ferrando, Xavier. Spanisches Österreich. Wien: Böhlau, 2004. Silva, Manuela Santos. “Philippa of Lancaster, Queen of Portugal: Educator and Reformer.” In The Rituals and Rhetoric of Queenship. Medieval to Early Modern, eds. Louise Oakley-Brown and Louise J. Wilinson, 37–46. Dublin: Four Court Press, 2012. Soriano Triguero, Carmen. “Fundación y dote del convento de Nuestra Señora de los Ángeles de Madrid. Peculiaridades de un modelo diferente de patronato regio.” Cuadernos de Historia Moderna 17 (1996): 41–56.

Sources and bibliography  295

Soto Artuñedo, Wenceslao. “Juana de Austria ¿de la Compañía de Jesús?” In V Reunión Científica Asociación Española de Historia Moderna, eds. José Luis Pereira Iglesias et al., 1:579–588. Madrid: Asociación de Historia Moderna, 1999. Spieß, Karl-Heinz. “Witwenversorgung im Hochadel. Rechtlicher Rahmen und praktische Gestaltung im Spätmittelalter und zu Beginn der Frühen Neuzeit.” In Witwenschaft in der Frühen Neuzeit. Fürstliche und adlige Witwen zwischen Fremd- und Selbstbestimmung, ed. Martina Schattkowsky, 87–113. Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag, 2003. Stieve, Felix. Die Verhandlungen über die Nachfolge Kaiser Rudolfs II. in den Jahren 1581–1602. München: Verl. der K. Akad., 1880. Stollberg-Rilinger, Barbara. “Was heißt Kulturgeschichte des Politischen?” Zeitschrift für Historische Forschung 35 (2005): 9–24. Stollberg-Rilinger, Barbara. “The Impact of Communication Theory on the Analysis of the Early Modern Statebuilding Processes.” In Empowering Interactions. Political Culture and the Emergence of the State in Europe 1300– 1900, eds. Wim Blockmans et al., 313–318. Farnham: Ashgate, 2009. Stollberg-Rilinger, Barbara. The Emperor’s Old Clothes: Constitutional History and the Symbolic Language of the Holy Roman Empire. New York: Berghahn Books, 2015. Stone, Daniel. The Polish-Lithuanian State, 1386–1795. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2001. Streich, Brigitte. “Anna von Nassau und ihre ‘Schwestern’. Politische Gestaltungsmöglichkeiten fürstlicher Witwen in der Frühen Neuzeit.” In Witwenschaft in der Frühen Neuzeit. Fürstliche und adlige Witwen zwischen Fremd- und Selbstbestimmung, ed. Martina Schattkowsky, 163–189. Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag, 2003. Strohmeyer, Arno. Konfessionskonflikt und Herrschaftsordnung: Widerstandsrecht bei den österreichischen Standen (1550–1650). Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 2006. Te Brake, Wayne P. Religious War and Religious Peace in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Thiessen, Hillard von. Diplomatie und Patronage. Die spanisch-römischen Beziehungen 1605–1621 in akteurszentrierter Perspektive. Epfendorf: bibliotheca academica Verlag, 2010. Thomas, Andrew. A House Divided: Wittelsbach Confessional Court Cultures in the Holy Roman Empire, C. 1550–1650. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Toajas Roger, María Ángeles. “Palacios ocultos: las Descalzas Reales de Madrid.” In Felix Austria. Lazos familiares, cultura política y mecenazgo artístico entre las cortes de los Habsburgo, ed. Bernardo García, 327–374. Madrid: Fundación Carlos de Amberes, 2016.

