Women Artists in the Early Modern Courts of Europe: c. 1450-1700 (Visual and Material Culture, 1300-1700) 9789462988194, 9789048540228, 9462988196

Citation preview

V I S U A L A N D M AT E R I A L C U LT U R E , 13 0 0 -17 0 0

Edited by Tanja L. Jones

Women Artists in the Early Modern Courts of Europe (c. 1450–1700)

Women Artists in the Early Modern Courts of Europe

c. 1450–1700

Visual and Material Culture, 1300-1700 A forum for innovative research on the role of images and objects in the late medieval and early modern periods, Visual and Material Culture, 1300-1700 publishes monographs and essay collections that combine rigorous investigation with critical inquiry to present new narratives on a wide range of topics, from traditional arts to seemingly ordinary things. Recognizing the fluidity of images, objects, and ideas, this series fosters cross-cultural as well as multi-disciplinary exploration. We consider proposals from across the spectrum of analytic approaches and methodologies. Series Editor Dr. Allison Levy, an art historian, has written and/or edited three scholarly books, and she has been the recipient of numerous grants and awards, from the National Endowment for the Humanities, the American Association of University Women, the Getty Research Institute, the Dumbarton Oaks Research Library of Harvard University, the Whiting Foundation and the Bogliasco Foundation, among others. www.allisonlevy.com.

Women Artists in the Early Modern Courts of Europe c. 1450–1700

Edited by Tanja L. Jones

Amsterdam University Press

Cover illustration: Self-Portrait at the Easel, 1548, by Catharina van Hemessen (Flemish, 1528–after 1567). Oil on oak panel, 32.2 × 25.2 cm. Kunstmuseum Basel. Cover design: Coördesign, Leiden Lay-out: Crius Group, Hulshout isbn 978 94 6298 819 4 e-isbn 978 90 4854 022 8 doi 10.5117/9789462988194 nur 685 © The authors / Amsterdam University Press B.V., Amsterdam 2021 All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this book may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the written permission of both the copyright owner and the author of the book. Every effort has been made to obtain permission to use all copyrighted illustrations reproduced in this book. Nonetheless, whosoever believes to have rights to this material is advised to contact the publisher.



Table of Contents

List of Figures

7

Acknowledgements 11 1. Introduction: Women Artists in the Early Modern Courts of Europe, c. 1450–1700

13

2. Female Court Artists: Women’s Career Strategies in the Courts of the Early Modern Period

35

3. Caterina van Hemessen in the Habsburg Court of Mary of Hungary

71

4. Sofonisba Anguissola, a Painter and a Lady-in-Waiting

91

Tanja L. Jones

Christina Strunck

Jennifer Courts

Cecilia Gamberini

5. Creative Reproductions: Diana Mantuana and Printmaking at Court

113

6. ‘Una persona dependente alla Serenissima Gran Duchessa’: Female Embroiderers and Lacemakers between the courts of Florence and France

139

7. Life at Court: Luisa Roldán in Madrid 1689–1706

161

Maria F. Maurer

Adelina Modesti

Catherine Hall-van den Elsen

Bibliography 187 Index 213

List of Figures Figure 1.1 Figure 1.2

Figure 1.3

Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3

Figure 2.4 Figure 2.5

Figure 2.6

Figure 2.7

Sofonisba Anguissola, Self Portrait at the Easel, c. 1556–1557, oil on canvas, 67 × 56 cm, Muzeum-Zamek w Lancucie, Lancut. Image Credit: Erich Lessing/Art Resource, NY. Sofonisba Anguissola, Portrait of Isabel of Valois holding a Miniature Portrait of Philip II, 1561–1565, 206 × 123 cm, oil on canvas, Museo del Prado, Madrid. Image Credit: Erich Lessing/Art Resource, NY. Attr. to Nicholas Hillard (or Lievene Teerlinc?), Elizabeth I (1533–1603), ‘Roses Miniature’, 1572, watercolour on vellum, 5 × 4.8 cm, National Portrait Gallery, London. Image Credit: © National Portrait Gallery, London/Art Resource, NY. Lavinia Fontana, Self Portrait in her Study, 1579, oil on copper, 15.7 cm diameter, Galleria degli Uffizi. Image Credit: bpk/ Scala – courtesy of the Ministero Beni e Attività Culturali. Angelika Kauffmann, Self Portrait at the Crossroads between Painting and Poetry, 1792, oil on canvas, 151 × 212 cm. Pushkin Museum, Moscow. Image Credit: akg-images. Joshua Reynolds, David Garrick between Tragedy and Comedy, 1760–1761, oil on canvas, 147.6 × 183 cm. Waddesdon (Rothschild Family, on loan since 1995; acc. no. 102.1995). Image Credit: © National Trust, Waddesdon Manor. Nathaniel Hone, Sketch for ‘The Conjuror’, 1775, oil on wood, 57.5 × 81.9 cm. Tate Gallery, London. Image Credit: © Tate, London 2019. Sofonisba Anguissola, Double Portrait with her Tutor Bernardino Campi, c. 1558/59, oil on canvas, 111 × 109.5 cm. Pinacoteca Nazionale, Siena. Image Credit: bpk/Scala – Courtesy of the Ministero Beni e Attività Culturali. Luca Cambiaso, Self Portrait with his Father (his First Master), c. 1570–1580, oil on canvas, 104 × 97 cm. Musei di Strada Nuova ‒ Palazzo Bianco, Genoa. Image Credit: © Musei di Strada Nuova, Genova. Jakob Houbraken, Portrait of Juriaan Pool and Rachel Pool née Ruysch, after Aert Schouman, 1750, engraving, 16.1 × 10.6 cm. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Image Credit: Public Domain, Courtesy of Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam.

14

15

24 44 52

53 55

57

58

60

8

Table of Contents

Figure 3.1 Caterina van Hemessen, Self Portrait, 1548, oil on panel, 32.2 × 25.2 cm. Öffentliche Kunstmuseum, Basel. Image Credit: Kunstmuseum Basel. 72 Figure 3.2 Caterina van Hemessen, Girl at the Virginal, 1548, oil on panel, 30.5 × 24 cm. Wallraf-Richartz-Museum, Cologne. Image Credit: The Picture Art Collection/Alamy Stock Photo. 81 Figure 3.3 Jan Sanders van Hemessen, Woman Playing a Clavichord, c. 1530, oil on panel, 67.2 × 55.2 cm. Worcester Art Museum, Worcester, MA. Image Credit: Worcester Art Museum, Massachusetts, USA/Bridgeman Images. 82 Figure 4.1 Sofonisba Anguissola, Self Portrait with a Book, 1554, oil on panel, 19.5 × 14.5 cm. Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Gemäldegalerie, Vienna. Image Credit: Erich Lessing/Art Resource, NY. 93 Figure 4.2a Attributed to Sofonisba Anguissola, Portrait of Magdalena Girón Osuna, c. 1568, oil on canvas, 45.5 × 40 cm, Musei Civici di Palazzo Mosca, Comune di Pesaro, Pesaro. Image Credit: Courtesy of Comune di Pesaro. 100 Figure 4.2b Attributed to Sofonisba Anguissola, Reverse, Portrait of Magdalena Girón Osuna, c. 1568, oil on canvas, 45.5 × 40 cm, Musei Civici di Palazzo Mosca, Comune di Pesaro, Pesaro. Image Credit: Courtesy of Comune di Pesaro. 100 Figure 4.3 Sofonisba Anguissola, Self Portrait, 1560, oil on canvas, 36 × 30 cm. Musée Condé, Chantilly. Image Credit: © RMN – Grand Palais (domaine de Chantilly)/Stéphane Maréchalle. 101 Figure 4.4 Attributed to Alonso Sánchez Coello, Portrait of Magdalena Girón (Lucretzia d’Este?), 1568, oil on canvas, 62 × 50 cm, Museo della Casa Natale di Raffaello, Urbino/Galleria Nazionale delle Marche. Image Credit: Reproduction thanks to the Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali e per il Turismo – Galleria Nazionale delle Marche. 102 Figure 5.1 Diana Mantuana, Christ and the Adulteress, after Giulio Romano, 1575 (republished 1613), engraving, 42 × 57.5 cm, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City, 49.97.487. Image Credit: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, www.metmuseum.org.114 Figure 5.2 Diana Mantuana, Feast of the Gods, after Giulio Romano, 1575, engraving from three plates, 37.8 × 11.2 cm, The British Museum, London, B. XV.449.40. Image Credit: © The Trustees of the British Museum. 115

Table of Contents 

Figure 5.3 Giulio Romano and assistants, Camera di Psiche, south wall, 1526–1528, fresco, Palazzo Te, Mantua. Image Credit: Scala/ Art Resource, NY. 125 Figure 5.4 Giulio Romano and assistants, Camera di Psiche, west and north walls, 1526–1528, fresco, Palazzo Te, Mantua. Image Credit: Ghigo G. Roli/Art Resource, NY. 126 Figure 5.5 Diana Mantuana, Conjoined Twins, after Raffaelino da Reggio, 1577 (third state), engraving, 19 cm in diameter. Albertina Museum, Vienna, It/I/29/87. Image Credit: Albertina Museum, Vienna. 130 Figure 5.6 Giulio Romano and assistants, ceiling of the Camerino degli Uccelli, 1536, fresco, Palazzo Ducale, Mantua. Image Credit: Alinari/Art Resource, NY. 132 Figure 6.1 Francesco Furini, Portrait of Vittoria della Rovere, 1645, oil on canvas, Galleria delle Statue e delle Pitture degli Uffizi, Florence, 1890 n. 2689. Image Credit: © Su concessione del Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali e per il turismo. Further reproduction by any means is strictly prohibited. 140 Figure 6.2 Border, Venice, mid-seventeenth century. Venetian gros point raised needle lace, purchase by subscription, 1909, 09.68.106. Image Credit: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, www.metmuseum.org.141 Figure 6.3 Men’s Cravat, France, last quarter of the seventeenth century. Point de France needle lace (linen). Brooklyn Museum Costume Collection at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Gift of the Brooklyn Museum, 2009, Gift of Robert B. Woodward, 1915, 2009.300.3413. Image Credit: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, www.metmuseum.org. 142 Figure 7.1 Luisa Roldán, Our Lady of Solitude / Virgen de la Soledad, 1688, polychromed wood head and hands, image to be dressed, 150 cm, Venerable y Real Cofradía de Penitencia de Nuestra Señora de la Soledad y Santo Entierro de Nuestro Señor Jesucristo, Puerto Real (Cádiz). Image Credit: Rafael García Ramírez. 164 Figure 7.2 Pedro de Villafranca, Juan José de Austria Supporting the Spanish Monarchy, 1678, engraving, 245 × 169 mm, Biblioteca Nacional, Madrid. Image Credit: Images owned by the National Library of Spain. 167 Figure 7.3 Luisa Roldán, Rest on the Flight into Egypt, c. 1690, terracotta with polychrome, 41 × 26 × 28 cm, Hispanic Society of

9

10

Table of Contents

America, New York. Image Credit: Courtesy of the Hispanic Society of America, New York. Figure 7.4 Luisa Roldán, Ecstasy of Mary Magdalene, c. 1690, terracotta with polychrome, 30.5 × 44.5 × 25 cm, Hispanic Society of America, New York. Image Credit: Courtesy of the Hispanic Society of America, New York. Figure 7.5 Luisa Roldàn, The Archangel St. Michael Smiting the Devil, 1692, polychromed wood, 230 cm, Real Monasterio de San Lorenzo de El Escorial, Madrid. Image Credit: © PATRIMONIO NACIONAL. Figure 7.6 Luisa Roldán, Ecce Homo, c. 1701, polychromed wood, c. 140 cm. León, Church of San Marco. Image Credit: Author, permission requested from Confraternity of Jesús de la Redención, León.

168

169

174

180

Acknowledgements One accrues many debts in the production of a volume such as this, which brings together the work of a group of outstanding scholars. First and foremost, I thank each of them for their contributions, conversations, and insights over the years during which we have worked on this project. Each has been a joy to work with and the project would no doubt have come to fruition more quickly with any one of them at the helm! Through this, we were guided by the editorial acumen of Erika Gaffney at Amsterdam University Press, who remained a source of indefatigable patience and the epitome of professionalism. Erika’s work as an editor and advocate for advancing the study of Early Modern women artists is beyond remarkable. Much gratitude is owed to her, to Allison Levy, editor of the series of which this volume now forms a part, and to our anonymous peer reviewers. I am also grateful to Victoria Blud and Chantal Nicolaes at AUP for their careful attention to our manuscript. I am personally grateful to the numerous institutions and colleagues that have supported this work, among them the College of Arts and Sciences, the Department of Art & Art History, and the Alabama Digital Humanities Center at the University of Alabama. Within the institution that I call home there are too many to whom I am grateful to list, but I would specifically like to thank Lucy Curzon, Doris Sung, Jason Guynes, Tricia McElroy, Dan Riches, Michelle Dowd, Jessica Goethals, and Jimmy Mixson. For collaboration on the Global Makers Digital project, a special note of thanks to current and former colleagues Emma Wilson, Anne Ladyem McDivitt, Patrick Motley, Xiaoyan Hong, Pawan Subedi and, especially, Rebecca Teague. The project has been supported by the College and through a Digital Art History grant awarded by the Samuel H. Kress Foundation. Beyond our institution, the Renaissance Society of America and the Sixteenth Century Studies Society each forwarded work on this topic by providing a home for sessions in recent years, as did the sponsorship of the Society for the Study of Early Modern Women. Of course, my own work on this topic has long roots that extend back to graduate school, when Robert Neuman first introduced me to the topic of Early Modern women artists. Both he and Jack Freiberg were, and continue to be, sources of inspiration.

1.

Introduction: Women Artists in the Early Modern Courts of Europe, c. 1450–1700* Tanja L. Jones

Abstract Jones provides an introduction to the topic of women artists in the Early Modern courts, considering issues of historiography, terminology, and the state of related literature. She also addresses the value of the digital humanities – and network mapping/visualizations in particular – to the study of the topic, introducing the multi-faceted project Global Makers: Women Artists in the Early Modern Courts. Keywords: makers; Early Modern women; professional vs. amateur artist; ladiesin-waiting; digital humanities; network visualization

In 1559, the young noblewoman Sofonisba Anguissola (1532?–1625) travelled from her native Cremona to the court of Philip II of Spain, where she was appointed lady-in-waiting (dama della reina) to the monarch’s new bride, Isabel of Valois. The Italian seems to have charmed the court from the first, dancing with Ferrante Gonzaga during the wedding celebrations. But it was Anguissola’s skill as an artist that distinguished her amongst the Queen’s ladies and upon which contemporaries consistently remarked (fig. 1.1).1 Indeed, by the time she arrived in Spain, Anguissola was already famed as a painter; her skill was appreciated by none other than Michel­ angelo.2 In addition to tutoring the young queen in painting, Anguissola produced * Some of the issues addressed here are also considered in Jones, ‘Makers’; and Jones, ‘Digital Interventions’. 1 For example, when Anguissola’s dance with Ferrante Gonzaga was reported by the Mantuan ambassador, she was described as ‘that Cremonese woman who paints who has come to stay with the Queen’, (‘quella Cermonese che dipinge, ch’è venuta a star con la regina’); for this point and the quotation, Welch, ‘Painting’, p. 12. 2 Anguissola’s drawing of Asdrubale Bitten by a Crayfish (c. 1557–1558, Museo Capodimonte, Naples), apparently a portrait of the artist’s brother crying while one of their sisters laughs, was created in response to a challenge issued to the artist by Michelangelo. For this and epistolary documentation of both the creation and circulation of the drawing, see Jacobs, ‘Woman’s Capacity’, pp. 95–97; idem, Defining, pp. 51–57.

Jones, T.L. (ed.), Women Artists in the Early Modern Courts of Europe: c. 1450–1700. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2021 doi 10.5117/9789462988194_ch01

14 

Tanja L. Jones

Figure 1.1 Sofonisba Anguissola, Self Portrait at the Easel, c. 1556–1557, oil on canvas, 67 × 56 cm, MuzeumZamek w Lancucie, Lancut. Image Credit: Erich Lessing/Art Resource, NY.

portraits of the royal family during her fourteen-year tenure at the Habsburg court (fig. 1.2) that were distributed across Europe.3 She was also the only female artist Giorgio Vasari identified, in the second edition of his Lives (1568), as possessing the 3 For questions surrounding the attribution of the Prado portrait of Isabel of Valois and an assignment to Anguissola, see Baldwin, ‘Anguissola in Spain’, pp. 173–174, 258–259; and A. Pérez de Tudela in Tale, cat. no. 24, pp. 140–142.

Introduction: Women Artists in the Early Modern Courts of Europe, c. 1450–1700 

Figure 1.2 Sofonisba Anguissola, Portrait of Isabel of Valois holding a Miniature Portrait of Philip II, 1561–1565, 206 × 123 cm, oil on canvas, Museo del Prado, Madrid. Image Credit: Erich Lessing/Art Resource, NY.

15

16 

Tanja L. Jones

capacity for invenzione and capable of creating portraits that ‘seem truly alive’. 4 Today Anguissola is, arguably, one of the best-known female artists of the Early Modern period and a relatively well-documented exemplar of a female artist at court. Even so, no official commission is known for the paintings she produced in Spain and she signed no paintings there, lacunae that pose significant difficulties to defining her mature oeuvre. Thanks to the ground breaking work of the last four decades, Anguissola, along with a handful of women painters of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries – the Flemish-born Caterina van Hemessen (1528?–aft. 1567) and the Italian Artemisia Gentileschi (1593–aft. 1654) among them – are now regularly included in introductory art history survey texts.5 Extraordinary contributions have been made to our knowledge of these artists, among many others, via focused studies, and each has been the subject of monographs, articles, or retrospective exhibitions.6 But as ever-wider audiences are introduced to the contributions of Early Modern women artists, signif icant areas of scholarly need remain.7 One of these is study of women artists in the courts of Europe, a field not previously the focus of sustained consideration. A notable exception is Valerie Mainz’s entry dedicated to the topic in the Dictionary of Women Artists, which offers a welcome introduction, albeit one limited by publication format.8 There have been, as well, valuable studies dedicated to the activities of specific women artists in 4 ‘paiono veramente vive’, Vasari, VI, p. 498; here Vasari is specifically referencing Anguissola’s Portrait of the Artist’s Sisters Playing Chess (1555, now at the National Museum in Poznan, Poland); on the implications of this comment, see Jacobs, ‘Woman’s Capacity’, pp. 93–94; idem, Defining, pp. 51–53. 5 The catalogue by Nochlin and Sutherland Harris, Women Artists, 1550–1950, accompanying an eponymous exhibition, played a foundational role in the evolving f ield; the exhibition was presaged by Nochlin, ‘Why?’, elucidating the societal and institutional barriers that women artists historically confronted. Recent surveys of the state of research in these fields include Reiss, ‘Beyond’; ffolliott, ‘Early Modern’; and idem, ‘“Più che famose”’. 6 To focus only on these three women, monographs dedicated to van Hemessen are De Clippel, Catharina; and Droz-Emmert, Catharina. For a bibliography of Anguissola literature to 1994, see Garrard, ‘Here’s Looking’. Allied exhibitions dedicated to Anguissola in Cremona, Vienna, and Washington, D.C. in 1994/95 were accompanied by Sofonisba Anguissola e le sue sorelle; Sofonisba Anguissola (Vienna, 1995); and Sofonisba Anguissola (Washington, 1995). For more recent literature, see Cecilia Gamberini’s essay in this volume; Cole, Sofonisba’s Lessons; and, from the major exhibition of works by Anguissola and Lavinia Fontana at the Museo Nacional del Prado in 2019: Tale. For a summary of Gentileschi literature to 2000, see Spear, ‘Artemisia’. The subsequent joint exhibition of works by Artemisia and her father (Orazio and Artemisia) was followed by studies including Bal, ed. The Artemisia Files; Mann, Artemisia; and Locker, Artemisia; most recently, see Garrard, Artemisia and the catalogue accompanying the exhibition opened in 2020 at the National Gallery, London: Artemisia. 7 ffolliott, ‘Early Modern’, p. 432. 8 See Mainz, ‘Court’ and, more recently in brief, ffolliott, ‘Early Modern’. Also, published papers presented at a conference dedicated to the topic of Early Modern women artists: Strunck, ‘Hofkünstlerinnen’; and Jones, ‘Makers’.

Introduction: Women Artists in the Early Modern Courts of Europe, c. 1450–1700 

individual courts that have informed our understanding of their oeuvres and experiences; but the disparate nature of those analyses suggests the time has come for a synthetic effort.9 This volume gathers, for the first time, a series of essays dedicated to women as producers of visual and material culture across the continental courts of Europe. Both individually and collectively, the chapters offer fresh insights into the careers of specific women, among them van Hemessen at the court of Mary of Hungary in Antwerp; Anguissola and, more than a century later, the sculptor Luisa Roldán (1652–1706) in Madrid; and the engraver Diana Mantuana (c. 1547–1612) in Mantua and Rome. Considered, as well, are groups of women, such as ladies-in-waiting at the seventeenth-century Medici court. Notably, the essays address production across media – including painting, sculpture, printmaking, and textiles – by women who occupied a range of social and economic positions both within and around the courts. This book offers the opportunity to both deepen our understanding of the individual artists and courts highlighted as well as to consider, more broadly, the variety of experiences encountered by female makers across traditional geographic and chronological distinctions. The publication of this volume is also accompanied by the Global Makers: Women Artists in the Early Modern Courts digital humanities project, detailed later in this essay, which is intended to extend and expand the work begun here.

The ‘artist’ at ‘court’ The study of the Early Modern courts has, alongside that of women artists generally, intensified during the last forty years. The two fields have, however, only rarely intersected.10 Martin Warnke’s monumental The Court Artist: On the Ancestry of the Modern Artist, first published in 1985 (English in 1993), did much to advance the study of artists in the courts. Based on a staggering amount of archival data, Warnke wove a narrative that traced the rise of the artist from dependence upon the guild-based strictures of the medieval urban environment to the opportunities for social advancement and recognition of intellectual achievement that, he argued, were afforded by the Early Modern courts.11 Warnke’s approach has been criticized

9 As in, for example, the analysis of the career of Camilla Guerrieri Nati (1628–aft. 1694) at the court of Grand Duchess Vittoria della Rovere (Medici): Straussman-Pflanzer, ‘Medici’s First’. 10 For a historiography of court studies, with an emphasis on the study of women (although not focused on artists) at court, see Akkerman and Houben, ‘Introduction’. 11 Warnke, Court Artist.

17

18 

Tanja L. Jones

based both upon the teleological underpinnings of the methodology as well as the prominence accorded to painters in the text.12 As Evelyn Welch has noted, while excluding other court employees such as goldsmiths, embroiders, tapestry makers, and ceramists from the term ‘artist,’ Warnke was willing to include all painters who had ever worked for the court regardless of whether or not they had a long- or short-term engagement.13

Equally problematic, but nearly absent from critiques of the text, is Warnke’s omission of any substantive discussion of women. The author references two – Anguissola and Angelika Kauffmann (1741–1807) – but then only as asides.14 As Christina Strunck’s essay in this volume highlights, Warnke’s comparative silence on the topic of women artists in the courts does not indicate an absence of information. Referencing a wide array of existing literature, Strunck identifies more than forty women who received commissions from a court and/or were offered permanent positions at one prior to 1800. She then systematically addresses the variety of experiences – in terms of training, social/marital status, demand, and career or market strategies – that those women encountered. Like Warnke, Strunck adopts a broad approach when defining what association with the court actually entailed, a method that acknowledges an issue confronting any researcher in the field – the difficulty in defining precisely what is meant by both the terms ‘court’ and ‘artist’. References to a ‘court’ are often intended to designate a distinct geographic location or building, the space inhabited by the ruler/patron. Yet the term might also be employed to designate the shifting network of individuals not bound by geography but tied to the ruler/patron through a variety of relationships, be they political, fiduciary, familial, or social, and which may or may not be documented via the award of specific payments or titles.15 It should be noted that, in opposition to the open approach adopted by Warnke and Strunck in defining what constitutes a ‘relation’ with the courts, a series of recent studies have sought to define the artist at court solely as one who received an official appointment or a regular salary, signified by inclusion on payment rolls.16 While such analyses yield significant prosopographic insights, their objectivist methodology presents significant limitations, especially as relates to the roles and activities of women. One of the valuable contributions of Warnke’s richly 12 See, for example, Campbell, ‘Introduction’, in part. pp. 9–10. 13 Welch, ‘Painting’, p. 19. 14 Notable exceptions to this include Baldwin, ‘Sofonisba’, pp. 55–56; and Freisen, ‘Review’, pp. 76–78. 15 On the issue, see Campbell, ‘Introduction’, p. 16; Welch, ‘Painting’, pp. 19–20; Guerzoni and Alfani, ‘Court History’; Fantoni, ‘Introduction’, esp. pp. 8–12; and Fumagalli and Morselli, ‘Introduction’. 16 As in Fumagalli and Morselli, ‘Introduction’; Guerzoni and Alfani, ‘Court History’.

Introduction: Women Artists in the Early Modern Courts of Europe, c. 1450–1700 

documented study and inclusive approach (not in terms of gender or media considered, as noted above, but as to what defined the court artist), was to illuminate the wide variety of circumstances male artists at court encountered, including duties assigned, titles awarded (or not), conditions of production, reception, and financial rewards received. Strunck’s analysis reveals that the experiences of women artists at court, while differing in many respects from those of men, were at least as diverse. This variety reminds us that a ‘court’ was not a monolithic, static structure but, rather a series of individuals and administrative bodies that varied across time and geography, impacting the activities and expectations of those involved. Of particular concern here is that to circumscribe the definition of the ‘court artist’ as one whose role is defined solely via the award of a corresponding title or receipt of distinct payments for works produced would exclude the nuances of women’s experiences and contributions to the broad range of visual culture that characterized the sphere. Further, to limit consideration of artists at court to those who received official notice or payments as such would eliminate women (and men, for that matter!) who we are certain produced works of art but did so, on the basis of that definition, in archival anonymity.17 Such a narrow definition of ‘court artist’ would exclude, for example, Sofonisba Anguissola – who was never officially appointed pintor de cámera – and, as we shall see, numerous other women painters, embroiderers, and so on, who received varying or no official appointment. It would omit, as well, Anne Gulliver and Alice Herne, both painters, who were married, to John Brown (d. 1532) and William Herne (or Heron; d. 1580), respectively – two Sergeant Painters at the Tudor court. The wills of both men suggest the active role their wives played in their workshops, but much work remains to be done to better understand those women’s professional activities in relation to the court, both before and after their husbands’ deaths.18 As Maria Maurer’s essay in this volume reveals, it was not only in Spain and England that sixteenth-century women artists might be strongly identified with a specific court, receiving benefits from proximity and artistic associations, but operate without any specific appointment. Maurer argues that the Mantuan printmaker Diana Mantuana (c. 1547–1612) utilized the reproductive medium of engraving both to promote her knowledge of and access to the works of the official Gonzaga court artist Giulio Romano as well as to advocate her own artistic creativity in her natal city and in Rome, where her works ultimately found a strong audience and official papal sanction.

17 Although argued within a different context, this issue is also addressed by Welch, ‘Painting’, pp. 19–20. 18 James, Feminine Dynamic, pp. 236–242. For a critique of James’s work and a thorough discussion, see Tittler, ‘The “Feminine Dynamic”’.

19

20 

Tanja L. Jones

Inclusivity and ‘professional’ problems Given the concerns outlined above, it seems that to both establish and maintain a constructivist approach to the study of the woman artist at court is essential to advancing not only gender-based considerations but also a robust vision of artistic practices in the period. As Marcello Fantoni notes, In general, we should not be afraid of a too generous use of the notion of court or overly broad temporal and geographic frameworks. The time is ripe for broadening our horizons […] for this it is necessary to foster international dialogue, with full awareness of the language and ideological barriers, but also motivated by more ambitious objectives, in the effort of renewing topics and methods.19

An inclusive ontology would, as well, avoid the historical privileging of artists practicing in the traditionally canonical genres (i.e. large-scale painting and sculpture), which Early Modern women accessed relatively rarely. This would include continued and expanded consideration of women working in a variety of media – for example, printmaking, textiles, needlework, and an array of ephemera – at courts across Europe. There is, especially in studies of the British courts, already a substantial body of literature relating to the needlework of royal and aristocratic women, including Mary Stuart, Bess of Hardwick, and Queen Elizabeth I.20 Increasing scholarly interest in the households of Early Modern elite women and the roles and activities of ladies-in-waiting in the courts promises new insights into the artistic production of lesser or even now-unknown makers amongst their ranks.21 Addressing the works of ruling and aristocratic women brings another issue to the fore – that of the ‘professional’ vs. ‘amateur’ artist. A word of caution when employing such distinctions is offered here, as to eliminate the consideration of works created by ‘professionals’ or ‘amateurs’ at court would not only nullify significant contributions on both sides but also impose what are a largely a shifting series of anachronistic distinctions – certainly in terms of women’s cultural production.22 19 Fantoni, ‘Introduction’, p. 12. 20 This includes, most recently, Levey, Embroideries; Bath, Emblems; and Mason, ‘André Thevet’. On Elizabeth Tudor’s embroidery, see Klein, ‘Your Humble’; Frye, ‘Sewing’; and Quilligan, ‘Elizabeth’s Embroidery’. 21 For example, Akkerman and Houben, eds., Politics of Female Households; and a series of sessions dedicated to the topic at the Renaissance Society of America annual meeting in Boston, 2016. 22 On the historiography of aristocratic (‘amateur’ or ‘dilettante’) vs. ‘professional’ women artists, see Honig, ‘Art of Being’; and Stighelen, ‘Amateur Artists’ (the latter includes a troubled definition of Caterina van Hemessen as an ‘amateur’ that, I have suggested, is emblematic of this larger issue – see Jones, ‘Digital

Introduction: Women Artists in the Early Modern Courts of Europe, c. 1450–1700 

As is often noted, Baldassare Castiglione recommended in Il libro del cortegiano (1528) that ladies at court, who were above all to be chaste and virtuous, should also study grammar, music, dance, and painting.23 These skills were not, in principle, aimed at what we might today term ‘professional’ production, that is, guild membership, receipt of specific titles as artists, the completion of contracted work, or receipt of direct payments. Rather, as a series of sixteenth-century manuals of female conduct attest, the skills acquired by the ideal cortegiana were intended to ornament the court by supporting pleasant conversation, entertainments, and the pursuits of one’s mistress.24 As Adelina Modesti’s essay suggests, ladies-in-waiting were instrumental in contributing to the rich diversity of visual culture at the courts. Modesti traces the patronage of the Grand Duchess of Tuscany, Vittoria della Rovere (1622–1694), who paid for the further education of numerous of her ladies-in-waiting in needlework and lacemaking, sending them to train in Paris for extended periods of time. Modesti’s work, grounded in a wealth of epistolary documentation, brings to light both the extensive inter-court patronage network exercised by the Duchess as well as the experiences and expertise of a group of women whose largely ephemeral works are, for the most part, no longer extant.

Women artists, decorum, and ladies-in-waiting Numerous women who found success as artists in various contexts (and media) in the Early Modern period were never identified as such in documents, and this was certainly the case in the courts.25 As Strunck’s essay reveals, rare indeed was the Early Modern woman who was actually appointed ‘court artist’ or ‘painter’ per se, a situation conditioned in no small part by the strictures of decorum. But if we look to the sixteenth century in particular, we find a relatively well-documented series of women painters who were appointed ladies-in-waiting at courts across Europe. Such appointments were often facilitated by complex networks of familial, social, and professional associations.26 This was the case, as Cecilia Gamberini’s essay in this volume illustrates, for Sofonisba Anguissola, whose own family was of noble Interventions’). On training and professionalism – and particularly the note that both men and women at court were frequently awarded with gifts within the system of clientage, ffolliott, ‘Early Modern’. 23 On this, Women Artists, 1550–1950, pp. 108; Mainz, ‘Court Artists’, pp. 39–41; 24 Coller, ‘How to Succeed’. It is within this vein that we learn of Anguissola’s participation in a court masque and Horenboult’s service as translator for and chief gentlewoman to Henry VIII’s fourth wife, Anne of Cleves, who spoke no English upon her arrival in England; see James, Feminine Dynamic, pp. 245, 249–252. 25 Vicioso, ‘Costanza Francini’, p. 102. 26 Mainz, ‘Court’, p. 39.

21

22 

Tanja L. Jones

descent and had long-standing connections with the Habsburgs in Spain. The values of appointment as lady-in-waiting were manifold. Ideally it offered financial and personal security; familial prestige and connections; official sanction for artistic production that avoided the taint of commercial enterprise; and, at times, the promise of a sustained income and/or arranged marriage. While a court appointment offered numerous opportunities, the woman artist/lady-in-waiting was placed, both administratively and socially, in a liminal position. This was certainly the case for Sofonisba Anguissola, who was both an artistically productive and valued member of the Spanish court, a status confirmed by both surviving correspondence and attributed works.27 Yet, as was noted above, Anguissola ceased signing works once she arrived at the court, whereas she had consistently signed and dated paintings previously.28 As Gamberini’s essay details, the institutional structures of the Spanish court regulated and maintained a strict decorum and division of the sexes, conditioning Anguissola’s behaviour as well as our ability to trace her work. By contrast, numerous contracts, official requests, and payment records survive to document works produced by Alonso Sánchez Coello, who was appointed pintor de cámara by Philip II c. 1560, a year after Anguissola’s arrival in Spain. Even as Sánchez Coello made numerous copies after Anguissola’s original compositions, including at least six after her portrait of Philip II’s son and heir Don Carlos, his commissions were documented, as was dictated by the mechanisms of court administration and his appointment, while hers were not.29 The distinctions between the experiences of the young noblewoman and Sánchez Coello are not surprising at a court that, until 1677, designated artists who received payment for work as craftsmen.30 While Anguissola did not receive remuneration for her paintings per se, she was awarded a regular salary as a dama (100 ducats per year). She was also compensated with gifts within the traditional system of clientage, an economy of reciprocity, exchange, and obligation, that both insulated and excluded her from the commercial world.31 This was the case, as well, for Lievene Teerlinc, who arrived at 27 On the existence of numerous works by Anguissola confirmed archivally only via correspondence – not via commission documents or payments, see Baldwin, ‘Sofonisba’, pp. 32, 170–176, 202–203. 28 On this, see Kusche, ‘Sofonisba’ (1989), p. 393; Sofonisba Anguissola (Washington, 1995), p. 60; and Woods-Marsden, Renaissance Self-Portraiture, p. 195. 29 For the portrait copies, see Baldwin, ‘Sofonisba’, pp. 53–62; Jacobs, Defining, p. 52. 30 Sofonisba Anguissola (Washington, 1995), p. 60. For the changing status of artists in Renaissance Spain, see Francchia, ‘Women’s Artistic’, pp. 132–133. 31 On the compensation of Sánchez Coello vs. that of Anguissola, see Baldwin, ‘Sofonisba’, pp. 61–62. For Anguissola’s salary and gifts, see Sofonisba Anguissola (Washington, 1995), Sofonisba, p. 60; Welch, ‘Painting’, p. 31; and Gamberini in this volume. On the practice of clientage or clientelism more widely, see Warnke, The Court Artist, pp. 132–155; and Campbell, ‘Introduction’, p. 11. For women specif ically, Mainz, ‘Court’, pp. 41–42; and Akkerman and Houben, ‘Introduction’, pp. 4–5.

Introduction: Women Artists in the Early Modern Courts of Europe, c. 1450–1700 

the Tudor court in 1545, having trained in the Bruges workshop of her father, the miniaturist Simon Binnick (alt. Bening; c. 1483–1561). Her husband, George, also entered service in the royal household.32 Much like Anguissola, Teerlinc was appointed a lady-in-waiting – to Catherine Parr (1512–1548), sixth wife of King Henry VIII. She was not the f irst female artist to be so honoured in England. Susanna Horenboult (alt. Horenbout; b. 1503/4–1553/4), also from Flanders, served as a gentlewoman in the household of the English queens from c. 1522; she was also married – twice over – to members of the King’s household.33 Like Anguissola, neither Teerlinc nor Horenboult seems to have been paid for specific works of art produced and no securely documented work by either artist is affirmed.34 In a pattern typical for the court artist – male or female – Teerlinc, like Anguissola, was initially compensated via an annual stipend attached to her appointment as a lady-in-waiting, supplemented by gifts of material goods.35 Documentary evidence of Teerlinc’s works survives in New Year’s gift rolls, confirming that the artist gave Elizabeth I ‘a Carde with the Queen’s Matie [Majesty] and many other personages’ in 1563.36 There have been numerous attempts to assign works to Teerlinc on the basis of technique, style, and correspondence with documented works to greater or lesser success. This includes, recently, the so-called Roses miniature portrait of Elizabeth I (fig. 1.3), a work traditionally identified with the Tudor court miniaturist Nicholas Hilliard.37 As Jennifer Courts explains in this volume, a similar archival opacity surrounds the career of the Antwerp-born Caterina van Hemessen following her appointment as a lady-in-waiting (by 1455) to the Habsburg regent, Mary of Hungary. In fact, no works by the artist have been identified for the period following her marriage in 1554 to Chrétien de Morien (alt. Kerstiaen de Moryn), organist at the Antwerp Cathedral.38 As a result, it has often been supposed that van Hemessen ceased

32 Women Artists, 1550–1950, p. 102; Edmond, ‘Teerlinc’; Mainz, ‘Court’, p. 37; and James, Feminine Dynamic, pp. 287–291. 33 For the assertion that Horenboult was ‘hired’ as a painter by Henry VIII, but placed in the queens’ households, and that her husbands both rose in the ranks at court due to Horenboult’s successes, see James, Feminine Dynamic, pp. 244–247, 249, 252. Also see, Campbell and Foister, ‘Gerard’, pp. 725–727; and Mainz, ‘Court’, p. 37. 34 On gifts to Horenboult, see James, Feminine Dynamic, pp. 247–248, 293; for the attribution of two miniatures to the artist, idem, pp. 271–279, figs. 6.3, 6.5, and 6.6. 35 On royal gifts from and to Teerlinc, see James, Feminine Dynamic, pp. 293, 308–321; Mainz, ‘Court’, p. 41. 36 Quoted in Women Artists, 1550–1950, p. 102. 37 Regarding attributions, Women Artists, 1550–1950, pp. 102–104. For the Roses miniature, James, Feminine Dynamic, pp. 314–316. 38 On van Hemessen, Women Artists, 1550–1950, p. 105; Mainz, ‘Court’, pp. 39–40

23

24 

Tanja L. Jones

Figure 1.3 Attr. to Nicholas Hillard (or Lievene Teerlinc?), Elizabeth I (1533–1603), ‘Roses Miniature’, 1572, watercolour on vellum, 5 x 4.8 cm, National Portrait Gallery, London. Image Credit: © National Portrait Gallery, London/Art Resource, NY.

painting altogether at that point.39 This may be presumptive, though, particularly as it was her skill as painter that likely led to the prestigious appointment in the Regent’s household. While the absence of archival evidence and attributed works 39 For a notable exception, and a caution that ‘It is surely premature to say that [Hemessen] did not paint after her marriage, or that her role as lady-in-waiting precluded painting for the queen and her court’, see Gellman, ‘Hemessen’, p. 661–664. On the impact of marriage and motherhood on the lives of women artists generally, see ffolliott, ‘“Più che famose”’, pp. 17–20.

Introduction: Women Artists in the Early Modern Courts of Europe, c. 1450–1700 

from the period of van Hemessen’s employ as lady-in-waiting prohibits definitive determination of her court activities at present, reference to the experiences of Horenboult, Teerlinc, and Anguissola suggest that women painters – married or not – who attained court positions continued to work even as the rules of decorum meant the cessation of documented commissions or signed works. Courts argues that consideration of the span of van Hemessen’s career, from her father’s workshop to the relative security of the court, suggests a wide array of factors, including social status and marriage, conditioned the artist’s choices and career strategy. The similarities and differences between the experiences of Anguissola, van Hemessen, Horenboult, and Teerlinc as artists/ladies-in-waiting might be attributed to a range of variables including social and marital status and, more broadly, the relative rank accorded to artists in the different courts. In a striking variance, while Anguissola, Horenboult, and van Hemessen apparently remained ladies-in-waiting or specifically associated solely with a female household throughout their court tenure, Teerlinc did not. Shortly after arrival at court, in the spring of 1546, she was appointed paintrix to Henry VIII. As such, Teerlinc moved from the Queen’s household to that of the King and, for a time, was part of both. This dual appointment compounded Teerlinc’s fiduciary rewards. As paintrix, she was allotted £40 per annum, twice the amount paid to Hans Holbein. Further, as she remained a member of Catherine Parr’s household, she retained a stipend from the queen. 40 Following Henry VIII’s death in 1547, Teerlinc served each of his children in turn: Edward VI, Mary I, and Elizabeth I, who designated the artist pictrix domine regine. 41 While Teerlinc’s mobility within the administrative structures of the court was certainly fuelled by artistic achievement, it was also likely due to a combination of social factors. She was born of a family of professional artists, was married prior to her appointment, and lived outside the court, elements that may have informed the acceptability of her revised status. 42 There was, as well, a prior tradition of women painters surrounding the Tudor court in various capacities.