296  Sources and bibliography

Tore, Gianfranco. “Dare udienza ai sudditi, controllare i viceré. La visita generale di Pietro Vaguer nella Sardegna di Carlo V (1542–1546).” In Identità e frontiere: Politica, economia e società nel Mediterraneo (secc. XIV-XVIII), eds. Lluis Guía Marín et al., 243–292. Milano: Franco Angeli, 2015. Tormo, Elías. En las Descalzas Reales de Madrid. Vol. 1. Madrid: Junta de Iconografía Nacional, 1917. Trentin, Stefania. “Tra affetti familiari e idee eterodosse: profilo biografico di Isabella Bresegna (1510–1567).” BA diss., Università degli Studi di Trento, 2001. Tross, Carl Ludwig Philipp, ed. Des Grafen Wolrad von Waldeck Tagebuch während des Reichstages zu Augsburg 1548. Stuttgart: Litterarischer Verein, 1861. Turba, Gustav. “Beiträge zur Geschichte der Habsburger aus den letzten Jahren des spanischen Königs Philipp II.” Archiv für österreichische Geschichte 86 (1899): 309–452. Urjasz-Raczko, Matylda. “La estrategia diplomática de Felipe II frente a la Tercera Elección Libre en La República Polaco-Lituana, 1586–1589.” Studia historica. Historia moderna 36 (2014): 213–232. Vales Failde, Javier. La emperatriz Isabel. Madrid: Tip. de la Revista de Arch. Bibl. y Museos, 1917. Válka, Josef. “Die Politiques. Konfessionelle Orientierung und politische Landesinteresse in Böhmen und Mähren (bis 1630).” In Ständefreiheit und Staatsgestaltung in Ostmitteleuropa. Übernationale Gemünsamkeiten in der politischen Kultur vom 16.-18. Jahrhundert, eds. Joachim Bahlcke et al., 229–241. Leipzig: Universitätsverlag, 1996. Velarde Lombraña, Julián. Juan Caramuel. Vida y obra. Oviedo: Pentalfa, 1989. Vicente, Marta, and Luis Corteguera. “Women in Texts: From Language to Representation.” In Women, Texts and Authority in the Early Modern Spanish World, eds. Marta Vicente and Luis Corteguera, 1–15. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003. Vilacoba Ramos, Karen María, and María Teresa Muñoz Serrulla. “Las religiosas de las Descalzas Reales de Madrid en los siglos XVI-XX: fuentes archivísticas.” Hispania sacra 125 (2010): 115–156. Villacorta Baños-García, Antonio. La Emperatriz Isabel: su vida al lado de Carlos V, su mundo, su época. Madrid: Actas, 2009. Villanueva, Javier Hipólito. “El trono de Polonia en disputa: el papel del archiduque Ernesto de Habsburgo, 1587–1592.” Tiempos modernos 37 (2018): 123–147. Visceglia, Maria Antonietta. “International Politics, Factions and Parties in the Roman Curia During the Late 16th Century.” In A Europe of Courts, a Europe of Factions: Political Groups at Early Modern Centres

Sources and bibliography  297

of Power (1550–1700), eds. Rubén González Cuerva and Alexander Koller, 64–87. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Vivo, Filippo de. “Public Sphere or Communication Triangle? Information and Politics in Early Modern Europe.” In Beyond the Public Sphere. Opinions, Publics, Spaces in Early Modern Europe, ed. Massimo Rospocher, 115–136. Bologna and Berlin: Il Mulino and Duncker & Humblot, 2012. Vocelka, Karl. “Matthias contra Rudolf: Zur politischen Propaganda in der Zeit des Bruderzwistes.” Zeitschrift für Historische Forschung 10(3) (1983): 341–351. Vocelka, Karl. “Kirchengeschichte.” In Die frühneuzeitliche Residenz (16. bis 18. Jahrhundert), eds. Karl Vocelka and Anita Traninger, 311–363. Wien: Böhlau, 2003. Vons, Jacqueline, and Pauline Saint Martin. “Vie et mort de MarieElisabeth de France (1572–1578), fille de Charles IX et Elisabeth d’Autriche.” Cour de France.fr (2010), http://cour-de-france. fr/article744.html. Vorel, Petr, ed., Stavovský odboj roku 1547 – první krize habsburské monarchie. Pardubice: Východočeské museum, 1999. Watkins, John. After Lavinia: A Literary History of Premodern Marriage Diplomacy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2017. Weber, Wolfgang E.J. “Dynastiesicherung and Staatsbildung. Die Entfaltung des frühmodernen Fürstenstaates.” In Der Fürst. Ideen und Wirklichkeiten in der europäischen Geschichte, ed. Wolfgang E.J. Weber, 91–136. Köln: Böhlau, 1998. Wernham, Richard Bruce. “Queen Elizabeth I, the Emperor Rudolph II, and Archduke Ernest, 1593–94.” In Politics and Society in Reformation Europe, eds. E.I. Kouri and Tom Scott, 437–451. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1987. Whaley, Joachim. Germany and the Holy Roman Empire. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012–2013. Widorn, Helga. “Die spanischen Gemahlinnen der Kaiser Maximilian II., Ferdinand III. und Leopold I.” PhD diss., Universität Wien, 1959. Williams, Patrick. “Lerma, Old Castile and the Travels of Philip III of Spain.” History 239 (1988): 379–397. Williams, Patrick. The Great Favourite: The Duke of Lerma and the Court and Government of Philip III of Spain, 1598–1621. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2006. Winkelbauer, Thomas. Ständefreiheit und Fürstenmacht. Länder und Untertanen des Hauses Habsburg im konfessionellen Zeitalter. 2 vols. Wien: Ueberreuter, 2003.

298  Sources and bibliography

Woodacre, Elena, ed. Queenship in the Mediterranean. Negotiating the Role of the Queen in the Medieval and Early Modern Eras. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Woś, Jan Władysław. Santa Sede e corona polacca nella corrispondenza di Annibale di Capua (1586–1591). Trento: Università di Trento, 2004. Wührer, Jakob, and Martin Scheutz. Zu Diensten Ihrer Majestät. Hofordnungen und Instruktionsbücher am frühneuzeitlichen Wiener Hof. Wien: Böhlau, 2011. Wunder, Heide. He Is the Sun, She Is the Moon: Women in Early Modern Germany. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998. Wunder, Heide. “Gynäkokratie. Auf der Suche nach einem verloren gegangenen Begriff der frühneuzeitlichen politischen Sprache.” Zeitenblicke 8(2) (2009), http://www.zeitenblicke.de/2009/2/wunder. Wyhe, Cordula van, ed. Isabel Clara Eugenia. Female Sovereignty in the Courts of Madrid and Brussels. Madrid: CEEH, 2011.

INDEX

Note: Italic page numbers refer to figures; page numbers followed by “n” denote endnotes. Abreu, María de 58, 66n74 Admiral of Castile 158 Adrada, Marquis of La 115–116 Aerschot, Duke of 204 Aguilar, Antonio de (OFM) 232 Alarcón, Luis de 231, 239 Álava, Francés de 113 Alba, Duke of 35, 45–46, 101–102, 106, 111, 127–128, 138n49, 179, 261 Albert V (Duke of Bavaria) 121, 128, 154 Albert of Austria (Cardinal and Sovereign of the Netherlands) 51, 78, 86, 116, 130, 152, 154, 155, 179–180, 207, 209–213, 221–225, 228, 234–236, 239, 247, 250–251, 254, 256–257, 262–263 Alberti, Giovanni 164, 262 Albist Faction 101, 103, 178 Alburquerque, Duke of 106, 138n50 Alcañices, Countess of 187 Aldobrandini, Papal legate see Clement VIII (Pope) Alessandro Farnese see Farnese, Alessandro (Duke of Parma) Alfonso II (Duke of Ferrara) 155

Alfonso, Álvaro (SJ) 30–31 Almazán, Marquis of see Monteagudo, Count of Almeida, Dinis de 24 Álvarez de Acosta, Pedro 25, 28 Amalia von Neuenahr-Alpen see Palatinate, Electress of the Ana of Austria (Queen of Spain) 8n7, 49, 54, 69, 86, 107–112, 114–117, 121, 141n88, 155, 158, 160, 162, 164, 174, 179 Ana de Jesús (OCD) 201 Andrew of Austria (Cardinal and Governor of the Netherlands) 263 Ángeles, Juan de los see Juan de los Ángeles (OFM) Anna of Austria see Bavaria, Duchess of Anna of Denmark see Saxony, Duchess of Anna of Hungary (Queen of the Romans) 35, 49, 68, 80, 82, 88, 94n66, 149 Anna Jagiellon (Queen of Poland) 132, 203 Antonio, Francisco (SJ) 187, 200

300 Index

Antonio of Portugal 24 Aragón, Francisca de 160, 187, 223, 229–230, 233 Aragón, Juan de (SJ) 30–31 Aragón, María de 80, 183 Araoz, Antonio de (SJ) 29, 31 Archduke Maximilian see Maximilian II Arcimboldo, Giuseppe 69 Arco y Meneses, María de 150–151 Arenberg, Count of 113 Arenberg, Countess of (Marguerite de La Marck) 113 Argensola, Bartolomé Leonardo de 200 Argensola, Lupercio Leonardo de 200 Argentero, Giuseppe 199–200 Austria, Albert of see Albert of Austria (Cardinal and Sovereign of the Netherlands) Austria, Ana of see Ana of Austria (Queen of Spain) Austria, Andrew of see Andrew of Austria (Cardinal and Governor of the Netherlands) Austria, Anna of see Bavaria, Duchess of (Anna of Austria) Austria, Carlos of see Carlos of Austria (Prince of Asturias) Austria, Catalina Micaela of see Catalina Micaela of Austria (Duchess of Savoy) Austria, Diego of see Diego of Austria (Prince of Asturias) Austria, Eleonore of see Eleonore of Austria (Archduchess of Austria) Austria, Elisabeth of see Elisabeth of Austria (Queen of France) Austria, Ernst of see Ernst of Austria (Archduke of Austria and Governor of the Netherlands) Austria, Ferdinand of see Ferdinand I (Holy Roman Emperor) / Ferdinand of Austria (Archduke

of Tyrol) / Ferdinand of Austria (son of Maria and Maximilian) Austria, Giovanna of see Giovanna of Austria (Grand Duchess of Tuscany) Austria, Gregoria Maximiliana of see Gregoria Maximiliana of Austria (Archduchess of Styria) Austria, Isabel Clara Eugenia of see Isabel Clara Eugenia of Austria (Sovereign of the Netherlands) Austria, Juana of see Juana of Austria (Princess of Portugal) Austria, Juan of see Juan of Austria (Governor of the Netherlands) Austria, Julius Caesar of see Julius Caesar of Austria Austria, Karl of see Karl of Austria (Archduke of Styria) Austria, Katharina of see Katharina of Austria (Queen of Poland) Austria, Leonor of see Leonor of Austria (Queen of Portugal and France) Austria, Margarita of see Margarita of Austria (Queen of Spain) Austria, Margarita de la Cruz of see Margarita de la Cruz (OSC and Archduchess of Austria) Austria, Marguerite of see Marguerite of Austria (Governor of the Netherlands) Austria, Maria of see Maria of Austria (daughter of Philip II) / Maria of Austria (daughter of Philip III) Austria, Maria Anna of see Maria Anna of Austria (Holy Roman Empress) Austria, Marie of see Marie of Hungary (Governor of the Netherlands) Austria, Maximilian of see Maximilian II (Holy Roman Emperor) / Maximilian of Austria (Archduke of Austria and