The challenges of court life For some women, receipt of a court appointment might lead to a lifetime of f inancial security, but this, too, was not without challenges. When Anguissola left her father’s household for that of Isabel of Valois she, like the other unmarried 40 On Teerlinc’s pay, see James, Feminine Dynamic, p. 291. 41 On Teerlinc’s appointments, see James, Feminine Dynamic, pp. 291–292, 305. 42 Teerlinc and her husband, much like Susanna Horenboult and her spouse, maintained residence outside the court in London. As James has discovered, the Teerlincs lived near St. Bride’s Church, an area in which other painters to the king resided; see Feminine Dynamic, pp. 247–248, 293.

25

26 

Tanja L. Jones

damas, essentially transferred from one patrimonial system, that of their natal household, to another – that of the court, which ultimately placed her in the care of the King. Philip II was customarily obligated to arrange for both the eventual marriage and dowry of the damas, a situation which greatly pleased Sofonisba’s father. 43 But the Spanish court was particularly noted for the strict moral codes imposed upon ladies-in-waiting, whose social interactions, movements, and residence were closely governed. 44 Anguissola, as Gamberini’s essay reveals, chafed at the constraints imposed, particularly after the death of Queen Isabel. But true to this pledge, the King arranged Anguissola’s marriage to the Italian Don Fabrizio de Moncado in May 1573. The artist then departed Spain to join her new husband in Sicily. 45 Catherina van Hemessen and her husband, too, seem to have fared well, receiving a lifetime pension at Mary of Hungary’s death. 46 The recognition of an official court appointment – even as ‘artist’ – did not, however, guarantee financial security, as Cathy Hall-van den Elsen’s essay in this volume affirms. Hall-van den Elsen details the career of the Sevillian sculptor Luisa Roldán (1652–1706), who specialized in carving life-sized wooden figures for polychromy, and was appointed Escultora de Cámara to Carlos II and Felipe V following a move to Madrid. Even so, the sculptor repeatedly beseeched the kings for the regular payments that, she wrote, were customarily guaranteed to court appointees. Van den Elsen argues that, in response to the art market in Madrid and the hardships she and her husband encountered at court, the artist successfully innovated, adopting a new medium. Royal employers were notoriously slow to make payments or supply the gifts that fuelled the system of clientage. In Florence, at the court of Vittoria della Rovere, Camilla Guerrieri Nati (1628–aft.1694), who was salaried as pittrice, also found her payments significantly in arrears. 47 As Strunck’s essay reveals, particularly later in the period under consideration here, women artists who might find commercial success elsewhere actually declined appointments; this is hardly surprising given the social and economic difficulties of court life. 48 Here, too, the important issues of agency and entrepreneurialism come to the fore as we find several of the artists considered 43 For the damas de la reina as ‘wards of the king’, as well as Amilcare Anguissola’s letter to the King, in which he declared ‘I take comfort in knowing that I have given [Sofonisba] into the service of the greatest and best king, Catholic and Christian above all others, and knowing also that Your Majesties [sic] house is by reputation and in actuality run like a convent’; see Baldwin, ‘Sofonisba’, p. 30; and Sofonisba Anguissola (Washington, 1995), p. 49. 44 See Baldwin, ‘Sofonisba’, pp. 37–42; and Sofonisba Anguissola (Washington, 1995), p. 57. 45 Baldwin, ‘Sofonisba’, pp. 49–50; and Sofonisba Anguissola (Washington, 1995), pp. 68–74. 46 See Jennifer Courts’ essay in this volume. 47 Straussman-Pflanzer, ‘Medici’s First’, p. 122. 48 See Christina Strunck’s essay in this volume.

Introduction: Women Artists in the Early Modern Courts of Europe, c. 1450–1700 

in this volume adopting strategies to best market their work in ways that would advantage them personally and financially – both in and outside the sphere of the court.

New directions Without doubt, attempts to trace the court careers of Early Modern women are met with significant challenges, not the least of which is establishing an artist’s oeuvre based upon a few or even no securely attributed surviving works.49 Stylistic analysis – when possible – and archival research, including review of inventories, gift rolls, household accounts, and correspondence remain the standard for research. As the essays in this volume demonstrate, a combination of these sources and methods can yield valuable results. This is the case when Gamberini assigns a portrait long attributed to Federico Barocci (fig. 4.2a) to Sofonisba Anguissola, on the bases of stylistic analysis, consideration of the court context in which the work was produced, and correspondence that suggests a long-standing relationship between the artist and likely patron. The tools of the digital humanities offer additional avenues for expanding our knowledge of women artists in the Early Modern courts of Europe – and beyond.50 Accompanying the publication of this volume is the multifaceted digital project Global Makers: Early Modern Women in the Courts (www.globalmakers.ua.edu).51 The project aims to fill a significant need in existing scholarship by encouraging and supporting sustained, interdisciplinary consideration of the role Early Modern women played in the hands-on production of visual and material culture in the courts of Europe and Asia (c. 1400–1750). Initiated as a partnership between art historians, computer scientists, and library faculty and staff at the Digital Humanities Center at the University of Alabama, the web platform is conceived as a scholarly collaborative, the goal of which is to advance knowledge in this field. The website

49 On strategies for identifying and correcting attributions of works, see ffolliott, ‘“Più che famose”’, pp. 20–22. 50 For additional information, see Jones, ‘Makers’; and Jones, ‘Digital Interventions’. 51 The Makers title was chosen to evoke the model of the contemporary ‘maker’ movement – one based on collaboration and an appreciation for hands-on production. The project is directed by Tanja L. Jones and Doris Sung, in collaboration with Dr. Xiaoyan Hong, and with the support of the Alabama Digital Humanities Center (ADHC) including former Director Emma Wilson; current Director Anne Ladyem McDivitt; and library staff, including Patrick Motley. Additional project staff are Becky Teague and Pawan Subedi. The project is supported by a CARSCA grant from the College of Arts & Sciences at the University of Alabama as well as by a Digital Art History award from the Samuel H. Kress Foundation.

27

28 

Tanja L. Jones

is designed to act as a digital commons, bringing together scholars and students interested in the topic of Early Modern women in the courts. Towards that end, the web platform is designed to serve four interrelated functions. The first is to establish an open-access, crowd-sourced, and vetted database cataloguing women artists working between c. 1400 and 1750 in Europe and Asia across a wide variety of media, the objects they produced, and the patrons associated with them, if known. This is a space where interested individuals can join, upload, and share information. An essential goal of the database is to create precisely the sort of inclusive ontology discussed earlier in this essay – one that is flexible enough to include ‘professional’ and ‘amateur’ women, some awarded official titles at court and others not. The site will also provide a bibliography of related, scholarly materials and support a forum for discussion. Finally, the intent is to feature a network visualization/ mapping tool to illuminate previously overlooked relations between the artists, works, and patrons included – across traditional geographic and disciplinary boundaries. For an area of study, such as women artists in the courts, in which the subjects – either artists or works of art – have traditionally been studied in isolation, network visualization and analysis offer an array of opportunities to advancing discourse.52 The network mapping tool will also be a particularly innovative element of the website. This is the case as digital projects in art history during the past three decades have focused largely upon discrete considerations such as digitizing documents and archives; creating – often revelatory – object scans; or conducting spatial analyses of specific sites. Such projects align with what Johanna Drucker has termed ‘digitized’ art history – that which propels traditional practices via technological advances.53 By contrast, ‘digital’ art history, according to Drucker, is that which utilizes emergent technologies and techniques to expand the traditional methods employed by art historians – this would include network analysis.54 The Global Makers team believe that this tool will spur new and cross-cultural ways of thinking, looking, and researching what seemed previously to be disconnected or unique items, persons, and/or events. The present volume, then, as an introduction and companion to the issues that the web-based platform addresses, serves as a significant component of this larger project. The web platform, it is hoped, will perform in tandem with the book to encourage extended and real-time scholarly interaction, future collaborations, and further print publications, advancing research in this emerging field. 52 On the issue of isolating or ‘siloing’ the study of women artists from larger art historical discourse, see ffolliott, ‘Early Modern’, p. 425; and Jones, ‘Digital Interventions’. 53 Drucker, ‘Is There’, p. 7. This distinction was observed as well by Pamela Fletcher, when she divided her remarks between ‘digitizing art history’ and ‘computation’ projects; see Fletcher, ‘Reflections’. 54 A short historiographic consideration of the field of digital and digitized art history is given by Zweig ‘Forgotten’, pp. 40–45.

Introduction: Women Artists in the Early Modern Courts of Europe, c. 1450–1700 

Bibliography Akkerman, Nadine and Birgit Houben. ‘Introduction’, in The Politics of Female Households: Ladies-in-Waiting across Early Modern Europe, ed. by Nadine Akkerman and Birgit Houben (Leiden: Brill, 2014), pp. 1–27. Artemisia, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Letizia Treves (London: National Gallery Company, 2020). Bal, Miek, ed. The Artemisia Files: Artemisia Gentileschi for Feminists and Other Thinking People (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005). Baldwin, Pamela Holmes. ‘Sofonisba Anguissola in Spain: Portraiture as Art and Social Practice at a Renaissance Court’, Ph.D. Dissertation (Bryn Mawr: Bryn Mawr College, 1995). Bath, Michael. Emblems for a Queen: The Needlework of Mary, Queen of Scots (London: Archetype, 2008). Campbell, Lorne, and Susan Foister. ‘Gerard, Lucas, and Susanna Horenbout’, The Burlington Magazine 128, no. 1003 (Oct. 1986), 719–727. Campbell, Stephen J. ‘Introduction’, in Artists at Court: Image-Making and Identity (1300–1500), ed. by Stephen J. Campbell (Boston: Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, 2005), pp. 9–18. Orazio and Artemisia Gentileschi: Father and Daughter Painters in Baroque Italy, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Keith Christiansen and Judith W. Mann (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2001). Cole, Michael W. Sofonisba’s Lesson: A Renaissance Artist and her Work (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2020). Coller, Alexandra. ‘How to Succeed at Court: Annibal Guasco’s Advice to his Daughter Lavinia and Renaissance Manuals of Conduct’, California Italian Studies 4, no. 2 (2013), 1–31. De Clippel, Karolien. Catharina van Hemessen (1528–na 1567): Een monografische studie over een ‘uytnemende wel geschickte vrouwe in de conste der schilderyen’ (Brussels: Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van België voor Wetenschapen en kunsten, 2004). Droz-Emmert, Marguerite. Catharina van Hemessen: Malerin der Renaissance (Basel: Schwabe Verlag, 2004). Drucker, Johanna. ‘Is There a Digital Art History?’, Visual Resources 29 (2013), 5–13. Edmond, Mary. ‘Teerlinc, Levina’, Grove Art Online (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003). Accessed 26 November 2016, http://www.oxfordartonline.com/subscriber/article/grove/ art/T083626. Fantoni, Marcello. ‘Introduction’, in The Court in Europe, ed. by Marcello Fantoni (Rome: Bulzoni, 2012), pp. 11–24. ffolliott, Sheila. ‘“Più che famose”: Some Thoughts on Women Artists in Early Modern Europe’, in Women Artists in Early Modern Italy: Careers, Fame, and Collectors, ed. by Sheila Barker (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), pp. 15–27.

29

30 

Tanja L. Jones

––– ‘Early Modern Women Artists’, in The Ashgate Research Companion to Women, ed. by Allyson M. Poska, Jane Couchman, and Katherine A. McIver (Burlington: Ashgate, 2013), pp. 423–444. Fletcher, Pamela. ‘Reflections on Digital Art History’, in ‘CAA Re-Views: Field Editors’ Reflections’, caa.reviews 18 June 2015. Accessed 25 February 2017, http://www.caareviews. org/reviews/2726#fnr8. Francchia, Carmen. ‘Women’s Artistic Production and Their Visual Representation in Early Modern Spain’, in A Companion to Spanish Women’s Studies, ed. by Xon de Rose and Geraldine Hazbun (Rochester and Suffolk: Boydell & Brewer, 2011), pp. 129–142. Freisen, Ilse E. ‘Review of the Court Artist: On the Ancestry of the Modern Artist by Martin Warnke’, Renaissance and Reformation/Renaissance et réforme 19 (1995), 76–78. Frye, Susan. ‘Sewing Connections: Elizabeth Tudor, Mary Stuart, Elizabeth Talbot and Seventeenth-Century Anonymous Needleworkers’, in Maids and Mistresses, Cousins and Queens: Women’s Alliances in Early Modern England, ed. by Susan Frye and Karen Robertson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 165–182. Fumagalli, Elena, and Raffaella Morselli. ‘Introduction’, in The Court Artist in SeventeenthCentury Italy, ed. by Elena Fumagalli and Raffaella Morselli (Rome: Bulzoni, 2014), Kindle edition. Accessed 30 November 2016. Gamberini, Cecilia. ‘Sofonisba Anguissola at the Court of Philip II’, in Women Artists in Early Modern Italy: Careers, Fame, and Collectors, ed. by Sheila Barker (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), pp. 29–38. Garrard, Mary. Artemisia Gentileschi and Feminism in Early Modern Europe (London: Reaktion Books, 2020). ––– ‘Here’s Looking at Me: Sofonisba Anguissola and the Problem of the Woman Artist’, Renaissance Quarterly 47 (1994), 556–622. Gellman, Lola B. ‘Hemessen, Catharina van’, in Dictionary of Women Artists, ed. by Delia Gaze, 2 vols. (London and Chicago: Taylor & Francis, 1997), I, pp. 661–664. Guerzoni, Guido, and Guido Alfani. ‘Court History and Career Analysis: A Prosopographic Approach to the Court of Renaissance Ferrara’, The Court Historian 12, no. 1 (2007), 1–12. Hall-Van den Elsen, Catherine. Fuerza e intimismo: Luisa Roldán escultora 1652–1706 (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 2018). ––– ‘Roldán, Luisa’, in Dictionary of Women Artists, ed. by Delia Gaze, 2 vols. (London and Chicago: Taylor & Francis, 1997), I, pp. 1192–1194. ––– ‘The Life and Work of Luisa Roldán 1652–1706, with a Catalogue Raisonné’, Ph.D. Dissertation (Melbourne: La Trobe University, 1992). Honig, Elizabeth A. ‘The Art of Being “Artistic”: Dutch Women’s Creative Practices in the 17th Century’, Woman’s Art Journal 22, no. 2 (2001/2), 31–39. Jacobs, Frederika. Defining the Renaissance Virtuosa: Women Artists and the Language of Art History and Criticism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007).

Introduction: Women Artists in the Early Modern Courts of Europe, c. 1450–1700 

––– ‘Woman’s Capacity to Create, The Unusual Case of Sofonisba Anguissola’, Renaissance Quarterly 47, no. 1 (1994), 74–101. James, Susan E. The Feminine Dynamic in English Art, 1485–1603 (Burlington: Ashgate, 2009). Jones, Tanja. ‘Makers: Towards the Study of Women Artists in the Early Modern Courts’, in Künstlerinnen: Neue Perspektiven auf ein Forschungsfeld der Vormoderne, ed. by Markwart Herzog, Sylvia Heudecker, Birgit Ulrike Münch, and Andreas Tacke Kunsthistorisches Forum Irsee, vol. 4 (Petersberg: Michael Imhof Verlag, 2017), pp. 34–43. ––– ‘Digital Interventions: Towards the Study of Women Artists in the Early Modern Courts’, in New Technologies in Medieval and Renaissance Studies, ed. by Colin Wilder and Matthew Davis (ITER: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, in press). King, Catherine. ‘Looking a Sight: Sixteenth Century Portraits of Women Artists’, Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 58, no. 3 (1995), 381–406. Klein, Lisa. ‘Your Humble Handmade: Elizabethan Gifts of Needlework’, Renaissance Quarterly 50, no. 2 (1997), 459–493. Kusche, Maria. ‘Sofonisba e il ritratto di rappresentanza ufficiale nella corte Spagnola’, in Sofonisba Anguissola e le sue sorelle, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Mina Gregori (Rome: Leonardo Arte, 1994), pp. 117–152. ––– ‘Sofonisba Anguissola, vuelta a Italia, continuación de sus relaciones con la corte Española’, Paragone 43, no. 513 (1992), 10–35. ––– ‘Sofonisba Anguissola, retratista de la corte Española’, Paragone 43, nos. 509–511 (1992), 3–34. ––– ‘Sofonisba Anguissola en España: retratista en la corte de Felipe II junto a Alonso Sánchez Coello y Jorge de la Rua’, Archivo Español de Arte 62, no. 248 (1989), 391–420. Levey, S. M. The Embroideries at Hardwick Hall: A Catalogue (London: National Trust, 2007). Locker, Jesse M. Artemisia Gentileschi: The Language of Painting (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2015). Mainz, Valerie. ‘Court Artists’, in Dictionary of Women Artists, ed. by Delia Gaze, 2 vols. (London: Taylor & Francis, 1997), I, pp. 37–43. Mann, Judith. Artemisia Gentileschi: Taking Stock (Turnhout: Brepols, 2005). Mason, Peter. ‘André Thevet, Pierre Belon, and Americana in the Embroideries of Mary Queen of Scots’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 78 (2015), 207–221. Nochlin, Linda. ‘Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?’, in Art and Sexual Politics: Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?, ed. by Thomas B. Hess and Elizabeth C. Baker (New York: MacMillan, 1971), pp. 1–39. Quilligan, Maureen. ‘Elizabeth’s Embroidery’, Shakespeare Studies 29 (2001), 208–215. Reiss, Sheryl E. ‘Beyond Isabella and Beyond: Secular Women Patrons of Art in Early Modern Europe’, in The Ashgate Research Companion to Women and Gender in Early Modern Europe, ed. by Allyson M. Poska, Jane Couchman, and Katherine A. McIver (Burlington: Ashgate, 2013), pp. 445–467.

31

32 

Tanja L. Jones

Sofonisba Anguissola: A Renaissance Woman, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Sylvia FerinoPagden and Maria Kusche (Washington, D.C.: The National Museum of Women in the Arts, 1995). Sofonisba Anguissola: Die Malerin der Renaissance (um 1535–1625), Cremona – Madrid – Genua – Palermo, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Sylvia Ferino-Pagden (Vienna: Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna, 1995). Sofonisba Anguissola e le sue sorelle, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Mina Gregori (Rome: Leonardo Arte, 1994). Spear, Richard E. ‘Artemisia Gentileschi: Ten Years of Fact and Fiction’, The Art Bulletin 82 (2000), 568–579. Stighelen, Katlijne van der. ‘Amateur Art as a Social Skill and a Female Preserve’, in Dictionary of Women Artists, ed. by Delia Gaze, 2 vols. (London: Routledge, 2011), I, pp. 66–80. Straussman-Pflanzer, Eve. ‘The Medici’s First Woman Court Artist: The Life and Career of Camilla Guerrieri Nati’, in Women Artists in Early Modern Italy: Careers, Fame, and Collectors, ed. by Sheila Barker (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), pp. 121–134. Strunck, Christina. ‘Hofkünstlerinnen. Weibliche Karrierestrategien an den Höfen der Frühen Neuzeit’, in Künstlerinnen: Neue Perspektiven auf ein Forschungsfeld der Vormoderne, edited by Birgit Ulrike Münch, Andreas Tacke, Markwart Herzog, and Sylvia Heudecker, Kunsthistorisches Forum Irsee, vol. 4 (Petersberg: Michael Imhof Verlag, 2017), pp. 20–37. A Tale of Two Women Painters: Sofonisba Anguissola and Lavinia Fontana, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Leticia Ruiz Gómez (Madrid: Museo Nacional del Prado, 2019). Tittler, Robert. ‘The “Feminine Dynamic” in Tudor Art: A Reassessment’, The British Art Journal 17, no. 1 (2016), 123–131. Vasari, Giorgio. Le vite de’ più eccellenti pittori, scultori, ed architettori, ed. by G. Milanesi, 9 vols. (Florence: G.C. Sansoni, 1906). Vicioso, Julia. ‘Costanza Francini: A Painter in the Shadow of Artemisia Gentileschi’, in Women Artists in Early Modern Italy: Careers, Fame, and Collectors, ed. by Sheila Barker (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), pp. 99–120. Warnke, Martin. The Court Artist: On the Ancestry of the Modern Artist, trans. by David McLintock (1985; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). Welch, Evelyn. ‘Painting as Performance in the Italian Renaissance Court’, in Artists at Court: Image-Making and Identity (1300–1500), ed. by Stephen J. Campbell (Boston: Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, 2005), pp. 19–32. Women Artists: 1550–1950, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Ann Sutherland Harris and Linda Nochlin (Los Angeles and New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1975). Woods-Marsden, Joanna. Renaissance Self-Portraiture: The Visual Construction of Identity and the Social Status of the Artist (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1998). Zweig, Benjamin. ‘Forgotten Genealogies: Brief Reflections on the History of Digital Art History’, International Journal for Digital Art History 1 (2015), 38–49.

Introduction: Women Artists in the Early Modern Courts of Europe, c. 1450–1700 

About the author Tanja L. Jones is Associate Professor of Art History at the University of Alabama. Her research focuses on identity, gender, and mobility in Early Modern Italian courts. She has published extensively on Renaissance medals, is completing a monograph dedicated to Pisanello, and directs the co-directs the Global Makers Project (www.globalmakers.ua.edu).

33

2.

Female Court Artists: Women’s Career Strategies in the Courts of the Early Modern Period Christina Strunck

Abstract Based on a survey of the careers of forty-three female artists who worked at European courts c. 1500–1800, Christina Strunck argues that female court artists’ roles, obligations, and career strategies differed significantly from those of their male colleagues. Women artists at court were often regarded as mirabilia (marvels) – a notion many actively encouraged by cultivating unusual artistic techniques. Nevertheless, the reduced range of artistic activities permitted women at court reflected the general hierarchy of the sexes there. Thus, the courts perpetuated a situation in which only men could achieve the status of ‘genius’ while, it is suggested, commissions from the middle class ultimately helped ambitious female painters gain greater autonomy. Keywords: Sofonisba Anguissola, Angelika (Angelica) Kauffmann, Artemisia Gentileschi, Rachel Ruysch, Elisabeth Vigée Lebrun (Le Brun), Elisabetta Sirani

The gallery of the Casa Buonarroti in Florence clearly demonstrates the high social prestige prominent artists could achieve during the Early Modern period. Between 1615 and 1628, Michelangelo Buonarroti the Younger created a gallery in memory of his famous great-uncle, where Michelangelo appeared above all else as a court artist, raised to honour through the favour of powerful patrons.1 One of the paintings proudly recalls how the Prince Francesco de’ Medici offered his own seat to Michelangelo and hung on every word the master spoke, in a stark reversal of the accepted court hierarchy.2 The special position of the court artist could hardly be 1 2

Wasmer, ‘Die Casa Buonarroti’, pp. 121–136. Further similar examples can be found in Warnke, Hofkünstler, pp. 302–303.

Jones, T.L. (ed.), Women Artists in the Early Modern Courts of Europe: c. 1450–1700. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2021 doi 10.5117/9789462988194_ch02

36

Christina Strunck

made more apparent. Artists who managed to secure the favour of a sovereign were like the pop stars of their time. They formed the highest rank of their profession and were objects both of esteem and envy for their less successful colleagues. The standard work on this topic has long been Martin Warnke’s monograph Hofkünstler, a classic in the field of art history first published in 1985 and reissued in a new edition in 1996. Although the Trier University unit for the Social History of the Artist has ensured constant and increasingly focused research on the situation of the court artist in recent years, there have been very few publications on the topic of female court artists to date.3 The register of names in Warnke’s work includes around 800 artists, but among them are just two women. Each of these two female court artists receives no more than a brief, one-page treatment, and what Warnke reports is hardly worthy of mention. Concerning the Swiss-born Angelika Kauffmann, Warnke reveals nothing to the reader regarding beyond the fact that she painted a scene showing Leonardo da Vinci dying in the arms of the French king. 4 Sofonisba Anguissola of Cremona is, by contrast, presented more or less as a prize of the Spanish monarch when Warnke explains: Generals could bring home artists from foreign lands, just like trophies […]. Juan d’Austria took Nicolas Busi back to Spain with him and “after Phillip II, king of Spain, […] learned of Sofonisba Anguissola’s virtues and worth, he sent for her and had her brought with full honours to Spain”.5

Any contribution concerning female court artists would, on the basis of Warnke’s book, simply end there. But the question remains as to whether there were more than just one or two female artists engaged in the courts of Europe? If there were, then what might their strategies for success have been? To what extent could they assert themselves alongside their male colleagues? Critical engagement with Warnke’s work text demonstrates that his primary argument requires decisive modification when female court artists are brought into consideration. The method employed here proceeds in four stages. First, a list 3 On the Trier University unit for the Social History of the Artist, see especially Tacke, ed., Hofkünstler. Some introductory comments on female artists are offered in: Mainz, ‘Court’, pp. 37–42. Tanja Jones and I embarked independently on the study of female court artists and presented our findings at the same conference held at Irsee in 2016; see Jones, ‘Makers’; and Strunck, ‘Hofkünstlerinnen’. See also note 7. 4 Warnke, Hofkünstler, p. 325. 5 Warnke, Hofkünstler, p. 133: Feldherren konnten aus fernen Ländern gleichsam wie Trophäen auch Künstler mit nach Hause bringen […]. Juan d’Austria nahm Nicolas Busi mit nach Spanien, und ›nachdem Philipp II., der König von Spanien, […] von den Tugenden und Verdiensten der Sofonisba Anguisciola erfahren hatte, ließ er nach ihr schicken und sie höchst ehrenvoll nach Spanien bringen.

Female Court Artists: Women’s Career Strategies in the Courts of the Early Modern Period 

of women artists who were active at the courts of Europe is assembled. While many of these women have been studied individually in the past, they have not been considered as a group. On the basis of this new data, a statistical assessment of the group can be undertaken, which should in turn reveal success factors. Secondly, the career strategies of selected female artists will be analysed. These will then be contextualized through an examination of both the court environment and the relationship between male and female artists there. Finally, these points will be brought together in a revision of Warnke’s assessment of the courts as the key ‘catalysts’ in the emancipation of the artist.

Career factors: Selected statistical information concerning female court artists What exactly defines a female court artist? Similar to Warnke’s identification of the artist at court, a broad definition is adopted here. This includes female artists who held a permanent court appointment, or drew a regular court pension (these artists’ names are italicized in the following list). The list is also comprised of artists who received commissions from the courts, even if they never attained a permanent place or position. Also contained are those artists whose qualifications impressed patrons sufficiently to secure an offer of a commission or appointment, but who nevertheless declined that offer.6 The temporal range addressed is limited to the Early Modern period, meaning it includes only those women who received appointments and commissions prior to 1800. The forty-three female artists thus identified are listed here in chronological order: Susanna Horenbout (c. 1503– c. 1553) Levina Teerlinc, born Bening (c. 1510/20–1576) Catharina van Hemessen (1528– after 1567) Sofonisba Anguissola (c. 1525/35–1625) Lavinia Fontana (1552–1614) Marietta Robusti (c. 1552/60–1590) Artemisia Gentileschi (1593–1652/53) Arcangela Paladini (1599–1622) Giovanna Garzoni (1600–1670) Lucrina Fetti (act. c. 1614–1673) Flaminia Triva (1629– after 1660) Maria van Oosterwijck (1630–1693) 6 See below, notes 70 and 71.

37

38

Christina Strunck

Elisabetta Sirani (1638–1665) Isabella Del Pozzo (?–1700) Elisabeth-Sophie Chéron (1648–1711) Johanna Koerten (1650–1715) Lucrezia Bianchi (second half of the seventeenth century) Luisa Roldán (1652–1706) Maria Oriana Galli Bibiena (1656–1749) Anne Killigrew (1660–1685) Rachel Ruysch (1664–1706) Giovanna Fratellini (1666–1731) Rosalba Carriera (1675–1757) Lucia Casalini Torrelli (1677–1762) Anna Waser (1678–1714) Henriette Wolters (1692–1741) Madeleine Françoise Basseporte (1701–1780) Barbara Regina Dietzsch (1706–1783) Violante Beatrice Siriès (1710–1783) Anna Rosina de Gasc, born Lisiewska (1713–1783) Felicita Sartori Hoffmann (c. 1715–1760) Anna Dorothea Lisiewska-Therbusch (1721–1782) Angelika Kauffmann (1741–1807) Katharina Treu (1743–1811) Mary Moser (1744–1819) Anne Vallayer-Coster (1744–1818) Marie-Anne Collot (1748–1821) Adélaide Labille-Guiard (1749–1803) Elisabeth Vigée Le Brun (1755–1842) Dorothea Johanna Stock (1759–1832) Marianne Lämmerhirt, born Kraus (1765–1838) Félicité Henriette Robert, born Tassaert (1766–1818) Friederike Juliane von Lisiewska (1769–1856)

Some of these women are already the focus of a body of literature, but in most cases extensive foundational research is still necessary. Such research will certainly also uncover the names of further female artists employed at the courts.7 7 The research on which this text is based was first presented in my inaugural lecture at the PhilippsUniversität Marburg on 30 April 2014. The present list of female court artists draws on the bibliography contained in Strunck, ‘Hofkünstlerinnen’, a revised and expanded version of that lecture. It is to be hoped that the research team (see Jones, ‘Introduction’, in this volume) led by Tanja Jones will discover many more female court artists.

Female Court Artists: Women’s Career Strategies in the Courts of the Early Modern Period 

Based upon information regarding this corpus of artists, it is possible to undertake certain statistical assessments. For example, we can establish that 65% of these female artists were born into artistic families. The early development of natural talent and access to the family’s established network of connections therefore appears to be quite a decisive factor in achieving success.8 Further, 58% of these female court artists travelled widely. Their travels seem to have contributed markedly to their success. Travel certainly served to further an artist’s professional development, but it also allowed them to expand their network of patrons. Since the conventions of this period only allowed women to appear in public with an appropriate male chaperone, a female artist’s capacity for such all-important travel was also dependent upon having a father, brother, or husband available to accompany her.9 As a woman’s respectability was inevitably dependent upon her status as a wife, it is little wonder that at least 70% of the female artists in our list were married. The real percentage was probably even higher, since the marital status of some remains unknown. Many of the women examined in this study were married to artists or members of a court. The extent to which such marriages assisted their careers is a subject for closer examination. In the case of Angelika Kauffmann, it is reported that her husband cared for her interests like a manager.10 By contrast, the husbands of Roman-born Artemisia Gentileschi and the French Elisabeth Vigée Le Brun squandered their wives’ carefully managed gains, an abuse which led in both cases to separation.11 Unmarried female artists appear to have been generally accepted, as is demonstrated by the notable example of the eighteenthcentury Venetian artist Rosalba Carriera, who remained single throughout her life.12 Remarkably, only half the married female court artists researched here appear to have had children. Whether this statistic is the result of gaps in the available documentation or a conscious decision to forego children must remain a subject of speculation.13 It is particularly astonishing to note that 42% of the female court artists listed were members of at least one academy. This comes as a surprise since women generally had no access to academies, which identified themselves as elite and wholly

8 This is postulated in Nochlin, ‘Künstlerinnen’, pp. 35–39, 49–50. 9 Harris, ‘Gentileschi’, pp. 4, 10; and Dabbs, Life, p. 346. Tintoretto reportedly took his daughter Marietta Robusti everywhere with him; on this see Wasmer, ‘Künstlertöchter’, p. 464. 10 Angelika Kaufmann (2007), p. 154. 11 Cropper, ‘Documents’, pp. 760–761; May, ‘Woman’, pp. 230–231. 12 Sani, Carriera, pp. 51–56; and Gaze, Dictionary, I, pp. 354–359. A further example of an unmarried female court artist who was nonetheless fully integrated in court society and enjoyed high social standing is Madeleine Françoise Basseporte (Mentelle, ‘Mademoiselle’, pp. 145–146). 13 For the connection between motherhood and the artistic profession, see ffolliott, ‘Women’, p. 427.

39

40

Christina Strunck

masculine institutions and traditionally denied women access to life-drawing.14 In 1706 the French Académie royale de peinture et de sculpture blocked women categorically from its membership.15 In 1770, however, a new and then progressive rule stated that no more than four women were permitted membership. The Royal Academy of Arts in London counted two women amongst its founding members in 1768, these were Angelika Kauffmann and Mary Moser, a London native. Both artists had also enjoyed the patronage of the queen of England prior to their acceptance into newly formed institution.16 The unusually high percentage of female court artists who held academic memberships indicates that most of them probably gained entry to these institutions through the auspices of influential patrons at court.17 Many even received simultaneous membership to multiple academies. Acceptance into an academy, then, seems to have been an honour acknowledging success already achieved at court.18 The first female court artist to hold a professorial title was Katharina Treu, a native of Bamberg primarily known for her still-life paintings today. Treu received an honorary professorship at the prince elector’s academy in Düsseldorf in 1776.19 But the considerable success that elite female artists could win during the Early Modern period was not limited to status, honour and titles; it also comprised remarkable financial gain. As Caroline Murphy has demonstrated through comparisons of artists’ fees, successful female artists earned as much or more than their male colleagues.20

14 Nochlin, ‘Künstlerinnen’, pp. 40–45; Roworth, Sheriff, and Lindberg, ‘Academies’, pp. 43–53. Although life-drawing was given as the primary ground for exclusion of women, many women still found their way into the study of anatomy. See Maiwald, Frauen; Goodden, ‘Kauffman’, pp. 138–39; and Borzello, World, p. 119. In some academies in the German-speaking regions it had already become common practice to accept women as students in the second half of the eighteenth century. According to Mävers, ‘Frauenzimmer’, pp. 21–22, only the Art Academy of Kassel accepted female students. Other examples from Germanic culture can however be found in Zwischen Ideal un Wirklichkeit, pp. 266, 280, 301. 15 On this, and the following statements, see Barker, ‘Women’, pp. 109–111. 16 Perry, ‘Women’, pp. 90–91, 96–97; Angelika Kauffmann (1998), pp. 158–160; and Angelika Kauffmann (2007), p. 240. 17 See Vigée Le Brun, Erinnerungen, I, p. 53–54. 18 The following women from my list of female court artists held one or more academy memberships: Carriera, Chéron, Collot, de Gasc, Garzoni, Gentileschi, Kauffmann, Labille-Guiard, Friederike Juliane von Lisiewska, Lisiewska-Therbusch, Moser, Robert, Roldán, Sirani, Stock, Treu, Vallayer-Coster and Vigée Le Brun. Examination of the individual biographies reveals that these women were usually accepted by the relevant academy after their reputation had already been established. 19 Mainz, ‘Court’, p. 41; Zwischen Ideal un Wirklichkeit, p. 312. Anna Morandi Manzolini (a wax modeller rather than a court artist) had already held a professorial title in Bologna, although as an anatomist. See Ghirardi, ‘Women’, p. 45f. For further references, Messbarger, Signora Anna. 20 Murphy, ‘Economics’, pp. 23–29; also see ffolliott, ‘Women’, p. 426.

Female Court Artists: Women’s Career Strategies in the Courts of the Early Modern Period 

But how did these women manage to attain such influential positions in the world of art? And how exactly did one go about becoming a female court artist? Remarkable artistic abilities were of course necessary, but ability alone was not sufficient. Available appointments at court were not openly advertised. Rather, interested female artists needed to draw attention to themselves so that that a member of the court would be motivated to approach them. How, then, would this process play out?

Career Strategies The first female court artist whose career strategies are more or less known to us is Sofonisba Anguissola, born in 1530. She came from a noble Cremonese family of modest means. Her father Amilcare took it upon himself to capitalize upon his daughter’s artistic gifts, an endeavour greatly aided by his knowledge of court protocol. Since it was impossible for an outsider to enter into direct contact with the highest levels of the court hierarchy, one needed to attain the goodwill of influential middlemen. To this end Amilcare sent one of Sofonisba’s drawings to the most celebrated artist of the period, Michelangelo Buonarroti. The master found her work pleasing, but reportedly set the young artist a more difficult task: having drawn a laughing girl, she was challenged to depict a weeping boy. A little later Michelangelo received Sofonisba’s drawing of her brother in tears, bitten by a crab, a work that earned even greater recognition of her talent. Amilcare Anguissola took care that Michelangelo’s praise for his daughter was made public at the Florentine court. In this way the famous artist gave Sofonisba his mark of approval.21 The strategy of winning over influential artists and intellectuals to act as emissaries for one’s work was constantly employed by young female artists. Such contacts were cultivated above all through the exercise of portrait painting. Portraits nurtured the sitter’s vanity and moreover, the sittings provided an opportunity for sympathies to form that would in turn augment the subject’s recommendation of the artist to his or her social circle. Thus Marie-Anne Collot created a bust of Daniel Diderot, who played a decisive part in Collot’s promotion at the court of Catherine the Great. 22 Angelika Kauffmann sought to initiate contact with Johann Joachim Winckelmann and Joshua Reynolds in the same 21 Kusche, ‘Anguissola’, pp. 27, 29; Gaze, Dictionary, I, p. 189–190. For an illustration of the Boy Bitten by a Crab see Sofonisba Anguissola, p. 91. 22 The connection of the portrait sitting and the (probably successive) recommendation depends upon the date of the finished bust; however this is a subject of debate. See Borzello, World, p. 112; Catherine la Grande, pp. 36–37, 44; Gaze, Dictionary, I, p. 410. On Collot’s success in St. Petersburg also see Schenker, Horseman, pp. 281–286.

41

42

Christina Strunck

way, painting portraits for both of these key figures of the London art world.23 Sofonisba Anguissola, too, exercised the strategic use of portraiture. In this context, her portrayal of the miniaturist Giulio Clovio (1556) (fig. 2.5) is particularly interesting. Clovio holds in his hand a self portrait by the celebrated miniaturist Levina Teerlinc, who was herself court artist to the English crown.24 Surviving documentation suggests that Clovio and Teerlinc had exchanged their portraits.25 In depicting Clovio in this manner, Anguissola tacitly invited him to enter into an artistic exchange with her, as well. Sofonisba Anguissola’s miniature Self Portrait now at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts (c. 1556) may well have been painted in emulation of Levina Teerlinc’s famed works. In this painting Anguissola holds a large, round medallion bearing a central monogram comprised of numerous letters, all enclosed within the Latin inscription: SOPHONISBA ANGVSSOLA VIR[GO] IPSIVS MANV EX [S]PECVLO DEPICTAM CREMONÆ.26 While the monogram actually represents the addressee in a disguised manner, the Latin text serves not only as the artist’s signature but also as a refined play on the Naturalis historia.27 Pliny’s text could be quoted as evidence that a few female painters worked and became widely known even in Antiquity. Amongst others there was Iaia, who created a self portrait with the aid of a mirror.28 In his collection of biographies of famous women, Boccaccio elaborated upon Pliny’s report, with Iaia appearing under the name Marcia. In illuminated manuscripts of Boccaccio’s work she is often represented in the act of painting her self portrait.29 Anguissola’s depiction of the medallion takes the form of an oval mirror and the Latin inscription describes how the virgin Sofonisba Anguissola created the work with her own hand, using her mirror-image. This is a clear and intentional play upon Pliny’s statements regarding the virgin painter Iaia.30 So, on one hand, this self portrait consciously placed Anguissola in competition with 23 Angelika Kauffmann (1998), p. 158; Angelika Kauffmann (2007), p. 100–101. 24 Kusche, ‘Anguissola’, p. 28; Sofonisba Anguissola, pp. 81–82, cat. no. 15 (with illustration). 25 The Teerlinc portrait appears in the inventory of Clovio’s possessions (Gaze, Dictionary, II, p. 1359). A letter written by Clovio indicates Teerlinc’s portrait was sent to him around 1561 (ibid.), which makes this the terminus post quem for Anguissola’s painting. 26 Illustration of the work in Woods-Marsden, Renaissance, p. 203. 27 Woods-Marsden, Renaissance, p. 203, reads in the complex lettering the name of Anguissola’s father, Amilcare. Perlingieri connects the monogram to the Anguissola family, but also draws a comparison to a very similar work by Mary Stuart, though this was completed a little later; Perlingieri, Anguissola, pp. 62–64. The capitals E and R, very prominent at the beginning of the lettering in both works, could in both cases stand for Elizabeth Regina and thereby address the English queen. In this case, Anguissola’s medallion image would be an attempt to gain favour at the English court, where Teerlinc had had such great success as a miniaturist. 28 Dabbs, Life, p. 27; Schweikhart, ‘Selbstdarstellungen’, p. 114, n. 8. 29 Dabbs, Life, pp. 33–35, 40–41; King, ‘Portrait’, p. 38; Schweikhart, ‘Selbstdarstellungen’, pp. 114–116. 30 Schweikhart, ‘Selbstdarstellungen’, pp. 117–119.