Index  301

Grand Master of the Teutonic Order) Austria, Wenzel of see Wenzel of Austria (Archduke of Austria) Ávalos, Luisa de 114 Aveiro, Duke of 24 Avellaneda, Diego de (SJ) 102, 112 Ávila, Pedro de 231 Avis dynasty 14–15, 24, 33, 38n35 Azagra, Juan Ruiz de 105 Báthory, István (Voivode of Transylvania and King of Poland) 131–132, 202 Bavaria, Duchess of (Anna of Austria) 98, 121, 128, 133 Bavaria, Duke of see Albert V (Duke of Bavaria) Bavaria, Ernst of see Ernst of Bavaria Bazán, Constanza de 26 Bellido, Miguel 114 Betta, Giovanni 54 Biglia, Melchiorre 144n133 Bodin, Jean 6 Borgia, [Saint] Francis (SJ) 160–161, 182 Borja family 14, 160, 182, 199 Borja, [Saint] Francisco de see Borgia, [Saint] Francis (SJ) Borja y Aragón, Antonio de (Juan de Borja’s son) 198 Borja y Aragón, Francisco de (Juan de Borja’s son) 223, 232 Borja y Castro, Juan de 157, 160– 164, 173–175, 179, 182–188, 194n70, 198, 209, 222–226, 229–236, 239, 254 Borromeo, [Saint] Carlo 177, 225 Brederode, Helena van 102 Bressegna, Isabella see Briceño, Isabel Briceño, Isabel 81 Brissac, Charles de Cosse- 15 Brus, Antonin 126 Busbecq, Ogier Ghiselin de 113, 118

Cabezón, Antonio de 18, 27 Cabrera de Córdoba, Luis 74, 78 Caetani, Camillo 198, 211, 222, 225, 228 Câmara, Luis Gonçalves da(SJ) 111 Câmara, Martín Gonçalves da 111 Cano, Francisco 201 Cano, Hernando (OFM) 29, 73, 82 Cano, Melchor (OP) 29, 73 Capua, Annibale de 205 Caramuel Lobkowicz, Juan (OCist) 186 Cardona, Ana de 157, 161, 186–187 Cardona, Antonio Folch de 81 Cardona, Margarita de 79–81, 103, 115, 150, 157, 161, 164, 186, 198, 202, 208, 232, 256 Cardona y Requesens, María de 81, 115, 135n14, 141n91, 161 Carlo Borromeo see Borromeo, [Saint] Carlo Carlos of Austria (Prince of Asturias) 25, 45, 57, 85–86, 107–109, 127 Carmelites 201, 258 Carranza de Miranda, Bartolomé 174 Carrillo de Alderete, Juan (Archduke Albert’s secretary) 210, 235–236, 247 Carrillo, Juan (OFM) 1 Carthusians 143n123 Castiglione, Marquis of 177, 248 Castro, Antonio de 177 Castro, Cardinal Rodrigo de 177 Castro, Leonor de 23 Catalina Micaela of Austria (Duchess of Savoy) 8n7, 42, 178–179, 181, 192n48, 231 Catarina of Portugal (Queen of Portugal) 2, 14–15, 24, 29, 31, 68, 111, 160 Catherine of Aragon (Queen of England) 77 Catherine of Lorraine 233

302 Index

Catherine de’ Medici (Queen of France) 112–113, 127 Cavriani, Ottavio 201 Cerralbo, Countess of 231 Chantonnay, Thomas Perrenot de Granvelle, Lord of 44, 97, 100–104, 120, 128, 178 Charles V (Holy Roman Emperor) 3, 12–16, 21–29, 32–36, 37n9, 42–48, 50–60, 66n74, 68–77, 79, 86, 106, 108, 172, 178, 204, 217n39, 251, 252, 263 Charles IX (King of France) 109–110, 131 Charles of Valois (Duke of Orleans) 33–34, 43 Charles Emmanuel I (Duke of Savoy) 42, 155, 181 Chimarrhäus, Jacob 162 Chinchón, Count of 198 Cifuentes, Count of 21–26, 30–34, 46 Cifuentes, son of the Count of see Silva y Andrade, Juan de Clement VIII (Pope) 198, 205, 211, 222, 224, 228, 232 Cleves, Duke of (William of JülichCleves-Berg) 113 Cobos, Francisco de los 25, 50, 54 Commendone, Cardinal Giovanni Francesco 125, 127, 257 Córdoba, Diego de 80 Córdoba, Francisco de (OFM) 83–84, 117, 122, 173 Córdoba, Gaspar de (OP) 232, 236 Cornejo, Pedro 161, 256 Corte-Real, Margarida (Moura’s wife) 233 Cosimo Ide’ Medici (Duke of Florence and Grand Duke of Tuscany) 6, 128–130 CratovonKrafftheim, Johannes 4 Cuadra, Álvaro de la 84 Cuadra, Juan López de la 26–27, 33, 39n54

Delfino, Zaccaria 83 Denmark, Anna of see Saxony, Duchess of Diego of Austria (Prince of Asturias) 178 Dietrichstein, Adam von 48, 79–80, 86, 103, 105, 117–118, 121–122, 126, 129, 134, 150–151, 157–159, 161, 163–164, 174, 181, 186, 188, 196, 202, 208, 232, 260 Dietrichstein, Cardinal Franz von 198, 258 Dietrichstein, Maximilian von 207–208 Dolfin, Giovanni 148 Dominicans 28, 73, 82, 238 Doria, Andrea 60 Doria, Gianandrea 177 Eboli, Prince of 101–102, 105, 108, 116, 178, 261 Ebolist Faction 101–103, 115–116, 178 Eder, Georg 126 Eger, Bishop of see Radéczy, István Eisengrein, Martin 119 Eitzing, Christoph von 75 Eleonore of Austria (Archduchess of Austria) 110, 139n66, 155–156, 253 Elisabeth of Austria (Queen of France) 107–114, 116, 131, 155–156, 175–176, 201–202, 258 Elizabeth I (Queen of England) 107, 206 Emmanuel Philibert I (Duke of Savoy) 156, 164, 171n72 Encina, Juan del 18 Erich II von BraunschweigKalenberg 62n24 Ernst of Austria (Archduke of Austria and Governor of the Netherlands) 5, 69, 86, 116–117, 124, 130–133, 157, 162–163, 175–176, 181, 201–204, 206–211, 213, 250, 253–254, 257, 263

Index  303

Ernst of Bavaria 154 Escalona, Duke of 59–60 Espinosa, Cardinal Diego de 115 Espinosa, Juan de (OFM) 117–118, 122, 173 Faber, [Saint] Peter (SJ) 29–31 Fajardo, Pedro see Vélez, Marquis of Los Farnese, Alessandro (Duke of Parma) 207 Farnese, Ranuccio see Ranuccio I Farnese (Duke of Parma) Faro, Countess of 24, 26, 30, 46–47, 54, 59, 66n80, 90n28 Ferdinand I (Holy Roman Emperor) 3, 13, 24, 34–35, 42–43, 47–50, 53, 55, 59, 62n30, 63n31, 67–69, 71–78, 80–5, 87–88, 92n47, 97, 108, 124, 128, 149, 154, 256 Ferdinand I de’ Medici (Grand Duke of Tuscany) 205 Ferdinand II (Holy Roman Emperor) 227–228, 260 Ferdinand III(Holy Roman Emperor) 260 Ferdinand of Aragon (Duke of Calabria) 57 Ferdinand of Austria (Archduke of Tyrol) 42, 47, 61, 84, 98, 121, 154, 162, 176 Ferdinand of Austria (son of Maria and Maximilian) 49, 58 Ferdinand the Catholic (King of Aragon and Castile) 42 Fez, Sharif of 57, 257 Ficalho, Countess of see Aragón, Francisca de Figueroa, Mencía de 54, 82 Flecha, Mateo 161, 200 Florencia, Jerónimo de (SJ) 238 Francis I (King of France) 33 Francis I de’ Medici (Grand Duke of Tuscany) 130, 155, 164, 253

Francis Borgia see Borgia, [Saint] Francis (SJ) Franciscans 28–29, 82, 115, 117, 176, 190n23, 210, 227, 238–239 Franqueza y Esteve, Pedro 236 Frederick III (Elector of the Palatinate) 99 Frómista, Marquise of 115 Gallo, Juan (OP) 73, 82–83 Galve, Count of 158 Gamboa, Hernando de 90n23 Gámiz, Juan Alonso de 48–49, 53, 63n31, 77 Gandía, Duchess of 229 Garnier, Flaminio 101, 158 Gasol, Jerónimo 198 Gerstmann, Martin von 118 Gesualdo, Cardinal Alfonso 198, 205 Gigante (Italian perfumist) 184 Giovanna of Austria (Grand Duchess of Tuscany) 6, 130, 253 Gonçalves da Câmara, Luis see Câmara, Luis Gonçalves da (SJ) Gonçalves da Câmara, Martín see Câmara, Martín Gonçalves da Gonzaga, [Saint] Luigi (SJ) 177 Gonzaga,Vespasiano 203–205 González Velázquez, Antonio 197 Gouvea, Jerónimo de (OFM) 232 Granvelle, Cardinal Antoine Perrenot de 44, 100–102, 173, 178–179, 194n70, 198–199 Granvelle, Thomas Perrenot de see Chantonnay, Thomas Perrenot de Granvelle, Lord of Gregoria Maximiliana of Austria (Archduchess of Styria) 212 Gregory XIII (Pope) 152, 156, 159, 165, 173–177 Gruter, Lambert 118–119, 121, 133–134 Gutiérrez, Alonso 183 Guzmán, Catalina de 62n30 Guzmán, Francisco de 200 Guzmán, Leonor de 114 Guzmán, Martín de 92n47