Female Court Artists: Women’s Career Strategies in the Courts of the Early Modern Period 

the great female painter of Antiquity. On the other, it showcased her humanist education and competency in Latin. Seen from the perspective of Anguissola’s career strategy, the self portrait simultaneously illuminated three qualities she possessed, all of which were prerequisites for success at court: beauty, chastity, and education. Anguissola painted many self portraits to be sent as gifts to various courts. These portraits were intended to arouse curiosity about her both as a virtuoso painter and as a beautiful woman. A self portrait showing her seated at the spinet visualized the aesthetic ideal of harmony, but also illustrated the artist’s aristocratic education and multifaceted talents.31 The juxtaposition of the youthful Sofonisba and an elderly maid both emphasized the artist’s social status and provided an opportunity to display her command of accurate physiognomic depiction. By contrast, a self portrait showing Anguissola painting an image of the Virgin focused attention on the artist’s chastity.32 Taken together, these portraits display the full spectrum of qualities required to make the artist acceptable at court. Indeed, Sofonisba’s years of effort spent promoting her possession of these qualities finally met with success in 1559: she was called to the Spanish court as lady-in-waiting and art teacher to Isabel de Valois, future Queen of Spain.33 Anguissola advanced in this way to become an acknowledged role model for other female artists aspiring to a career at court.34 Lavinia Fontana, a native of Bologna, may be taken as an example of a female artist who followed in Sofonisba Anguissola’s footsteps. Unlike Anguissola, Fontana did not come from a noble family but rather from an artistic one.35 Nonetheless, she sought to style herself upon the aristocratic model in order to demonstrate her suitability for a court appointment. Fontana who, according to a seventeenth-century source, acquired a doctorate from the University of Bologna, presented herself as a highly refined and well-educated lady (fig. 2.1).36 She appears in elegant attire, seated at her desk and surrounded by a collection of antiques.37 She is not engaged in the potentially messy act of painting, but is rather just beginning to sketch her ideas on paper. Thus, emphasis is placed on the intellectual conception required 31 Illustration and discussion of the painting in Woods-Marsden, Renaissance, pp. 210–211, 216–217. 32 The self portrait shows Sofonisba Anguissola in a simple, high-necked dress, painting an image of the Madonna, and thereby illustrates not only the artist’s piety, but also presents a feminine version of the ‘Lucas portrait’, which so many of her male colleagues had already projected themselves into. See also Woods-Marsden, Renaissance, pp. 204–208; and Italian Women Artists, pp. 116–117. 33 Kusche, ‘Anguissola’, p. 30. 34 For example, Irene di Spilimbergo explicitly named Anguissola as her role model. Also see Kusche, ‘Anguissola’, p. 30; Greer, Talent, p. 70; Jacobson Schutte, ‘Irene’, p. 53; and Dabbs, Life, pp. 65–75. 35 Greer, Talent, pp. 208–214. More recently, see Gómez, ed., Tale. 36 Woods-Marsden, Renaissance, p. 221; Murphy, ‘Fontana’, p. 192. 37 Woods-Marsden, Renaissance, pp. 218–220.

43

44

Christina Strunck

Figure 2.1 Lavinia Fontana, Self Portrait in her Study, 1579, oil on copper, 15.7 cm diameter, Galleria degli Uffizi. Image Credit: bpk/Scala – courtesy of the Ministero Beni e Attività Culturali.

of the artist, rather than the craft of applying paint to canvas. The prominent signature announces the artist’s refinement using a dignified formula of gold lettering and Latin.38 In addition, the portrait’s tondo format refers to the antique form of the portrait-medallion, which was reserved for patricians and scholars of the first rank during this period. Fontana’s use of this format for her own image

38 Lavinia Fontana painted this portrait for Alonso Ciacón (Chacon), who at that time was assembling a collection of portraits of famous personalities. According to his correspondence with Fontana, he also intended to publish reproductions of these paintings. The artist therefore realized that her work would, in this way, reach a very large public. The round format was intended to make the work more prominent in the book planned by Ciacón. See Woods-Marsden, Renaissance, p. 220; King, ‘Portrait’, p. 51; Schweikhart, ‘Selbstdarstellungen’, pp. 126–127.

Female Court Artists: Women’s Career Strategies in the Courts of the Early Modern Period 

may be seen as a conscious act of self-ennoblement.39 The whole composition of the portrait suggested that she possessed the aristocratic education necessary to secure a court appointment. Demonstrating one’s cultural refinement also remained an important exercise for later female artists. Women who aspired to a court appointment needed to be fluent in the social codes of the nobility and possess the degree of education required for acceptance at court. From the seventeenth century onward it therefore became fashionable for female artists to host salons, assemblies that included artists, intellectuals, and aristocrats. Elisabeth-Sophie Chéron, Elisabetta Sirani, Angelika Kauffmann, and Elisabeth Vigée Le Brun all did so. 40 At these events the hostess might dazzle visitors with their talent and social accomplishment in order to acquire a loyal aristocratic clientele which, in turn, might gain attention and patronage at court. Another career strategy was to capitalize upon the perceived novelty of the female artist. Precisely because no one credited women with artistic capabilities, the exceptions to this preconception were passionately celebrated as true wonders. For instance, Vasari referred to Properzia de’ Rossi as ‘un grandissimo miracolo della natura ne’ nostri tempi’ (‘a great miracle of nature in our times’). 41 Some female artists reinforced their exotic status by developing unusual artistic techniques. The Italian artist Giovanna Garzoni, who was famed for her still-life paintings, originated an innovative painting technique using a multitude of single-coloured dots, which resulted in an aesthetically pleasing pointillist effect. 42 Rosalba Carriera had great success in adopting the medium of pastels, innovative in the early eighteenth century. 43 The Dutch seventeenth-century artist Johanna Koerten made court portraits in the form of extremely f ine, f iligreed paper silhouettes. Her unique mastery of this unusual and difficult technique earned her high honour in the courts of Europe. 44 Luisa Roldán, appointed court sculptor by the Spanish King Carlos II in 1692, mastered the physically demanding art of wood-carving, rarely practised by women, and innovated in creating

39 Concerning the portrait-medallion made for Lavinia Fontana by Felice Antonio Casoni, see WoodsMarsden, Renaissance, pp. 206–208; Garrard, Gentileschi, p. 339; King, ‘Portrait’, pp. 54–57. A portraitmedallion made in honour of Sofonisba Anguissola between 1550–1560 is mentioned in: Schweikhart, ‘Selbstdarstellungen’, p. 125. 40 May, ‘Woman’, p. 230; Borzello, World, p. 74; Modesti, Sirani, pp. 79–84; Gaze, Dictionary, I, pp. 387, 764–770, 1402–1408. 41 Vasari, Vite, IV, p. 403. Also see ffolliott, ‘Women’, p. 425; and Schmidt-Linsenhoff, ‘Dibutadis’, pp. 12–13. 42 See Meloni Trkulja and Fumagalli, Garzoni; and Italian Women Artists, pp. 220–239. 43 Sani, Carriera. 44 Dabbs, Life, pp. 180–188.

45

46

Christina Strunck

terracotta sculpture at the court. 45 In this way Roldán became a particularly remarkable exception, just as did Marie-Anne Collot a century later with her marble sculptures. 46 Rachel Ruysch, court painter to Prince Johann Wilhelm von der Pfalz, delighted the court in Düsseldorf with her minutely detailed and deceptively realistic still-life compositions. She also remained active until a very advanced age, a marvel that Ruysch emphasized by both signing and dating her works. 47 In doing so Ruysch marked her paintings as double rarities: not only were they the work of a woman, but also of a person able to overcome the limitations imposed by old age. All of the female artists mentioned above gained success at the courts of Europe. Their career strategies stressed their dual exceptionality as women who were artists, and as artists in command of particularly unusual technical skills. In considering these examples, however, suspicion may arise that the female artists were to a certain degree viewed simply as oddities at the court, gathered together much as rare and fascinating objects were assembled in the personal cabinets of curiosities or Wunderkammern favoured in the period. Did female artists and their works belong to the category of curiosities and wonders? This question leads immediately to another, broader one: what was the nature of a female court artist’s working environment and tasks?

The Environment and Duties of the Female Court Artist Extremely self-confident female aristocrats flourished within the majority of Early Modern courts. Because dynastic crises regularly led to women taking power, it was important to promote their ability to rule. 48 Based upon this evidence of female competence, both men, as well as women, passionately criticized the common devaluation of intellectual capacities of women. Christine de Pizan’s 1405 work, Le livre de la Cité des Dames, was among the earliest examples of such criticism, and credits women with the same mental capacities as men. Stimuli of this kind ensured the courts were host to passionate debates upon the role of women in society. This

45 Chicago and Lucie-Smith, Blick, p. 34; Taggard, ‘Roldán’, p. 9; Dabbs, Life, pp. 192–198; Borzello, World, p. 60. Also see Hall-Van den Elsen in this volume. 46 Catherine la Grande, pp. 22–23, 36–37, 44. 47 Dabbs, Life, p. 270. 48 Numerous court treatises and collections of biographies listed the deeds of famous women, who could certainly serve as role-models. For a summary overview, see Strunck, Christiane von Lothringen, pp. 60–66.

Female Court Artists: Women’s Career Strategies in the Courts of the Early Modern Period 

so-called querelle des femmes blossomed in the sixteenth century, coinciding with the emergence of the earliest documented female court artists. 49 Clearly the verbal and literary debates concerning prominent women had a positive effect upon the promotion of gifted female artists. However, many female artists were not employed as court painters or sculptors per se, but rather as ladies-in-waiting who might educate their noble patrons in artistic pursuits. This was indeed the case for Sofonisba Anguissola in Spain; Susanna Horenbout, Levina Teerlinc, and Anne Killigrew in England; Catharina von Hemessen in the Netherlands; Giovanna Fratellini in Italy; Marianne Lämmerhirt and Dorothea Johanna Stock in Germany.50 Ladies-in-waiting were considered ‘ornaments’ of the court, and in many places there existed so-called ‘galleries of beauty’ that celebrated the most attractive women at court in portraits.51 In a similar way, female artists, with their special abilities, may have been regarded as collectors’ items, desirable accessories for the decoration of the court. Male artists could equally attain court appointments which led them to the inner circle of the sovereign. Warnke lists numerous painters who were employed as valets de chambre or chamber servants.52 Such appointments should not be seen as prosaic, but rather as underscoring the intimacy that might exist between the artist and the seat of power.53 The hierarchically relevant difference between female and male court artists lay in the fact that, with rare exceptions, the female artists did not serve the ruler, but rather his spouse. What were the consequences of this difference?

49 Garrard, Gentileschi, pp. 141–171; Zimmermann, ‘Querelle’; idem, ‘Streit’; Valerius, Herrschaft, pp. 187–193; Opitz, ‘Gleichheit’. 50 ffolliott, ‘Women’, p. 426. For vivid description of Sofonisba Anguissola’s duties as a lady-in-waiting, see Kusche, ‘Anguissola’, pp. 32–36; and Gamberini in this volume. 51 The French queen mother Caterina de’ Medici kept a retinue of 113 ladies-in-waiting. This ‘belle troupe de compagnie de princesses, dames et demoyselles’ (‘beautiful group of companions made up of princesses, ladies and mademoiselles’) was her pride and joy, a ‘composante essentielle de sa dignité de reine’ (‘essential component of her dignity as a queen’). As such, the queen mother provided for the appropriate education and elegant dress of her retinue; see Zvereva, ‘Commandement’, pp. 225–226. On ‘galleries of beauties’, see Wenzel, ‘Frauengalerien’; and idem, ‘Beauties’; Petrucci, Voet, pp. 125–126, 210–235. 52 Warnke, Hofkünstler, pp. 18, 146–152. 53 Warnke, Hofkünstler, p. 149. Female artists appointed as ladies-in-waiting also enjoyed the special trust of their superior. For example, Sofonisba Anguissola and Susanna Horenbout each accompanied their mistress on diplomatic missions (Kusche, ‘Anguissola’, p. 40; Mainz, ‘Court’, p. 40). There is no documentation of the artists’ duties on these missions, but they certainly could have contributed to the nurturing of diplomatic relations, for example, by completing portraits of the ladies at the court hosting them. Nonetheless, I know of no female artists who were given independent diplomatic missions of the kind Rubens undertook: this was simply incompatible with the demands of decorum.

47

48

Christina Strunck

The amateur practise of the arts amongst noble men and women had been made socially acceptable through reference to famous examples of Antiquity, so both girls and boys received at least rudimentary instruction in drawing.54 There were, however, gender-specific differences. Women often achieved greater skill as painters, since they simply had more time to devote to the mastery of this difficult art.55 Male amateurs of the noble classes also tended to concentrate more often on architectural drawing.56 Young noblemen’s training in draughtsmanship often took a military focus and was designed to deepen their understanding of defensive architecture.57 Such training did not only have practical uses, it also held a symbolic value: since geometrical instruments served to measure and determine correct proportions, they symbolized the power of judgement held by the sovereign, and his ability to make appropriate and correct decisions.58 Like God the father, the ruler could be regarded as architect of his own world.59 While geometry-laden and martially focused training in draughtsmanship aimed at young noble men was intended to prepare them for their future duties as leaders, the training offered to young women had a completely different focus. A quick glance at the work of Empress Maria Theresia’s (1717–1780) three daughters illustrates this difference. Marie Christine, Maria Carolina, and Maria Anna were talented amateur artists, who nonetheless concentrated on family portraits and domestic scenes (the exchange of gifts on St Nicholas Day, for example).60 Clearly the girls were restrained in their choice of subject matter, restricted to those domestic themes considered appropriate to their sex. The creative activities of noble men and women at court were also plainly assigned different values. While Frederick the Great of Prussia promoted himself gladly as a musician, he belittled the inarguably signif icant works of his sister Wilhelmine of Brandenburg-Bayreuth (1709–1754) in a deeply condescending manner. The Marchioness painted depictions of strong women from Antiquity after the tradition of the querelle des femmes.61 When, in 1747, she sent her

54 Warnke, Hofkünstler, pp. 297–302. Further to this thematic area, see Rosenbaum, Amateur. 55 The extremely accomplished double portrait of Isabella Clara Waldburg-Wolfegg with her husband serves as an example of this. See Birnfeld, ‘Leben’, p. 117, fig. 4. 56 There are several contributions to this theme in Cremer et al., Fürst und Fürstin als Künstler. 57 The princes Cosimo and Lorenzo de’ Medici were therefore portrayed with a compass and plans for a fortress (obviously drawn by the princes themselves) in a painting from c. 1602 or 1617. In the following generation this became a common formula for portraits of the young men of the Medici family. See Langedijk, Portraits, I, pp. 169–173; also, I Medici, pp. 99–139. 58 Langedijk, Portraits, I, pp. 139–174. 59 Langedijk, Portraits, I, pp. 147, 149. 60 Mraz and Mraz, Maria Theresia, pp. 144, 203–205. 61 Krückmann, Bayreuth, p. 55; Krückmann et al., Eremitage, p. 103.

Female Court Artists: Women’s Career Strategies in the Courts of the Early Modern Period 

brother a sample of her work, Frederick thanked his sister for the painting and continued: To my great sorrow a little of its beauty has been ruined on the journey, but enough remains for me to see that it was completed by a great artist. That is too much for you, dear sister; you should not unite so many talents in one person. I am afraid that painting damages your health: a bent posture is not good when one suffers with constipation. Believe me, good health is the most precious thing we have on earth.62

Following some general comments on the subject of good health and the transitory nature of life, Frederick came to quote Horace: ‘O, posthumous, time passes! / why within this short span / do you press such long-term plans?’63 In other words, given the short span of human life, female ambition is simply out of place; out of regard for her health, Wilhelmine should give up painting. The artistic occupations of male and female nobles were clearly governed by different rules and were likewise assigned differing values. The future ruler might master drawing as a conceptual exercise that combined both practical and symbolic functions. Women at court were expected to concentrate on domestic subjects and, above all, should not nurture ‘excessive’ ambitions – artistic or otherwise. This ideology also restricted the creative range of female court artists, who were appointed as ladies-in-waiting and teachers to the sovereign’s spouse, rather than to the sovereign himself. Court artists were generally charged with creating a positive image for the court, partly through historical and allegorical paintings and partly through portraiture. While male artists might be employed in the creation of all of these genres, female court artists usually specialized in portraiture.64 Elisabeth Vigée Le Brun, for example, conceived a new manner of portraying the French queen which showed her in seemingly private situations, and as a loving mother.65 Precisely because Marie-Antoinette was criticized for her extravagance and rumoured love affairs, 62 Volz, Friedrich, II, p. 106, no. 133. The theme of the work is not named, but it was a copy after van Dyck. 63 Volz, Friedrich, II, pp. 108–109, cat. no. 137:

Zu meinem großen Leidwesen ist ein Stück seiner Schönheit durch die Reise verdorben, aber es bleibt doch genug davon, um zu sehen, daß es von einem großen Künstler stammt. Das ist zuviel für Dich, liebe Schwester; Du solltest nicht so viele Talente in einer Person vereinigen. Ich fürchte, die Malerei schadet Deiner Gesundheit; eine gebückte Haltung ist nicht gut, wenn man an Verstopfungen leidet. Glaube mir, die Gesundheit ist das Kostbarste, was wir auf der Erde haben. […] O Posthumus, die Zeit verstreicht!/ Warum in diese kurze Frist / So weitgesteckte Pläne drängen?

Christina Kuhli kindly indicated this quotation to me. 64 ffolliott, ‘Women’, p. 428. 65 Barker, ‘Women’, pp. 120–127; Marie-Antoinette, pp. 314–317; Elisabeth Louise Vigée Le Brun, pp. 158–159.

49

50

Christina Strunck

Vigée Le Brun sought to improve the queen’s image through such depictions. At the same time, the artist thereby contributed to the highly consequential trend of restricting women more and more to the private sphere.66 History painters are thoroughly under-represented amongst the nineteen female artists identified in the list above as having held permanent court appointments.67 This specialization amongst female painters appears to have been considered undesirable by the courts. The historical image, traditionally regarded as the foremost task of painters, was clearly the exclusive purview of men within the court’s hierarchical society. In other words, the hierarchy that existed between male and female nobles was mirrored in the hierarchy of male and female court artists. The male court artist was associated with the sovereign, and thus it was his task to illustrate the governance of the realm through historical and allegorical paintings. As such, he was also permitted to employ a large staff of assistants. Artists like Giorgio Vasari or Charles Le Brun could control the entire artistic politics of a court setting. Female artists were effectively excluded from occupying a comparably dominant position.68 They could only succeed within the lower genres of portraiture, landscapes, still-life, and flower painting. If a female artist did achieve a leadership role in artistic production associated with the court, then it would be within a far more restricted area. Giovanna Garzoni, who provided designs for the Florentine pietra dura workshops of the Grand Duchy, exemplif ies this situation. The male workers had to transfer Garzoni’s drawings into sumptuous inlays made of semi-precious stones.69 Yet her designs were mainly ornamental as she had in fact specialized in the genre of still-life painting. Given these constraints, it is little wonder that female artists might view court appointments as fundamentally problematic. Maria Carolina of Austria (1752–1814), the artistically gifted daughter of Maria Theresia mentioned above, became the queen of Sicily and Naples and tried to induce Angelika Kauffmann to serve as her court painter. Kauffmann spent several months teaching draughtsmanship at Naples, but finally declined the court appointment offered to her.70 Because she was financially successful, she could afford to prioritize her own artistic freedom over courtly occupation. It may well be that she opposed being largely restricted to portraiture, the genre so highly valued at court. Interestingly, several other female 66 Strunck, ‘Mutterschaft’, pp. 203–207. 67 Anne Killigrew’s poems indicate she painted histories (not preserved) as well as portraits (see Rippl, ‘Killigrew’, pp. 143–145). Catharina van Hemessen created a few religious paintings (see De Clippel, Hemessen, figs. 24–40; and the essay in this volume by Courts. 68 Mainz, ‘Court’, p. 41. 69 Meloni Trkulja and Fumagalli, Garzoni, p. 8. 70 Angelika Kauffmann (1998), pp. 25, 32–33; Angelika Kauffmann (2007), p. 158; Borzello, World, p. 117.

Female Court Artists: Women’s Career Strategies in the Courts of the Early Modern Period 

artists also reportedly refused court appointments. This was the case for Rosalba Carriera as well as Elisabeth-Sophie Chéron, Barbara Regina Dietzsch, Anna Rosina Lisiewska, Marietta Robusti, and Henriette Wolters.71

Rivalry and Competition with Men Although the popularity of the querelle des femmes in the Early Modern period emphasized the abilities of women, it hardly meant that there was a great emancipatory movement against the traditional notions of gender roles or relations. Quite the opposite. The unchallenged primacy of men was considered an immovable prerequisite for the stability of the accepted order at court. For this reason, the highest praise a woman could receive within the arguments of the querelle des femmes was the statement that she was as strong or as clever as a man – not more so. Thus, the sarcophagus inscription on the highly imposing monument erected by Maria Magdalena of Austria for her court painter Arcangela Paladini compared the deceased artist to Apelles, the most famous male painter of Antiquity.72 Likewise, in 1775 an exhibition review from the London Chronicle praised Angelika Kauffmann for her ‘masculine spirit’: Some philosophers have asserted that women have no souls. Others have maintained, and with greater probability, that they not only have souls, but that the only difference between their souls and those of men, depends on the great delicacy of the bodily organs. Miss Kauffmann’s genius seems to favour strongly this latter opinion; for though a woman, she is possessed of that bold and masculine spirit which aims at the grand and sublime in painting[.]73

Since masculinity was the dominant ideal during the Early Modern period, and mankind rather than womankind was the unquestionable measure of evaluation, it was pragmatic for ambitious female artists to style themselves in a masculine manner. Artemisia Gentileschi said of herself that she had the spirit of a Caesar, and Rosalba Carriera manifested this visually in her masculine self portrait, complete

71 Greer, Talent, p. 77; Gaze, Dictionary, I, pp. 355, 385, 857; Allgemeines Künstler-Lexikon, vol. 27, pp. 330–331. A topic for further research is the role played by the artist’s father or husband in the decision to decline a court appointment (see Mainz, ‘Court’, p. 39). In the case of Tintoretto’s daughter Marietta Robusti, it is known that Tintoretto wanted to keep her in his workshop out of self-serving motives (see Wasmer, ‘Künstlertochter’, pp. 463, 469). 72 Greer, Talent, p. 72; Dabbs, Life, pp. 298–305. 73 Quoted after Perry, ‘Women’, p. 98.

51

52

Christina Strunck

Figure 2.2 Angelika Kauffmann, Self Portrait at the Crossroads between Painting and Poetry, 1792, oil on canvas, 151 x 212 cm. Pushkin Museum, Moscow. Image Credit: akg-images.

with a wreath of laurel leaves.74 Elisabetta Sirani painted a Hercules and set her signature in gold lettering on the figure’s club, associating herself in this way with a prime symbol of virile strength.75 Her contemporaries attested explicitly to her ‘masculine’ style of painting, praise that she provoked precisely with works of this kind.76 Angelika Kauffmann also projected herself into the role of the ancient hero, in that she chose the iconographic model of Hercules at the crossroads for a self portrait depicting herself caught between Painting and Music. Just as Hercules had to choose between Virtue and Vice, so must the young Angelika choose between the arts of Music and Painting (f ig. 2.2) as, owing to her dual talents, both career paths lay open to her. While Angelika looks undecided towards the personification of Music, Painting points towards a temple perched on a mountain’s peak. In this way the artist visualized the steep and stony path to success, which 74 Lapierre, ‘Woman’, p. 75; Sani, Carriera, pp. 367–369, cat. no. 420. 75 Elisabetta Sirani, p. 216 (with illustration). On Sirani’s signatures in general, see Bohn, Fenomeno, esp. p. 114. 76 Greer, Talent, p. 75; Dabbs, Life, pp. 127, 129; Gaze, Dictionary, II, p. 1275. Concerning Sirani’s masculine style, see Modesti, Sirani, pp. 171–197.

Female Court Artists: Women’s Career Strategies in the Courts of the Early Modern Period 

Figure 2.3 Joshua Reynolds, David Garrick between Tragedy and Comedy, 1760–1761, oil on canvas, 147.6 x 183 cm. Waddesdon (Rothschild Family, on loan since 1995; acc. no. 102.1995). Image Credit: © National Trust, Waddesdon Manor.

she herself finally trod.77 By depicting her choice in this way, Kauffmann played on the ‘Herculean’ strength that her career demanded. At the same time, she was also quoting a celebrated painting by her friend, the English artist Joshua Reynolds. Reynolds had used the model of Hercules at the crossroads in an ironic manner, portraying the preference of the actor Garrick for light comic plays over serious tragedies (f ig. 2.3).78 Through her reference to Reynolds’ painting,

77 Angelika Kauffmann (1998), pp. 234–237. 78 Wien, Reynolds, pp. 63, 109–115; Mannings and Postle, Reynolds, I, pp. 209–210. A possible source of inspiration for both paintings could be found in Federico Zuccari’s fresco in the Palazzo Zuccari (today the Bibliotheca Hertziana), which treats the theme of the artist’s ascension to the temple of virtue (Strunck, ‘Setting’, p. 115). Reynolds was briefly resident in the Palazzo Zuccari in 1752 (Zuccari Molinarini, ‘Bewohner’, p. 66). During his stay in Rome, Kauffmann was close friends with Johann Friedrich Reiffenstein, who lived on the ground floor of the palace, amongst Zuccari’s frescoes, from 1768 until his death in 1793 (Zuccari Molinarini, ‘Bewohner’, p. 66; Frank, ‘Weg’, pp. 184, 187, 188).

53

54

Christina Strunck

Kauffmann entered into friendly collegial competition with the president of the Royal Academy in London. Male artists often showcased their abilities by means of a kind of rivalry with famous role models.79 This career strategy was referred to as paragone during the Early Modern period.80 In order to gain equality, female artists also engaged in the paragone. For example, Elisabeth Vigée Le Brun revealed in her biography that she had consciously imitated Peter Paul Rubens’ Chapeau de Paille (c. 1622–1625) in her own Self Portrait with a Straw Hat (1782).81 Her stated aim in this example was to tackle the artistic challenge presented by the light-and-shadow effect cast on the face by the hat’s large brim. The self-confident gaze of the artist shows her conviction that the skills displayed there required no apology, even in comparison to Rubens. Misogynist criticism was certainly not lacking. Many female artists were accused of succeeding only on the basis of their femininity. The English painter Nathaniel Hone, for example, insinuated this in his painting The Conjuror (fig. 2.4), which created a major scandal following its public display in 1775.82 The magician after whom the work is titled alludes to the British Academy’s president, Sir Joshua Reynolds, and is depicted with a young girl nestled up against his leg. The girl’s pose recalled a painting by Angelika Kauffmann, who was rumoured to have a relationship with Reynolds. An engraving of the relevant painting by Kauffmann had been placed on the market in London only two months before the exhibition of Hone’s work, so the informed public could easily make the connection between the images. 83 Hone had in fact gone even further in his painting: a highly compromising scene could be observed in the background. Before the silhouette of St. Paul’s cathedral there appeared to be a bacchanalian dance in progress, with an attractive young woman at its centre, naked but for her boots. This scene referred to a 1773 commission to numerous Academy members who had been given the task of decorating the great London cathedral. Hone had not been amongst those chosen by Reynolds, though Kauffmann was. Therefore, in The Conjuror, Hone implied that Kauffmann had only been chosen because

79 See Hattendorff, Künstlerhommage, pp. 19–24. 80 Paragone literally means ‘comparison’. A wealth of case studies regarding various forms of the paragone in art can be found in Baader, Agon. 81 Barker, ‘Women’, pp. 114–117; Borzello, Frauen, p. 77; Pfisterer and von Rosen, Künstler, pp. 112–113 (with illustration). On Rubens’ Chapeau de Paille, now identified a probable portrait of Susanna Lunden, also see also: https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/peter-paul-rubens-portrait-of-susanna-lundenle-chapeau-de-paille (accessed 31 March 2020). 82 Angelika Kauffmann (2007), pp. 250–253 (with illustration). 83 See Angelika Kauffmann (2007), p. 96.

Female Court Artists: Women’s Career Strategies in the Courts of the Early Modern Period 

Figure 2.4 Nathaniel Hone, Sketch for ‘The Conjuror’, 1775, oil on wood, 57.5 x 81.9 cm. Tate Gallery, London. Image Credit: © Tate, London 2019.

of her erotic power over Reynolds. Kauffmann was so appalled she insisted that the offensive section of the work be painted over. It remains visible, however, in a preparatory study.84 The resonant accusation contained in Hone’s painting, that female artists were unjustly promoted, had already been encountered in the seventeenth century. Thus, the greatly successful artist Giovanni Lanfranco stated that he could sell his paintings for twice as much if he claimed they were the work of a woman.85 Even today some researchers still seriously debate whether or not Artemisia Gentileschi really completed her famous Susanna (signed and dated by her own hand) alone or only with the aid of her father.86 Similar accusations were also levelled at Elisabetta Sirani: since she was born into an artistic family, there arose suspicion that her father

84 Newmann, ‘Reynolds’, pp. 344–354. 85 Lapierre, ‘Woman’, p. 75. 86 ffolliott, ‘Women’, p. 437; Bissel, Gentileschi, pp. 2–9, 187–189; Garrard, Gentileschi, pp. 182–209.

55

56

Christina Strunck

completed the works and had his daughter sign them to increase their sale value.87 In order to combat such rumours, Sirani began to invite distinguished guests into her atelier, to observe her at work. This raised her public profile considerably and generated positive publicity.88 Sirani even founded her own art school for women, which trained generations of female painters.89 When Elisabetta Sirani died at just twenty-seven years of age in 1665, she was honoured in her native city of Bologna almost like a modern-day celebrity.90 A temporary temple was erected in the church of San Domenico, with a life-size statue of the painter seated within it.91 Furthermore, she was granted the honour of being buried next to Bologna’s most famous artist, Guido Reni.92 Her executors apparently understood the financial potential of Sirani as an artist and put much effort into her posthumous marketing which, in turn, led to the blossoming of her Bolognese art school for women, an enterprise supported by the middle class, rather than the court.93 For women who sought success as artists, it was inarguably wise to keep some distance from the court, since history painting at court was generally the exclusive occupation of male artists. Women like Artemisia Gentileschi, Elisabetta Sirani, and Angelika Kauffmann profited from their capacity to work for both court and civil patrons. In this way they maintained greater freedom to develop as historical painters and thereby advance in that sphere considered to be the most distinguished genre of painting. A decisive measure for the success of female artists is the extent to which their work was referenced by other artists. As previously discussed, female artists constantly sought to measure themselves against their male colleagues in this way. But were there also male artists in the Early Modern period who took inspiration from their female counterparts? This question is usually excluded from consideration in art-historical research; however it can be answered in the affirmative. Caravaggio’s famous Boy Bitten by a Lizard (1593/94) could easily have been inspired by Sofonisba Anguissola’s much-praised, if less well-known, drawing of a boy with a crab.94 Likewise, many artists produced variations on Anguissola’s spirited double

87 Dabbs, Life, p. 129. 88 Greer, Talent, pp. 217–218. 89 Greer, Talent, p. 218; Modesti, Sirani, pp. 67–79. 90 Merkel, ‘Sirani’, pp. 137–148; Modesti, Sirani, pp. 199–209. 91 Ghirardi, ‘Women’, pp. 39, 41. 92 Greer, Talent, p. 222; Ghirardi, ‘Women’, p. 41. 93 See Merkel, ‘Sirani’, p. 146; Ghirardi, ‘Women’, p. 41. 94 See above note 21, and Caravaggio, p. 105. This comparison was already noted in Sofonisba Anguissola, p. 89, cat. no. 22.

Female Court Artists: Women’s Career Strategies in the Courts of the Early Modern Period 

Figure 2.5 Sofonisba Anguissola, Double Portrait with her Tutor Bernardino Campi, c. 1558/59, oil on canvas, 111 x 109.5 cm. Pinacoteca Nazionale, Siena. Image Credit: bpk/Scala – Courtesy of the Ministero Beni e Attività Culturali.

portrait with her tutor Bernardino Campi (fig. 2.5, 2.6), and copied her portraits of the Spanish royal couple.95

95 Concerning Anguissola’s double portrait, see Christadler, Kreativität, pp. 93–96, 105–182; on her tutelage under Bernardino Campi, see: Kusche, ‘Anguissola’, pp. 25–26, 31. The double portrait of Anguissola and Campi was referred to by Luca Cambiaso (Woods-Marsden, Renaissance, p. 235), Elisabetta Sirani, and Luigi Martelli (Ghirardi, ‘Women’, pp. 38–40), as well as Ginevra Cantofoli, via Sirani (Greer, Talent, p. 220; Ghirardi, ‘Women’, p. 41; Pulini, ‘Ritratto’). See also Sofonisba Anguissola, p. 105 (cat. no. 31), 113 (cat. no. 35 and 36), and Garrard, ‘Here’s Looking at Me’.

57

58

Christina Strunck

Figure 2.6 Luca Cambiaso, Self Portrait with his Father (his First Master), c. 1570–1580, oil on canvas, 104 x 97 cm. Musei di Strada Nuova – Palazzo Bianco, Genoa. Image Credit: © Musei di Strada Nuova, Genova.

The pastel technique which Rosalba Carriera brought to a hitherto unattained level of refinement was imitated by several men.96 Male artists created painted, engraved, and sculpted copies of pieces by Anguissola, Chéron, Collot, Lisiewska, and Sirani, a fact that testifies to the popularity of these women’s works.97 Angelika Kauffmann was actually copied and reproduced so often that a contemporary 96 ffolliott, ‘Women’, p. 435; Gaze, Dictionary, I, pp. 355, 357; Sani, Carriera, pp. 25, 27, 47. 97 Greer, Talent, p. 79; Angelika Kauffmann (1998), pp. 175–181; Angelika Kauffmann (2007), pp. 240–247; Gaze, Dictionary, I, pp. 387, 410, 859, 1275.

Female Court Artists: Women’s Career Strategies in the Courts of the Early Modern Period 

declared: ‘the whole world is angelicamad’.98 Motifs from her work appeared on fans, furniture, flower vases, chocolate cups, snuffboxes, wine coolers, and tea-sets.99 Kauffmann’s painting Elfrida’s Meeting with King Edgar was the first work exhibited in the Royal Academy of London which took its theme from old English history and thereby began a trend of medieval subject matter being eagerly embraced by many male artists.100 The preceding case studies show that female artists associated with the courts of the Early Modern period might be highly successful and highly paid. Numerous of them were showered with honours and praise during their lifetimes, and often imitated by other artists. But there remains the question of how they could secure their posthumous fame and reputation. Alongside the education of both male and female pupils, endowments, biographies, and autobiographies could all help to perpetuate an artist’s fame after her death. For this reason Giovanna Garzoni left her estate to the Roman Accademia di San Luca, on the condition that an honourable monument be erected in her memory in the academy’s church of Saints Luca and Martina, complete with a laudatory Latin inscription.101 There is much evidence to suggest that Angelika Kauffmann planned her own funeral, organizing a ceremony explicitly inspired by the funeral of Raphael.102 In addition she encouraged her brother-in-law Giuseppe Carlo Zucchi to write down her life story, a text that would later form the basis of her first printed biography.103 Elisabeth Vigée Le Brun went even further, completing an autobiography that appeared within her lifetime.104 The concern and effort female artists devoted to securing their posthumous reputation was not unfounded. They knew very well that women were often poorly represented in the literary genre of ‘artists’ lives’, which were in any case exclusively produced by men.105 An engraving from Houbraken’s volume De nieuwe schouburg de Nederlantsche kunstschilders en schilderessen (1750) (fig. 2.7) reveals much on this subject: although Rachel Ruysch rose to be the court painter to the prince elector of the Palatinate, she is still depicted as inferior to her significantly less successful husband.106

98 Angelika Kauffmann (1998), p. 179. 99 Greer, Talent, pp. 79–80. 100 Angelika Kauffmann (1998), pp. 175–176. 101 ffolliott, ‘Women’, p. 427; Meloni Trkulja and Fumagalli, Garzoni, p. 10. 102 Angelika Kauffmann (2007), pp. 284–285. 103 Angelika Kauffmann (2007), pp. 60–63, 262. 104 Vigée Le Brun, Souvenirs; Vigée Le Brun, Erinnerungen; May, ‘Woman’, pp. 226–229. 105 ffolliott, ‘Women’, p. 424. 106 Dabbs, Life, pp. 263–272.

59

60

Christina Strunck

Figure 2.7 Jakob Houbraken, Portrait of Juriaan Pool and Rachel Pool née Ruysch, after Aert Schouman, 1750, engraving, 16.1 x 10.6 cm. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Image Credit: Public Domain, Courtesy of Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam.

Female Court Artists: Women’s Career Strategies in the Courts of the Early Modern Period 

In his monumental collection of biographies, Giorgio Vasari refers to just a handful of female artists. The only one of these honoured with a portrait is the sculptress Properzia de’ Rossi from Bologna.107 According to Vasari, she held a doubly exceptional status. First, she had mastered the art of sculpture, which was physically demanding and heavily associated with men; second, she was paid just as well as her male colleagues.108 Vasari discusses the reliefs completed by de’ Rossi for the Bologna cathedral and ‘discovers’ autobiographical overtones in one of them: he interprets her depiction of the story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife as an expression of her unrequited love for a Bolognese youth. Vasari ended de’ Rossi’s biography with the statement that she was lucky and happy in all things except love. By so emphasizing her failure to wed, he openly relativized her success as an artist.109 Ultimately, the artistic success of women was always bound to their sex. Thus Vasari could conclude his biography of Sofonisba Anguissola with the rhetorical question: ‘Since women know so well how to make real people, who should wonder at their ability to make painted people?’110

Results The developments discussed above are still surprisingly relevant for our present perception of artists. How is it possible that even today, for example in the exhibition for the 500th anniversary of Hieronymus Bosch’s death, male artists are called ‘geniuses’? And why is this epithet almost never given to female artists?111 As was noted previously, a central tenet of Martin Warnke’s text was demonstrating that the courts facilitated the emergence of the idea of the artist as an autonomous ‘genius’. Through a marked intimacy with the sovereign, and that ruler’s respect for creative activities, artists could leave the status of craftsmen behind and begin to share the special, almost divine sphere of the ruler. Warnke argues against the nineteenth-century idea that ‘an autonomous self-awareness of art and artists was one of the greatest achievements of the urban middle class

107 King, ‘Portrait’, p. 50. 108 Murphy, ‘Economics’, p. 23. 109 Vasari, Vite, IV, p. 403. See also Jacobs, Renaissance, pp. 65–84. 110 Vasari, Vite, V, p. 429. 111 Hieronymus Bosch. It has long been recognized that the term ‘genius’ carries an implicit, gendered bias in favour of male ability grounded in ancient misconceptions regarding the male capacity to create (and by definition, female inability to do so). The question of female ‘genius’ was opened up by Linda Nochlin; see Nochlin, ‘Künstlerinnen’. This argument was developed by Battersby, Gender and Genius.

61

62

Christina Strunck

during the Renaissance’.112 According to Warnke, we have the courts rather than the middle class to thank for the term ‘genius’. But what was the situation of women at court? This question was completely neglected by Warnke. Owing in part to the querelle des femmes there was a greater sense of the need to encourage the abilities of women at court than in civil life. As we have seen, female court artists could achieve high honour, but were nonetheless handled like decorative accessories, wonders, or objects for the court’s ‘cabinet of curiosities’. In order to succeed, women heightened their exceptional status by cultivating unusual artistic techniques. Nonetheless, the highest genre of art, history painting, remained the sole purview of male artists at court. For the continued existence of the court, it was essential that the accepted hierarchy of the sexes remained unchanged. From their earliest phase of artistic education, young nobles received gender-specific training. Excessive artistic ambition in women was vehemently criticised, on the grounds that it called the superiority of men into question. The relationship between male and female nobles was mirrored in the hierarchy of male and female court artists. Only male artists were charged with portraying the politics and aims of the ruler. Noble women, as well as female artists, were forced by circumstance to concentrate above all on portraiture – that is, on what was deemed an inferior genre that held little potential for innovation. The final conclusion is therefore that the structure of the court created and perpetuated a situation in which only men could achieve the status of ‘genius’. Female artists who were only loosely associated with a court maintained comparably more freedom and potential for development, and could put forth the idea that they were equal to their male colleagues. The relatively high number of court appointments declined by women artists shows that it was more attractive for them to strive for a balance between court and civil commissions. Warnke’s thesis must therefore be modified: while the courts were indeed the site of artistic emancipation for men, the patronage outside the court ambient played a decisive role in advancing the artistic autonomy of women.

Bibliography Allgemeines Künstler-Lexikon, Die Bildenden Künstler aller Zeiten und Völker, 112 vols. (Munich and Lipsia: K. G. Saur, 1983–). Angelika Kauffmann, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Bettina Baumgärtel (Ostfildern: Düsseldorf, Kunstmuseum, 1998). 112 ‘daß ein autonomes Kunst- und Künstlerbewußtsein als eine der großen Leistungen stadtbürgerlicher Kultur der Renaissance anzusehen sei’, Warnke, Hofkünstler, p. 9.