304 Index

Haller, Richard (SJ) 227, 229 Harrach, Leonhard von134, 151, 164, 175, 181, 197 Henry I (King of Portugal) 155 Henry III (King of Poland and France) 113, 131 Henry IV (King of France) 212 Hoberg, Kaspar von 62n26 Holanda, Antonio de 38n35 Hoyervon Mansfeld, Hans 62n24 Hurtado de Mendoza, Lope Ibarra, Juan de 232 Idiáquez, Alonso de 33 Idiáquez, Juan de 196, 199, 205, 223, 236 Ignatius of Loyola, [Saint] (SJ) 29 Isabel Clara Eugenia of Austria (Sovereign of the Netherlands) 8n7, 51, 107, 163, 178–180, 184, 200, 203, 205–208, 212–213, 222, 224, 233, 235–236, 263 Isabel of Portugal (Holy Roman Empress) 8n7, 12, 13–18, 21, 178–179 Isabel of Valois (Queen of Spain) 11n30, 79, 81–82, 109–110, 115, 127 James VI and I (King of Scotland and England) 206 Jaraba, Master 201 Jesuits 28–31, 33, 45, 83, 101–102, 105, 112, 118, 124, 126, 141n91, 150, 160–161, 179, 187, 200, 227, 238–240, 256, 258 Jimeno, Pedro (OSA) 256 João Manuel of Portugal 34 John II (King of Portugal) 24 John III (King of Portugal) 14–15, 17, 24, 33–34, 60, 68 Josa, Isabel de 17, 28 Juana I (Queen of Spain) 14, 18, 48, 71, 77, 149, 231, 234 Juana of Austria (Princess of Portugal) 12, 16, 21–22, 24–25,

27, 29, 36, 38n28, 44–46, 57, 81, 83, 97, 101, 103–104, 107–108, 110–112, 114–116, 119, 124, 140n75, 156, 160, 182, 237, 252, 256 Juana de la Cruz (OSC) 182 Juan de los Ángeles (OFM) 238 Juan of Austria (Governor of the Netherlands) 159, 163, 207 Juan of Spain (Prince of Asturias) 37n9 Julius Caesar of Austria 233 Karl of Austria (Archduke of Styria) 98, 107, 120–121, 154, 162, 176, 212 Kastellánfi von Szentlélek, Anna (wife of Peter Mollard) 82 Katharina of Austria (Queen of Poland) 71 Khevenhüller, Franz Christoph 260 Khevenhüller, Hans 105, 155, 160, 162, 170n55, 173, 178–181, 186–188, 194n70, 196–197, 199, 203–206, 208–211, 217n39, 222, 224–226, 228, 230, 234–236, 239, 242n26, 249, 260 Khuen, Rudolph 157 Laconi, Countess of 244n50 Landi, Maria 187 Laso, Rodrigo 235, 245n68 Laso de Castilla, Ana María 5, 80 Laso de Castilla, Francisco 47, 79, 114–115, 157 Laso de Castilla, Margarita 71, 115, 186–187, 202, 231 Laso de Castilla, Pedro 47, 49, 51, 58–59, 72–75, 77, 79 Ledesma, Pedro de 232–233 Leite, Maria de 16 León, Luis de see Luis de León (OSA) Leoni, Pompeo 251

Index  305

Leonor of Austria (Queen of Portugal and France) 24, 172, 201 Lerma, Duchess of 229 Lerma, Duke of 221–233, 235–237, 242n25, 243n37, 244n53, 255, 262 Lillo, Francisco de (OFM) 115 Loaysa, García de 222–223 Lobkowicz, Zdenk Adalbert Popel von 211, 258 Lodron, Sigismundzu 49 López de la Cuadra, Juan see Cuadra, Juan López de la Louis of Savoy 14, 26 Luis de León (OSA) 201 Luis of Portugal 18 Luna, Count of 78, 83–85, 87, 97, 100, 103 Madruzzo, Cardinal Cristoforo 44 Madruzzo, Cardinal Ludovico 198, 205 Magervon Fuchstatt, Sofia 71 Maggio, Lorenzo (SJ) 112, 118 Magno, Constantino 131–133, 173, 188 Maier, Oswald 80 Malaspina, Orazio 175 Maldonado, Pedro (OFM) 73, 82–83 Manrique, Inés 16, 28 Manrique, Íñigo 74 Manrique de Lara, Juan 82, 90n28 Manrique de Lara, María (daughter of the Duke of Nájera) 66n80, 72–73, 81 Manrique de Lara, María (wife of Vratislav von Pernstein) 63n34, 80–82, 86, 90n28, 99, 114, 156–158, 161, 186–187, 201, 256 Manrique de Lara y Mendoza, García 81 Mansfeld, Margarethe von 143n123 Manuel, Leonor 80

Margarita of Austria (Queen of Spain) 212, 221, 223–229, 239, 242n26, 258, 260, 263 Margarita de la Cruz (OSC and Archduchess of Austria) 155, 168n30, 174, 176, 180–181, 183, 185, 188, 211, 224, 226–227, 236–237, 239, 253 Margherita of Parma (Governor of the Netherlands) 106, 163 Marguerite of Austria (Governor of the Netherlands) 13 Marguerite of Valois 110 Maria of Austria (daughter of Philip II) 178 Maria of Austria (daughter of Philip III) 236, 238 Maria of Bavaria (Archduchess of Styria) 225–228 Maria de’ Medici (Queen of France) 233 María of Trastámara (Queen of Portugal) 13 Maria Anna of Austria (Holy Roman Empress) 260 Maria Manuela of Portugal (Princess of Asturias) 24–25, 44 Marie of Hungary (Governor of the Netherlands) 24, 55, 70, 77, 163, 172 Marie-Elisabeth of Valois 113, 156 Mary I (Queen of England) 71, 73 Mascarenhas, Leonor de 16, 24–26, 28–31, 33, 45, 183 Matthias I (Holy Roman Emperor) 4, 86, 117–118, 154, 158–160, 163, 202–204, 216n30, 228, 250 Maximilian II (Holy Roman Emperor) 2, 4, 21, 34–36, 41–44, 46–55, 56, 58–60, 67–70, 72–76, 78, 81–88, 89n13, 90n28, 91n38, 94n64, 97–101, 103–126, 128– 134, 141n88, 148–153, 155–158, 162–165, 174, 178, 188, 204, 248, 252–254, 256–257

306 Index

Maximilian of Austria (Archduke of Austria and Grand Master of the Teutonic Order) 117–118, 154–155, 159, 176, 202–205, 207, 217n39, 234, 250 Mayalde, Count of see Borja, Juan de Mazuelo, Lesmes 74, 100 Medici, Caterina de’ see Catherine de’ Medici (Queen of France) Medici, Cosimo de’ see Cosimo I de’Medici (Duke of Florence and Grand Duke of Tuscany) Medici, Francesco de’ see Francis I de’Medici (Grand Duke of Tuscany) Medici, Maria de’ see Maria de’ Medici (Queen of France) Medinaceli, Duke of 116 Mejía, Isabel 244n50 Melo, Beatriz de 29 Melo, Guiomar de 16, 23, 26 Mendes de Silva, Rodrigo 1 Mendoza, María de 80 Mier, Antonio de 198 Miranda, Count of 233 Mollard, Ana 186–187 Mollard, Ernst von 187, 208 Mollard, Peter von 82, 186 Montalto, Cardinal Alessandro Damasceni Peretti di 205 Monteagudo, Countess of 102, 114, 149 Monteagudo, Count of 102–104, 112, 114, 117–121, 126, 128, 131–133, 149–150, 157–158, 160, 257 Montemayor, Jorge de 27 Monterrey, Countess of 199 Moreno, Cristóbal (OFM) 190n23 Moro, Antonio 56 Moura, Cristóbal de 194n70, 199, 205–206, 212, 222, 233 Müller, Barbara 143n123 Murga, Bartolomé de 104, 174

Nebra, José de 240 Nebrija, Elio Antonio de 17 Neuenahr-Alpen, Amalia von see Palatinate, Electress of the Nieremberg, Juan Eusebio de (SJ) 186 Niño de Guevara, Hernando 50 Olivares, Count of 205 Orduña, Francisco de (OFM) 28–29 Orleans, Duke of see Charles of Valois Osorio, Isabel de 26, 46 Osorno, Countess of 199 Otthen, Mateo 210 Palatinate, Elector of the see Frederick III Palatinate, Electress of the (Amalia von Neuenahr-Alpen) 98–99, 180, 250, 256 Pallavicino, Carlo 214n9 Pardo, Pedro 210 Paredes, Countess of 199 Paul III (Pope) 17, 29 Pernstein, Johanna von see Villahermosa, Duchess of Pernstein,Vratislav von 48, 63n34, 80, 86, 90n23, 93n60, 114, 131–132, 157–158, 161, 163, 186, 197, 201, 260 Perrenot de Granvelle, Thomas see Chantonnay, Thomas Perrenot de Granvelle, Lord of Pessoa, Francisco 32 Pfintzing, Paul 100 Philip I (King of Spain) 234 Philip II (King of Spain) 3, 12, 13, 16–17, 21–26, 32–36, 43–50, 52–53, 55–56, 60, 67, 70–78, 83–87, 92n47, 93n60, 97, 99–123, 125–133, 139n61, 149–154, 156–159, 162–165, 173–182, 184–185, 187–188, 196, 198–213, 221–225,