Female Court Artists: Women’s Career Strategies in the Courts of the Early Modern Period 

Angelika Kauffmann, Ein Weib von ungeheurem Talent, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Tobias G. Natter (Ostfildern: Bregenz, Vorarlberger Landesmuseum, 2007). Baader, Hannah, ed. Im Agon der Künste, Paragonales Denken, ästhetische Praxis und die Diversität der Sinne (München: Fink, 2007). Barker, Emma. ‘Women Artists and the French Academy: Vigée-Lebrun in the 1780s’, in Gender and Art, ed. by Gill Perry (London: Yale University Press, 1999), pp. 108–127. Battersby, Christine. Gender and Genius: Towards a Feminist Aesthetics (London: Women’s Press, 1989). Birnfeld, Nicole. ‘Ein Leben für die Kunst? – Anmerkungen zu Pictura-Darstellungen nördlich der Alpen’, in (En)gendered, Frühneuzeitlicher Kunstdiskurs und weibliche Porträtkultur nördlich der Alpen, ed. by Simone Roggendorf and Sigrid Ruby (Marburg: Jonas, 2004), pp. 111–122. Bissell, Raymond Ward. Artemisia Gentileschi and the Authority of Art (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1999). Bohn, Babette. ‘Il fenomeno della firma, Elisabetta Sirani e le firme dei pittori a Bologna’, in Elisabetta Sirani, ‘pittrice eroina’ 1638–1665, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Jadranka Bentini and Vera Fortunati (Bologna: Museo Civico Archeologico, 2004), pp.107–117. Borzello, Frances. A World of Our Own, Women as Artists (London: Thames and Hudson, 2000). ––– Wie Frauen sich sehen, Selbstbildnisse aus fünf Jahrhunderten (Munich: Blessing, 1998). Caravaggio, Originale und Kopien im Spiegel der Forschung, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Jürgen von Harten and Jean Hubert Martin (Ostfeldern: Düsseldorf, Museum Kunst Palast, 2006). Catherine la Grande, Un art pour l’Empire, chefs-d’oeuvre du Musée de l’Ermitage de SaintPétersbourg, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Nathalie Bondil (Toronto: Art Gallery of Ontario / Montreal Museum of Fine Arts, 2005). Chicago, Judy, and Edward Lucie-Smith. Der andere Blick, Die Frau als Modell und Malerin (Munich: Knesebeck, 2000). Christadler, Maike. Kreativität und Geschlecht, Giorgio Vasari’s ‘Vite’ und Sofonisba Anguissolas Selbst-Bilder (Berlin: Reimer, 2000). Cremer, Annette C., Matthias Müller, and Klaus Pietschmann, eds. Fürst und Fürstin als Künstler, Herrschaftliches Künstlertum zwischen Habitus, Norm und Neigung (Berlin: Lukas, 2018). Cropper, Elizabeth. ‘New Documents for Artemisia Gentileschi’s Life in Florence’, The Burlington Magazine 135 (1993), 760–761. Dabbs, Julia K. Life Stories of Women Artists, 1550–1800, An Anthology (Farnham: Ashgate 2009). De Clippel, Karolien. Catharina van Hemessen (1528–na 1567). Een monografische studie over een ‘uytnemende wel geschickte vrouwe in de conste der schilderyen’ (Brussels: KVAB Paleis der Academiën, 2004).

63

64

Christina Strunck

Die Malerei ist weiblich, Friederike Juliane von Lisiewska, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Dirk Blübaum and Tobias Pfeifer-Helke (Berlin: Staatliches Museum Schwerin, 2017). Elisabeth Louise Vigée Le Brun, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Joseph von Baillio and Xavier Salmon (Paris: Paris, Grand Palais / New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art / Ottawa, Musée des Beaux-Arts du Canada, 2015). Elisabetta Sirani, ‘pittrice eroina’ 1638–1665, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Jakandra Bentini and Vera Fortunati (Bologna: Museo Civico Archeologico, 2004). ffolliott, Sheila. ‘Early Modern Women Artists’, in The Ashgate Research Companion to Women and Gender in Early Modern Europe, ed. by Katherine A. McIver, Jane Couchman, and Allyson M. Poska (Farnham: Ashgate, 2013), pp. 423–443. Frank, Christoph. ‘Auf dem Weg vom ersten zum vierten Rom, Johann Friedrich Reiffensteins antiquarische Agententätigkeit im Palazzo Zuccari (1767–1793)’, in 100 Jahre Bibliotheca Hertziana – Max-Planck-Institut für Kunstgeschichte, Der Palazzo Zuccari und die Institutsgebäude 1590–2013, ed. by Elisabeth Kieven (Munich: Hirmer, 2013), pp. 182–201. Garrard, Mary D. ‘Here’s Looking at Me: Sofonisba Anguissola and the Problem of the Woman Artist’, Renaissance Quarterly 47 (1994), 556–622. ––– Artemisia Gentileschi, The Image of the Female Hero in Italian Baroque Art (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989). Gaze, Delia, ed. Dictionary of Women Artists, 2 vols. (London: Fitzroy Dearborn, 1997). Ghirardi, Angela. ‘Women Artists of Bologna, The Self-Portrait and the Legend from Caterina Vigri to Anna Morandi Manzolini (1413–1774)’, in Lavinia Fontana of Bologna, 1552–1614, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Vera Fortunati (Milan and Washington, D.C.: The National Museum of Women in the Arts, 1998), pp. 32–47. Goodden, Angelica. ‘Angelica Kauffman: Attenuating the Body’, in The Eighteenth-Century Body: Art, History, Literature, Medicine, ed. by Angelica Goodden (Oxford: Lang, 2002), pp. 135–156. Greer, Germaine. Das unterdrückte Talent, Die Rolle der Frauen in der bildenden Kunst (Berlin: Ullstein, 1980). Harris, Ann Sutherland. ‘Artemisia Gentileschi and Elisabetta Sirani, Rivals or Strangers?’, Woman’s Art Journal 31 (2010), 3–12. Hattendorff, Claudia. Künstlerhommage, Ein Bildtypus im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert (Berlin: Reimer, 1998). Hieronymus Bosch, Visions of Genius, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Matthijs Ilsink and A. M. Koldeweij (’s-Hertogenbosch: Noordbrabants Museum, 2016). I Medici e le scienze, Strumenti e macchine nelle collezioni granducali, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Filippo Camerota and Mara Miniati (Florence: Museo degli Argenti, 2008). Italian Women Artists from Renaissance to Baroque, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Vera Fortunati Pietrantonio, Jordana Pomeroy, and Claudio Strinati (Washington, D.C.: National Museum of Women in the Arts, 2007).

Female Court Artists: Women’s Career Strategies in the Courts of the Early Modern Period 

Jacobs, Fredrika H. Defining the Renaissance Virtuosa: Women Artists and the Language of Art History and Criticism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). Jacobson Schutte, Anne. ‘Irene di Spilimbergo, The Image of a Creative Woman in Late Renaissance Italy’, Renaissance Quarterly 44 (1991), 42–61. Jones, Tanja. ‘Makers, Towards the Study of Women Artists in the Early Modern Courts’, in Künstlerinnen, Neue Perspektiven auf ein Forschungsfeld der Vormoderne, ed. by Markwart Herzog, Sylvia Heudecker, Birgit Ulrike Münch, and Andreas Tacke (Petersberg: Michael Imhof Verlag, 2017), pp. 38–47. King, Catherine. ‘Portrait of the Artist as a Woman’, in Gender and Art, ed. by Gill Perry (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999), pp. 37–60. Krückmann, Peter O., Johannes Erichsen, and Kurt Grübl. Die Eremitage in Bayreuth, Amtlicher Führer (Munich: Bayerische Schlösserverwaltung, 2011). Krückmann, Peter O. Das Bayreuth der Markgräfin Wilhelmine (Munich: Prestel, 1998). Kusche, Maria. ‘Sofonisba Anguissola – Leben und Werk’, in Sofonisba Anguissola, Die Malerin der Renaissance (um 1535–1625), Cremona – Madrid – Genua – Palermo, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Sylvia Ferino-Pagden (Vienna: Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, 1995), pp. 23–57. Langedijk, Karla. The Portraits of the Medici, 15th–18th Centuries, 3 vols. (Florence: Studio per edizioni scelte, 1981–1987). Lapierre, Alexandra. ‘The “Woman Artist” in Literature: Fiction or Non-Fiction?’, in Italian Women Artists from Renaissance to Baroque, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Vera Fortunati (Washington, D.C.: National Museum of Women in the Arts, 2007), pp. 75–81. Lavinia Fontana of Bologna, 1552–1614, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Vera Fortunati (Milan and Washington, D.C.: The National Museum of Women in the Arts, 1998). Mainz, Valerie. ‘Court Artists’, in Dictionary of Women Artists, ed. by Delia Gaze, 2 vols. (London: Fitzroy Dearborn, 1997), I, pp. 37–43. Maiwald, Salean A. Von Frauen enthüllt, Aktdarstellungen durch Künstlerinnen vom Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart (Berlin: Grambin, 1999). Mannings, David, and Martin Postle. Sir Joshua Reynolds, A Complete Catalogue of his Paintings, 2 vols. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000). Marie-Antoinette, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Pierre Vallaud (Paris: Galeries nationales du Grand Palais, 2008). Mävers, Sophie-Luise. ‘“… die Frauenzimmer, wenn sie Mahlerinnen werden woollen”. Über die Ausbildungssituation von malenden Frauen im 18. Jahrhundert’, in Aufgedeckt, Malerinnen im Umfeld Tischbeins und der Kasseler Kunstakademie, ed. by Martina Sitt, Projektseminar eines Masterkurses Kunstwissenschaft (Norderstedt: ConferencePoint Verlag, 2016), pp. 21–22. May, Gita. ‘A Woman Artist’s Legacy: The Autobiography of Elisabeth Vigée Le Brun’, in Eighteenth-Century Women and the Arts, ed. by Frederick M. Keener and Susan Lorsch (New York: Praeger, 1988), pp. 225–235.

65

66

Christina Strunck

Meloni Trkulja, Silvia, and Elena Fumagalli. Giovanna Garzoni, Still Lifes (Paris: Bibliothèque de l’Image, 2000). Mentelle, Edme. ‘Mademoiselle Basseporte, peintre’, Revue universelle des arts 13 (1861), 139–147. Merkel, Kerstin. ‘Elisabetha Sirani und Guido Reni – die Memoria eines anachronistischen Künstlerpaares’, in Künstlergrabmäler, Genese – Typologie – Intention – Metamorphosen, ed. by Birgit Ulrike Münch, Markwart Herzog, and Andreas Tacke (Petersberg: Michael Imhof Verlag, 2011), pp. 137–150. Messbarger, Rebecca. Signora Anna, Anatomin der Aufklärung, Eine Kulturgeschichte aus Bologna (Berlin: AB – Die Andere Bibliothek, 2015). Modesti, Adelina. Elisabetta Sirani ‘Virtuosa’: Women’s Cultural Production in Early Modern Bologna (Turnhout: Brepols, 2014). Mraz, Gerda, and Gottfried Mraz. Maria Theresia, Ihr Leben und ihre Zeit in Bildern und Dokumenten (Munich: Süddeutscher Verlag, 1979). Murphy, Caroline P. ‘The Economics of the Woman Artist’, in Italian Women Artists from Renaissance to Baroque, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Vera Fortunati Pietrantonio, Jordana Pomeroy, and Claudio Strinati (Washington, D.C.: National Museum of Women in the Arts, 2007), pp. 23–30. ––– ‘Lavinia Fontana and Le Dame della Città: understanding female artistic patronage in Late Sixteenth-Century Bologna’, Renaissance Studies 10 (1996), 190–208. Newman, John. ‘Reynolds and Hone, ‘The Conjuror’ Unmasked’, in Reynolds, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Nicholas Penny (London: Royal Academy of Arts, 1986), pp. 344–354. Nochlin, Linda. ‘Warum hat es keine bedeutenden Künstlerinnen gegeben?’, in Rahmenwechsel. Kunstgeschichte als feministische Kulturwissenschaft, ed. by Beate Söntgen (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1996), pp. 27–56. Opitz, Claudia. ‘Gleichheit der Geschlechter oder Anarchie? Zum Gleichheitsdiskurs in der Querelle des Femmes und in der politischen Theorie um 1600’, in Geschlechterstreit am Beginn der europäischen Moderne, Die Querelle des Femmes, ed. by Gisela Engel, Friederike Hassauer, Brita Rang, and Heide Wunder (Königstein: Heimer, 2004), pp. 307–329. Perlingieri, Ilya Sandra. Sofonisba Anguissola, The First Great Woman Artist of the Renaissance (New York: Rizzoli, 1992). Perry, Gill. ‘Women Artists, “Masculine” Art and the Royal Academy of Art’, in Gender and Art, ed. by Gill Perry (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999), pp. 90–107. Petrucci, Francesco. Ferdinand Voet (1639–1689) detto Ferdinando de’ Ritratti (Rome: Bozzi, 2005). Petteys, Chris, Hazel Gustow, Ferris Olin, and Verna Ritchie, Dictionary of Women Artists: An International Dictionary of Women Artists Born before 1900 (Boston; G. K. Hall, 1985). Pfisterer, Ulrich, and Valeska von Rosen, eds. Der Künstler als Kunstwerk, Selbstporträts vom Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart (Stuttgart: Reclam, 2005).

Female Court Artists: Women’s Career Strategies in the Courts of the Early Modern Period 

Pulini, Massimo. ‘1656, Ritratto di Ginevra Cantofoli pittrice’, in Elisabetta Sirani, ‘pittrice eroina’ 1638–1665, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Jadranka Bentini and Vera Fortunati (Bologna: Museo Civico Archeologico, 2004), pp. 135–141. Rippl, Gabriele. ‘Anne Killigrew (ca. 1660–1685)’, in Englische Frauen der Frühen Neuzeit, Dichterinnen, Malerinnen, Mäzeninnen, ed. by Gesa Stedman (Darmstadt: Primus-Verlag, 2001), pp. 137–147. Rosenbaum, Aleander. Der Amateur als Künstler, Studien zu Geschichte und Funktion des Dilettantismus im 18. Jahrhundert (Berlin: Mann, 2010). Roworth, Wendy Wassyng, Mary D. Sheriff, and Anna Lena Lindberg, ‘Academies of Art’, in Dictionary of Women Artists, ed. by Delia Gaze, 2 vols. (London: Fitzroy Dearborn, 1997), vol. 1, pp. 43–55. Sani, Bernardina. Rosalba Carriera, 1673–1757, Maestra del pastello nell’Europa ancien régime (Turin: Allemandi, 2007). Schenker, Alexander M. The Bronze Horseman, Falconet’s Monument to Peter the Great (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003). Schmidt-Liebich, Jochen, ed. Lexikon der Künstlerinnen 1700–1900, Deutschland, Österreich, Schweiz (Berlin: De Gruyter Saur, 2005). Schmidt-Linsenhoff, Viktoria. ‘Dibutadis, Die weibliche Kindheit der Zeichenkunst’, kritische berichte 4 (1996), 7–20. Schweikhart, Gunther. ‘Boccaccios De claris mulieribus und die Selbstdarstellungen von Malerinnen im 16. Jahrhundert’, in Der Künstler über sich in seinem Werk, ed. by Matthias Winner (Weinheim: VCH, Acta Humaniora, 1992), pp. 113–136. Sofonisba Anguissola, Die Malerin der Renaissance (um 1535–1625), Cremona – Madrid – Genua – Palermo, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Sylvia Ferino-Pagden (Vienna: Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, 1995). Strunck, Christina. Christiane von Lothringen am Hof der Medici, Geschlechterdiskurs und Kulturtransfer zwischen Florenz, Frankreich und Lothringen (1589–1636) (Petersberg: Michael Imhof Verlag, 2017). ––– ‘Hofkünstlerinnen, Weibliche Karrierestrategien an den Höfen der Frühen Neuzeit’, in Künstlerinnen, Neue Perspektiven auf ein Forschungsfeld der Vormoderne, ed. by Markwart Herzog, Sylvia Heudecker, Birgit Ulrike Münch, and Andreas Tacke (Petersberg: Michael Imhof Verlag, 2017), pp. 20–37. ––– ‘Mutterschaft und Herrschaft, Kontinuitäten und Umbrüche (16.–19. Jahrhundert)’, in Dicker als Wasser, Konzepte des Familiären in der zeitgenössischen Kunst, ed. by Andreas Baur, Amely Deiss, Milena Mercer, and Ina Neddermeyer (Cologne: Villa Merkel, 2016), pp. 194–209. ––– ‘The Original Setting of the Early Life of Taddeo Series, A New Reading of the Pictorial Program in the Palazzo Zuccari, Rome’, in Taddeo and Federico Zuccaro, Artist-Brothers in Renaissance Rome, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Julian Brooks (Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2007), pp. 112–125.

67

68

Christina Strunck

Tacke, Andreas, ed. Hofkünstler und Hofhandwerker in deutschsprachigen Residenzstädten der Vormoderne (Petersberg: Michael Imhof Verlag, 2017). Taggard, Mindy Nancarrow. ‘Luisa Roldán’s Jesus of Nazareth: The Artist as Spiritual Medium’, Woman’s Art Journal 19 (1998), 9–15. A Tale of Two Women Painters, Sofonisba Anguissola and Lavinia Fontana, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Leticia Ruiz Gómez (Madrid: Museo Nacional del Prado, 2019). Valerius, Robert. Weibliche Herrschaft im 16. Jahrhundert, Die Regentschaft Elisabeths I. zwischen Realpolitik, Querelle des femmes und Kult der Virgin Queen (Herbolzheim: Centaurus Verlag & Media, 2002). Vasari, Giorgio. Le vite de‘ più eccellenti pittori scultori e architettori nelle redazioni del 1550 e 1568, Testo a cura di Rosanna Bettarini, Commento secolare a cura di Paola Barocchi, 8 vols. (Florence: Sansoni, 1966–1997). Vigée Le Brun, Elisabeth Louise. Die Erinnerungen der Malerin Vigée-Lebrun, 2 vols. (Weimar; Duncker, 1912). ––– Souvenirs de Mme. Louise-Élisabeth Vigée-Le Brun, Notes et portraits, 1755–1789 (Paris: A. Fayard, 1909). Volz, Gustav Berthold, ed. Friedrich der Große und Wilhelmine von Baireuth, Band II: Briefe der Königszeit, 1740–1758 (Berlin: Koehler, 1926). Warnke, Martin. Hofkünstler, Zur Vorgeschichte des modernen Künstlers, 2nd ed. (Cologne: DuMont, 1996). Wasmer, Marc-Joachim. ‘Die Künstlertochter Marietta Robusti, genannt Tintoretta’, in Unser Kopf ist rund, damit das Denken die Richtung wechseln kann, Festschrift für Franz Zelger, ed. by Matthias Wohlgemut and Marc Fehlmann (Zurich: Verlag Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 2001), pp. 463–494. ––– ‘Die Casa Buonarroti in Florenz, ein Geniedenkmal für Michelangelo’, in Künstlerhäuser von der Renaissance bis zur Gegenwart, ed. by Eduard Hüttinger (Zurich: Waser, 1985), pp. 121–138. Wenzel, Michael. ‘Beauties, Wits and Fools. Die Schönheitengalerie der Königin Maria II. von England als Repräsentationsort weiblicher Handlungsräume’, in Der Hof, Ort kulturellen Handelns von Frauen in der Frühen Neuzeit, ed. by Susanne Rode-Breymann and Antje Tumat (Cologne: Böhlau, 2013), pp. 256–273. ––– ‘Frauengalerien im Kontext der enzyklopädischen Porträtsammlungen in den Kunstund Wunderkammern – Die Beispiele München und Innsbruck’, in (En)gendered, Frühneuzeitlicher Kunstdiskurs und weibliche Porträtkultur nördlich der Alpen, ed. by Simone Roggendorf and Sigrid Ruby (Marburg: Jonas, 2004), pp. 87–110. Wien, Iris. Joshua Reynolds, Mythos und Metaphor (Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 2009). Woods-Marsden, Joanna. Renaissance Self-Portraiture, The Visual Construction of Identity and the Social Status of the Artist (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998).

Female Court Artists: Women’s Career Strategies in the Courts of the Early Modern Period 

Zimmerman, Margarete. ‘La “Querelle des Femmes” come paradigma culturale’, in Tempi e spazi di vita femminile tra medioevo ed età moderna, ed. by Silvana Seidel Menchi, Anne Jacobson Schutte, and Thomas Kuehn (Bologna: Il mulino, 1999), pp. 157–173. ––– ‘Vom Streit der Geschlechter, Die französische und italienische Querelle des Femmes des 15. bis 17. Jahrhunderts’, in Die Galerie der Starken Frauen, Die Heldin in der französischen und italienischen Kunst des 17. Jahrhunderts, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Bettina Baumgärtel and Silvia Neysters (Munich: Kunstmuseum Düsseldorf / Hessisches Landesmuseum Darmstadt, 1995), pp. 14–33. Zuccari Molinarini, Cecilia. ‘Die Bewohner des Palastes im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert’, in 100 Jahre Bibliotheca Hertziana – Max-Planck-Institut für Kunstgeschichte, Der Palazzo Zuccari und die Institutsgebäude 1590–2013, ed. by Elisabeth Kieven (Munich: Hirmer, 2013), pp. 66–71. Zvereva, Alexandra. ‘“Par commandement et selon devys d’icelle dame”, Catherine de Médicis commanditaire de portraits’, in Il mecenatismo di Caterina de’ Medici, Poesia, feste, musica, pittura, scultura, architettura, ed. by Sabine Frommel and Gerhard Wolf (Venice: Marsilio, 2008), pp. 215–228. Zwischen Ideal und Wirklichkeit, Künstlerinnen der Goethe-Zeit zwischen 1750 und 1850, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Bärbel Kovaleski (Ostfildern-Ruit: Schlossmuseum Gotha / Rosgartenmuseum Konstanz, 1999).

About the author Christina Strunck is Professor of the History of Art at the University of ErlangenNuremberg. Her doctoral thesis on Bernini and the Galleria Colonna was awarded the Otto Hahn medal of the Max Planck Society. Her publications include a monograph on Medici Grand Duchess Christine of Loraine plus contributions to numerous edited volumes, several dealing with female art patronage.

69

3.

Caterina van Hemessen in the Habsburg Court of Mary of Hungary Jennifer Courts

Abstract Jennifer Courts considers the career of Caterina van Hemessen, a portraitist and a member of the court of Mary of Hungary. Her virtues as a painter were praised by contemporaries, and she is recognized by modern scholars for her artistic innovation; yet signed paintings by the artist ceased at approximately the same time she entered courtly service. Rather than viewing painting as the pinnacle of her career, the author argues that Caterina’s artistic output served as a means of social mobility. The author also suggests that van Hemessen’s activities created opportunities for subsequent artists, notably Sofonisba Anguissola, who arrived at the Habsburg court in Spain after shortly after van Hemessen’s departure in 1558. Keywords: self portraiture; women artists; court artist; Antwerp art market; women’s education; ladies-in-waiting

Caterina van Hemessen (1528–after 1565) defied tremendous odds by becoming a professional painter in the sixteenth century. In a Self Portrait now at the Öffentliche Kunstsammlung, Basel (1548, fig. 3.1) she displays her skills, appearing seated before an easel holding a small, framed oak panel. Her left hand holds a wooden palette dotted with oil paint, a collection of delicate brushes, and her maulstick, while the right gently holds a paintbrush to the work in progress. The text in the upper left of the panel reads: EGO CATERINA DE / HEMESSEN ME / PINXI / 1548. With this work, Caterina further challenged convention by creating both the earliest known self portrait by a woman artist and the first self portrait at an easel in northern Europe. Caterina also appears to have received an exceptional humanist education, as is suggested by the Latin signature on the Self Portrait. In a further extraordinary achievement, the artist later served as a lady-in-waiting to Mary of Hungary (1505–1558), the Governor of the Netherlands and the head of one of the

Jones, T.L. (ed.), Women Artists in the Early Modern Courts of Europe: c. 1450–1700. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2021 doi 10.5117/9789462988194_ch03

72 Jennifer Courts

Figure 3.1 Caterina van Hemessen, Self Portrait, 1548, oil on panel, 32.2 x 25.2 cm. Öffentliche Kunstmuseum, Basel. Image Credit: Kunstmuseum Basel.

Caterina van Hemessen in the Habsburg Court of Mary of Hungary 

most cultured and sophisticated courts in mid-sixteenth century Europe, whom she accompanied from Brussels to Spain in 1556.1 With these distinctions, it is hardly surprising that Caterina van Hemessen is present in nearly every discussion of Early Modern women artists. But, given the paucity of other documentation about her life, accompanying discussion is generally scant. No known paintings signed by or attributed to Caterina post-date 1552. Archival sources indicate that Caterina married Kerstiaen de Moryn, an organist for the Antwerp Cathedral, in 1554, and that they both accompanied Mary’s court to Spain in 1556.2 The couple then returned to the Netherlands after Mary’s death in 1558. Caterina and Kerstiaen had at least one child, a daughter, who performed musically at Philip II’s coronation as king of Portugal in 1581.3 As is the case with discussions of many women artists, the lack of dated paintings by Caterina’s hand after marriage has been cited as evidence that her career was neglected in favour of that of her husband. This reading is problematic, though, particularly as there are no signed and dated paintings by Caterina for two years prior to her marriage. An alternative explanation for the lack of documented paintings post-1552 is that Caterina experienced a change in career, from the mercantile world of the Antwerp art market and into the Habsburg court as a lady-in-waiting. In a departure from studies that see painting as the pinnacle of Caterina’s ambitions, this chapter suggests that modern scholars might profitably consider that Caterina van Hemessen’s artistic output served as a means of financial and social mobility, ultimately facilitating her entry into the court of Mary of Hungary. Indeed, while Caterina was both a painter and a member of the court, she was neither officially appointed court painter – not particularly surprising given the restraints of court etiquette – nor is there any material evidence that she produced paintings during her tenure there. This paper addresses how Caterina’s paintings demonstrated artistic inventiveness, a feature that would have appealed to the Habsburg regent, who appropriated the artistic tastes of the earlier Valois-Burgundian dukes and commissioned art from the most innovative artists of the sixteenth century. Simultaneously, Caterina constructed an accomplished persona, via her works, beyond the boundary of her identity as an artist. As such, the paintings facilitated entry into the courtly environment where Caterina found economic success – apparently then not wholly dependent upon her artistic skills. This re-evaluation of Caterina’s journey to and experience in the court as a lady-in-waiting aids in understanding the role of other sixteenth-century Flemish women painters, including Susanna 1 A number of recent publications provide new light on the life of Mary of Hungary and her role as an art patron. In particular, see Kerkhoff, Maria van Hongarije; and van den Boogert, ‘Mary of Hungary’, pp. 2807–2822. 2 De Clippel, Catharina van Hemessen, pp. 25–27. 3 Forney, ‘“Nymphes gayes en abry du Laurier”’, p. 171.

73

74 Jennifer Courts

Horenboult (1503–c. 1554) and Lievene Teerlinc (1510s–1576), who set the standard for female artists attached to courts.

Early Life and Education Born in Antwerp in 1528, Caterina was one of five children of the Flemish Mannerist painter Jan Sanders van Hemessen and Barbe de Fevre. Jan trained three sons as painters and likely provided Caterina’s artistic training, as well. This was the case with other contemporary Flemish women artists including Horenboult and Teerlinc.4 Jan was a member of the prestigious Saint Luke’s Guild in Antwerp after 1524, and maintained a workshop with numerous apprentices and assistants supporting his artistic output. While other women artists in Antwerp were members of the Saint Luke’s Guild, both based upon their own artistic merits and as widows of guild members who maintained ownership of workshops after their husbands’ deaths, there is no evidence to suggest that Caterina was a guild participant.5 Rather, she appears to have been an active member of her father’s studio, as is suggested by paintings including the predella of the Tendilla Retablo (c. 1550s), now at the Cincinnati Arts Museum. Hers has been identified as one of four distinct hands evident in the multi-panel altarpiece.6 Caterina was, additionally, the author of three signed religious works that compositionally resemble the work of her father, particularly the landscape backgrounds. But these, including the Lamentation of Christ (c. 1550), incorporate figures that recall the style of the fifteenth-century Flemish Primitives such as Rogier van der Weyden, seen in the tender and emotional rendering of mourning around the broken body of Christ, rather than the Mannerist style that characterized her father’s output.7 Caterina was born into the merchant class, the daughter of a painter, and while her father was professionally and socially successful, her rise to a position in the household of Mary of Hungary begs the question: why would the Regent employ a woman not of noble birth as a lady-in-waiting?8 There is significant indication that painting – in particular Caterina’s early self portraiture – played an important role in facilitating a court career. The majority of the paintings either signed by 4 De Clippel, Catharina van Hemessen, p. 18. For a detailed discussion of the careers of Susanna Horenboult and Lievine Teerlinc, see James, Feminine Dynamic. 5 For more on women in the Antwerp Saint Luke’s Guild, see van der Stighelen, ‘Ravissantes ou Cassantes Féminines ou Indociles?’, pp. 27–41. 6 De Clippel, Catharina van Hemessen, p. 23. 7 Caterina van Hemessen’s Lamentation of Christ is now at the Rockoxhuis, Antwerp. 8 Both the Jones’ ‘Introduction’ and Gamberini’s chapter in this volume suggest that noble birth was a near-prerequisite to obtaining such a position in Habsburg royal households in the period.

Caterina van Hemessen in the Habsburg Court of Mary of Hungary 

or attributed to Caterina are conservative portrait panels featuring fashionably dressed men and women in three-quarter-length poses against a plain, usually dark, background.9 While these portraits demonstrate the sitters’ ages and suggest opulent piety based their conservative yet expensive dress, it was in her own now-famed 1548 Self Portrait, existing in two autograph copies, and a pendant image of her sister Christina that Caterina demonstrated innovative skill as an artist. It is argued here that it was not just her skill as a painter but Caterina’s ingenium, informed by her education and awareness of the rules of social etiquette, and demonstrated in these works, that made her an attractive candidate for employment in the Habsburg court. Raised in the cultural and humanist centre of Antwerp in the sixteenth century, Caterina had far greater access to education than her southern contemporaries. During her childhood, elementary schools in Antwerp were open to both boys and girls.10 The subjects offered included reading, writing, grammar, bookkeeping, mathematics, music, and languages including Dutch, French, Spanish, English, and Italian.11 As was noted above, the inscription on the Self Portrait also suggests that Caterina may have had Latin training.12 Such extensive education for women was in keeping with the humanist spirit that permeated contemporary Antwerp, and was encouraged by didactic texts that explicitly called for female education. One such work is De institutione feminae christianae, written by Juan Luis Vives for Catherine of Aragon in 1523, and subsequently translated into French, Italian, German, Dutch, English, and Spanish. The text stressed women’s intellectual training, etiquette, and moral instruction, was issued in forty editions, and became one of the most popular works on the subject of the education of women.13 Given the void in documentary evidence regarding the artist’s biography, the majority of critical scholarship dedicated to Caterina van Hemessen addresses her paintings, specifically the 1548 Self Portrait, which is universally recognized for its inventiveness. Caterina’s awareness of antique women artists and evocation of such models in the portrait composition are cited as means by which the artist sought to legitimize her work.14 Marguerite Droz-Emmert, for example, looks to the classical painter Marcia, discussed by Pliny in the Historia naturalis, and contemporary painter Sofonisba Anguissola when exploring how Caterina defined herself as a woman artist based on humanist ideals. The Self Portrait becomes proof of ingenium, the interior capacity to create, and has been linked both visually 9 These are similar in style to the portraits produced by her father in the 1440s. 10 Forney, ‘“Nymphes gayes en abry du Laurier”’, p. 158; De Clippel, Catharina van Hemessen, p. 23. 11 Forney, ‘“Nymphes gayes en abry du Laurier”’, p. 161. 12 De Clippel, Catharina van Hemessen, pp. 23–24. 13 Forney, ‘“Nymphes gayes en abry du Laurier”’, p. 152. 14 Schweikhart, ‘Boccaccio’s’, pp. 112–136; King, ‘Looking’, pp. 382–383; Droz-Emmert, Catharina van Hemessen, pp. 53–57.

75

76 Jennifer Courts

and textually to the discussion of the artists Marcia and Timarete in Boccaccio’s De claris mulieribus.15 Caterina’s blank, frontal stare has led to suggestions that a mirror was used in rendering the Self Portrait, linking the work to representations of Marcia in illustrated copies of the text.16 In early fifteenth-century illustrations of De claris mulieribus, Marcia uses a mirror to create an exact mimetic representation of her image, indicating her mastery of artificium, or the technical ability to create through education and experience.17 Boccaccio describes Marcia as exhibiting both ingenium, or innate talent, and artificium, and she is applauded for the ‘artifice of her hands’, a direct reference to technical ability.18 All artists of the sixteenth century would have necessarily relied on a mirror in creating their selfimage, but the object itself is conspicuously absent from Caterina’s portrait. By omitting such a direct reference to the mechanics of her work, the artist advertises her ingenium, an ability to construct an image not based solely upon a physical model but informed by her own ideas and mental capacity. By associating Caterina van Hemessen with classical models such as Marcia, art historians have themselves mirrored legendary models of the past. Just as, for example, Giorgio Vasari reinforced the legitimacy of trecento artistic greatness by linking Giotto to the ancient artist Apelles in the Lives (1550, 1568), almost f ive centuries later, modern art historians follow the same line of thinking, connecting this northern European woman artist to the classical past in order to validate her achievement.19 Although tracing the success of artists through this form of typological investigation is a foundation of art history, it problematically overlooks what van Hemessen stood to gain in her own cultural milieu by production of the innovative Self Portrait. Indeed, we gain much in terms of understanding the inventive nature of the painting when we consider the artist’s self-presentation against the cultural and intellectual context of Early Modern Antwerp. Antwerp was home to a thriving open art market, the Pand, located next to the Bourse, the city’s f inancial exchange from 1460 to 1560. 20 Due to the patronage of Habsburg rulers, the city expanded from about 40,000 residents in 1500 to more than 100,000 by 1560.21 Antwerp supported a diverse range of visual 15 Looking to Boccaccio as an iconographic source for female self portraiture is also found in discussion of other sixteenth-century women artists such as Sofonisba Anguissola and Lavinia Fontana. 16 De Clippel, Catharina van Hemessen, p. 80. 17 Perkinson, ‘Engin’, p. 52. 18 A comprehensive discussion of Marcia in Boccaccio can be found in Perkinson, ‘Engin’, pp. 51–67. 19 Land, ‘Apelles’, pp. 6–9. 20 The Pand in Antwerp has received considerable attention; see, in particular, Ewing, ‘Marketing Art’, pp. 558–584; and Honig, Painting. 21 Silver, Peasant Scenes, pp. 16–17.

Caterina van Hemessen in the Habsburg Court of Mary of Hungary 

arts, and satisf ied the needs of customers of various economic backgrounds by offering both original compositions by the city’s most prestigious artists as well as ready-made and pattern-produced objects. 22 The success of artists in Antwerp allowed some to function outside of the Pand itself. The premier painters around 1550, including Pieter Coeck van Aelst, Pieter Aertsen, Frans Floris, Pieter Bruegel, and Caterina’s father, all sold works from their own studios rather than participating in the Pand.23 The competitive nature of the Antwerp art market pushed innovation, and it was within the city’s atmosphere of artistic inventiveness and the possibilities of Habsburg patronage that Caterina found professional and f inancial success.

Arts in the Court of Mary of Hungary Mary of Hungary, youngest sister of Emperor Charles V, became the governor of the Netherlands in 1531 following the deaths of her husband, Louis II of Hungary, and her aunt, Margaret of Austria. Mary spent much of her childhood under the guardianship of Margaret in her palace at Mechelen.24 Margaret of Austria, daughter of the last Valois-Burgundian heiress, Mary of Burgundy, understood the importance of visual culture in the promotion of political power, and she actively linked her court to the Burgundian dukes of the fifteenth century, in particular that of her grandfather, Charles the Bold.25 Margaret maintained a large and diverse visual collection, including traditional royal staples such as gold plate, gems, sculpture, and tapestry.26 She also owned a substantial number of painted portraits, primarily representing herself and her family.27 In their portraits, the Habsburgs adopted what has been termed a ‘Burgundian formula’ that looked back on Rogier van der Weyden’s fifteenth-century images of dukes Philip the Good and Charles the Bold.28 The duchy of Burgundy transferred to Habsburg control through the marriage of Mary of Burgundy to the Holy Roman Emperor Maximillian I in 1477. By assuming the iconographic elements of earlier Burgundian portraiture, the Habsburgs sought to link their rule directly to their Valois-Burgundian predecessors.29 Authorized 22 Silver, Peasant Scenes, pp. 17–18. 23 Ewing, ‘Marketing Art’, p. 571. 24 Gschwend, ‘The Manufacture’, 91. 25 Eichberger and Beaven, ‘Family Members’, p. 230. 26 Eichberger and Beaven, ‘Family Members’, p. 225. 27 The inventory of Margaret of Austria’s collection between 1523–1524 includes a total of eighty independent portraits. Eichberger and Beaven, ‘Family Members’, p. 226. 28 Eichberger and Beaven, ‘Family Members’, pp. 230–235; Pearson, Envisioning Gender, p. 177. 29 Eichberger and Beaven, ‘Family Members’, p. 230.

77

78 Jennifer Courts

images, in the style of van der Weyden’s portraits of the Burgundian dukes, were prolifically copied for distribution to courts around Europe.30 When she was named regent, Mary of Hungary inherited her aunt’s collections and substantially increased those while constructing a lavish palace at her preferred residence in Binche.31 Unfortunately, financial accounts for Mary’s art expenditure as well as the objects she commissioned only survive in part, providing a fragmentary knowledge of her patronage.32 While she maintained a diverse assortment of art, tapestries were the highlight of her extensive collection.33 In addition, Mary followed in the footsteps of her aunt by commissioning portraits of herself and her family in order to support the Habsburgs’ legitimate right to rule Burgundy. In her early years as regent, she employed some of the same artists as Margaret of Austria, including Bernard van Orley and Jan Cornelisz Vermeyen, to produce off icial portraits.34 Mary also maintained a number of artists whose principle occupation was the copying of authorized royal images and other paintings in her collection.35 As regent, Mary actively maintained the Habsburg portrait gallery, sending painters around Europe to record the images of the ever-growing family. Although favouring the Flemish manner of the fifteenth century early in her regency, Mary’s choice of portrait style changed beginning in the 1540s due to the popularity of the innovative Venetian painter Titian in the Habsburg courts. Mary also commissioned history paintings from the most illustrious artists working in Europe in the mid-sixteenth century. In 1548, she engaged Titian to produce a series representing the Four Damned Souls derived from Ovid’s Metamorphoses to hang on a wall of the Great Hall in the palace at Binche.36 Only two of the original four survive, depicting Tityus and Sisyphus, both now conserved in the Museo del Prado in Madrid. High Italian Renaissance style spread throughout the courts of Europe during the sixteenth century, but Mary also sought iconic images from fifteenth-century northern masters. The regent inherited some of these and purchased others. She possessed Jan van Eyck’s Arnolfini Portrait (1434), part of her inheritance from Margaret of Austria.37 Mary rather famously purchased Rogier 30 Eichberger and Beaven, ‘Family Members’, p. 226–227. 31 For an detailed analysis of the artists and artworks present in the court of Mary of Hungary while she was building her palace in Binche, see Boogert, ‘Mary of Hungary as a Patron of the Arts’. 32 Boogert, ‘Mary of Hungary as a Patron of the Arts’, p. 2807. 33 For a complete discussion of Mary of Hungary’s tapestry collection, see Gschwend, ‘Manufacture and Marketing’. 34 Boogert, ‘Mary of Hungary as a Patron of the Arts’, p. 2809. 35 Boogert, ‘Mary of Hungary as a Patron of the Arts’, p. 2810. 36 Boogert, ‘Mary of Hungary as a Patron of the Arts’, p. 2811. 37 Parmentier, ‘Marie de Hongrie et la Madone vander Paele’, p. 388. The Arnolfini Portrait is in the collection of the National Gallery, London.

Caterina van Hemessen in the Habsburg Court of Mary of Hungary 

van der Weyden’s Descent from the Cross (c. 1435) from the Louvain Crossbowmen’s guild, employing Michiel Coxcie, described in documents as ‘painctre de la Royne’, to produce a copy of the painting as payment to the guild, along with a sum of cash and a new organ.38 She also attempted to purchase van Eyck’s Madonna with the Canon van der Paele (c. 1435) from the church of St. Donas in Bruges, without success.39 While Mary’s interest in early Netherlandish painting may seem at odds with the regent’s simultaneous acquisition of contemporary, Italian art, there are a number of reasons why such a relatively archaic style was still sought after in one of the most cultured courts in Europe. The paintings of van Eyck and van der Weyden recalled the height of ValoisBurgundian ducal power during the fifteenth century. Just as the Burgundian formula employed in portraiture by the early Habsburg rulers of Burgundy assisted in legitimizing their rule by linking them to the previous dynasty, collecting works from the masters of the fifteenth century served to strengthen the Habsburg legacy in Burgundy. This connection to the past, however, was not the most significant reason why the paintings of van Eyck and van der Weyden were popular with Mary of Hungary and collected alongside modern works by artists like Titian. Van Eyck and van der Weyden stand out even today from their fifteenth-century contemporaries because each demonstrated considerable artistic invention, a notion promoted in humanist thought of the period. 40 The artist Jacopo de’ Barbari (c. 1440–1516), associated with the court of Philip of Burgundy and then the court of Margaret of Austria, advocated recognizing painting as the eighth liberal art by stressing the significance of innovative creation by artists.41 Philip of Burgundy had demonstrated his own avid interest in collecting works unified by the manifestation of artistic invention, rather than a particular style, in the dining room of his palace at Duurstede, where three Italian-influenced mythological nudes shared a wall with Hieronymus Bosch’s The Cure of Folly (c. 1494). 42 Always enigmatic and certainly not referencing Italian art, Bosch’s paintings were prized by humanist patrons for their clever inventiveness. This mix of Bosch and Italian-influenced works was 38 On Coxie’s role in the court of Mary of Hungary, see Boogert, ‘Mary of Hungary as a Patron of the Arts’, p. 2808; on Mary’s purchase of van der Weyden’s Descent from the Cross, which is presently located in the Prado, Madrid, see: idem, p. 2812. 39 Parmentier, ‘Marie de Hongrie et la Madone vander Paele’, pp. 388–391. Interest in fifteenth-century painting was not limited to Mary of Hungary. Her brother, Philip II, attempted to purchase the Ghent Altarpiece, but his request was rejected and he substituted a copy painted by Coxcie. Boogert, ‘Mary of Hungary as a Patron of the Arts’, p. 2812. 40 On the signif icance of artist invention and fantasy in Habsburg Burgundy, Moxey, ‘Hieronymus Bosch’, pp. 104–140. 41 Moxey, ‘Hieronymus Bosch’, pp. 116–117. 42 Moxey, ‘Hieronymus Bosch’, pp. 110–111. The work is presently located in the Museo Nacional del Prado, Madrid.

79

80 Jennifer Courts

also found in the Burgundian/Spanish court of Mencía de Mendoza, third wife of Henry III of Nassau. 43 Mary of Hungary shared with her kin an interest in art that demonstrated artistic ingenuity. Caterina van Hemessen’s 1548 Self Portrait appears to have been designed precisely to demonstrate that capacity, and it was likely this attribute that attracted the regent’s attention.

Caterina and Artistic Invention Caterina was exposed to an atmosphere of artistic invention from her earliest education in her father’s studio. Jan Sanders van Hemessen was at the forefront of the painting market in highly competitive Antwerp because of his creativity.44 While Jan produced works in a number of genres including portraiture and history painting, he notably exploited the developing market for didactic genre painting by producing moralizing tavern scenes. For example, in The Prodigal Son (1536), 45 he placed the biblical parable within a contemporary context. While the bulk of the narrative occurs in the background, the foreground of the painting features a scene of drunken revelry and juxtaposes the Prodigal Son with the elderly and comical figure of the procuress.46 Jan likewise blended imagery of modern sin with a New Testament subject in The Calling of Saint Matthew (c. 1548), a mode that would later be exploited by Caravaggio in the Contarelli Chapel (1599–1600) in Rome. 47 Several of Caterina’s other portraits demonstrate that, like her father, she experimented with blending genres to create innovative compositions. In Girl at the Virginal (1548, fig. 3.2), likely representing her older sister Christina, Caterina merges portraiture with action. Depicting a lone woman playing an instrument was not itself a novel concept; her father did this in Young Woman Playing a Clavichord (c. 1530, fig. 3.3). 48 Jan’s painting, influenced by the Master of the Female HalfLengths, depicts Mary Magdalene playing the instrument in a domestic interior.49 43 Moxey, ‘Hieronymus Bosch’, pp. 110. 44 For the most in-depth discussion of Jan Sanders van Hemessen, see Wallen, Jan van Hemessen. 45 Jan Sanders van Hemessen’s 1536 version of The Prodigal Son is now at the Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts, Brussels. 46 Bret L. Rothstein discusses this painting in great and salacious detail. See Rothstein, ‘Jan van Hemessen’s Anatomy of Parody’, pp. 457–479. 47 Jan Sanders van Hemessen’s Calling of Saint Matthew is conserved at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. 48 Caterina’s Girl at the Virginal is now located in Cologne at the Wallraf-Richartz Museum, while her father’s Woman Playing a Clavichord is in the Worcester Art Museum. 49 The identification of the sitter in the painting has varied, for example, Wallen argued that the figure is a portrait of a member of the Habsburg family, while Penny Jolly identifies the figure as the Magdalene due to the presence of the characteristic metal jar placed on the table. See Jolly, Picturing the Pregnant Magdalene, p. 158.

Caterina van Hemessen in the Habsburg Court of Mary of Hungary 

Figure 3.2 Caterina van Hemessen, Girl at the Virginal, 1548, oil on panel, 30.5 x 24 cm. Wallraf-RichartzMuseum, Cologne. Image Credit: The Picture Art Collection/Alamy Stock Photo.

81

82 Jennifer Courts

Figure 3.3 Jan Sanders van Hemessen, Woman Playing a Clavichord, c. 1530, oil on panel, 67.2 x 55.2 cm. Worcester Art Museum, Worcester, MA. Image Credit: Worcester Art Museum, Massachusetts, USA/ Bridgeman Images.

Her sumptuous dress and dishevelled golden necklace combined with her playing an instrument – something that in the Early Modern period could be associated with prostitution – may well have suggested a lascivious nature; however, Penny Jolly argues that the classical-style fireplace in the background suggested social refinement.50 Although the licentious potential of music making was an accepted 50 Jolly, Picturing the Pregnant Magdalene, p. 158.

Caterina van Hemessen in the Habsburg Court of Mary of Hungary 

fact in the sixteenth century, musical training was also part of a humanist education for cultured young women. It is that aspect of musicality – as the attribute of the refined and accomplished lady – that both Jan and Caterina’s paintings feature.51 The woman represented in Caterina’s Girl at the Virginal is sumptuously dressed in red and black velvet with delicate lace and bead details, portrayed against a stark, dark background that denies the possibility of a narrative. She actively engages in music making, demurely avoiding the eyes of the viewer while her fingers arch and flex over the keyboard of the ornately decorated virginal. Her dress, modest persona, and evident musical education all reinforce her status.52 But while Jan’s image is devotional in nature, as contemporary viewers might see a path to salvation through the model of Mary Magdalene, Caterina produced a portrait, a fact reinforced by the inclusion of the sitter’s age. Caterina’s emphasis on the young woman’s musical accomplishment, rather than simply her beauty and status as object of masculine conquest and possession, represented a stark change from earlier portraits of women across Europe in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. Historically, women were presented as yet another object representing the desired status of the male patron/viewer, becoming a part of the economic capital presented in the painting. The value of the woman was then converted into the perceived nobility of the owner, be he her father, husband, or lover. In Girl at the Virginal Caterina skilfully blended female object with identity to create a new form of portraiture that showcased women’s social status and the quality of their upbringing.53 Girl at the Virginal shares many qualities with Caterina’s 1548 Self Portrait, including identical red velvet and beaded sleeves worn with a black brocade dress. Caps modestly cover both women’s hair, and they have the same large brown eyes and soft chin. The Self Portrait, too, represented a compositional innovation. By presenting herself in the act of painting, Caterina also merged portraiture with an activity that underscored the female subject’s education and social grace.54 Like music, painting was another skill acquired by accomplished women. In the Book of the Courtier (1528) Baldassare Castiglione prescribed that, among other things, 51 Erasmus, for example, supported the education of women, but was wary about the potential slippery slope of musical education; see Forney, ‘“Nymphes gayes en abry du Laurier”’, p. 153. 52 The use of such painting to advertise a potential bride is also seen in the case of Lavinia Fontana’s Self Portrait at a Clavichord from 1577. 53 Her marketing strategy appears successful, as subsequent examples of the theme include Sofonisba Anguissola’s version from 1554–1555, and Lavinia Fontana’s from 1577. 54 The ultimate success of this innovative mix of portrait and activity is evident, as subsequent women artists adopt this composition. Caterina’s successor in the Spanish court, Sofonisba Anguissola, used this format; however, the subject is not limited to the sixteenth century, as can be seen in the seventeenthcentury image of the Haarlem painter Judith Leyster, and the eighteenth-century portrait of the French court painter, Elisabeth Vigée Le Brun.

83

84 Jennifer Courts

the ideal lady at court should ‘be knowledgeable about literature and painting’.55 The success of the ‘Self Portrait as a female painter’ format likely derives from its ability to communicate many details about the woman’s persona. The cultivated and socially adept young woman in the Self Portrait possesses attributes desirable in a court companion – including her evident literacy and skill as a portraitist. The creation of new and the copying of old portraits was one of the primary tasks for artists working in the court of Mary of Hungary, and Caterina deftly highlights her ability to perform that necessary task in her Self Portrait. Even as the portrait conveys the artist’s mimetic skill and compositional ingenuity, the image on the easel before her is only a face, leaving the subject ambiguous. The disembodied head might well represent the beginning of a devotional image, a genre also produced by Caterina. Indeed, Caterina’s devotional paintings were in the Flemish Primitive style in demand at the court of Mary of Hungary. That two copies of the 1548 Self Portrait survive, one now in the Hermitage and the other in the Michaelis Collection in South Africa, also becomes relevant within this context. The existence of multiple copies of the Self Portrait, with their emphasis on artistic creative agency, functioned to display Caterina’s talent and cultural education, both important and marketable skills for one potentially looking to for employment as a lady-in-waiting within a court. The portraits could serve as gifts to potential employers, such as Mary of Hungary, answering demand for the various social and artistic skills on display.

Caterina in the Court of Mary of Hungary The first likely mention of Caterina within the regent’s court appears in a household ordinance from November 1555, which lists ‘la petite kathelyne’ as lady-in-waiting to Mary of Hungary.56 The artist and her husband were certainly part of the cortège that accompanied Mary to Spain in 1556. Beyond those brief notices, little survives to flesh out the life of Caterina van Hemessen at court. But by addressing her educational background, piecing together the scant archival evidence, and assessing the experience of other women in service in royal courts, it is possible to gain a greater understanding of her role in the household of Mary of Hungary. Exploring the experiences of the painter Susanna Horenboult, Caterina’s slightly older contemporary who served in the royal households of numerous wives of England’s Henry VIII, offers insights into the ways in which Caterina’s background and education would have benefited her in the multi-cultural environment of 55 Castiglione, Book of the Courtier, p. 216. 56 De Clippel, Catharina van Hemessen, p. 29. De Clippel argues that the reference to a young lady-inwaiting does not refer to Caterina van Hemessen.

Caterina van Hemessen in the Habsburg Court of Mary of Hungary 

Habsburg Spain. Born in Ghent in 1503, Susanna Horenboult was trained as a miniaturist by her father, the Flemish manuscript illuminator Gherhaert Horenboult.57 Gherhaert worked for Margaret of Austria, spending part of his time at her court, thus providing his young daughter with experience in sixteenth-century court etiquette.58 The family moved to London in the 1520s and entered the service of Henry VIII.59 Notably, while Gherhaert is recorded under the title of ‘paynter’ in documents from the English court, Susanna is listed as a ‘gentlewoman’.60 But, as Lodovico Guicciardini records, this titular distinction did not preclude Susanna from painting portraits for the court.61 The title of gentlewoman, however, was not only honorific; Susanna functioned as a cultural ambassador while serving as a lady-in-waiting for at least two of Henry VIII’s wives. In 1539, she was selected to accompany Anne of Cleves to England, and the painter served as an interpreter for the German princess who knew no foreign languages.62 She further is recorded as teaching Anne to play the card game Cent.63 Susanna was named first of Anne’s gentlewomen, a Gentlewoman of the Privy Chamber, and her service continued under the subsequent queen, Catherine Parr.64 Like Susanna Horenboult’s father, Caterina’s father worked for Margaret of Austria and Mary of Hungary, service that likely provided the younger van Hemessen the opportunity to experience life in a Renaissance court prior to her move with Mary to Spain.65 Caterina’s father may also have assisted in brokering his daughter’s position within the court. This was the case for the Cremonese artist Sofonisba Anguissola who joined the Spanish Habsburg court of Philip II in 1559, a year after Caterina returned to the Netherlands. Unlike Caterina, Sofonisba was born into a noble family who traced their history back to the beginning of the eighth century.66 Both women, however, received humanist educations, and Cecilia Gamberini argues that Sofonisba’s father Amilcare considered his daughter’s education an investment that would be returned when she received a court position.67 Sofonisba produced a number of self portraits prior to her court appointment, some following the formula initiated by Caterina. Amilcare was very selective in sending his daughter’s self 57 James, Feminine Dynamic, p. 242 58 Campbell and Foister, ‘Gerard, Lucas and Susanna Horenbout’, p. 720. 59 Van der Stighelen, ‘Ravissantes ou Cassantes Féminines ou Indociles?’, p. 34; Campbell and Foister, ‘Horenbout’, p. 720. 60 Campbell and Foister, ‘Horenbout’, pp. 720, 725–727. 61 Campbell and Foister, ‘Horenbout’, p. 725. 62 Campbell and Foister, ‘Horenbout’, p. 726. 63 Cent is the English name for Piquet. 64 Campbell and Foister, ‘Horenbout’, p. 726. 65 De Clippel, Catharina van Hemessen, p. 24. 66 Gamberini, ‘Sofonisba Anguissola at the Court of Philip II’, pp. 29–38. 67 Gamberini, ‘Sofonisba Anguissola’, p. 29.

85

86 Jennifer Courts

portraits to Italian courts, carefully choosing those with which he shared family connections and kinship.68 Although she was a talented artist, it was Sofonisba’s familial ties and her educational background, not necessarily her skill as an artist, which, Gamberini argues, won her a position as a lady-in-waiting for Elizabeth of Valois.69 No documentary evidence survives to indicate if Caterina van Hemessen (or her father) sent her portrait to members of the court in attempt to achieve a position but, as was suggested above, the fact that multiple copies of her 1548 Self Portrait survive strongly supports this supposition. As we have seen, the copying of portraits and other paintings present in the Habsburg collection was one of the most important artistic tasks at the court of Mary of Hungary, and the regent employed a number of artists for these tasks. Although her ingenium arguably provided her introduction to the court, it is possible that Caterina functioned as a copyist within Mary’s court as she was trained both in portraiture and the style of the Flemish Primitives.70 If Caterina did produce copies for Mary, it might explain the lack of signed paintings during her years in Spain.71 Sofonisba Anguissola did not sign the paintings she produced in in Spain, making identification of the works she produced there difficult.72 Like Caterina, Sofonisba was not officially employed as a painter, but as a lady-in-waiting. While Sofonisba served as a painting instructor for Elizabeth of Valois and the children of the court, she also produced portraits for the queen, the Habsburg family, and their associates.73 Due to a constant need for portraiture in the Habsburg courts, an artist was always present, and as women artists such as Caterina and Sofonisba would have been in the unique position to interact with ladies of the court without violating rules that regulated the interactions between men and women.74

Conclusion Caterina van Hemessen appears to have parlayed her educational background, social skills, and ingenuity as a painter into a coveted and prestigious position within the Spanish Habsburg court. Consideration of the careers of other artists in sixteenth-century courts, particularly Susanna Horenbout and Sofonisba Anguissola, 68 Gamberini, ‘Sofonisba Anguissola’, p. 31. On these kinship networks and their import to Anguissola’s career, also see Gamberini’s essay in this volume. 69 Gamberini, ‘Sofonisba Anguissola’, p. 31. 70 De Clippel, Catharina van Hemessen, p. 28. 71 De Clippel, Catharina van Hemessen, p. 28. 72 Kusche, ‘Sofonisba Anguissola’, p. 60. 73 Kusche, ‘Sofonisba Anguissola’, p. 48. 74 De Clippel, Catharina van Hemessen, p. 28. On this topic, also see Gamberini’s essay in this volume.

Caterina van Hemessen in the Habsburg Court of Mary of Hungary 

suggests that Caterina, like her contemporaries, may well have played a variety of roles at the regent’s court – both in Antwerp and in Spain. Appointed a lady-inwaiting, the Flemish painter, educated in the humanist tradition, may well have served as translator, companion, copyist, art teacher, and portraitist. Her success in managing that position is confirmed by Lodovico Guicciardini, who states that Mary of Hungary not only brought Caterina and her husband to Spain, but also left them a lifetime pension ‘for their rare virtue’ as mixture of talented artist and musician.75 Like Guicciardini, Giorgio Vasari confirmed Caterina’s financial success, stating that, ‘Catharina, daughter of Master Jan van Hemessen […] went to Spain into the service of the Queen of Hungary, with a good salary’.76 Although skill at painting provided the opportunity, Caterina’s court appointment and subsequent financial success were at the centre of her reputation. Recreating Caterina’s journey to and experience in the court aids in recovering the impact of Flemish women painters as they set the standard for female painters at the courts in the following centuries. For example, without Caterina’s service as a lady-in-waiting in the Spanish entourage of Mary of Hungary, the renowned Sofonisba Anguissola might have faced greater difficulty moving into her own position in the Habsburg court. Examining Caterina van Hemessen’s career requires us to be flexible when considering what constituted success for a woman artist in the sixteenth century. Art historians have long seen being a successful working artist as the end goal for those trained in painting, but for Caterina, it appears that painting functioned as a means to a greater end – an appointment within the royal household. Securing a position with the court, and ultimately receiving a lifetime pension from the regent, provided greater income and stability for Caterina than would have a continued career in her father’s workshop or membership in the Antwerp Saint Luke’s Guild. To facilitate her move into the court household, Caterina promoted her abilities though the innovative form of a self portrait as painter, showcasing her ingenuity, artistic training, and humanist education.

Bibliography Boogert, Bob C. van den. ‘Mary of Hungary as a Patron of the Arts’, in Los inventarios de Carlos V y la familia imperial, ed. by Juan Luis González García, 3 vols. (Madrid: Fernando Villaverde, 2010), III, pp. 2807–2822. Campbell, Lorne, and Susan Foister. ‘Gerard, Lucas and Susanna Horenbout’, The Burlington Magazine 128, no. 1003 (Oct. 1986), 719–727. 75 Guicciardini, Tutti i paesi bassi, p. 100. 76 Quoted in Droz-Emmert, Catharina van Hemessen, p. 158.

87

88 Jennifer Courts

Castiglione, Baldassare. The Book of the Courtier, trans. by George Bull (New York: Penguin, 1967). De Clippel, Karolien. Catharina van Hemessen (1528–na 1567). Een monografische studie over een ‘uytnemende wel geschickte vrouwe in de conste der schilderyn’ (Brussels: KVAB Paleis der Academiën, 2004). Droz-Emmert, Marguerite. Catharina van Hemessen, Malerin der Renaissance (Basel: Schwabe Verlag, 2004). Eichberger, Dagmar, and Lisa Beaven. ‘Family Members and Political Allies: The Portrait Collection of Margaret of Austria’, Art Bulletin 77, no. 2 (June 1995), 225–248. Ewing, Dan. ‘Marketing Art in Antwerp, 1460–1560: Our Lady’s Pand’, Art Bulletin 72, no. 4 (Dec. 1990), 558–584. Forney, Kristine. ‘“Nymphes gayes en abry du Laurier”: Musical Instruction for the Bourgeois Woman’, Musica Disciplina 49 (1995), 151–187. Gamberini, Cecilia. ‘Sofonisba Anguissola at the Court of Philip II’, in Women Artists in Early Modern Italy Careers, Fame, and Collectors, ed. Sheila Barker (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), pp. 29–38. Gschwend, Annemarie Jordan. ‘The Manufacture and Marketing of Flemish Tapestries in Sixteenth Century Brussels Two Habsburg Patrons and Collectors: Mary of Hungary and Caterine of Austria’, in Ao modo da Flandres: disponibilidade, inovaçao e mercado de arte na época dos Descobrimentos (1415–1580), ed. by Bernardo J. Garcîa and Fernando Grilo (Lisbon: Fundación Carlos de Ambberes, 2005), pp. 91–113. Guicciardini, Lodovico. Descrittione di M. Lodovico Guicciardini patritio fiorentino, di tutti i paesi bassi… (Antwerp: Silvius, 1567). Honig, Elizabeth Alice. Painting and the Market in Early Modern Antwerp (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998). James, Susan E. The Feminine Dynamic in English Art, 1485–1603: Women as Consumers, Patrons, and Painters (Burlington: Ashgate, 2009). Jolly, Penny Howell. Picturing the Pregnant Magdalene in Northern Art, 1430–1550: Addressing and Undressing the Sinner-Saint (Burlington: Ashgate, 2014). Kerkhoff, Jacqueline. Maria van Hongarije en haar hof (1505–1558), Tot plichtsbetrachting uitverkoren (Hilversum: Verloren, 2008). King, Catherine. ‘Looking at Sight: Sixteenth-Century Portraits of Woman Artists’, Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschicte 58, no. 3 (1995), 381–406. Kusche, Maria. ‘Sofonisba Anguissola: Her Life and Work’, in Sofonisba Anguissola, A Renaissance Woman, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Sylvia Ferino-Pagden and Maria Kusche (Washington, D.C.: The National Museum of Women in the Arts, 1995), pp. 26–105. Land, Norman E. ‘Apelles and the Origin of Giotto’s O’, Source 25, no. 1 (Fall 2005), 6–9. Moxey, Keith. ‘Hieronymus Bosch and the “World Upside Down”: The Case of The Garden of Earthly Delights’, in Visual Culture: Images and Interpretations, ed. by Norman Bryson,

Caterina van Hemessen in the Habsburg Court of Mary of Hungary 

Michael Ann Holly, and Keith Moxey (Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press, 1994), pp. 104–140. Parmentier, R.A. ‘Marie de Hongrie et la Madone vander Paele’, Annales de la Société d’émulation de Bruges 69 (1926), 388–391. Perkinson, Stephen. ‘Engin and Artifice: Describing Creative Agency at the Court of France, ca. 1400’, Gesta 41, no. 1 (2002), 51–67. Rothstein, Bret L. ‘Jan van Hemessen’s Anatomy of Parody’, in The Anthropomorphic Lens: Anthropomorphism, Microcosmism and Analogy in Early Modern Thought and Visual Arts, ed. by Walter Melion, Bret Rothstein, and Michel Weemans (Leiden: Brill, 2015), pp. 457–479. Schweikhart, Gunter. ‘Boccaccios De Claris mulieribus und die Selbstdarstellungen von Malerinnen im 16. Jarhundert’, in Der Künstler über sich in seinem Werk: internationales Symposium der Bibliotheca Hertziana, Rom, 1989, ed. by Matthias Winner (Weinheim: VCH, Acta Humanoria, 1992), pp. 112–136. Silver, Larry. Peasant Scenes and Landscapes (Pittsburgh: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994). Stighelen, Katlijne van der. ‘Ravissantes ou Cassantes Féminines ou Indociles? Les femmes artistes de Pays-Bas mérionaux entre 1500 et 1800’, in A chacun sa grâce: femmes artistes en Belgique et aux Pays-Bas 1500–1950, ed. by Katlijne van der Stighelen and Mirjam Westen (Amsterdam: Ludion, 1999), pp. 27–41. Wallen, Burr. Jan van Hemessen: An Antwerp Painter Between Reform and Counter-Reform (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1983).

About the author Jennifer Courts is Associate Professor of Art History at the University of Southern Mississippi. Her research focuses on the Early Modern courts of northern Europe, including both the advent of oil painting as a medium used by the new nobility and the construction of royal motherhood in the French court.

89

4. Sofonisba Anguissola, a Painter and a Ladyin-Waiting Cecilia Gamberini

Abstract Relying on primary source documents, Cecilia Gamberini outlines the reality of Sofonisba Anguissola’s experiences in the Household of Queen Isabel of Valois following the artist’s appointment to the Spanish court in 1559. Anguissola’s position is generally credited to her two roles there: painter and lady-in-waiting. The author argues that while Anguissola’s appointment was due in part to her remarkable painted self-representations, it was also facilitated by a largely overlooked network of familial contacts and the political climate of the time. Analyses of Anguissola’s behaviour in the Queen’s Household also offers a glimpse into the young woman’s personality, which was at times irreverent and rebellious, and the opportunity for new attributions. Keywords: Spanish court, household of the queen, portraiture, women, gender studies, sixteenth-century history

Reconstructing Sofonisba Anguissola’s (1532?–1625) life and oeuvre entails consideration of both historical context and the artist’s position as a sixteenth-century noblewoman.1 As is well known, Sofonisba left her natal city of Cremona in 1559 to serve as a lady-in-waiting and a painter at the court of Philip II of Spain (1527–1598). There she was appointed as a dama (lady-in-waiting) to Philip’s third wife, Queen Isabel of Valois (1545–1568).2 Sofonisba’s position at the Spanish court represented the acceptance of a female member of the Anguissola family into a royal environment, certainly one of the most coveted positions available to a young woman at the time. 1 See Guazzoni, ‘Donna, pittrice e gentildonna’. 2 See Amilcare Anguissola’s letters from Cremona to Philip II, 6 September 1559 and 26 November 1559, AGS, Estado, leg. 1210, fols. 153r and 190r; published in Sacchi, ‘Documenti’, p. 87.

Jones, T.L. (ed.), Women Artists in the Early Modern Courts of Europe: c. 1450–1700. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2021 doi 10.5117/9789462988194_ch04

92

Cecilia Gamberini

The appointment offered, as well, an opportunity for the Anguissola family to gain privileges, mercedes (favours) from the king, as well as to establish relationships that would raise the family’s nobility.3 Numerous publications over the last three decades have advanced study of Sofonisba Anguissola from a position of relative anonymity, with attention focusing largely on stylistic analysis and attribution of works to the artist. 4 Even so, areas of uncertainty regarding Sofonisba’s career remain. This is due, in part, to the absence of documented payments for the paintings she produced at the court; further, the artist stopped signing paintings while in Spain.5 It is still not possible, therefore, to clearly identify the scope of Sofonisba’s pictorial production at the court in the years between 1560 and 1573. Indeed, many of the paintings she produced there were long attributed to the official court painter and retratador (portraitist), Alonso Sanchéz Coello.6 To date, relatively little attention has been paid to the social and political environment in which Sofonisba operated while in Spain.7 This, though, seems an important factor, specifically when considering issues of attribution, and might be addressed by combining stylistic analysis with consideration of the environment the artist inhabited at the court.8 Relying upon contemporary written sources, this chapter reveals the connections between the Anguissola family, the Spanish court, and beyond, offering new insights into Sofonisba’s appointment. Her position at the court emerges as not only the product of great skill in painting or based upon her reputation as a ‘virtuosa’, but also due to a network of familial contacts that have largely been overlooked until now.9 Further, analyses of Anguissola’s behaviour in the Queen’s Household offers a glimpse into another side of the young woman’s personality, a more human side, at times irreverent and rebellious. An image of 3 On the code of conduct at the court see Álvarez-Ossorio Alvariño, ‘El arte de medrar’. The term mercedes refers to favours addressed to ladies-in-waiting, such as the assurance of a good marriage, as well as to the families of the damas. This would include, for example, the pension on wine donated by the King to Sofonisba’s family; for this, see AGS, Secretarias Provinciales, libro 1335, fols. 201r–202v, printed in Kusche, ‘Sofonisba Anguissola’, 1992, p. 33, doc. I. 4 For general reference, see Sofonisba Anguissola e le sue sorelle; also the studies by Pinessi, Sofonisba Anguissola; and Caroli, Sofonisba Anguissola. It is important to underline the contributions of Kusche, ‘Sofonisba Anguissola en España’ and idem, ‘Más retratos’. Also see monographs by Borghini, Sofonisba; Pizzagalli, La signora; and Perlingieri, Sofonisba Anguissola. Finally, articles of particular interest include Garrard, ‘Here’s Looking’; Jacobs, ‘Woman’s Capacity’; Historia de dos pintoras; and Cole, Sofonisba’s Lesson. 5 Some efforts have been made to distinguish between works made by Sofonisba or Alonso Sánchez Coello. For the problematic issue of attributions to Anguissola, particularly without documentary support, see Pinessi, Sofonisba Anguissola, pp. 43–70; also, Pérez de Tudela Gabaldón ‘Sofonisba Anguissola’, pp. 53–69. 6 See Alonso Sánchez Coello. 7 Gamberini, ‘Sofonisba Anguissola’. 8 See Kusche, ‘Sofonisba Anguissola en España’. 9 See the description of the virtuosa in Ghirardi, ‘Lavinia Fontana allo specchio’, pp. 37–43.

Sofonisba Anguissol a, a Painter and a Lady-in-Waiting 

Figure 4.1 Sofonisba Anguissola, Self Portrait with a Book, 1554, oil on panel, 19.5 x 14.5 cm. Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Gemäldegalerie, Vienna. Image Credit: Erich Lessing/Art Resource, NY.

Sofonisba Anguissola emerges that is quite different from that model of propriety (fig. 4.1) presented in her early self portraits, and far from the myth of an idealized woman artist described in sixteenth-century sources.

An Italian Lady-in-Waiting It is likely that Sofonisba was chosen as lady-in-waiting to the Spanish queen not solely for her artistic skill but also for her high rank and the network of ties that existed between her family and the court from the fifteenth century.10 That 10 On the Anguissola’s family see the documentation preserved in ASMi, Famiglie 6, Anguissola; and ASCr, for example Archivio Notarile 1045, 1000 and Filciae Fragmentorum 26, 27, 33. See also Anguissola Scotti, La famiglia Anguissola; and Bonetti, ‘Nel centenario’.

93

94

Cecilia Gamberini

network constituted a relationship of trust that placed members of the Anguissola family in the role of courtiers to Habsburg rulers. For instance, one of Sofonisba’s relatives, Count Giovanni Anguissola, had been made infamous for being the material author of the murder of Pierluigi Farnese, Duke of Parma and Piacenza, in 1547. This was done with the approval of the Emperor Charles V, father of Philip II. The assassination was orchestrated for the important political advantages that it would offer the Habsburg rulers, since control of Piacenza represented a strategic position relative to the Duchy of Milan.11 Afterwards, the Anguissola count remained in the service of the Spanish royal family, in a position that included great honours and increasing levels of trust, until his death.12 Another of Sofonisba’s relatives, Ferrante Gonzaga of Castiglione, nephew of Giovanni Anguissola and son of Caterina Anguissola, was also at the Spanish court.13 Ferrante was identified in a letter from Girolamo Negri, ambassador of the Duke of Mantua Guglielmo Gonzaga, as the one who ‘went to get Sofonisba’ to dance the gagliarda during the wedding of Philip II and Isabel de Valois in 1560.14 The King later sanctioned an advantageous wedding between Gonzaga and Marta Tana de Santena, a ladyin-waiting to the Queen.15 When Sofonisba joined the group of the damas at the court she entered the Casa de la Reina (Household of the Queen), an institution parallel to but independent from the King’s Household (Casa del Rey) and with a similar structure.16 The damas received gajes (remuneration) as part of their appointment and had access to various privileges due to their direct connection with the Queen.17 Sofonisba, too, received this salary, the payments of which are registered in the documentations of Archive of Simancas.18 At the court, then, her role as a painter – never sanctioned 11 Podestà, ‘Dal delitto politico’, pp. 679–720; and the analysis of Bertomeu Masiá, La guerra secreta de Carlos V, pp. 8–10. 12 Antonio Bonardi, ‘Giovanni Anguissola e la Spagna’ pp. 43–62; Raponi, ‘Giovanni Anguissola’; Ragazzi, Il conte Giovanni Anguissola; Ragazzi, ‘Giovanni Anguissola governatore’; Repetti, Dall’aspetto; and Bertomeu Masiá, La guerra secreta de Carlos V. 13 Tamalio, ‘Ferrante Gonzaga’. 14 ‘andò a prendere Sofonisba’; in ASMn, Gonzaga, Esteri 590, b. 590, fol. 96r, 8 February 1560, Girolamo Negri to Duque Guglielmo Gonzaga, in Justi, ‘Philipp II als Kunstfreund’, pp. 12, 35. 15 Rodriguez Salgado, ‘Una perfecta princesa’, p. 60. Ferrante Gonzaga of Castiglione asked for a good marriage strengthen his alliance with Philip II; Marta Tana de Santena, one of Queen Isabel’s ladies-inwaiting, was chosen. For this, see Savio, ‘Le famiglie’; and Bandera, Marta Tana Gonzaga. 16 Muñoz Fernández, ‘La casa delle Regine’. 17 Pinessi, Sofonisba Anguissola, p. 31. The basic salary for a lady-in-waiting amounted to 100 ducats per annum, which corresponded to 37,500 maravedises. There are no off icial records of commissions and payments for Sofonisba’s paintings at the court, as she was a lady-in-waiting of the Spanish queen. Pinessi notes that payments to Sofonisba are preserved in AGS, Casas y Sitios Reales, leg. 36, 37, 40, 41. 18 AGS, Casa Real, Nomina de la Casa de la Reina, leg. 53 and leg. 52, n. 1, fol. 153; cited in González de Amezúa y Mayo, Isabel de Valois, III, pp. 120–122, 363–366.

Sofonisba Anguissol a, a Painter and a Lady-in-Waiting 

by a specific appointment – was subordinate to her official appointment as a ladyin-waiting. This is also affirmed in a letter penned by the ambassador Girolamo Negri who identified the main duties of the young Anguissola, describing her as ‘that Cremonese who paints, who came to stay with the Queen, that is to serve and entertain, even with painting, Isabel of Valois’.19 A letter from the Bishop of Limoges to Caterina de Medici affirms the young Queen’s passion for drawing, noting: It is incredible how, thanks to the lessons of one of the Italian ladies-in-waiting the King gave her, she has improved in painting […] I was ordered [by her] to beg you first of all to send her pencils of all colours […] for she knows that Jannet [François Clouet] will prepare them skilfully.20

Although men held the most important positions in the Casa de la Reina, including that of Mayordomo Mayor, it was the only institutionalized female space at the court.21 Recent research, including that of Angela Muñoz Fernández, underlines the political role of the Casa de la Reina, particularly its function as a framework in which women played leading roles in complicated power games.22 The damas were a group of like-minded women with a strong and direct relationship with the Queen. For this reason, in an environment that might be defined as extremely familiar, it was easy to create situations of complicity. The Queen’s Household was a place where political and diplomatic agreements could be arranged; where a merced (favour) for a relative or a friend might be requested; and where the King might be petitioned for a recaudo (protection or guarantee).23 Sofonisba seems to

19 ASMn, Gonzaga Esteri, b. 590, fol. 96r, 8 February 1560, Girolamo Negri to Duque Guglielmo Gonzaga, in Justi, ‘Philipp II als Kunstfreund’, pp. 12, 35: ‘quella cremonese che dipinge, ch’è venuta a stare con la Regina’. 20 González Amezúa y Mayo, Isabel de Valois, I, pp. 261–263; III p. 506, n. 39. From BNF, fonds français, vol. 6614, fol. 58r: Estant incroyable comme, ayant quelque peu apprins d’une de ses dames italiennes que le roy luy donnée, elle a proufité en la paintcture […] M’ayant commandé de vous suplier par le premierlui adresser des crayons de toutes couleurs et bienfaicts, qu’elle scayt que Jannet scaura luy préparer dextrement.

Jannet was the nickname for François Clouet, court painter in France, who had painted Isabel of Valois from childhood; see Pérez de Tudela Gabaldón ‘Sofonisba Anguissola’, p. 54. 21 See de Salazar y Acha, La casa del rey, p. 100. 22 Guasco, Discourse to Lady Lavinia. See also Akkerman and Houben, eds., Politics of Female Households, which clarifies the role of the ladies-in-waiting in the European courts, but does not mention any Italian court. More recently, Gaude-Ferragu and Vincent-Cassy, eds., ‘La dame de cœur’; and Muñoz Fernández, ‘La casa delle Regine’. Also, publications on ladies-in-waiting by Vanessa de Cruz Medina, for example, ‘Margarita de Cardona y sus hijas’, pp. 1267-1300. 23 Muñoz Fernández, ‘La casa delle Regine’.

95

96

Cecilia Gamberini

have fared well there. As Pietro Paolo de Ribera testified in his biography of the artist (Le glorie inmortali…, 1609), Sofonisba was favoured by both Majesties, and courted by many Spanish Knights, and Italian ones (according to the custom of this court with the ladies of the Palace) in guise, for her inner virtues were so resounding, and external ones as well, that in comparison to all other ladies of the Queen, she was highly considered by everyone.24

The Queen’s Household followed an orderly and inflexible structure, at least in theory. All tasks and duties concerned the Queen’s public, private, or religious necessities. As a lady-in-waiting, Sofonisba would have been required to adhere to the codes of conduct, called instrucciones or etiquetas, imposed on the Household. Specific etiquetas for the Household of Isabel of Valois are not available, probably because they did not exist in written form. The first such written regulations that we can consult date slightly later, to 1575, and were written under the directives of Philip II by his secretary Martín de Gaztelu for the monarch’s fourth wife, Anne of Austria.25 Those etiquetas, which probably reflect earlier practices, affirm that much effort was made to control the actions of the ladies-in-waiting. For example, doors were to be closed and windows locked to prevent contact between the damas and the courtiers and knights that stayed in the Alcazar.26 Galanteos (courtships) were tolerated at the court if marriage was intended, but not all the galanes (suitors) had marriage in mind.27 There were not a few episodes 24 De Ribera, Le Glorie inmortali de Trionfi, p. 315:

Essendo favorita d’ambe Maestà, e cortegiata di molti Cavalieri Spagnoli, et Italiani (secondo l’uso di cotesta Corte colle Dame di palazzo) in guisa, ch’era di cotanto risuono per le sue virtù interne, e sterne, che al par di qualunque altra Dama principale della Reina, era in alto credito appò d’ogniuno.

25 The etiquetas are preserved in BNE, Ms. 10.129, ‘Etiquetas de Palacio. Felipe II’, fols. 75r–91v; also see de la Válgoma y Díaz-Varela, Norma y ceremonia. Also AGP, ‘Etiquetas’, Caja 49, Sección Historica, exp 3: ‘1575 La orden que es nuestra voluntad, guarden los criados y criadas de la Serma. Reyna Dña. Ana (de Austria), e Illmas. infantas, mi muy charas y muy amadas muger e hijas, en lo que toca a su servicio, uso y exercicio de sus officios, y las gajas y raçiones que cada uno dellos a de haber en cada un año de los que sirvieren’. 26 These etiquetas are preserved in AGP, ‘Etiquetas’, Caja 49, Sección Histórica, exp. 3. See de la Válgoma and Díaz-Varela, Norma y ceremonia, p. 91: ‘Los porteros de la porteria de damas’ (‘the doorkeepers of the concierge of the ladies-in-waiting’), were not to leave the door of the rooms where the ladies-in-waiting were until service at the table of the Queen was completed, returning to the palace at 2 or 3 PM: ‘y han de tener muy gran cuidado y vigilancia que no llegue ni entre por la dicha puerta ningun galan ni otra persona, sin licencia expressa de la guarda mayor’ (‘and they must pay attention and be surveillant that no galan or other person enters through the said door, without the express license of the guarda mayor’. 27 See BNE, R/4474, Dignidad de las damas de la reyna. noticias de su origen…, Impreso en 26 novembre 1670.

Sofonisba Anguissol a, a Painter and a Lady-in-Waiting 

when male courtiers were found chatting with the ladies-in-waiting either through a window or while they were serving the Queen during public dinners. Sometimes it occurred that the ladies-in-waiting spent more time with the suitors than was allowed. Antonio Tiepolo, a Venetian ambassador at the court of Philip II in 1571, described a lunch with Queen Anne of Austria reporting that, while three ladies were serving, three other damas were standing close to the tapestries entertaining themselves in animated conversations with their galanes. As Tiepolo explained, the galanes were ‘rich and noble princes or lords, and serve the ladies-in-waiting in order to pass the time pleasantly, still with the aim of taking a wife; nothing else can be hoped for’, as the rules of the Queen’s household were very strict on the subject.28 But another member of the court, Francisco Lopez de Villalobos, doctor to the royal family, noted the presence of cavalleros (knights) whose purpose was only ‘playing with love’, not necessarily marriage.29 The active social life of the damas is suggested by Tiepolo, who goes on to note that, Many pages are at the service of the Queen, with the most honourable lineage, as the sons of dukes, marquises, and princes and they are called pages of honour [paggi d’onore]; and they are obligated at the request of every galante to carry messages and answers between lovers. Many can serve just one lady, but only one at a time can have a chat with her.30

Numerous Italian princes were at the court for military training (imparar d’arme), to complete their education, and to make marriage agreements. This was the case, for example, with Sofonisba’s aforementioned relative, Ferrante Gonzaga,

28 de la Válgoma y Díaz-Varela, Norma y ceremonia, p.108; Alberi, Relazioni degli ambasciatori (1861), p. 226:

Sono costoro principi o signori di molta ricchezza e nobiltà, e servono dame per passare il tempo allegramente, e con animo ancora di prenderle in moglie che altro non bisogna sperare, essendo strettissime in materia le cose di palazzo di S.M.

29 BNE R/31738, López de Villalobos Libro intitulado Los Problemas de Villalobo…, Impreso en casa de George Coci 1544, fol. XI; cited in de la Válgoma y Díaz-Varela, Norma y ceremonia, p. 109: ‘otros cavalleros q sirven a las damas teniendo su principal intencio puesta en el deleyte de los amores’ (‘other gentlemen that are in the service of the ladies-in-waiting mainly focus on enjoying love’). 30 de la Válgoma y Díaz-Varela, Norma y ceremonia, p. 108; Alberi, Relazioni degli ambasciatori (1861), p. 226:

Molti paggi sono al servizio della regina, di stirpe onoratissima, come figliuoli di duchi, di marchesi, e d’altri principi, e si chiamano paggi d’onore, e sono obbligati a istanza di ogni galante portar ambasciate e risposte alle loro innamorate. Molti possono servire una sola dama, ma non può se non uno alla volta trattenersi ragionando con lei.