Index  307

228–229, 233, 248, 252–254, 257, 259, 261, 263 Philip III (King of Spain) 178, 184–185, 199–200, 207, 212, 221–224, 226–231, 233, 235–237, 239, 242n26, 244n53, 255, 257, 262–263 Pius IV (Pope) 87 Pius V (Pope) 82, 109, 111, 125, 129, 253, 257 Pizarro, Francisco de 58 Polheim, Maximilian von 62n24 Poor Clares 176, 182–183, 258 Popel von Lobkowicz, Zdenk Adalbert see Lobkowicz, Zdenk Adalbert Popel von Portocarrero, Juan de (OFM) 232 Portugal, Fadrique de 74, 79, 90n28 Pruskovsky, Georg 157 Quiñones, Isabel de 16 Quiroga, Gaspar de 152, 179, 184, 209 Radéczy, István (Bishop of Eger) 71 Ranuccio I Farnese (Duke of Parma) 177, 234 Requesens family 14 Requesens, Luis de 114 Ribadeneira, Pedro de (SJ) 200 Riederervon Paar, Amelia 229 Riederervon Paar, Maria Sidonia 229 Rochepot, Antoine de Silly, count of La 1 Rodrigues, Álvaro 17, 26, 28 Rodríguez, Cristóbal (SJ) 83 Rosenberg, Wilhelm von 131, 190n15 Rudolf II (Holy Roman Emperor) 4–5, 69, 85–86, 107, 110, 116–117, 130, 148–165, 165n6, 173–176, 179–181, 185–188, 196–197, 199, 201, 203–209, 211–212, 213n3, 217n39, 222,

224, 228, 230, 233–236, 239, 254–255, 257, 259–263 Ruiz de Azagra, Juan see Azagra, Juan Ruiz de Rumpfvon Wielross, Wolfgang 150–151, 163–164, 175, 181, 196, 206, 234, 262 Salinas, Martín de 48, 77 San Clemente, Guillén de 196, 203–205, 229, 234, 262 Santiago, Gaspar de 105, 152, 161, 173–174, 253 Santisteban, Countess of 231 Saramago, José 1 Sarmiento, Pedro 54, 82, 93n64 Savoy, Duchess of see Catalina Micaela of Austria (Duchess of Savoy) Savoy, Duke of see Emmanuel Philibert I / Charles Emmanuel I Saxony, Duchess of (Anna of Denmark) 98–99 Scotland, King of see James VI and I (King of Scotland and England) Sebastian I (King of Portugal) 107–108, 110–111, 188 Seld, Georg Sigismund 100–101, 104 Schillace, Princess of (Ana de Borja y Pignatelli) 223 Sigismund II (King of Poland) 131 Sigismund III Vasa (King of Poland) 204–205 Silíceo, Cardinal Juan Martínez 17, 26–27 Silva, Francisca de 80 Silva y Andrade, Juan de (son of the Count of Cifuentes) 25 Society of Jesus see Jesuits Soranzo, Francesco 230 Soto, Francisco de 18, 27 Stephen Báthory see Báthory, István (Voivode of Transylvania and King of Poland)

308 Index

Távara, Marquis of 25–26, 46–47, 49, 51, 54, 59 Teresa of Avila, [Saint] (OCD) 22, 201 Thun, Georg von 62n26 Tiedra, Jerónimo de (OP) 238 Tiepolo, Paolo 76 Toledo, Enrique de 24 Toledo, Hernando de 153 Trautson, Johann von 104, 121, 128, 134, 151, 181 Trautson, Paul Sixt von 175, 234 Trivulzio, Count Claudio 150, 186–187, 248 Tron,Vincenzo 148 Tudor, Mary see Mary I (Queen of England) Turuégano, Juan de 58, 66n74 Ungnad zu Sonnegg, Ludwig 47–48, 62n24 Ungnadzu Sonnegg, Polyxena 47 Valdés, Fernando de 50 Valencia,Viceroy of see Ferdinand of Aragon (Duke of Calabria) Valle, Marquise del 226, 229, 243n37 Valois dynasty 34, 110 Valverde Gandía, Bartolomé 161 Vázquez de Leca, Mateo 198 Vázquez de Molina, Juan 46, 49–51, 53

Velada, Marquis of 199 Velasco, María de 14, 31 Vélez, King of 57 Vélez, Marquis of Los 116, 130–131 Venegas de Figueroa, Luis 48, 52–53, 75–77, 101–102, 105, 108–110, 115, 128 Verdugo, Francisco 232 Verdugo, Isabel 232 Vicente, Gil 18 Victoria, Tomás Luis de 200, 238 Vigil de Quiñones, Claudio see Luna, Count of Villahermosa, Duchess of (Johanna von Pernstein) 170n55, 186, 200, 202, 231–233 Villahermosa, Duke of 186, 199, 232 Weber, Johann Baptist 104, 126, 128, 132 Wenzel of Austria (Archduke of Austria) 86, 116, 130, 153–154, 188, 202, 251 Zamoyski, Jan 203 Zane, Matteo 180, 248 Zasius, Johann Ulrich 104 Zayas, Gabriel de 173 Zúñiga, Baltasar de 262 Zúñiga, Juan de 45, 105, 126, 173, 181, 196, 199