97

98

Cecilia Gamberini

as well as, later, the young prince Francesco Maria II della Rovere.31 The latter was cousin to Alessandro Farnese as his mother, Vittoria Farnese, and uncle Ottavio were children of Pierluigi Farnese, who was murdered by Giovanni Anguissola.32 The young Francesco Maria went to the court of Philip II in 1565 at the command of his father, the Duke of Urbino, Guidobaldo della Rovere.33 He remained there until 1568, when he was sent back to Italy. While in Spain, Francesco Maria fell in love with one of the Queen’s most beautiful ladies-in waiting, Magdalena Girón Osuna.34 Magdalena was the daughter of the Countess of Ureña, María de la Cueva, who had served as the Camarera Mayor (of the Casa de la Reina).35 On 7 May 1568, ambassador Duke Giovanni Francesco Landriano wrote to inform the Duke of Urbino of his son’s actions in Spain, noting: If Your Excellency will receive an update about the situation, the rumour is that the Prince, your son, is inclined to get married to the sister of the Duke of Osuna named Maddalena de Giron, lady-in-waiting of the Queen of Spain, where she has been educated for many years, her mother was the Camarera Mayor and died in that service[.]36

This information was transmitted in encrypted code probably because no official request had yet been made for the King’s approval of the marriage; further, Guido­ baldo della Rovere would not have been specific regarding his feelings about such a match, even in correspondence with his own ambassadors.37 But rather than 31 Benzoni, ‘Francesco Maria della Rovere’. 32 De Carlos, Alexander. 33 Calegari, ‘Alcuni rapporti’, p. 307. 34 The romance was a matter of gossip at the court in Spain. In this sense the ambassador Francesco Nobili, as soon as the prince Della Rovere left in July 1568, wrote to Francesco I de’Medici in Florence, that ‘after the Prince of Urbino left the court, it has been said that he will marry Dogna Maddalena of Girona, sister of the Duke of Ossuna, the most favoured lady-in-waiting of the Queen’; see ASF, MdP, filza 4902, fol. 56v. On Magdalena Girón Osuna’s family, see Gudiel, Compendio de algunas…, pp. 120–122; and Rodríguez Marín, La filida de Gálvez de Montalvo, p. 13. 35 The role of Camarera Mayor was one of the most important in the Household of the Queen; she controlled the ladies-in-waiting and ruled through the etiquetas. For this, see Rodriguez Salgado, ‘“Una perfecta princesa”’, p. 53. 36 Biblioteca Olivierana 375, vol. VI, c. 99v; first partially cited by Scotoni La giovinezza, pp. 71–72 and printed in Calegari, ‘Alcuni rapporti’, p. 308: Se a Vostra Eccellenza venirà notizia che qua si parli che il Principe suo figlio ha inclinato ad accasarsi con la sorella del Duca di Ossuna nominata Maddalena de Giron, Dama della Reina di Spagna, con la quale si è creata da molti anni in qua essendo sua madre stata sua cameriera maggiore et morta in questo servitio[.]

37 Scotoni, La giovinezza, pp. 70–74.

Sofonisba Anguissol a, a Painter and a Lady-in-Waiting 

marrying the son of the Duke of Urbino, Magdalena Girón Osuna married the son of the Duke of Aveiro in October 1568.38 One factor that likely impeded Francesco Maria’s suit was the prince’s spending in Spain. It was this which compelled his father to require his return to Urbino in May 1568 with debts outstanding.39 When another ambassador, Bernardo Maschi, wrote to Duke Guidobaldo in Urbino on 30 October 1568, he made clear that negotiations regarding a potential match between Francesco Maria and Magdalena, which may have been supported by the Queen, had ended – apparently even before they really begun – when Isabel of Valois died and the King refused to see anyone. 40 Meanwhile, Magdalena was provided with a dowry of 90,000 ducats and a merced from the royal family. 41 This suggests that the young dama must have been a very valuable lady-in-waiting and in great consideration at the court. This notion is also supported by the fact that Magdalena, along with Sofonisba, accompanied the Queen to the Conference of Bayona in 1565; she was the only Spanish-born lady-in-waiting to have been so honoured. 42 The Duke of Alba and other officials of the King were present at the Conference where Philip II’s goal was to convince Catherine de’ Medici to take a definitive and hostile position towards the Huguenots, following the dictates of the Council of Trent. 43 Understanding the context of the court – particularly the Casa de la Reina and Sofonisba Anguissola’s place within it – offers a means by which we might gain additional insights into the artist’s oeuvre. This includes a painting depicting Magdalena Girón Osuna now at the Musei Civici of Pesaro, attributed to Federico

38 ‘Lucrezia d’Este’. For her marriage with Della Rovere see Alberi, Relazioni degli ambasciatori (1857), pp. 105–106; Dennistoun, Memorie dei Duchi di Urbino, II, pp. 108–109. 39 Scotoni, La giovinezza, pp. 56–62. 40 Bernardo Maschi to Guidobaldo della Rovere, 30 October 1568, ASF, Ducato di Urbino, classe I, divisione G, filza 184, fol. 57r/v:

ma in questi ultimi giorni io ne do la causa indubbitatamente alla morte della Regina, et non tanto perché questa l’habbia tenuta col pensiero desviato da così fatti negoti, quanto perché morti con lei quei rispetti i quali erano forsi stimoli a fare che S. Maestà tenesse in protezione gl’interessi di detta Signora non ha voluto poi mettersi in questi obblighi (but in these last few days I blame doubtless the queen’s death, and not so much because this was a distraction, but because with her died the reasons for H. Majesty to take care of the interests of that lady and he no longer wanted to deal with it).

41 Rodriguez Salgado, ‘“Una perfecta princesa”’, p. 60. 42 See text published in de Bourdeilles, ‘Rodomontades’, p. 169; and González de Amezúa y Mayo, Isabel de Valois, III, pp. 262–263. 43 The individuals accompanying the royal couple to the conference are ennumarated in González de Amezúa y Mayo, Isabel de Valois, II, p. 214. Also see ‘Relacion del rrecibimiento y fiestas que se hizieron a la reyna nra senora, muger del rrey Don Felipe nro senor, quando el ano de quins. e sesenta e cinco fue a ver a la reina de francia su madre y al rey de francia su hermano a francia en vayona que (es) tres leguas de la raya de castilla’, BNE Ms., num. 6176, fols. 127r/v–136r/v.

99

100

Cecilia Gamberini

Figure 4.2a Attributed to Sofonisba Anguissola, Portrait of Magdalena Girón Osuna, c. 1568, oil on canvas, 45.5 x 40 cm, Musei Civici di Palazzo Mosca, Comune di Pesaro, Pesaro. Image Credit: Courtesy of Comune di Pesaro.

Figure 4.2b Attributed to Sofonisba Anguissola, Reverse, Portrait of Magdalena Girón Osuna, c. 1568, oil on canvas, 45.5 x 40 cm, Musei Civici di Palazzo Mosca, Comune di Pesaro, Pesaro. Image Credit: Courtesy of Comune di Pesaro.

Barocci (figs. 4.2a and 4.2b). The back of the canvas features an ink inscription that describes the image as a: Portrait of the Spanish / lady of whom / was enamoured / Duke Francesco Maria Feltrio / della Rovere / then / Prince of Urbino / when he resided / at the Catholic court / as a sign that he wished / to take her as his wife. 44

The inscription clearly identif ies the subject as a ‘Spanish dama’, presumably Magdalena Girón Osuna, with whom Francesco Maria della Rovere was in love (innamorato). It seems likely that Francesco Maria may well have commissioned this portrait of his beloved before leaving Spain. But considering the historical context, the inscription, and the fact that Federico Barocci, based in Urbino, never went to the court of Philip II, the existing attribution seems questionable. 45 There is, further, no evidence that Magdalena Girón travelled to Urbino to be painted. 44 Ritratto della dama / spagnola della quale / si era innamorato / D. [uca] Fran.co Maria Feltrio / della Rovere, all’hora / principe d’Urbino / mentre si trattenne / alla corte catt.[oli]ca / a segno che voleva / pigliarla per moglie; the translation here follows that in Gamberini, ‘Magdalena Girón’, p. 160. 45 Gamberini, ‘Magdalena Girón’, pp. 160–161; Barletta, ‘Ritratto di donna’, p. 254, n. 340; and Brancati ‘Ritratto della dama spagnola’, pp. 134–135, n. 125.

Sofonisba Anguissol a, a Painter and a Lady-in-Waiting 

Figure 4.3 Sofonisba Anguissola, Self Portrait, 1560, oil on canvas, 36 x 30 cm. Musée Condé, Chantilly. Image Credit: © RMN – Grand Palais (domaine de Chantilly)/ Stéphane Maréchalle.

It is suggested here that the painting was likely created by Sofonisba Anguissola rather than Barocci.46 Magdalena Girón is dressed in a typical Spanish fashion, very similar to that of Sofonisba herself in the artist’s Self Portrait (1560, fig. 4.3), now at Musée Condé in Chantilly. 47 The portraits of both ladies-in-waiting feature the same small pearls in the hair, an elegant white gorgiera (ruff), and delicate tonal modulation in the face. Beyond those formal similarities, Sofonisba and Magdalena would have been in close contact as members of the Queen’s Household; as we have seen, both enjoyed particular favour as royal travelling companions to the Conference of Bayona. The two damas were also of similar background and social status, both of noble birth, and educated to become perfect ladies-in-waiting, sharing days and interests with their royal patron. 46 Gamberini, ‘Magdalena Girón’, p. 160. 47 Fumarco, ‘Opere lombarde’, p. 60.

101

102

Cecilia Gamberini

Figure 4.4 Attributed to Alonso Sánchez Coello, Portrait of Magdalena Girón (Lucretzia d’Este?), 1568, oil on canvas, 62 x 50 cm, Museo della Casa Natale di Raffaello, Urbino/Galleria Nazionale delle Marche. Image Credit: Reproduction thanks to the Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali e per il Turismo – Galleria Nazionale delle Marche.

Another likely portrait of Magdalena Girón (fig. 4.4) is preserved in the Casa Raffaello, birthplace of Raphael, now a house museum in Urbino. 48 The image depicts a young woman with the same hairstyle, pose, and features as in the Pesaro painting, although with less tonal modulation. Like Sofonisba’s paintings of Philip II 48 Luchetti, ‘Un enigmatico ritratto’.

Sofonisba Anguissol a, a Painter and a Lady-in-Waiting 

and Anne of Austria preserved at the Prado Museum, this is a half-length portrait, a format typical in official court portraiture.49 The precious dress worn by the young woman in the Urbino painting, as well as the jewels that adorn the figure, flawlessly reflect style of dress of a lady-in-waiting. The painting is attributed to the court portraitist Alonso Sánchez Coello, although without any documentary evidence, and, the provenance suggests, was likely commissioned by Francesco Maria della Rovere.50 As such, the Urbino painting could be considered a coeval version of the Pesaro painting here attributed to Sofonisba, but with a different purpose and destination, such as one of the Della Rovere’s palaces in Urbino or nearby. There, such an official portrait of Francesco Maria’s beloved lady-in-waiting may have been included in a larger collection or portrait gallery of illustrious persons.51 In contrast, the painting in Pesaro has a more intimate nature, perhaps because it was destined for a private space and executed by Sofonisba, who was friend to both subject and patron.52 Documentary evidence of a respectful relationship between Sofonisba Anguissola and Francesco Maria della Rovere further supports the theory that the Cremonese artist was acquainted with the likely patron and may well have painted the Pesaro canvas at his request. In 1568, the ambassador Bernardo Maschi, while remarking the desperation of the whole court and the laments of all the ladies-in-waiting following the death of Isabel of Valois, specif ically informed the Prince that, ‘Sofonisba doesn’t want to live anymore’ (‘Sofonisba non vuole più vivere’).53 This does not seem to have been an accidental report; the ambassador would not have mentioned Anguissola if she was unknown to della Rovere or he was uninterested in her welfare. We find the same accuracy in report from Maschi when he highlights the announcement of ‘that blessed marriage’ between the Cremonese native and Fabrizio of Moncada in 1573.54

49 Kusche, ‘Sofonisba e il ritratto’, pp. 117–152. 50 Luchetti, ‘Un enigmatico ritratto’, pp. 99–100. 51 It was not only the portrait of a lady-in-waiting commissioned by Francesco Maria Della Rovere from Alonso Sánchez Coello; in 1568 he commissioned a portrait of Doña Luisa de Castro and Doña Maria (Manrique?). On this, see Peréz de Tudela Gabaldón, ‘Las relaciones’, p. 1631. During the second half of the sixteenth century, galleries of portraits began to proliferate in the capitals of the main kingdoms of the Iberian Peninsula and also in Urbino. On this, see Kusche, ‘La antigua galería’; Falomir Faus, ‘Imágenes de poder’, p. 215; and Dal Pogetto, ed. I Della Rovere. 52 If Magdalena truly is the subject of both portraits, it may be that the Pesaro painting was cut and the format modified over the centuries. 53 Bernardo Maschi to Francesco Maria II della Rovere, 4 October 1568, ASF, Ducato di Urbino, classe I, Divisione G, filza 184, fol. 54r; cited in Gronau, Documenti artistici urbinati, pp. 268–269. 54 Bernardo Maschi to Francesco Maria II della Rovere, 21 June 1573, ASF, Ducato di Urbino, classe I, Divisione G, filza 184, fol. 619r; cited in Gronau, Documenti artistici urbinati, p. 269.

103

104

Cecilia Gamberini

Realities of life at Court Sofonisba remained at the court in the years between the death of Isabel of Valois in 1568 and her own marriage in 1573, but assumed a less defined role. That this was an uncomfortable situation for the Cremonese woman is suggested by an exchange of letters between the King and Don Antonio de la Cueva, Marquis of Ladrada, who was the Mayordomo Mayor of the Casa de la Reina of Anne of Austria, whom Phillip II married in 1570.55 While Sofonisba remained at the court, she was not technically in Anne’s service. In fact, her name is present in the payments (las cuentas) to those in service to the Infantas, the surviving daughters of Isabel of Valois, in 1569.56 Sofonisba was apparently not satisf ied with the arrangement and the Marques acted as an intermediary on her behalf with the King, writing to Philip II on 24 November 1570, ‘Sofonisba is very sad because she cannot serve the queen, she could not be more sorrowful’. The King answered, ‘If Sofonisba does not agree with the orders, she should stay out [of the Household] because it is not appropriate to change what is established’.57 Another document records the Marques’s attempts to intercede with the King on Anguissola’s behalf in obtaining authorization to serve the Queen, but Philip II remained steadfast, writing in an annotation that ‘Sofonisba has to remain in the position that I established for her until her marriage’.58 Sofonisba was certain that the King wanted to ban her from the palace without a marriage, but as the secretary Martín de Gaztelu made clear in correspondence, Philip II absolutely did not want to remove her. In actuality, one of the privileges granted to the ladies-in-waiting was arrangement of a favourable marriage and granting of a dowry.59 55 Martinez Millán, ‘La Corte de Felipe II’. On the condition of Sofonisba at the court after 1568 see Kusche, ‘Sofonisba Anguissola retratista’, p. 23, n. 70; Bernardo Maschi to Francesco Maria II Della Rovere, 30 October 1568, ASF, Ducato di Urbino, classe I, divisione G, filza 184, fol. 54r, cited in Gronau, Documenti artistici urbinati, p. 269. 56 Kusche, ‘Sofonisba Anguissola. Vuelta a Italia’, p. 22; and AGS, Casas y Sitios Reales, leg. 79, fol. 60r and leg. 40, fol. 625r. 57 See Peréz de Tudela Gabaldón, ‘La reina Ana de Austria’, pp. 1563–1616: Marquis of Ladrada to Philip II, Madrid, 25 November 1570, BL, Add. MS. 28354, fol. 93v: ‘Y sofonisma siente tanto que no le dejen servir que no sé yo que pudiera sentir màs’; Philip II responds: ‘se sofonisba no se contenta de lo ordenado podriase quedar fuera porque no conviene mudar lo acordado’. 58 See Peréz de Tudela Gabaldón, ‘La reina Ana de Austria’, pp. 1563–1616; Marquis of Ladrada to Philip II, 24 November 1570, BL, Add. Ms. 28354, fol. 88 viernes: annotation of Philip II: ‘a sofonisba se le ha de decir que he tenido por bien que quede por agora en aquella forma entretanto qua caba de concertar su casamiento’. 59 Martín de Gaztelu to Philip II, July–December 1570, AHN, Consejos, Leg. 15188, Consejos, Cámara de Castilla; first cited by del Río Barredo, ‘Las mujeres’, pp. 69–95.

Sofonisba Anguissol a, a Painter and a Lady-in-Waiting 

As the exchanges between the Mayordomo Mayor of the Queen’s Household and Philip II suggest, Sofonisba seems to have had a strong personality and force of will. And even though she did not serve Anne of Austria off icially, the two seem to have forged a close relationship. This is suggested by Queen’s intercession in 1571 on Sofonisba’s behalf with Philip II when the artist, along with a group of damas, was involved in an act of Household rebellion. On that occasion a group of ladies-in-waiting gathered trunks and pulled them against windows that had been closed with padlocks, by order of the King, to keep the ladies from contact with suitors or others.60 The Marquis of Ladrada reported the misdeed to Philip II: [Last night] some […] very insolent [ladies] […], Anna Manrique, Isabel de la Cuesta, Sofonisba [Anguissola] and Anna de la Cerda gathered with the silly Lavinia and her maids, together they [demolished the partitions] […] saying that they would have wanted to break the heads of whomever ordered it[.]61

Philip II became very upset and threatened to send the ladies-in-waiting back to their families without the dowry or wedding they expected to receive from the court. But, according to the etiquetas, the Guarda Mayor de damas was obligated to inform the queen about inappropriate behaviour amongst the ladies-in-waiting. It was the queen’s responsibility to decide what action to take.62 The prescribed punishment in this case was to have been closing the damas in their rooms for a lengthy period of time. While the offenders were briefly confined, Queen Anne allowed them out after a day and a half, despite the fact that the King considered the punishment insufficient. The Mayordomo Mayor also complained, saying ‘the imprisonment of the ladies was [as short as] I had suspected’.63

60 Discussed in de la Válgoma y Díaz-Varela, Norma y ceremonia, p. 91; citing AGP, ‘Etiquetas’, Caja 49, Sección Histórica, exp. 3; also BNE, Ms. 10.129, Etiquetas de Palacio, fols. 75–91r/v, 1574. 61 See Peréz de Tudela Gabaldón, ‘La reina Ana de Austria’, pp. 1610–1613; Marques of Ladrada to Philip II, 20 November 1571, BL, Add., Ms. 28354, fol. 289r: anoche después de Recojida la Reina se juntaros dona anaa manrique y dona ysabel de la custa y sofonisma y dona ana de la cerda y tomaron consigo otra boba que es dona labinia y con sus criadas con unos lenos derribaron los tabiqued que estaban ya hechos en dos o tres arcos del corredor de sobre la puerta y rompieron las celosías y otras hecharon abajo diciendo que de mejor gana rompieran las cabecas de los que lo abian ordenado[.]

62 See the etiquetas preserved in AGP, ‘Etiquetas’, Caja 49, Sección Histórica, exp 3. 63 Published by Peréz de Tudela Gabaldón, ‘La reina Ana de Austria’, pp. 1610–1613; Marquis of Ladrada to Philip II, 25 November 1571, BL, Add., Ms. 28354, fol. 299r: ‘[L]a carcelaria de las damas fue también como yo abia sospechado’.

105

106

Cecilia Gamberini

Here we should remember that the majority of the ladies-in-waiting were quite young and acted as any teenager might, occasionally disrespectful of rules and exhibiting a willingness to take advantage of their position to gain a desired outcome. It was likely this attitude that led Ladrada to write that many ladies-in-waiting at the court were ‘the greatest experts at the art of insolence’.64 Sofonisba seems to have been no exception to this, as incongruous as this might seem in light of her virtuous presentation in painted self portraits and the praise heaped upon her by biographers. Further illustrating this point is another episode involving Sofonisba in which the damas, taking advantage of the absence of the King, snuck into his chambers and, using spearheads or metal, wrote on the windows. Obviously, Philip II was displeased by this and ordered the Queen to make her ladies provide handwriting samples in an effort to find and punish the guilty.65 We do not know what happened after that but might imagine that the offenders were once again punished by imprisonment in their rooms, according to the dictates of the Spanish etiquetas.66 Although this misdeed seems to suggest that the rules imposed by the King did not particularly scare the young ladies, or curb relatively minor acts of rebellion within the Casa de la Reina, it might have not been easy being a lady-in-waiting.

Conclusion The material in this chapter suggests that to gain a greater understanding of the life and career of Sofonisba Anguissola we must address not only her role as painter but also the wider context of her family history and life at court. This perspective allows us to reconstruct the network of relationships and ties woven not only by Sofonisba, but also by the Anguissola. In particular, archival and published sources offer insights into the events, circumstances, and episodes that influenced Sofonisba’s life and work. As the reattribution of the Portrait of Magdalena Girón from Barocci to Anguissola suggested here affirms, these sources are also useful for offering correlated insights into both the life of the lady-inwaiting and her art – establishing an interdisciplinary research methodology that offers possibilities for future research and a greater understanding of the artist’s Spanish oeuvre.

64 Quoted in García Prieto, ‘La Infanta’, p. 104; Marquis of Ladrada to Philip II, April 1572, BL, Add. Ms. 28354, fol. 376r ‘tienen la mayor maestría para insolencias que se pudiera hallar en el mundo’. 65 Peréz de Tudela Gabaldón, ‘La reina Ana de Austria’, p. 1576. 66 AGP, ‘Etiquetas’, Caja 49, Sección Histórica, exp 3.

Sofonisba Anguissol a, a Painter and a Lady-in-Waiting 

Bibliography Manuscript Sources AGP, Archivo General de Palacio, Madrid, ‘Etiquetas’, Caja 49, Sección Histórica, exp. 3. AGS, Archivo General de Simancas, Simancas, Casa Real, Nomina de la Casa de la Reina, leg. 53 and leg. 52, n.1, fol. 153r. Casas y Sitios Reales, leg. 36, 37, 40, and 41. Casas y Sitios Reales, leg. 79, fol. 60r and leg. 40, fol. 625r. Estado, leg. 1210, fols. 153r and 190r. Secretarias Provinciales, libro 1335, fols. 201r–202v. AHN, Archivo Histórico Nacional, Madrid, Consejos, leg. 15188. Consejos. Cámara de Castilla. Patronato. ASCr, Archivio di Stato, Cremona, Archivio Notarile 1045, 1000. Filciae Fragmentorum 26, 27, 33. ASF, Archivio di Stato, Florence, Ducato di Urbino, classe I, Divisione G, filza 184, fol. 54r, 57r/v. Ducato di Urbino, classe I, Divisione G, filza 184, fol. 619r. MdP, filza 4902, fol. 56v. ASMi, Archivio di Stato, Milan, Famiglie 6, Anguissola. ASMn, Archivio di Stato, Mantua, Gonzaga Esteri, b. 590, fol. 96r. Biblioteca Olivierana, Pesaro, Ms. 375, vol. VI, c. 99v. BL, British Library, London, Add. Ms. 28354, fols. 84r, 88r, 93v, 289r, 290r, 299r, 300r, 376r. BNE, Biblioteca Nacional de España, Madrid, Ms. 10.129, ‘Etiquetas de Palacio. Felipe II’, fols. 75r–91v. Ms. 6176, Relacion del rrecibimiento y fiestas que se hizieron a la reyna nra senora, muger del rrey don felipe nro senor, quando el ano de quins. e sesenta e cinco fue a ver a la reina de Francia su madre y al rey de Francia su hermano a Francia en vayona que (es) tres leguas de la raya de castilla, fols. 127r/v–136r/v. R/4474, Dignidad de las damas de la reyna. noticias de su origen, y honores. consagrada a sus aras por un devoto. Impreso en 26 noviembre 1670. R/31738, López de Villalobos, Francisco, Libro intitulado los problemas de villalobos: que tracta de cuerpos naturales y morales; y dos dialogos d[e] medicina; y el tractado de las

107

108

Cecilia Gamberini

tres gra[n]des; y vna cancion; y la comedia de amphytrion. Impreso en casa de George Coci 1544, fol. XIr. BNF, Bibliothèque Nacional de France, Paris, Fonds français, vol. 6614, fol. 58r.

Published Sources Akkerman, Nadine and Birgit Houben, eds. The Politics of Female Households. Ladies-inWaiting across Early Modern Europe (Leiden: Brill, 2014). Alberi, Eugenio. Relazioni degli ambasciatori veneti al senato, ser. I, V (Florence: Clio, 1861). ––– Relazioni degli ambasciatori veneti al senato, ser. II, IV (Florence: Clio, 1857). Alonso Sánchez Coello y el retrato en la corte de Felipe II, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Juan Miguel Serrera (Madrid: Museo Naciónal del Prado, 1990). Álvarez-Ossorio Alvariño, Antonio. ‘El arte de medrar en la corte: rey, nobleza y el código del honor’, in Familias, poderosos y oligarquías: Seminario ‘Familia y élite de poder en el reino de Murcia. Siglos XV–XIX, ed. by Francisco Chacón Jiménez and Juan Hernández Franco (Murcia: EDITUM, 2001), pp. 39–60. Anguissola Scotti, Orazio. La famiglia Anguissola (Piacenza: Gallarati, 1976). Bandera, Padre Giovanni. Marta Tana Gonzaga (Castelgoffredo: Cassa rurale e artigiana, 1991). Barletta, Chiara. ‘Ritratto di donna’, in Dipinti e disegni della pinacoteca civica di Pesaro, ed. by Giardini Claudio, Negro Emilio, and Pirondini Massimo (Modena: Artioli, 1993), p. 124. Benzoni, Gino. ‘Francesco Maria della Rovere’, in Dizionario Biograf ico degli italiani. Accessed 12  Februar y  2016, http://w w w.treccani.it/enciclopedia/ francesco-maria-ii-della-rovere-duca-di-urbino_%28Dizionario-Biografico%29/. Bertomeu Masiá, Maria José. La guerra secreta de Carlos V contra el Papa: La cuestión de Parma y Piacenza en la correspondencia del cardenal Granvela (Valencia: Universitat de Valéncia, 2011). Bonardi, Antonio. ‘Giovanni Anguissola e la Spagna secondo documenti dell’Archivio Bonetta di Pavia’, Archivio storico lombardo 22, no. 3 (1895), 43–62. Bonetti, Carlo. ‘Nel centenario di Sofonisba Anguissola’, Archivio Storico Lombardo 3 (1928), 285–306. Borghini, Millo. Sofonisba: una vita per la pittura e la libertà (Milan: Spirali, 2006). de Bourdeilles (Sieur de Branthóme), Pierre. ‘Rodomontades et gentilles rencontres espagnoles’, in Oeuvres complètes, 20 vols. (Paris: Lahure, 1858–1895), VII (1873), pp. 1–177. Brancati, Francesca. ‘Ritratto della dama spagnola’, in Pittura baroccesca nella provincia di Pesaro e Urbino, ed. by Cleri Bonita (Pesaro: Società Pesarese di Studi Storici, 2008), pp. 134–135. Calegari, Grazia. ‘Alcuni rapporti tra i Della Rovere e la corte spagnola’, in Pesaro nell’età dei Della Rovere, ed. by Brancati Maria Letizia, 2 vols. (Venice: Marsilio, 2002), II, pp. 307–322.

Sofonisba Anguissol a, a Painter and a Lady-in-Waiting 

De Carlos Bertrán, Luís. Alexander (Barcelona: Crítica, 2018). Caroli, Flavio. Sofonisba Anguissola e le sue sorelle (Milan: Mondadori, 1987). Cole, Michael W. Sofonisba’s Lesson: A Renaissance Artist and her Work (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2020). Dadson, Trevor. ‘The Education, Books and Reading Habits of Ana de Mendoza y de la Cerda’, in Women’s Literacy in Early Modern Spain and the New World, ed. by Anne J. Cruz and Rosilie Hernández (Farnham: Ashgate, 2011), pp. 79–102. De Cruz Medina, Vanessa. ‘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), ed. by José Martínez Millán and Maria Paula Marçal Lourenço, 3 vols. (Madrid: Polifemo, 2009), II, pp. 1267-1300. Dennistoun, James. Memorie dei Duchi di Urbino (1440–1630), trans. by Giorgio Nonni, 2 vols. (Urbino: Quattroventi, 2010). Falomir Faus, Miguel. ‘Imágenes de poder y evocaciones de la memoria. Usos y funciones del retrato en la corte de Felipe II’, in Felipe II. Un monarca y su época (Madrid: Museo Naciónal del Prado, 1998), pp. 203–228. Fumarco, Cristina. ‘Opere lombarde nel Musée Condé di Chantilly: dipinti e disegni dalla collezione di Henri d’Orléans Duca d’Aumale’, Arte Lombarda 149 (2007), 55–68. Gamberini, Cecilia. ‘Magdalena Girón Osuna’, in Historia de dos pintoras. Sofonisba Anguissola y Lavinia Fontana, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Leticia Ruiz Gómez (Madrid: Museo Naciónal del Prado, 2019), pp. 160–161. ––– ‘Sofonisba Anguissola at the Court of Philip II’, in Women Artists in Early Modern Italy: Careers, Fame, and Collectors, ed. by Sheila Barker (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), pp. 29–38. García Prieto, Elisa. ‘La Infanta Isabel Clara Eugenia de Austria, la formación de una princesa europea y su entorno cortesano’, Ph.D. Dissertation (Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 2013). Garrard, Mary. ‘Here’s Looking at Me: Sofonisba Anguissola and the Problem of the Woman Artist’, Renaissance Quarterly 47, no. 3 (1994), 556–622. Gaude-Ferragu, Murrielle, and Cécile Vincent-Cassy, eds., ‘La dame de cœur’. Patronage et mécénat religieux des femmes de pouvoir dans l’Europe des XIVe–XVIIe siècles (Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2016). Ghirardi, Angela. ‘Lavinia Fontana allo specchio. Pittrici e autoritratto nel secondo Cinquecento’, in Lavinia Fontana, 1552–1614, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Vera Fortunati (Milan: Electa, 1994), pp. 37–52. González de Amezúa y Mayo, Agustín. Isabel de Valois Reina de España (1546–1568), 3 vols. (Madrid: Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores. Dirección General de Relaciones Culturales, 1949). Gronau, Giorgio. Documenti artistici urbinati (Florence: Sansoni, 1936). Guasco, Annibale. Discourse to Lady Lavinia his daughter. Concerning the Manner in Which She Should Conduct Herself When Going to Court as Lady-in-Waiting to the Most Serene

109

110

Cecilia Gamberini

Infanta, Lady Caterina, Duchess of Savoy, ed. by Peggy Osborn (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2003). Guazzoni, Valerio. ‘Donna, pittrice e gentildonna. La nascita di un mito femminile del Cinquecento’, in Sofonisba Anguissola e le sue sorelle, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Mina Gregori (Milan: Leonardo Arte, 1994), pp. 57–70. Gudiel, Jerónimo. Compendio de algunas historias de España: donde se tratan muchas antiguedades dignas de memoria y especialmente se da noticia de la antigua familia de los Girones y de otros muchos linajes (Alcalá: en casa de Juan Iñiguez de Lequeríca, 1577). Historia de dos pintoras. Sofonisba Anguissola y Lavinia Fontana, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Leticia Ruiz Gómez (Madrid: Museo Naciónal del Prado, 2019). I della Rovere: Piero della Francesca, Raffaello, Tiziano, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Paolo Dal Poggetto (Milan: Electa 2004). Jacobs, Fredrika. ‘Woman’s Capacity to Create: The Unusual Case of Sofonisba Anguissola’, Renaissance Quarterly 47, no. 1 (1994), 74–101. Justi, Carl. ‘Philipp II als Kunstfreund’, in Miscellaneaneen aus drei Jahrhunderten Spanischen Kunstlebens, 2 vols. (Berlin: Grote, 1908), II, pp. 1–36. Kusche, Maria. ‘Más retratos de Sofonisba Anguissola’, in Sapientia Libertas: escritos en homenaje al Profesor Alfonso E. Pérez Sánchez (Madrid: Museo del Prado, 2007), pp. 182–190. ––– ‘Sofonisba e il ritratto di rappresentanza ufficiale nella corte spagnola’, in Sofonisba Anguissola e le sue sorelle, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Mina Gregori (Milan: Leonardo Arte, 1994), pp. 117–152. ––– ‘La antigua galería de retratos del Pardo su importancia para la obra de Tiziano, Moro, Sánchez Coello y Sofonisba Anguissola y su significado para Felipe II, su fundador’, Archivo español de arte 65, no. 257 (1992), 1–36. ––– ‘Sofonisba Anguissola retratista de la corte española’, Paragone 43, nos. 509–511 (1992), 3–34. ––– ‘Sofonisba Anguissola. Vuelta a Italia. Continuación de sus relaciónes con la corte española’, Paragone 43, no. 513 (1992), 10–35. ––– ‘Sofonisba Anguissola en España’, Archivo español de arte 62, no. 248 (1989), 391–420. Luchetti, Marcello. ‘Un enigmatico ritratto cinquecentesco di donna e tre nuovi ritratti dei Della Rovere’, in Studi pesaresi. Rivista della Società pesarese di studi storici 7 (2019), 99–114. ‘Lucrezia d’Este’, in Enciclopedia Treccani. Accessed 20 March 2018, http://www.treccani. it/enciclopedia/lucrezia-d-este/. Martinez Millán, José. ‘La Corte de Felipe II: la Casa de la Reina Ana’, in La monarquia de Felipe II a debate, ed. by Ribot García Luís Antonio (Madrid: Sociedad Estatal para la Conmemoración de los Centenarios de Felipe II y Carlos V, 2000), pp. 159–184. Michelini Tocci, Luigi. Le pitture di Pesaro (Pesaro: Cassa di Risparmio di Pesaro, 1959).

Sofonisba Anguissol a, a Painter and a Lady-in-Waiting 

Muñoz Fernández, Angela. ‘La casa delle Regine. Uno spazio politico nella Castiglia del Quattrocento’, Genesis. Rivista della Societá italiana delle storiche (Rome: Viella 2002), pp. 71–95. Peréz de Tudela Gabaldón, Almudena. ‘Sofonisba Anguissola en la corte de Felipe II’, in Historia de dos pintoras. Sofonisba Anguissola y Lavinia Fontana, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Leticia Ruiz Gómez (Madrid: Museo Naciónal del Prado, 2019), pp. 53–69. ––– ‘Las relaciones artísticas de la familia della Rovere con la corte española durante el reinado de Felipe II en la correspondencia del Archivo de Estado de Florencia’, in Centros de poder italianos en la Monarquía Hispana, ed. by José Martínez Millán and Manuel Rivero, 3 vols. (Madrid: IULCE, 2010), III, pp. 1543–1714. ––– ‘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, ed. by José Martínez Millán and Maria Paula Marçal Lourenço, 3 vols. (Madrid: Polifemo, 2009), III, pp. 1576–1616. Perlingieri, Ilya Sandra. Sofonisba Anguissola, The First Great Woman Artist of the Renaissance (New York: Rizzoli, 1992). Pinessi, Orietta. Sofonisba Anguissola: un pittore alla corte di Filippo II (Milan: Selene, 1998). Pizzagalli, Daniela. La signora della pittura: vita di Sofonisba Anguissola, gentildonna e artista nel Rinascimento (Milan: Rizzoli, 2003). Podestà, Gian Luca. ‘Dal delitto politico alla politica del delitto. Parma 1545–1611’, in Complots et conjurations dans l’Europe moderne 220 (1996), 679–720. Accessed 20 January 2019, http://www.persee.fr/doc/efr_0223-5099_1996_act_220_1_5006. ––– ‘Dal delitto politico alla politica del delitto. Parma 1545–1611’, in Complots et conjurations dans l’Europe moderne. Actes du colloque international organisé à Rome, 30 September–2 October 1993 (Rome: Publications de l’École Française de Rome, 1996), pp. 698–699. Dal Poggetto, Paolo. I Della Rovere: Piero della Francesca, Raffaello, Tiziano (Milan: Electa, 2004). Ragazzi, Anna Teresa. ‘Giovanni Anguissola governatore in Lombardia, ambasciatore di Filippo 2º nella Svizzera e in Genova’, Strenna Piacentina 18 (1940), 62–65. ––– Il conte Giovanni Anguissola, Graduate Thesis (Milan: Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Milano, Facoltà di Storia, 1939). Raponi, Nicola. ‘Giovanni Anguissola’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, 100 vols. (Rome: Treccani, 1960–), III (1961), pp. 318–320. Repetti, Silvia. Dall’aspetto pensoso e dall’opinione tenace: il conte piacentino Giovanni Anguissola (1514–1578), Graduate Thesis (Milan: Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Milano, Facoltà di Scienze della Formazione, 2008). de Ribera, Pietro Paolo. Le Glorie inmortali de Trionfi èd eroiche impresse d’ottocento quaranta cinque Donne illustri, antiche è moderne, Cioè in sacra Scrittura, Teologia, Profetia, Filosofia, Retorica, Gramatica, Medicina, Astrologia, Leggi civili, Pittura, Musica, Armi, ed in altre virtù principali, tra le quali vi lono molte versate in Santità, Virginità, Penitenza,

111

112

Cecilia Gamberini

Digiuni, Vigilie, Orationi, Meditationi, Martirio, Costanza, Pietà, Carità, Lealtà, Castimonia e Magnanimità… (Venice: Evangelista Deuchino, 1609), pp. 313–316. del Río Barredo, María José. ‘Las mujeres en el ceremonial público del Madrid moderno’, in El Madrid de las mujeres: Avances hacia la visibilidad (1833–1931), ed. by Valentina Fernández Vargas, 2 vols. (Madrid: Comunidad de Madrid, 2009), I, pp. 69–95. Rodríguez Marín, Francisco. La filida de Gálvez de Montalvo. Discursos leidos ante la Real Academia de la Historia en la recepción pública del Excmo (Madrid: Revista de arch., bibl. y museos, 1927). Rodriguez Salgado, Maria José. ‘“Una perfecta princesa”: casa y vida de la reina Isabel de Valois (1559–1568)’, Cuadernos de Historia Moderna, part 1, attach. 2 (2003), pp. 39–96. Sacchi, Rossana. ‘Documenti per Sofonisba Anguissola’, Paragone 39, no. 457 (1988), 71–89. de Salazar y Acha, Jaime. La casa del rey de Castilla y León en la edad media (Madrid: Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales, 2000). Savio, Fedele. ‘Le famiglie della Rovere e Tana parenti di S. Luigi Gonzaga. Memorie storico – genealogiche’, Giornale Araldico, nos. 1–2 (1890), 3–19. Scotoni, Giovanni. La giovinezza di Francesco Maria II e i ministri di Guidobaldo della Rovere (Bologna: Ditta Nicola Zanichelli, 1899). Sofonisba Anguissola e le sue sorelle, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Mina Gregori (Rome: Leonardo Arte, 1994). Tamalio, Raffaele. ‘Ferrante Gonzaga’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani. Accessed 15 October 2016, http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/ferrante-gonzaga_res-2dcedc5f87ee-11dc-8e9d-0016357eee51_%28Dizionario-Biografico%29/. de la Válgoma y Díaz-Varela, Dalmiro. Norma y ceremonia de las reinas de la Casa de Austria (Madrid: Escilicer, 1958).

About the author Cecilia Gamberini received her Ph.D. at the Autonomous University of Madrid (2018). A participant in numerous international conferences, she recently contributed to the exhibition catalogue (2019) dedicated to Sofonisba Anguissola and Lavinia Fontana for the Museo Nacional del Prado. She is working on a monograph dedicated to Sofonisba Anguissola (Lund Humphries).

5.

Creative Reproductions: Diana Mantuana and Printmaking at Court Maria F. Maurer

Abstract Maria Maurer examines the career of Diana Mantuana (c. 1547–1612), the first female printmaker to sign her work and one of the few female artists mentioned by Vasari in the second edition of his Lives (1568). Recognizing that printmaking was an unusual female occupation due to its technique and wide circulation, Maurer argues that Diana entered into visual dialogue with Mantuan and papal court artists to promote her work. Focusing on two prints made after the work of Giulio Romano, Maurer reveals that, through her work in a reproductive medium, the artist commented upon the ability of women and printmaking to both copy and generate, engaging broader discourses regarding imitation and invention to market herself as a rare commodity. Keywords: Mantua; papal privilege; Renaissance engravings; artistic invention; Gonzaga court; female printmaker

In the second edition of his Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors and Architects Giorgio Vasari recounts meeting the engraver Diana Mantuana (c. 1547–1612) during his visit to the Gonzaga court in 1566. Vasari describes her as kind, gracious and talented, and portrays both the artist and her works as ‘marvellous things’, whose strangeness both attracts and repels. Medusa-like, Diana and her prints stupefy Vasari, while her grace and beauty charm him. He also portrays Mantua as fertile ground, where ‘the artisans have multiplied, and continue to multiply’.1 He goes on to establish an artistic lineage in which Diana, the daughter 1 ‘vi sono multiplicati gl’artefici, e vi vanno tutta via multiplicando’. Vasari, Vite, III, p. 558. Vasari’s mention of Diana is contained within his lives of Benvenuto Garofolo, Girolamo da Carpi, and other Ferrarese artists. Unless otherwise stated, all translations are my own.

Jones, T.L. (ed.), Women Artists in the Early Modern Courts of Europe: c. 1450–1700. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2021 doi 10.5117/9789462988194_ch05

114 

Maria F. Maurer

Figure 5.1 Diana Mantuana, Christ and the Adulteress, after Giulio Romano, 1575 (republished 1613), engraving, 42 x 57.5 cm, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City, 49.97.487. Image Credit: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, www.metmuseum.org.

of Giovanni Battista Scultori, descends from Giulio Romano and Marcantonio Raimondi. Vasari’s Diana is a natural wonder produced by generations of Mantuan procreativity, yet her attraction lies not in the virtuosity of her art, but in the exoticism of her existence. Diana is the last of her dynasty, for Vasari gives her no artistic progeny. His account is a double-edged sword, at once praising a woman who engraves, while also rendering her an oddity. He highlights Diana’s artistic lineage, while suggesting that she lacks the ability to produce her own creative legacy. In her prints Diana shrewdly appropriates and upends Vasari’s criticism, making use of the fame his mention of her afforded, while also demonstrating her ability to participate in sixteenth-century discourses surrounding artistic creativity. In inscriptions on Christ and the Adulteress (fig. 5.1) and the Feast of the Gods (fig. 5.2), both dated 1575, she describes herself as ‘giving birth’ to her works.2 She is an artist whose ingenuity lies not in inventing new subjects or figures, but in her ability to 2 Diana uses the phrases ‘mandar in luce’ and ‘viene in luce’ in the prints. Both are common Italian euphemisms for childbirth.

Creative Reproductions: Diana Mantuana and Printmaking at Court 

Figure 5.2 Diana Mantuana, Feast of the Gods, after Giulio Romano, 1575, engraving from three plates, 37.8 x 11.2 cm, The British Museum, London, B. XV.449.40. Image Credit: © The Trustees of the British Museum.

creatively reproduce the work of others. Diana also plays upon Vasari’s trope of the artistic female marvel by depicting a set of conjoined twins, that is, another kind of marvel. In her 1577 Conjoined Twins (fig. 5.5) Diana lays claim to inimitable and wondrous procreative abilities. Early Modern ideas of generation and gender allowed Diana to position herself as the woman who gave birth to the copious inventions of artists such as Giulio Romano and Raffaelino da Reggio, and as a rare commodity who could be collected through her many printed progeny. Throughout her marvellously reproductive prints, Diana highlights her unique access to the Gonzaga court, which she cites as a source of inspiration and the place in which her abilities and works were formed. Dedications to Gonzaga family members and repeated use of compositions designed by the Mantuan court artist, Giulio Romano, provided Diana with cachet as well as an audience that would understand, appreciate, and ultimately purchase her multi-layered works. Diana was not a member of the court in the traditional sense: she never received a salary, there is no evidence that her prints were commissioned by the Gonzaga family, and she spent most of her career in Rome. Yet she addressed her prints and her artistic identity to the educated and exclusive realm of the court and thereby styled herself as a Gonzaga courtier.

Printing at the Gonzaga Court Diana was the first woman printmaker to sign her work, and the majority of her prints bear her signature.3 She learned the art of engraving from her father, Giovanni Battista Scultori (1503–1575), who produced engravings after his own drawings and those by Giulio Romano (?1499–1546). Unlike her brother, Adamo, Diana does not 3

For Diana’s oeuvre, see Bellini, L’opera incisa; and Pagani, ‘Adamo Scultori’, pp. 72–87.

115

116 

Maria F. Maurer

appear to have been trained as a printer, nor did she have instruction in the art of disegno. Instead, her engravings relied upon fully realized drawings, or modelli, produced by Giulio Romano as well as a circle of male friends and family members. Diana married the architect Francesco Capriani da Volterra sometime before the couple moved to Rome in 1575. 4 Her earliest Roman works are also those that are most indebted to the members of the Mantuan court. She derived her style and subject matter from Giulio Romano, while the prints themselves often bear elaborate dedications to Gonzaga family members. Engravers and printers are not usually considered within the context of Renaissance court culture. Martin Warnke’s definition of the court artist as someone who received a salary and took charge of the court’s entire visual output, from window frames and ephemeral processional apparati to paintings and buildings, leaves little room for collaborative artists such as Diana and her family.5 Moreover, printers and printmakers often flourished in the absence of court control in cities like Venice and Rome. Diana worked between the court and the city. Her prints depended upon the designs of salaried court artists such as Giulio Romano and were dedicated to prominent members of the Gonzaga and papal courts, but her financial success depended upon sales to a broader audience in urban centres like Rome. Although the role of the Gonzaga court in Renaissance print culture has remained largely unexamined, the dynasty had a consistent history of fostering artists and printers.6 The Gonzaga relied on the efforts of printmakers and publishers in order to circulate descriptions of their magnificent entertainments and attest to their support for humanists, poets, and artists. Andrea Mantegna, who worked in Mantua from 1460 until his death in 1506, is perhaps the best known Gonzaga print designer, although his involvement in printmaking has largely been characterized as a way to negotiate the confines of court patronage.7 Debates concerning dating, authorship, and the identities of Mantegna’s engravers aside, the prints contributed to the court’s antiquarian reputation, while also positioning both artist and patron

4 Francesco arrived in the region in 1565, when he began work for Cesare Gonzaga in Guastalla. He presumably met Diana soon thereafter, but the date of their marriage is unknown. Carlo D’Arco records that they were married in 1567; see d’Arco, Istoria, p. 80. Pagani has noted that there is no firm evidence to support that date in Pagani, ‘Adamo Scultori’, p. 75. Finally, Lincoln gives their marriage date as 1575, but without providing any archival documentation: Lincoln ‘Making’, p. 1101. 5 Warnke, The Court Artist. 6 In late 1471 Pietro Adamo De Micheli wrote to Marquis Ludovico Gonzaga, asking for permission to bring to Mantua ‘certain masters who will principally print books’ (‘certi maestri per far stampar principalmente libri da lege’). The printers appear to have been of German origin; see Bertolotti, ‘Prime notizie’, pp. 26–30. 7 For the role of printmaking in Mantegna’s career as a court artist, see Christiansen, ‘Some Observations’, p. 77; Lincoln, Invention, pp. 27–30.

Creative Reproductions: Diana Mantuana and Printmaking at Court 

at the forefront of new developments in image-making.8 However, Mantegna was unusual in that he was a paid courtier, and thus did not depend upon the production and sale of his designs for his livelihood. More typical of the Gonzaga court were the Ruffinelli and Osanna presses and the Scultori-Ghisi workshop, where Diana received her early training. Giacomo Ruffinelli and the Osanna brothers, Francesco and Benedetto, operated presses that published literature, poetry and history, as well as more propagandistic tracts commissioned by the Gonzaga court. In the 1540s Ruffinelli set up a press in Mantua, where he began printing works by court poets and writers as well as accounts of court festivals and ceremonies.9 By the late sixteenth-century, the Osanna press had obtained a ducal privilege, and was turning out literary works like Torquato Tasso’s Gerusalemme liberata (1584) and encomiastic pamphlets detailing evens such as the funeral of Guglielmo I Gonzaga and the coronation of his son, Vincenzo I (1587).10 Although they were paid on commission and did not receive courtiers’ salaries, Mantuan printers played an invaluable role in spreading the fame of the Gonzaga dynasty. The printmaking activities of Giovanni Battista Scultori, his two children, Adamo and Diana, and their associate, Giorgio Ghisi, would seem to be at once closer to and further removed from the court than those of other Mantuan printers. On the one hand, Giovanni Battista was a member of Giulio Romano’s Mantuan workshop, and is mentioned frequently in payment receipts from the early 1530s.11 Ghisi was a paid Gonzaga courtier by at least 1576, when he appears to have given up engraving in order to become the keeper of jewels and overseer of the wardrobe. Ghisi also damascened arms and armour, a profession which must have brought him into close contact with members of the Gonzaga court while he was still collaborating 8 The debate concerning the authorship and dating of Mantegna’s engravings became particularly heated in the period surrounding the 1992 exhibition of his work. See, Landau, ‘Mantegna as Printmaker’, pp. 44–54; Boorsch, ‘Mantegna’, in ibid., pp. 56–66; Christiansen, ‘The Case for Mantegna’, pp. 604–612; Boorsch and Landau, ‘Mantegna and Prints’, pp. 826–828. It was reignited by Andrea Canova’s discovery of a contract between Mantegna and the engraver and goldsmith Gian Marco Cavalli; see Canova, ‘Gian Marco Cavalli incisore’, pp. 3–41. 9 See, for example, Franco, La Philena and L’entrata. 10 The brothers Francesco and Benedetto Osanna were active in Mantua beginning around 1577. They obtained a ducal privilege from Vincenzo I in 1588. The Osanna printing enterprise continued into the next generation, when Aurelio and Lodovico Osanna took over the press. Accounts differ as to whether Aurelio and Lodovico were the sons of Francesco or Benedetto, or their nephews. See Rhodes, ‘Some Notes’, pp. 1–4; and Pescasio, L’arte, pp. 223–237. 11 A document dated 13 January 1528 records payments made to ‘Zoan Battista schultore’ for stucco work in the aptly named Camera degli Stucchi at the Palazzo Te; see Ferrari, Giulio Romano, I, pp. 241–243. A recent dissertation on the Scultori-Ghisi workshop plausibly asserts that Scultori was paid weekly for work at the Palazzo Te in 1531 and 1533; see Letwin, ‘Scultori and Ghisi’, p. 28.

117

118 

Maria F. Maurer

with Scultori and his children.12 All four artists engraved works based upon designs created by Giulio Romano, a practice which continued after his death in 1546. Giulio’s level of involvement in the creation of these prints is difficult to discern. Archival documents make no mention of his association with Mantuan printmaking. The only printing project to which he can securely be linked is the Modi, a series of sixteen acrobatic sexual positions designed by Giulio, engraved by Marcantonio Raimondi, and published in 1524 by Baviero de’ Carrocci, known as Baviera.13 Several engravings from the Scultori–Ghisi workshop are based upon drawings that Giulio never realized as paintings or frescoes, suggesting that he may have provided highly finished modelli to the printmakers in a working relationship similar to the one that he shared with Raimondi.14 However, the Mantuan prints of Giovanni Battista, Adamo, Diana, and Giorgio do not appear to have been produced or sold by printers such as Ruffinelli or the Osanna brothers. A lack of printers’ marks suggests that the engravers had their own press and distribution network, and thus a great deal of independence.15 At the same time, Diana and her Mantuan associates often produced prints that identify Giulio Romano as inventor, signifying their reliance upon his designs and even his style. Diana was born sometime around 1547, the year after Giulio Romano died. Therefore, she did not know the artist personally but assimilated Giulio’s style through the work of her father. Giovanni Battista’s own printing enterprise distinguished him from the rest of the Mantuan atelier, where he executed stucco-work according to designs provided by Giulio Romano and, later, Giovanni Battista Bertani.16 While her father was employed in the Mantuan workshop, Diana was never paid as either a courtier or a workshop assistant, nor does she appear to have accepted direct commissions from the Gonzaga or papal courts. Despite Diana’s lack of formal ties to the court, her prints established her as someone with unique access to the works of Giulio Romano and to members of the Gonzaga family. Not a Gonzaga artist in the usual sense, Diana used the language and style of the court in order to position herself as a courtly printmaker. 12 For Ghisi’s oeuvre and relationship with the Gonzaga court, see Boorsch, Lewis, and Lewis, The Engravings, pp. 15–30. 13 Talvacchia, Taking Positions, pp. 71–84. 14 See, for example, Giovanni Battista’s Naval Battle (1538), Adamo’s Lion Attacking a Horse (c. 1563–1565), and Diana’s Christ and the Adulteress (1575). For the Naval Battle, see Massari, Incisori mantovani, p. 22. For the prints by Adamo and Diana, see Bellini, L’opera incisa, pp. 50–52, 197–199. Diana’s print will be discussed at greater length below. 15 Letwin has come to a similar conclusion; see Letwin, ‘Scultori and Ghisi’, pp. 3–9.The Mantuan engravers may have been unwilling to choose sides in what appears to have been ongoing feud between Ruffinelli and the Osanna brothers. See Rhodes, ‘Some Notes’. 16 For Giovanni Battista Scultori’s career in Mantua, see Massari, Incisori mantovani, pp. 7–9; Lincoln, Invention, pp. 118–120.

Creative Reproductions: Diana Mantuana and Printmaking at Court 

Upon her arrival in Rome in her late twenties, Diana undertook the unusual step of obtaining a papal privilege for her work.17 While she was not the f irst printmaker to have obtained a privilege, Diana does appear to be the first woman to have done so. Her privilege granted Diana the sole right to produce and sell certain prints for a period of ten years, effectively conceding her a monopoly over the images. The late sixteenth-century Roman print market was complex, with an array of established engravers and printers competing against and collaborating with one another. Publishers worked on commission, primarily for the papal court and local nobles, and also produced prints for sale to visiting pilgrims and diplomats.18 Diana may have felt the need to protect her designs from the copyists often hired by publishers, who sought to make easy money by pirating successful images. The privilege demonstrates Diana’s ability to navigate the complex papal bureaucracy as well as her knowledge of contemporary printing practices. The prints listed in the privilege also reveal Diana’s canny understanding of the Roman print market, which overwhelming favoured local subjects, such as antiquities or prints after modern works of art located in Rome.19 Three of the five prints identified by name in the privilege derive from works by Giulio Romano; these are The Feast of the Gods and the March of the Horsemen, both based upon frescoes at the Palazzo Te, and Christ and the Adulteress, after a now-lost drawing.20 As his name suggests, Giulio was from Rome, but all of the works Diana engraved were Mantuan in origin. Her prints were thus both local and foreign, allowing Diana to establish a niche in the Roman market. In these and other prints after Giulio’s work Diana identifies him as the inventor, thereby calling attention to her access to his designs.21 Diana must have brought either the drawings or, more likely, the engraved plates, to Rome with her in 1575. It is no accident that these three prints also carry dedicatory inscriptions to members of the Gonzaga family: respectively to Claudio Gonzaga, of the distinguished Palazzolo branch of the dynasty and maggiordomo to Pope Gregory XIII; Scipione Gonzaga, a literary patron and early

17 For the use of papal privileges by printers and Diana’s trendsetting use of privileges for visual material, see Bury, ‘Infringing Privileges’, pp. 133–138; Witcombe, Copyright, pp. 181–186. The full text of the privilege is transcribed in Lincoln, Invention, p. 189. 18 For the Roman print market, see Bury, Print in Italy, pp. 121–135; Leuschner, ‘Papal Printing Privilege’, pp. 359–370. 19 Bury, Print in Italy, pp. 126–127. 20 Bellini suggested that Diana’s Christ and the Adulteress may be related to a drawing at the Städelsches Kunstinstitut in Frankfurt, inv. 4334; see Bellini, L’opera incisa, p. 198. 21 Giulio is credited slightly differently in these prints, as ‘Iulius Rom. Inventor’, ‘Iulius Ro. In.’, and ‘Iulius R. Inventor’ respectively.

119

120 

Maria F. Maurer

print collector; and Eleonora d’Austria, wife of Duke Guglielmo I Gonzaga.22 Attributed to Giulio Romano and dedicated to prominent members of the Gonzaga family living in Rome and Mantua, Diana’s privileged plates positioned her as an artist with Roman connections, as well as strong ties to Mantuan court, if not an official member of it. With the papal privilege Diana also asserted her status as the sole artist in Rome who could produce engravings based upon Giulio’s work. By 1575 the three other Mantuan artists producing engravings based upon direct access to Giulio’s designs and frescoes were no longer doing so. Giovanni Battista Scultori had recently died, an event which appears to have prompted Diana’s move to Rome. Her brother, Adamo, who produced work after Giulio while living in Mantua, had moved to Rome some ten years earlier; there he was more active as a printer than as an engraver.23 Giorgio Ghisi produced his Cupid and Psyche after a fresco in the Palazzo Te in 1574, but the few prints he executed after this date were not indebted to the work of Giulio Romano.24 Thus, Diana’s papal privilege solidified her status as Giulio’s heir in Rome. Only a Mantuan artist could obtain drawings by or after Giulio’s greatest works in that city, and only Diana had the right to publish them.

Gender and Generation As a woman in a man’s profession, Diana was subject to constraints arising from her artistic training as well as discourses that gendered both art-making and printing as masculine. In sixteenth-century art theory, the term invenzione could be used to describe innovative poetic or visual compositions.25 Invention was a mark of artistic excellence and creative capacity, and a key way to differentiate between merely copying nature, an act labelled ritrarre by writers such as Giorgio

22 Eleonora d’Austria is mistakenly identified as the wife of Vincenzo I Gonzaga in Lincoln, Invention, pp. 132–133. Vincenzo, eldest son of Guglielmo and Eleanora d’Austria, married Eleonora de’ Medici in 1584. While he was descended from the minor Gazzuolo branch of the Gonzaga family tree, Scipione’s mother, Emilia Cauzzi was the natural daughter of Duke Federico II Gonzaga and his mistress, Isabella Boschetti. Scipione was therefore Guglielmo’s nephew, and provided an additional link to the court in Mantua. See Litta, Familie, IV, tav. XV. 23 For Adamo’s life and work, see Bellini, L’opera incisa, p. 28f; and Pagani, ‘Adamo Scultori’, pp. 74–75, and docs. 24 Boorsch, Lewis, and Lewis, Giorgio Ghisi, pp. 19–22. Ghisi’s last works, dating from the late 1570s, were a series of engravings made to illustrate a missal used at the Basilica of St. Barbara, the Gonzaga family’s court church. 25 Bury, ‘Some Engravings’, p. 17.

Creative Reproductions: Diana Mantuana and Printmaking at Court 

Vasari and Vincenzo Danti, and the ability to perfect nature, known as imitare.26 Invenzione was also a distinctly male prerogative.27 It should not appear strange, then, that Diana referred to Giulio Romano, Raffaelino da Reggio, and other artists who provided her source material as inventor or invenit. In contrast, she used the terms incidebat (‘incise’ or ‘engrave’) or fecit (‘made’) to signify her physical act of engraving the image on the copper plate. The primary reason that Diana did not claim the role of inventor in her prints was that she did not design or draw them. For Vasari and other central-Italian theorists, invenzione depended upon disegno, a term that signified both skill at drawing and the ability to design harmonious compositions with ease and skill.28 Printmaking was closely aligned with the concept of disegno, as the medium relied upon line as its primary means of expression. Although Diana learned to engrave copper plates, the execution of her prints suggests that her father did not teach her the art of disegno. The awkward architecture of Christ and the Adulteress (fig. 5.1), engraved after a model provided by Giulio Romano, demonstrates the limits of her training. The now-lost preparatory drawing that Diana worked from must not have been as finished as those that she normally used, meaning that she had to improvise details.29 In her print, the temple appears to be oblong rather than round. The curvature is not steep enough, and Diana had difficulty positioning the columns, which appear to recede into the distance without winding around the building. Christ’s hand is severed from his body by one of the serpentine columns so that the appendage appears to float eerily on the left side of the print. Diana does not seem to have been trained in the art of drawing. Thus, she could not enter into discourses of invenzione and ingegno that were open to artists who had been taught to imitate with an eye to perfecting, or to devise innovative compositions based upon the ideas and designs of others. Instead, she relied largely upon the inventions of male artists. Yet Diana’s prints are not direct copies of their source material. She altered details large and small, adding billowing clouds in prints such as the March of the Horsemen, and omitting the central scene of Cupid and Psyche reclining on a couch in her Feast of the Gods (fig. 5.2).30 These and other alterations have sometimes been read as claims to invenzione on Diana’s part, but in none of her signed prints did she claim to have been the 26 Summers, Michelangelo, pp. 279–282; Jacobs, Defining, pp. 44–47, 58–60. 27 Jacobs, Renaissance Virtuosa, pp. 56–60. Jacobs notes that of the nearly forty women listed as working artists, Renaissance writers credited only Sofonisba Anguissola with the power of invenzione. 28 Summers, Language of Art, pp. 62–68, 250–261, 279–282. 29 Lincoln has made a similar argument regarding Diana’s St. Jerome, which she engraved after a modello provided by Daniela da Volterra. See Lincoln, Invention, pp. 124–125. 30 Bellini, L’opera incisa, pp. 33–35, 201–204.

121

122 

Maria F. Maurer

designer of the image.31 Most of her Roman viewers would not have been aware of her changes in any case.32 While the dedicatees may have been familiar with the works she depicted, most of her buyers were not in a position to compare her prints with the drawings, frescoes, and stuccoes that they cite. Instead, Diana’s clearly credited prints appealed to consumers based upon their identification with Giulio Romano and his established reputation for inventiveness and versatility. The engravings demonstrated Diana’s ability to bring Giulio’s frescoed inventions to light via the more accessible medium of print. In order to craft an artistic identity, Diana employed pictorial and textual references to procreation and childbirth. Reproductive metaphors were often used by male painters, sculptors and writers, but not, so far as I am aware, by male printmakers.33 While the term ‘reproductive’ has come under fire from print scholars who have rightly argued that it applies modern ideas of originality and copying to Early Modern imagery, I hope to reclaim it here in a positive and generative light.34 In the sixteenth century, image-making was often compared to the act of making a child, yet there was a key difference between biological conception and artistic creation: a child came from the feminized body; a work of art sprang from the masculinized mind. Leonardo da Vinci, Vasari, and Giovanni Battista Armenini used procreative metaphors in order to depict the male artist as a godlike force who created images that seemed to live, breathe, and speak.35 In gendering the act of reproduction masculine, sixteenth-century artists echoed Aristotle, who had described women’s role in procreation as providing only the passive Matter upon which the active male Form could work.36 Aristotle likened active masculinity to artistic action by describing the relationship of Form and Matter as one of the carpenter shaping wood or a sculptor modelling clay.37 Although the ancient Roman physician Galen acknowledged that women contributed to reproduction, he described the male role as ‘analogous with Phidias’, and labelled women’s contribution as 31 For Diana’s invention, see Markey, ‘The Female Printmaker’, pp. 54–56. In some of Diana’s signed prints the inventor is not named. Failing to name the inventor, however, does not mean that she claims that position for herself. 32 Bury, ‘Some Engravings’, pp. 18–19. 33 Friedman, ‘Creativity’, pp. 49–82; and Jacobs, Renaissance Virtuosa, pp. 27–63. 34 Since Adam Bartsch distinguished between the superior peintre graveur and mere ‘reproductive’ engravers, scholars have been debating the problems and uses of the term as applied to Early Modern prints. The following authors have been most useful to my own conception of Diana’s prints as reproductive: Bartsch, Le peintre graveur; Borea, ‘Stampa f igurativa’, esp. pp. 374–411; Karpinski, ‘Print in Thrall’, pp. 101–109; Bury, ‘Some Engravings’, pp. 4–19; Pon, Raphael; and Zorach and Rodini, ‘Imitation and Invention’. 35 Jacobs, Renaissance Virtuosa, pp. 44–47. 36 Aristotle, De generatione, 1.20; Jacobs, Renaissance Virtuosa, p. 27. 37 Aristotle, De generatione, 1.21–22; Simons, Sex of Men, pp. 133–134.

Creative Reproductions: Diana Mantuana and Printmaking at Court 

‘the statuary’s wax’.38 Whether as artists or mothers, women were impressionable objects awaiting the creative work of men. Aristotelian and Galenic metaphors were also used in printmaking. The machinery of the press was likened to masculine Form imprinting upon feminine Matter, and its rhythmic motion with the sexual act.39 In Shakespeare’s The Winter’s Tale (II, iii) Paulina affirms the princess’s paternity by describing her as something issued from her father’s loins like paper from a press, a true copy of the original.40 Parts of the press were even described as copulating male and female pairs. A late seventeenth-century manual on the art of printing notes that ‘the Office of the Male-Gage is to fit into, and slides [sic] along the Female-Gage’.41 Similar observations on dovetails, screws, and tongues and grooves follow. Because authors and engravers rarely printed their own works, and thus often had to surrender texts and images to professional printers, the press could also be likened to a wayward woman. 42 Pietro Aretino described himself as ‘a pimp who empties his harlot’s purse’ when he stopped by the print shop to pick up money earned from the sales of his work.43 Little wonder, then, that few women worked as engravers or printers. 44 While there is less direct evidence concerning the act of engraving, pushing the burin into the plate also echoes Renaissance models of reproduction. Moreover, engravers often transferred drawings to plates using wax. The plate would be covered in wax, the drawing laid atop it, and the lines from the modello pressed into the malleable medium using a stylus. 45 Like the painter’s penello, used as a penile metaphor by artists and writers such as Agnolo Bronzino and Pietro Aretino, the printmaker’s tools gave birth to images by actively forming figures on a passive

38 Galen, On the Natural Faculties, II.iii. 39 de Grazia, ‘Imprints’; and Markey, ‘Female Printmaker’, p. 52. 40 For additional printing and procreative metaphors in Shakespeare’s oeuvre, see Grazia, ‘Imprints’, pp. 75–82. 41 Moxon, Mechanick Exercises, p. 140; Grazia, ‘Imprints’, pp. 82–90. 42 Waddington, ‘Meretrix et stampificata’, pp. 137–140. 43 ‘E colui, che la sera va a la bottega per torre i danari de la vendita del giorno pizzica de la natura del Roffiano; che prima che se ne vada a letto vota la borsa de la sua femina’, Aretino, Lettere, I, p. 47; the letter is dated 22 June 1537. 44 For women engravers, see Markey, ‘Female Printmaker’, p. 51–63. For women as printers, publishers and book dealers, see Parker, ‘Women’. 45 There were several ways in which a drawing could be transferred to a plate. Some of Diana’s images are printed in the reverse of their models, suggesting that she pricked the original drawing; others are oriented in the same direction, indicating that she oiled them or used a chalk drawing to produce a counterproof, or transferred them using wax. Any of these latter transfer methods would likely have resulted in the destruction of the model. On this, see Landau and Parshall, Renaissance Print, pp. 12430; Bury, The Print in Italy, p. 13f.; and Campbell and Raftery, ‘Remaking Dürer’.

123

124 

Maria F. Maurer

support. 46 As she transferred and engraved her work, Diana engaged in practices that echoed artistic and philosophical discourses of creation. She also negotiated the associations between printmaking, masculinity, and sexual intercourse in order to turn print’s procreative metaphors on their head.

Printed Progeny Two of Diana’s printed dedications celebrate her reproductive abilities using witty inscriptions that would have appealed to her courtly audience. Both prints employ the double entendre viene or mandar in luce, which literally means ‘to bring to light’, as a euphemism for childbirth.47 In the Feast of the Gods, dedicated to Claudio Gonzaga, Diana comments that, ‘It is fitting that this work of mine, having received form (ricevuto d’essere) under the dominion of your excellent house, prospers further under the name of Your Excellency, since now it is born (ella viene in luce), having been nurtured by you’. 48 Likewise, in Christ and the Adulteress, Diana’s uses the phrase ‘giving birth (mandar in luce)’ to describe her role in the print’s creation.49 As in her attributions of the prints to Giulio Romano, Diana’s claim to make rather than invent follows established discourses of artistic production and gender. But in her dedications Diana also utilized her own reproducing body and the genders of her dedicatees in order to claim the prints as her children, birthed through difficult labour and ushered into the world for all to see. While she does not use the Italian word forma (form) to describe the creation of the Feast of the Gods, Diana’s inscription echoes Aristotle in attributing the generation of the print to her male patron. Diana claims credit for the print as ‘mia fatica’, or ‘my work’, but she also distances herself from its dissemination when she describes the print as something created and born under the care of Claudio Gonzaga. She might have invoked authorial distance in order to protect herself against charges of obscenity, for the print is filled with voluptuous male and female nudes. In fact, such an argument has been made with reference to Diana’s exclusion 46 See, for example Bronzino’s Del pennello in his Rime in Burla, pp. 23–26. For the pennello as a procreative metaphor see, Talvacchia, ‘Bronzino’s Del pennello’, pp. 29–33. 47 Viene in luce was used to refer to childbirth by at least the sixteenth century; Cf. ASF, MdP, b. 1170, fol. 592r, MAP ID 2386 where a Medici courtier heralds the 1544 birth of Giovanni de’ Medici using the phrase. 48 ‘È cosa convenie[n]te che questa mia fatica havendo ricevuto d’essere sotto il dominio dell’Eccell.tia casa vostra riceva ancora il ben essere sotto il nome di V.S. Ill.ms poiche hora ella viene in luce favorite da lei con l’amplissimo privilegio del la s.ta di Nostro Sig.r’. My translation differs somewhat from that of Lincoln, Invention, p. 129. 49 See note 55 for the entire inscription.

Creative Reproductions: Diana Mantuana and Printmaking at Court 

Figure 5.3 Giulio Romano and assistants, Camera di Psiche, south wall, 1526–1528, fresco, Palazzo Te, Mantua. Image Credit: Scala/Art Resource, NY.

of several figures from Giulio Romano’s frescoes, most notably the reclining Cupid and Psyche (compare figs. 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4).50 Yet, reading Diana’s distances and excisions as provoked by concerns for her feminine reputation oversimplifies the Post-Tridentine response to images, and imposes modern ideas of pornography and obscenity onto Early Modern prints. The Council of Trent rejected visual excess in the form of unnecessary nudity, but the sensuality and eroticism of the depicted human body remained important to Catholic imagery.51 Giorgio Ghisi’s Cupid and Psyche, a slightly earlier print of precisely the figures that Diana omitted in her 1575 Feast, was judged obscene and the plate destroyed in 1823. By the nineteenth century, modern ideas of pornography had replaced Early Modern approaches to erotic content.52 According to sixteenth-century mores, Diana’s Feast of the Gods was legitimate, or onesto. Her nude figures are all carefully situated within a mythological framework, and

50 See Lincoln, Invention, p. 134, where she refers to the Feast as a ‘cleaned-up’ version of Giulio’s frescoes from the Camera di Psiche. 51 See the essays in Hall and Cooper, eds., The Sensuous; especially Talvacchia, ‘The Word Made Flesh’, pp. 49–73. 52 For the papal order, see Massari, Incisori mantovani, cat. 230. For the problems of applying the modern concept of pornography to Early Modern prints, see Talvacchia, Taking Positions, pp. 101–104.

125

126 

Maria F. Maurer

Figure 5.4 Giulio Romano and assistants, Camera di Psiche, west and north walls, 1526–1528, fresco, Palazzo Te, Mantua. Image Credit: Ghigo G. Roli/Art Resource, NY.

Creative Reproductions: Diana Mantuana and Printmaking at Court 

accompanied by descriptive text with the title, dedication, and papal privilege.53 Moreover, Diana included a warning to those who might misinterpret her print. A tablet at the upper right corner of the central sheet reads, ‘Away you uninitiated’, or, more simply, ‘Keep Off’.54 Rather than interpret Diana’s alterations of Giulio’s frescoes as merely products of self-censorship, I propose that we see them as reassertions of female creativity. The f igures that Diana removes from Giulio’s composition are precisely those who have demonstrated procreativity: Cupid and Psyche with their daughter Voluptas, two satyresses with nursing infants, and even two satyrs suckling a goat. In her dedication Diana states that the print was formed under the auspices of her male patron, but she uses a passive sentence structure (‘havendo ricevuto d’essere’) and thus equivocates regarding just who undertook the creative act. She uses a similar grammatical construction to characterize the print as something which births itself due to the nurturing presence of her male patron. Claudio Gonzaga is thus placed in the position of both masculine protector and feminine midwife. Diana eschews the roles of generator and caretaker, and instead characterizes herself as the person who made images appear in the world. Her use of the childbirth metaphor was especially effective for prints after frescoes or presentation drawings, because in these paper offspring Diana made Giulio’s frescoes available to a broader audience outside the conf ines of the Mantuan court. Diana further explores reproductive metaphors in her Christ and the Adulteress, a composition that she also credits to Giulio Romano’s invention (fig. 5.1). The print is dedicated to Eleonora d’Austria, the Duchess of Mantua, and here Diana contends with a primarily female creative cycle. In the inscription Diana writes that she is indebted to the Duchess, under whose reign she was born and instructed in virtue. Diana further states that her gratitude is such that ‘I have taken the liberty of giving birth to’ (‘ho preso ardire di mandar in luce’) this work.55 As in the Feast 53 For the discourses of onesto and disonesto in Renaissance erotica, see Talvacchia, Taking Positions, pp. 104–118. Alexander Nagel has highlighted the importance of narrative and spatial context in differentiating between legitimate and illegitimate images; see Nagel, The Controversy, pp. 226–237. 54 ‘Procul este profane’, translated by Lincoln, Invention, p. 132. 55 The inscription in its entirety reads (again, my translation is slightly different from that of Lincoln, ibid., pp. 134–135):

Alla Serenissima Signora Lionora d’Austria Duchessa di Mantova / Diana Mantuana / Io mi stento tanto tenuta alla memoria del felicissima Dominio di Vostra Altissima sotto del quale io nacqui et appresi quella poco virtù che io possego che per sodifare in parte alla gratitudine dell’animo mio ho preso ardire di mandar in luce questa mia fatica sotto il gran nome di quella accioche ritornando dov’ella hebbe il suo principe serva ancora per pegno alla servitu mio verso di V.A. et della serenissima casa sua. Di Roma, il primo dì settembre MDLXXV (To Her Most Serene Highness Lady Eleonora d’Austria, Duchess of Mantua / Diana Mantuana / I feel myself so tied to the memory of Your Highness’s most

127

128 

Maria F. Maurer

of the Gods, Diana describes herself as giving life to the print, but in Christ and the Adulteress two births occur. Firstly, Diana is born under the ‘happy dominion’ created by Eleonora. Then, inspired by the Duchess’ example, Diana gives birth to a print. The sentence structure is also more active: Diana claims credit for giving birth to her paper child. Giulio Romano is still named as the inventor in the lower left corner, but the work comes to life due to feminine labour. The gender of her dedicatee allowed Diana to claim a more active role by highlighting the (pro) creative work of women. While the print’s dedication to a woman heightens the impact of the inscription, the subject matter of Christ and the Adulteress has proven more difficult to reconcile with the gender of its artist and patron. As an artist familiar with the Gonzaga and papal courts and a woman skilled at negotiating gender norms, it seems odd that Diana would dedicate a print on adultery to the powerful Duchess of Mantua. The iconography of the print might be better understood as one underlining the importance of balanced justice. In the biblical story, Jesus is teaching at the temple when a group of Pharisees brings forth a woman caught in the act of adultery and proposes to stone her. Rather than answer them, he writes in the dirt with his finger. When pressed by the Pharisees, Christ responds ‘Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to cast a stone at her’ (John 8:7). He then bends down and continues to write as the Pharisees quickly melt away. The Bible does not explicitly state what Christ wrote in the dust, though Renaissance artists sometimes depicted it as his pronouncement concerning the casting of stones. Like other Early Modern representations of the story, Diana’s adulteress has flowing golden hair and a voluptuous figure. The woman’s body echoes the sinuously twisting forms of the serpentine columns of the temple, and she brings her left arm across her breasts and bunches fabric with her right in an imitation of the Venus pudica. Her alluring figure could have been interpreted as proof of her guilt, and indeed, Christ’s closing words, ‘Go and sin no more’ (John 8:11), seem to confirm this reading. It is, however, unlikely that Renaissance viewers equated Eleonora d’Austria with the adulteress. Instead, the print demonstrates her Christ-like virtue and just administration, those qualities that made Mantua such a happy place in which to live. In addition to highlighting the adulteress’s beauty, most other artists focused on Christ’s dispute with the Pharisees or his act of writing, at times rendering the happy dominion, under which I was born and learned what little virtue/skill I possess, that in order to satisfy in part the gratitude [that I feel] in my soul, I have taken the liberty of giving birth to this work of mine under [your] great name, so that in returning to where it had its beginning, it will serve its prince once again as a token of my service to Your Highness and your most serene house. From Rome, the first of September 1575).

Creative Reproductions: Diana Mantuana and Printmaking at Court 

words in an illegible pseudo-Hebrew.56 Given her penchant for inscriptions, we might expect Diana to choose a similar narrative moment. Instead, her print shows the Pharisees exiting the temple as Christ and the adulteress stand together at the centre, bringing the focus to Christ’s decision and the woman’s salvation. There is text in the print, but all of it is created by Diana. At the centre, beneath Christ’s feet, Diana placed her papal privilege. At the bottom left, clearly indicated by the gesture of a reclining man, she attributes the design to Giulio Romano and signs, ‘Diana F[ecit]’. The dedication to the Duchess of Mantua appears in the lower right corner, wedged between another reclining figure and an escaping Pharisee. In Christ and the Adulteress, Diana’s inscriptions take the place of the Christ’s words, directing the viewer to her papal privilege, her artistic heritage, and her status as one born to the Gonzaga court. Diana also subtly claims the god-like creative powers often reserved for male artists by simultaneously describing the print as an image that she brings into the world and situating her inscriptions as a divinely authored text.

Marvellous Reproduction In the Feast of the Gods and Christ and the Adulteress Diana used carefully worded dedications to suggest that although the invention or form of her work might be described as masculine, only her reproductive burin brought it into the world. Considering one last example of Diana’s procreative approach that reveals some of the ways in which she continued to situate herself and her work in discourses of artistic creativity. A few years after her arrival in Rome, Diana issued her Conjoined Twins (fig. 5.5). It is the first of three round prints that Diana produced, all of which are around only seven inches in diameter. Like her other circular prints, Diana attributes the Twins to Raffaelino da Reggio, also known as Raffaele Motta, an artist who had worked with her husband at the court of Cesare Gonzaga in Guastalla.57 Yet the birth of the Conjoined Twins is more complicated. Raffaelino made his drawing after a fresco designed by Giulio Romano that is located in the Camerino degli Uccelli in Mantua’s Palazzo Ducale. Diana’s omission of Giulio’s role in devising the composition suggests that she viewed the inventor as the person who supplied her with the fully realized modello that she transferred to the plate. It also suggests the ways in which an artist’s child might slip out of control, taking on new lives, replicating and shifting as it passed through the hands of others. 56 See, for example, a woodcut of c. 1520 from Lucas van Leyden’s Mute Passion, or a painting produced by Tintoretto’s workshop in c. 1546, which both depict indecipherable text scrawled in the dirt at Christ’s feet. 57 Fantini, Breve trattato, p. 36.

129

130 

Maria F. Maurer

Figure 5.5 Diana Mantuana, Conjoined Twins, after Raffaelino da Reggio, 1577 (third state), engraving, 19 cm in diameter. Albertina Museum, Vienna, It/I/29/87. Image Credit: Albertina Museum, Vienna.

In the sixteenth century, conjoined twins were considered to be monstrously birthed beings that could signify portentous events to come or the marvellous productivity of Nature.58 Unlike earlier prints such as Albrecht Dürer’s Monstrous Pig of Landser (1496) or those depicting the conjoined twins of Ertingen, born in 1512, Diana does not claim to represent a set of twins that actually existed, nor does she delight in malformed limbs and protruding appendages.59 Instead, Diana’s depiction of the children as ideally blond with smooth, plump flesh casts the twins not as menacing, but as a wondrous occurrence. In the second state of the 58 Park and Daston, ‘Unnatural Conceptions’, pp. 20–54. 59 Spinks, Monstrous Births, pp. 37–53.

Creative Reproductions: Diana Mantuana and Printmaking at Court 

print, the stippled background evokes a starry sky, and the round format similarly indicates a heavenly setting for the pair. Diana’s Latin inscription describes the f igures as a ‘doubled delight’ in which ‘the heavens mingle one body with another’.60 The cloth that enfolds the twins obscures any physical distortions at the points of contact. Along with the urn and bird that they hold, the cruciform shape of the garment subtly associates the infants not with infernal demons, but with the Christ child.61 Diana used an image of a natural wonder to create an artistic marvel. The inscriptions on the print are displayed around its circular edges, forcing the viewer to rotate it in order to read the text in its entirety. When displayed as printed in this essay, the twins appear to be joined at the back, but when rotated roughly 90 degrees, they appear joined at the stomach. The fresco in the Camerino degli Uccelli uses the same compositional device, but situates the twins in a rectangular field at the centre of a ceiling filled with grottesche, including unicorns, camels, and other fantastic creatures (fig. 5.6). Alternating light and dark backgrounds provide a sense of movement to the frescoed ceiling, compelling the visitor to rotate in order to comprehend Giulio’s ingenious depiction of a natural wonder. Raffaelino and Diana took Giulio’s idea one step further. The smaller size and round format of Diana’s print allows the beholder to own, grasp, and manipulate the marvellous bodies, cannily bringing the twins down to earth, while depicting them as denizens of the heavens. In the Conjoined Twins Diana’s monstrous progeny perhaps most effectively attest to her procreative capacities. Architects and theorists utilized the idea of the monstrous hybrid in order to celebrate the roles of appropriation and licenzia, or license, in their practice. Classical authors such as Horace and Vitruvius had bemoaned the abandon that led artists to combine human and marine forms in one figure or Ionic and Doric elements on the same entablature.62 In contrast, sixteenthcentury writers from Sebastiano Serlio to Lodovico Dolce praised the monstrous license that led artists to select, mix and recombine visual and architectural motifs in order to produce a something new and marvellous.63 As the wife of an architect and member of a family that had worked on architectural projects with both Giulio Romano and Giovanni Battista Bertani, Diana would have been familiar with the

60 Starting at the top and proceeding clockwise, the full inscription reads: ‘A geminis geminos natos nos dixit ab ovis / Prisca senum series sic geminasse ivvat / Raphael Regiensis / Inventor / Sed quia sub caeli nunc sydere condimur uno / miscuit alterius corpora corporibus / Diana Incidebat / Romae 1577’. 61 For note of similar Christological references in Hans Burgkmair’s broadside depicting the Tettnang twins, see Spinks, Monstrous Births, pp. 53–57. 62 Horace, Satires, p. 451; Vitruvius, On Architecture, VII.5.3. 63 Onians, Bearers of Meaning, pp. 36–39; Payne, ‘Mescolare, Composti’, pp. 273–294.

131

132 

Maria F. Maurer

Figure 5.6 Giulio Romano and assistants, ceiling of the Camerino degli Uccelli, 1536, fresco, Palazzo Ducale, Mantua. Image Credit: Alinari/Art Resource, NY.

creative possibilities of monsters. Diana’s own practice depended upon adopting and adapting the designs of others in order to generate her own creations. In addition to bearing witness to her copious reproductive abilities, the Conjoined Twins also subverted gendered artistic language. Like the twins, Diana was a

Creative Reproductions: Diana Mantuana and Printmaking at Court 

marvel. Vasari recounts that Giovanni Battista Scultori had several children whom he taught to engrave, ‘the most marvellous (cosa più maravigliosa) of which is a daughter, called Diana, who also engraves well, which is a marvellous thing (cosa maravigliosa)’.64 Diana is the only woman artist whom Vasari says he met, and the encounter clearly had an impact on him.65 By repeating the same phrase in reference to both Diana’s existence and her work, Vasari collapses the artist and her abilities, such that it is the woman artist who is a cosa maravigliosa. In her analysis of Vasari’s use of the word maraviglia to describe women artists, Fredrika Jacobs argues that the term is not necessarily a compliment.66 A marvel is, after all, abnormal. At best, the marvellous female artist exceeds other women by acting like a man. At worst, she is a contradiction in terms, someone who can copy, but who cannot aspire to true artistic invention. By positioning herself and her prints as wonders and monsters, Diana turns Vasari’s backhanded praise to her advantage. She acknowledges her unusual situation, while also positioning herself as someone who endlessly reproduces cose maravigliose. Diana’s appropriations, inscriptions and dedications were aimed at both the Gonzaga court and the broader commercial market. Quite simply, she used her courtly connections to get ahead in the competitive atmosphere of Rome. She also used them to forge a complex artistic identity that acknowledged her status as a woman who reproduced male form, while claiming a creative role in the engraving and dissemination of those forms. She was a marvel, a female artist who could be bought in the form of her work and displayed in collectors’ cabinets beside antique gems and exotic naturalia. She was also someone who issued marvels, constantly birthing new and wondrous creations.

Bibliography Aretino, Pietro. Lettere, 3 vols. (Venice: Francesco Marcolini, 1538). Aristotle. De generatione animalium, trans. by Arthur Platt (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910). Bartsch, Adam. Le peintre graveur, 21 vols. (Vienna: J.V. Degen, 1803–1821). Bellini, Paolo, ed. L’opera incisa di Adamo e Diana Scultori (Vicenza: Neri Pozza, 1991).

64 See n. 1 above for citation of Vasari’s passage. Vasari erroneously records that Giovanni Battista had two sons and a daughter, likely confusing Giorgio Ghisi for a member of the Scultori family. 65 Lincoln, ‘Good Impression’, p. 1134. 66 Jacobs, Renaissance Virtuosa, p. 38. Compare with Summers, who links both maraviglia and stupore to an artist’s ability to overwhelm the beholder with artistic skill and brilliant artifice: Language of Art, pp. 171–176.

133

134 

Maria F. Maurer

Bertolotti, Antonio. ‘Prime notizie della tipografia in Mantova’, Il Bibliofilo 10 (1889), 26–30. Boorsch, Suzanne, and David Landau. ‘Mantegna and Prints’, The Burlington Magazine 135 (1993), 826–828. Boorsch, Suzanne, Michal Lewis, and R.E. Lewis. The Engravings of Giorgio Ghisi (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1985). Borea, Evelina. ‘Stampa figurativa a pubblico dalle origini all’affermazione nel Cinquecento’, in Storia dell’arte italiana, Parte 1, Materiali e problemi, vol. 2, L’artista e il pubblico, ed. by Giovanni Previtali, Giulio Bollati, and Paolo Fossati (Turin: Giulio Einaudi editore, 1979), pp. 317–413. Bronzino, Agnolo. Rime in Burla (Rome: Istituto delle Enciclopedia Italiana, 1988). Bury, Michael. ‘Infringing Privileges and Copying in Rome, c. 1600’, Print Quarterly 22 (2005), 133–138. ––– The Print in Italy, 1550–1620 (London: The British Museum Press, 2001). ––– ‘On Some Engravings by Giorgio Ghisi Commonly Called “Reproductive”’, Print Quarterly 10 (1993), 4–19. Campbell, Angela, and Andrew Raftery. ‘Remaking Dürer: Investigating the Master Engravings by Masterful Engraving’, Art in Print 2, no. 4 (2012), 15–21. Canova, Andrea. ‘Gian Marco Cavalli incisore per Andrea Mantegna e altre notizie sull’oreficeria e la tipografia a Mantova nel XV secolo’, Italia medioevale e umanistica 42 (2001), 149–179. Christiansen, Keith. ‘The Case for Mantegna as Printmaker’, The Burlington Magazine 135 (1993), 604–612. ––– ‘Some Observations on Mantegna’s Painting Technique’, in Andrea Mantegna, ed. by Jane Martineau (London: Thames and Hudson, 1992), pp. 68–78. D’Arco, Carlo. Istoria della vita ed delle opera di Giulio Pippi Romano (Milan: Torchi di Gaspare Truffi, 1838). Fantini, Bonifazio. Breve trattato della vita di Raffaele Mota, Reggiano pittore famoso (Reggio, 1616; Parma: Tipografia Carmignani, 1850). Ferrari, Daniela, ed. Giulio Romano: repertorio di fonti documentarie, 2 vols. (Rome: Ministero per i beni culturali e ambientali, Ufficio centrale per i beni archivistici, 1992). Fletcher, Shelley. ‘A Closer Look at Mantegna’s Prints’, Print Quarterly 18 (2001), 3–41. Franco, Nicolo. La Philena. Historia amorosa ultimamente composta (Mantua: Iacomo Ruffinelli, 1547). Friedman, Susan Stanford. ‘Creativity and the Childbirth Metaphor: Gendered Difference in Literary Discourse’, Feminist Studies 13 (1987), 49–82. Galen. On the Natural Faculties, trans. by A.J. Brock, Loeb Classical Library, vol. 71. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1916). Grazia, Margreta de. ‘Imprints: Shakespeare, Guttenbert and Descartes’, in Alternative Shakespeares, ed. by Terrence Hawkes (London and New York: Routledge, 1996), pp. 63–94.

Creative Reproductions: Diana Mantuana and Printmaking at Court 

Hall, Marcia B., and Tracy E. Cooper, eds. The Sensuous in the Counter-Reformation Church (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012). Horace. Satires, Epistles and Ars Poetica, trans. by H.R. Fairclough (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978). Jacobs, Fredrika H. Defining the Renaissance Virtuosa: Women Artists and the Language of Art History and Criticism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). Karpinski, Caroline. ‘The Print in Thrall to its Original: A Historiographic Perspective’, Studies in the History of Art 20 (1989), 101–109. Landau, David, and Peter Parshall. The Renaissance Print, 1470–1550 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994). Landau, David. ‘Mantegna as Printmaker’, in Andrea Mantegna, ed. by Jane Martineau (London: Thames and Hudson, 1992), pp. 44–54. L’entrata della serenissima et illustrissima signora Caterina d’Austria spose del eccelentissimo Duca to Mantova, et Marchese di Monferrato nella detta sua città; con l’ordine di tornei, giostre, banchetti, comedie, musiche, & altri sontuosi apparecchi fatti per la venuta sua, cosa non meno maravigliosa da vedere, che degna d’etterna memoria (Mantua: Giacomo Ruffinelli, 1549). Letwin, Hilary. ‘“Old in Substance and New in Manner”: The Scultori and Ghisi Engraving Enterprise in Sixteenth-Century Mantua and Beyond’, Ph.D. Dissertation (Johns Hopkins University, 2013). Leuschner, Eckhard. ‘The Papal Printing Privilege’, Print Quarterly 15 (1998), 359–370. Lincoln, Evelyn. The Invention of the Italian Renaissance Printmaker (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000). ––– ‘Making a Good Impression: Diana Mantuana’s Printmaking Career’, Renaissance Quarterly 50 (1997), 1101–1147. Litta, Pompeo. Familie celebri di Italia, 20 vols. (Milan: P.E. Giusti, 1819–1852). Markey, Lia. ‘The Female Printmaker and the Culture of the Reproductive Print Workshop’, in Paper Museums: The Reproductive Print in Europe, 1500–1800, ed. by Rebecca Zorach and Elizabeth Rodini (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), pp. 51–75. Martineau, Jane, ed. Andrea Mantegna (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1992). Massari, Stefania. Incisori mantovani del ‘500. Giovan Battista, Adamo, Diana Scultori, e Giorgio Ghisi, dalle collezioni del Gabinetto Nazionale della Stampe e Calcografia Nazionale (Rome: De Luca, 1981). Moxon, Joseph. Mechanick Exercises on the Whole Art of Printing (1683–84) (London: Oxford University Press, 1978). Nagel, Alexander. The Controversy of Renaissance Art (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2011). Onians, John. Bearers of Meaning: The Classical Orders in Antiquity, the Middle Ages, and the Renaissance (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988).

135

136 

Maria F. Maurer

Pagani, Valeria. ‘Adamo Scultori and Diana Mantovana’, Print Quarterly 9 (1992), 72–87. Park, Katharine, and Lorraine J. Daston. ‘Unnatural Conceptions: The Study of Monsters in Sixteenth and Seventeenth-Century France and England’, Past & Present 92 (1981), 20–54. Parker, Deborah. ‘Women in the Book Trade in Italy, 1475–1620’, Renaissance Quarterly 49 (1996), 509–541. Payne, Alina A. ‘Mescolare, Composti and Monsters in Italian Architectural Theory of the Renaissance’, in Disarmonia bruttezza e bizzarria nel Rinacsimento, ed. by Luisa Secchi Tarugi (Florence: Franco Cesati Editore, 1998), pp. 273–294. Pescasio, Luigi. L’arte della stampa a Mantova nei secoli XV–XVI–XVII (Mantua: Padus, 1971). Pon, Lisa. Raphael, Dürer, and Marcantonio Raimondi: Copying and the Italian Renaissance Print (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004). Rhodes, D.E. ‘Some Notes on F.O. of Mantua, Torquato Tasso, and Others’, British Museum Quarterly 31 (1966), 1–4. Simons, Patricia. The Sex of Men in Premodern Europe: A Cultural History (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011). Spinks, Jennifer. Monstrous Births and Visual Culture in Sixteenth-Century Germany (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009). Summers, David. Michelangelo and the Language of Art (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981). Talvacchia, Bette. ‘The Word Made Flesh: Spiritual Subjects and Carnal Depictions in Renaissance Art’, in The Sensuous in the Counter-Reformation Church, ed. by Marcia B. Hall and Tracy E. Cooper (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 49–73. ––– ‘Bronzino’s Del pennello and the Pleasures of Art’, Frame 24, no. 2 (2011), 21–38. ––– Taking Positions: On the Erotic in Renaissance Culture (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999). Vasari, Giorgio. Le vite de’ più eccellenti pittori, scultori et architettori, 3 vols. (Florence: Giunti, 1568). Vitruvius. On Architecture, trans. Frank Granger, Loeb Classical Library, vol. 251 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1934). Waddington, Raymond B. ‘Meretrix et stampificata: Gendering the Printing Press’, in Books Have Their Own Destiny, ed. by Robin B. Barnes, Robert A. Kolb, and Paula L. Presley (Kirksville, MO: Thomas Jefferson University Press, 1998), pp. 131–141. Warnke, Martin. The Court Artist: On the Ancestry of the Modern Artist, trans. by David McLintock (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). Witcombe, Christopher L.C.E. Copyright in the Renaissance: Prints and Privilegio in SixteenthCentury Venice and Rome (Leiden: Brill, 2004). Zorach, Rebecca, and Elizabeth Rodini. ‘On Imitation and Invention: An Introduction to the Reproductive Print’, in Paper Museums: The Reproductive Print in Europe, 1500–1800, ed. by Rebecca Zorach and Elizabeth Rodini (Chicago: David and Alfred Smart Museum of Art, University of Chicago, 2005), pp. 1–29.

Creative Reproductions: Diana Mantuana and Printmaking at Court 

About the author Maria F. Maurer is Associate Professor of Art History at The University of Tulsa. Her research focuses on intersections between image, space, and gender in Italian art of the sixteenth century. Her book Gender, Space & Experience at the Renaissance Court: Performance and Practice at the Palazzo Te was published in 2019.

137

6. ‘Una persona dependente alla Serenissima Gran Duchessa’: Female Embroiderers and Lacemakers between the courts of Florence and France* Adelina Modesti Abstract Adelina Modesti reconstructs the experiences of Caterina Angiola Pieroncini and ‘La Trottolina’, two embroiderers and lacemakers in the 1660s. Both were ladies-in-waiting to Grand Duchess Vittoria della Rovere, an important patron of women artists and artisans at the Medici Court. The Grand Duchess provided training and education to both women, sending them to Paris to perfect their needlework skills in the new French styles. Having gained proficiency in France, both women were repatriated to Florence, where they continued in service to the Grand Duchess, alongside other ladies who had been trained in lacemaking at local convents. All these women were dependent on the protection of their patron, who did not fail to provide morally and materially for her young charges. Keywords: women’s patronage; women artisans; female education; international cultural transfers; women at court; ladies-in-waiting

Grand Duchess Vittoria della Rovere (1622–1694) (fig. 6.1) was an important patron of women artists and artisans at the Medici court during the Early Modern period, whose impact on humanist culture has only recently begun to be explored in depth.1 * This essay develops further a section on ladies-in-waiting and the applied arts in my book, Women’s Patronage, pp. 171–172; see also pp. 27–28. I would like to thank Tanja Jones for her kind invitation to contribute to this volume, and the anonymous readers for their suggestions. All translations are my own. 1 On the Grand Duchess’s artistic and cultural patronage see the many essays by Riccardo Spinelli, of which I cite only a few: Spinelli, ‘Vittoria della Rovere’; idem, ‘Vittoria della Rovere’, 2007; idem, ‘Pietro Dandini’; idem, ‘Baldassare Franceschini’. Also, Bautier, ‘Portraits’; Fabbri, ‘Sala delle Allegorie’; D’Ovidio,

Jones, T.L. (ed.), Women Artists in the Early Modern Courts of Europe: c. 1450–1700. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2021 doi 10.5117/9789462988194_ch06

140

Adelina Modesti

Figure 6.1 Francesco Furini, Portrait of Vittoria della Rovere, 1645, oil on canvas, Galleria delle Statue e delle Pitture degli Uffizi, Florence, 1890 n. 2689. Image Credit: © Su concessione del Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali e per il turismo. Further reproduction by any means is strictly prohibited.

This essay examines the training and education she provided for two embroiderers and lace-makers, Caterina Angiola Pieroncini and another woman known to us ‘Patronage’; idem, ‘Mecenatismo musicale’; Modesti, ‘Diplomatic and Cultural Partnerships’; idem, ‘Self-Fashioning’; idem, ‘Nun Artisans’; idem, ‘“Mode le più novelle”’; idem, ‘Gendered Dynastic’; idem, Women’s Patronage; Straussman-Pflanzer, ‘Court Culture’, and idem, ‘Medici’s First’. On her political persona see Benadusi, ‘Carteggi’, and idem, ‘Gender Politics’, 2015.

‘Una persona dependente all a Serenissima Gran Duchessa’ 

Figure 6.2 Border, Venice, mid-seventeenth century. Venetian gros point raised needle lace, purchase by subscription, 1909, 09.68.106. Image Credit: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, www.metmuseum.org.

only by the moniker ‘La Trottolina’, in the 1660s. Both ladies-in-waiting, the young women were sent to Paris to perfect their needlework skills in the new French styles. Having gained proficiency in France, both were repatriated to Florence. There they continued in service to the Grand Duchess alongside other dame (ladies-in-waiting), among them Maria Maddalena Caligari, who were trained by nuns at the city’s convents. All these women were dependent on the protection of the Grand Duchess, who did not fail to provide morally and materially for her young charges. Lacemaking and embroidery had traditionally been the preserve of convents and female conservatories, and considered a creative activity believed to safeguard the girls’ virtue and honour.2 Moreover, the Italian product (especially Venetian gros point needle lace) (fig. 6.2) was considered of the highest quality and most prized by the elite of Europe. But in the middle of the seventeenth-century, with the political ascendancy of France, the Louis Quatorze style began to dominate European fashion, and new French styles, including bobbin and needle laces (point de France) (fig. 6.3), became more popular throughout the continent. Cultural exchange between the courts of France and Italy also intensified. The example of the two ladies-in-waiting studied here shows them moving away from the protected confines of Vittoria’s Florentine court, where other needle workers, women artists, and musicians were trained ‘in-house’ so to speak, to embrace a more cosmopolitan education.3 This study will focus our attention on Vittoria della Rovere’s patronage of material culture and on the mobility of luxury goods and people, especially women, between two important European courts in the second half of the seventeenth century. The central importance of the applied 2 See Modesti, ‘Nun Artisans’; Rocco, ‘Maniera Devota’. 3 One need only cite the example of Giovanna Fratellini, also a lady-in-waiting to Vittoria della Rovere, who was taught painting and drawing within her court by various Medici (male) artists. See Dabbs, ‘Anecdotal Insights’, p. 32; Straussman-Pflanzer, ‘Court Culture’, pp. 300–309; Modesti, Women’s Patronage, pp. 174–175.

141

142

Adelina Modesti

Figure 6.3 Men’s Cravat, France, last quarter of the seventeenth century. Point de France needle lace (linen). Brooklyn Museum Costume Collection at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Gift of the Brooklyn Museum, 2009, Gift of Robert B. Woodward, 1915, 2009.300.3413. Image Credit: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, www.metmuseum.org.

arts such as needlework, traditionally considered a minor art form, in the cultural formation and lives of court women will be highlighted, as this formed part of the Grand Duchess’s pedagogic agenda. It will further explore Vittoria’s international networks, especially her female confidants, whom she entrusted with the support and protection of her ladies-in-waiting whilst away. One aspect of the Grand Duchess’s cultural patronage was the importation and exchange of luxury goods, portraits, and books between the Florentine court and France, documented in a series of letters between Vittoria della Rovere’s agent, the Medici Resident at the French court, Abbot Giovanni Filippo Marucelli, and her secretary Cavalier Alessandro Cerchi (1663–1666) that I have examined elsewhere.4 It should be noted that human resources/capital were also involved in this transnational cultural exchange, as is highlighted by the experiences of the lace-maker and embroiderer Signorina Caterina Angiola Pieroncini, who served as a lady-in-waiting at the Florentine court. Impressed with the quality of the luxury goods (clothes, laces, fabrics, carpets) she received from France on a regular basis, Vittoria sent the 4 See Modesti, ‘Diplomatic and Cultural Partnerships’, pp. 165–176; idem, ‘“Mode le più novelle”’; idem, Women’s Patronage, Chapter 5. This correpsondence is found in ASF, MdP 6186.

‘Una persona dependente all a Serenissima Gran Duchessa’ 

young Caterina Angiola to Paris in early 1664 to perfect her technical skills in the needle arts, for what the Grand Duchess initially thought would be a predetermined time. However, letters dating from January 1664 to June 1665 reveal the increasing frustration Vittoria felt as, time and again, the repatriation of her dama, the ‘Maestra’ Angiola, to Florence was delayed. Caterina Angiola, it seems, needed to finish her training and perfect her needle technique under her French ‘Matrona’, Mademoiselle Alée, to whom Vittoria delle Rovere paid a pension of 80–100 lire per trimester (i.e. 400 lire per year).5 The Grand Duchess further paid the ‘Maestra’ Caterina Angiola herself a 200 lire ‘pension’ every ‘two trimesters’, whilst she resided in Paris. Caterina Angiola lived ‘in a small house on the third floor’ in Paris.6 There the young woman was placed under the protection and supervision of the Princess de Guise, Vittoria’s French cousin, close friend, and confidant. Marie de Lorraine, Duchesse de Guise (1615–1688), was the daughter of Charles, Duc de Guise and Henriette Catherine de Joyeuse. Known as Mademoiselle de Guise, Marie was a vibrant musical patron, who promoted the work of Marc-Antoine Charpentier amongst her family and friends. She was also a savvy businesswoman, acting as one of the donneur d’avis (tax advisors to increase court revenue) to King Louis XIV.7 As a young woman, Mme. de Guise lived alongside Vittoria delle Rovere in Florence, from 1634 to 1643, where her family had been exiled before returning to France. From Paris she maintained an intense epistolary relationship with the Medici, with whom she was imparentado (related) on a number of levels. It is reported that Mme. de Guise wrote her Florentine relations weekly for over forty years, and was kept informed of the family’s wellbeing by the Medici residents in Paris.8 Holding 5

ASF, MdP 6186, unpaginated. Giovanni Filippo Marucelli to Alessandro Cerchi, Paris, 12 June 1665:

Nota di spese diverse fatte per ordine o per servizio della Serenissima Gran Duchessa come appresso […] Per tanti pagati a Madamigella Alée già Maestra della signora Caterin’ Angiola, per cinque mesi di pensione a tutto il 18 maggio a ragione di lire 400 l’anno lire 166.13.4. (166.13.4 lire paid to Mademoiselle Alée, former teacher of Caterina Angiola, being her pension for five months up until 18 May at 400 lire per year).

See also ASF, MdP 6186, Marucelli to Cerchi, Paris, 25 January 1664: ‘Havendo pagato 200 Lire somesi alla maestra della Sig[no]ra Caterina Angiola p[er] la pensione degli ultimi duoi trimestri’ (‘Having paid 200 Lire given to the teacher of Lady Caterina Angiola being for her pension for the past two trimesters’). 6 ASF, MdP 6186, Marucelli to Cerchi, Paris, 10 October 1664: ‘in una casuccia ad un terzo piano’. 7 See Kettering, ‘Patronage Power’, pp. 832, 835, with relevant bibliography, and Ranum, Portraits. 8 This finds support in the number of minuted letters I have come across in the ASF from Vittoria to the ‘Principessa di Guisa’, whom the Grand Duchess affectionately addresses as ‘mon cousine’ or ‘mia cugina’, especially in the 1660s and 1680s (for example, ASF, MdP 6174, unpaginated: letters dated Florence, 20 and 27 June 1664; ASF, MdP 6175, unpaginated: letter dated Florence, 12 September 1668). This correspondence ranges from family matters such as deaths to news on the good service of ladies-in-waiting. See also ASF, MdP 6186, letter from Marucelli to Cerchi, dated Paris, 23 April 1666, in which reference is made to the continual exchange of letters between the two women in French and in Tuscan ‘il nostro carattere’ (‘our language’). The period Marie de Lorraine spent in Florence has been examined by Ranum, Portraits,

143

144

Adelina Modesti

such important posts at the French court, and having Vittoria’s confidence, Mme. de Guise would have been in an excellent position to oversee the care of Caterina Angiola on behalf of the Grand Duchess. It is significant that Caterina Angiola was referred to by Abbot Marucelli as ‘a person dependent on Her Most Serene Grand Duchess’.9 This meant that the young woman was to be taken care of financially and morally by Vittoria della Rovere, her ‘padrona’ (‘mistress’), as was stipulated in the Medici Regolamenti della Guardaroba of 1637.10 According to those regulations, each Grand Duke and Grand Duchess was personally responsible not only for the salary and pensions of their individual courtiers, but also for their marriage dowries; education and training; and other material, emotional, and spiritual needs such as funerals.11 The Medici Guardaroba was to furnish the material requirements of all the people in the family’s service, from personal clothing to bed linens and household furnishings: ‘For all these [ladies and gentlemen of the bed chamber] and for the Pageboys and Masters [i.e. artisans and artists] must the Guardaroba provide’.12 Thus, on top of her regular pension, Caterina Angiola received monies towards clothing and other ‘personal needs’ almost on a monthly basis.13 On pp. 353–358. For Marie’s ongoing relationship with her childhood friend Vittoria, see idem, pp. 370–372; Modesti, Women’s Patronage, pp. 61, 106. 9 ‘Una persona dependente alla Ser[enissi]ma Gran Duchessa’, ASF, MdP 6186, Marucelli to Cerchi, Paris, 10 October 1664. 10 ASF, Guardaroba Medicea 468, Regolamenti della Guardaroba, 1637: Ordine e modo col quale si deve contenere e governare la Guardaroba di Sua Altezza Serenissima e come abbia usato per il passato, published in Barocchi and Gaeta Bertelà, Collezionismo Mediceo, Doc. 62, pp. 449–459 (see esp. pp. 457–459). 11 See, for example, the documented ricordi of Giovanni Battista Ricci, ASF, Manoscritti 160, unpaginated, Capitolo 264, entry dated 15 June 1669 regarding the funeral at San Lorenzo of: Marchese Francesco Coppoli di Perugia, Maestro di Camera del Serenissimo Granduca Ferdinando Secondo e detto mortorio fu fatto a spese della Corte che così è il solito che fanno a i Maestri di Camera questi Serenissimi Principi (Marchese Francesco Coppoli of Perugia, Master of the Bedchamber to His Most Serene Grand Duke Ferdinand the Second, and said funeral was undertaken at the expense of the Court as is the usual practice of these Most Serene Princes for their Masters of the Bedchamber [my emphasis]).

12 Regolamenti della Guardaroba, 1637 in Barocchi and Gaeta Bertelà, Collezionismo Mediceo, p. 459: ‘A tutti questi [dame e cavalieri di camera] et a’ signori Paggi e Maestri deve provvedere la Guardaroba’. See, for example, ASF, MdP 6263, Quadernaccio D, ‘Guardaroba della Ser[enissi]ma Gran Duchessa Vittoria della Rovere 1663–1667’, fol.13r entry dated 28 October 1664, for the sixteen items of bedroom furnishings, including a bed and two mattresses, that were sent to the Convento delle Stabilite: à commando di Sua Altezza Serenissima [Vittoria] […] per servizio alla fanciulla che l’Altezza Sua vi mettersi esserla f iglia della Balia del Serenissimo Gran Principe Cosimo suo f iglio (by command of Her Most Serene Highness […] for service to the young girl that Her Highness placed there, being the daughter of the Wetnurse of His Most Serene Grand Prince Cosimo her son).

13 See ASF, MdP 6186, Marucelli to Cerchi, Nota di spese, Paris, 12 June 1665: ‘Per tanti alla signora Caterin’Angiola per suoi bisogni in dì 7 d’aprile lire 45’ (‘For the amount given to signora Caterina Angiola for her personal needs on the day of 7 April 45 lire’); ‘13 maggio 1665 lire 57. 8 datigli per i suoi bisogni’ (‘13 May 1665, 57.8 lire given her for her personal needs’), and so on.

‘Una persona dependente all a Serenissima Gran Duchessa’ 

19 December 1664, for example, 12 lire were paid to a tailor for his services in providing Caterina with some robe (‘things/dresses’) with a further 44 lire allotted for suoi bisogni.14 The most Vittoria allowed Caterina Angiola for her ‘vestiario’ (‘apparel’) appears to have been a substantial 12 scudi, provided on 23 January 1665; this sum included payment for the work produced for the Grand Duchess.15 And in the following months Vittoria presented the girl with ‘gallantries of small jewels […] to the value of 40 doppie’.16 Abbot Marucelli, in a letter dated 10 July 1664, estimated that Caterina Angiola’s training in Paris was to take a further ‘seven or eight months’. Having been asked by Vittoria to inform her as to the young girl’s level of expertise, the Medici Resident reported in the same letter that her ‘skill’ was still only ‘mediocre’, but sufficient, nonetheless, to enable ‘her to refine it with practice’.17 On 14 August 1664, Marucelli again reported on Caterina’s increasing ‘competency’ in needlework for the Grand Duchess.18 Caterina Angiola indeed remained in France another eleven months, firstly in Paris and then at the court at Fontainebleau, after which she accepted the position of lady-in-waiting to the Mme. de Guise (Marie de Lorraine) for another three months. During her time with the Princess, Caterina Angiola was to specialize her skills in ‘dressing hair in the most up to date fashion’, before returning to Florence to begin working for Vittoria again in the middle of the following year.19 Though reluctant about Caterina Angiola’s longer stay, Vittoria still paid the girl’s new hairdressing Maestra a pension of 80 francs; Marucelli reported that this was ‘a sum this woman considers modest compared to what she usually is paid’.20 14 ASF, MdP 6186, Marucelli to Cerchi: Nota di spese, Paris, 12 June 1665, entry dated 19 December 1664. 15 ASF, MdP 6186, Marucelli to Cerchi, Paris, 23 January 1665: ‘Alla med[essi]ma si sono somministrati 12– scudi si p[er] il servizio di S[ua] A[ltezza] come p[er] occorenze del suo vestiario’ (‘To the same [girl] was administered 12– scudi in service for Her Highness as well as for her clothing needs’). 16 ‘galanterie di piccole gioie […] fino al valore di 40 doppie’; ASF, MdP 6186, Marucelli to Cerchi, Paris, 3 April 1665, 15 May 1665, 22 May 1665. 17 ASF, MdP 6186, Marucelli to Cerchi, 10 July 1664:

Parla la 2: a [lettera] di V. S. Ill:ma del ritorno della Sig[no]ra Caterina Angela, la q[ua]le trovandosi di pochi giorni in qua con la sua m[at]r[on]a a Fontainbleau […] Nell’ informarmi della sua abilità, trovo ch’ella è mediocre e che in 7 o otto mesi di continuazione potrebbe migliorar notabilm[en]te ma con tutto ciò non si può dire, ch’ella non sia introdotta a suff icienza nelle regole fondamentali da poter poi con la pratica raffinarsi (Your second [letter] discusses the return of Lady Caterina Angela, who has been a few days in Fontainbleau with her matron [Mme. de Guise] […] Informing myself as to her ability, I f ind that she is mediocre and that in seven or eight continuous months she could improve notably, but nonetheless it cannot be said that she hasn’t been introduced enough to the fundamental rules to be able to refine herself with practice).

18 ASF, MdP 6186, Marucelli to Cerchi, Paris, 14 August 1664. 19 ASF, MdP 6186, Marucelli to Cerchi, Paris, 22 August 1665: ‘per acconciar della testa […] delle mode più in uso’. 20 ASF, MdP 6186, Marucelli to Cerchi, Paris, 26 September 1664: ‘modesto a quel ch’ella piglia p[er] il solito’. Cf. also Marucelli to Cerchi, Paris, 29 August 1664 (ASF, MdP 6186), for reference to a payment of a pension to Caterina Angiola’s ‘nuova Maestra d’acconciar la testa’ (‘new hairdressing teacher’).

145

146

Adelina Modesti

Four letters from the Abbot Marucelli between August and October 1664, dated 22 August, 26 September, and 10 October, inform us that Caterina Angiola, in fact, remained in Paris against the wishes of the Grand Duchess, who was not pleased with this situation. But as Marucelli writes ‘her Maestra [Alée] is absolutely opposed to her return [to Florence] […] [stating] that by next March Caterina Angiola will have achieved reasonable proficiency, to be able to render the most useful service to Her Most Serene Mistress’.21 Needless to say, Mme. de Guise agreed with this assessment by Mme. Alée, for as the Abbot writes, Marie de Lorraine ‘wanted Caterina Angiola to be her Chamber Maid, to do her hair for a while, after she had finished her lessons with her Maestra’, for such further hands-on experience would be in Vittoria’s interests too: ‘the Most Serene Grand Duchess will also be well served’.22 To placate Vittoria, Abbot Marucelli indicates that he will send with the September envoy ‘two white lace collars’ that he has asked Caterina Angiola to ‘immediately consign’ to him ‘in the service of Her Highness […] as well as another, upon which she is to likewise produce two collars promptly, that will remain here, as models’, these as evidence of the girl’s skilled handiwork. The Abbot further reveals that Caterina Angiola’s Maestra (Alée) also wants to present a ‘gift to the Most Serene Grand Duchess of a lace bonnet in “punto di Venezia” [Venetian gros point lace], with certain ribbon frills “alla moda”’. Alongside these gifts, Marucelli also dispatches two jewelled monstrances which Vittoria had requested on behalf of the Cardinal Decano (Carlo de’ Medici, her uncle).23 Vittoria must have resigned herself to Caterina Angiola’s longer stay, for another letter, dated 31 October 1664, from Marucelli to Cerchi, refers to the Grand Duchess’s ‘kindness’ and her ‘passionate desire’ that the young girl ‘gain full profit’ from her education in the ‘diverse works (i.e. embroidery, lacemaking, and hairdressing), that have been the reason for her coming to live in France’. The Grand Duchess then requests that Caterina Angiola produce a pezzuola (lace handkerchief or head covering) and ricci (curled hair extensions) as indications of her increasing ability.24 Those pieces were dispatched to Vittoria on 14 November.25 Numerous 21 ASF, MdP 6186, Marucelli to Cerchi, Paris, 26 September 1664. 22 ‘al quanto divorziata dalla sua Maestra’; ‘sara’ anco ben servita La Serenissima Gran Duchessa’; ASF, MdP 6186, Marucelli to Cerchi, Paris, 10 October 1664, 26 September 1664. 23 The above information is provided in ASF, MdP 6186, Marucelli to Cerchi, Paris, 26 September 1664. 24 ASF, MdP 6186, Marucelli to Cerchi, Paris, 31 October 1664:

[L]a benigna passione con la quale brama la Ser[enissi]ma Gran Duchessa il pronto profitto della d[ett]a fanciulla, ne i diversi uniformi lavori, che sono stati l’oggetto della sua venuta, e dimora in Francia. Nell’istesso tempo gli si prescrive la fabbrica immediata della pezzuola, e de ricci da servir p[er] saggio della sua habilità ([T]he kind passion with which Her Most Serene Grand Duchess desires the prompt profit of the said girl in diverse uniform works, that has been the reason for her coming to live in France. At the same time I prescribe to her the immediate manufacture of the lace handkerchief, and of the ringlets to serve as proof of her skills).

25 ASF, MdP 6186, Marucelli to Cerchi, Paris, 14 November 1664.

‘Una persona dependente all a Serenissima Gran Duchessa’ 

other requests by Vittoria for lacework (handkerchiefs, collars, headpieces, bonnets, cuffs, sleeves) and hairpieces (ricci and code) to be produced by Caterina Angiola followed.26 In the meantime, Abbot Marucelli paid Caterina Angiola’s Maestra Mme. Alée 12 Louis d’or ‘on behalf of the Ser[enissi]ma Gran Duchessa’, who wished to show her appreciation of the woman’s teaching.27 Vittoria further paid for the customary New Year’s tips for Caterina Angiola’s teachers and provided a French language tutor for the young girl so that she could learn to read.28 Caterina Angiola also acted as a consultant to the Grand Duchess when the latter wished to provide a suitable ‘gallantry’ (gift) of pietre commesse (stone inlay) in thanks for Mme. de Guise’s supervision of the girl, with Vittoria asking if the princess would prefer something for the ‘chapel or for her bedroom’. The reply from Marucelli was that Caterina Angiola understood that the princess would like some ‘small portraits’.29 Marucelli himself was requested to pass on to Mme. de Guise the Grand Duchess’s ‘appreciation for all the kind courtesies’ that the said princess had shown to Signora Caterina Angiola.30 When Angiola was finally to leave France in 1665, the princess showed the girl ‘tender kindness’ by presenting her ‘four small jewels’ and showering her with ‘expressions of deep affection’.31 Vittoria and Marie de Lorraine also exchanged gifts on that occasion, including the ‘box of gloves’ of perfumed suede the Grand Duchess sent to her French cousin.32 26 See for example, ASF, MdP 6186, Marucelli to Cerchi, Paris, 2 January 1665, 13 February 1665, and 24 April 1665. 27 ASF, MdP 6186, Marucelli to Cerchi, Paris, 7 November 1664. 28 See ASF, MdP 6186, Marucelli to Cerchi, Paris, 30 March 1664, 10 July 1664, and 21 November 1664, Nota di Spese diverse Fatte, o p[er] ordine, o p[er] servizio della Ser[enissi]ma Gran Duchessa. 29 See ASF, MdP 6186, Marucelli to Cerchi, Paris, 28 November 1664 and 12 December 1664. 30 ASF, MdP 6186, Marucelli to Cerchi, Paris 10 July 1664:

Son due volte stata a casa della Sig:ra Principessa di Guisa p[er] recapitarle la lettera della Ser[enissi]ma G[ran] Duchessa, con la vocale attenzione impostami della riconoscenza che l’A[ltezza] S[ua] professa alla detta Sig[no]ra Principessa p[er] le cortesie gentil[men]te fatte da lei godere alla S[ignora] Caterina Angiola in contemplazione sua (I have been twice to Lady Princess de Guise’s house in order to present her the Most Serene Grand Duchess’s letter, [together] with the verbal attention imposed on me of Her Highness’s professed appreciation of the said Lady Princess for the kind courtesies she has enabled the Signora Caterina Angiola to enjoy in her regard).

31 ASF, MdP 6186, Marucelli to Cerchi, Paris, 22 May 1665:

Non devo per fine defraudar la Signora Caterin’Angiola tacendo la suave e modesta sua condotta, che l’ha resa amabile al maggior segno per tutto dov’ella si è fatta conoscere, e che l’hà fatta estremamente dolere nella separazione alle sue amiche. La Signora Principessa di Guisa con circostanze di tenerissima benignità le hà donati quattro pezzetti di gioie, et replicate espressioni di molt’affetto (Finally I must not do an injustice to Signora Caterina Angiola by remaining silent as to her gentle and modest behavior, which has rendered her loved to the utmost by all who have come to know her, and it has rendered her extremely pained to be separated from her friends. Lady Princess de Guise in a gesture of tender kindness presented her with four small pieces of jewellery, and repeated expressions of deep affection).

32 See ASF, MdP 6186, Marucelli to Cerchi, Paris, 10 April 1665, and 10 July 1665.

147

148

Adelina Modesti

Caterina Angiola did indeed profit from her French education, for as Marucelli reported in 1664: ‘the said girl I understand comports herself very well, as much in her application to her work, as in her manner of governing herself, and in making herself loved, and I am assured that by next September she will be most capable’.33 In a letter the following year he defended the girl’s extended stay in the French capital, concluding that: [H]er residency in this city [Paris] from last August till now has been of great benefit to her, having now perfectly mastered those works, which then [in August] she only had begun to understand, that she would have remained always confused, and perhaps the Most Serene Grand Duchess would have been sorry to have her recalled [to Florence] so early.34

Caterina Angiola Pieroncini finally returned to Florence in June 1665, chaperoned by Vittoria’s agent in Milan, Giovanni Jaminet (or Giaminet) and the Signora Contessa della Trinità, whom Marucelli described as an ‘honourable elderly woman’.35 The young girl also wrote to her mistress herself, expressing joy in returning home, thank­ ing the Grand Duchess for her protection and patronage over the eighteen-month period of her French sojourn, and requesting farewell gifts for her French ‘maestra’, ‘sottomaestra’, and her friend Maddalena (Mme. de Guise’s lady-in-waiting).36 Vittoria promptly provided these (in the form of monies and jewels), which were received ‘with total satisfaction by all those who were presented them’.37 Thus, despite some initial frustration, Grand Duchess Vittoria della Rovere fully supported the creative and personal needs of this young woman during her time away. 33 ASF, MdP 6186, Marucelli to Cerchi, Paris, 23 January 1665. 34 ASF, MdP 6186, Marucelli to Cerchi, Paris, 17 April 1665:

La sua dimora in q[ue]sta Città dall’Agosto passato in quà, gli sarà stata d’un gran benefizio, essendosi adesso perfettam[en]te impossessata di quei Lavori, che allora cominciava solamente a intendere; ond’ella sarebbe rimasta sempre confusa, e forse alla Ser:ma Gran Duchessa sarebbe dispiaciuto d’haverla si presto richiamata.

35 ‘donna attempata, et honorevole’; ASF, MdP 6186, Marucelli to Cerchi, Paris, 8 May 1665, 15 May 1665, 22 May 1665. Countess della Trinità was to accompany Caterina Angiola as far as Lyon, where another vedova (widow) or fanciulla (girl) would take over as her chaperone onto Florence, where said chaperone (Mademoiselle Querton, or Charton) would herself enter into service of the Grand Duchess: ASF, MdP 6186, Marucelli to unidentif ied recipient (most probably Cerchi), Paris, 1 May 1665. For references to Caterina Angiola’s repatriation see also ASF, MdP 6186, Marucelli to Cerchi, Paris 6 April 1665, 11 April 1665, 12 June 1665; Giovanni Jaminet to Cerchi, Lyon, 2 June 1665; and Monsù Louis Mendet (Vittoria’s agent in Lyon) to Cerchi, Lyon, 4 June 1665. 36 ASF, MdP 6186, Caterina Angiola to Alessandro Cerchi and Vittoria della Rovere, Paris, 11 April 1665 (see Appendix for a full transcription and translation). 37 ASF, MdP 6186, Marucelli to Cerchi, Paris, 22 May 1665: ‘con intero sodisfazione di chi ne è stato regalato’.

‘Una persona dependente all a Serenissima Gran Duchessa’ 

Vittoria must have been extremely satisfied with Caterina Angiola’s French education, for in 1668 she sent another of her young ladies-in-waiting, identified in documents only as ‘La Trottolina’ – the daughter of her courier ‘Trottolino’ – to Paris to undertake the same training in the needle arts as had Caterina Angiola, also under the direction of Mme. Alée.38 Unlike Caterina, however, the sickly Trottolina did not enjoy her time in the French capital and was repatriated to Florence as soon as she had mastered her lessons. Vittoria’s unpublished letters to Madame du Deffans, the girl’s ‘protectress’ in France, reveal the Grand Duchess’s sincere concern for her young dama’s health, as well as her desire that she be taught the skills required at her own pace.39 In one of these, dated 30 October 1668, Vittoria writes: It pains me to hear that the air of this country [France] is not pleasing to La Trottolina. I also would hope that having this indisposition and from now till next May that she will have finished acquiring that which I have sent her there to learn […] But if the girl’s poor health will not have permitted her to learn enough, and if by then she will be better, and more able to attend to her lessons than she had been able to do before, I will not hesitate to allow more time for her stay to be longer. Thus could it please Your Ladyship to let me know your opinion [on the matter], since it is you who protects her, and to you I send my thoughts, and more so I confide in you, and in you I also freely trust. 40 38 Il Trottolino was Domenico Nannini (d. April 1669), identified as ‘corriere’ in Del Piazzo, Gli Ambasciatori, p. 114. 39 Marie-Françoise de Mechinet, Marchioness des Deffand (du Deffans) was the consort of the Marquis du Deffans (Deffand or Defans), and held a number of important positions at the French court, including Dame d’Honneur to the Queen Mother of France (Anne of Austria), Ambassador to King Louis XIV, as well as childhood governess of Princess Marguerite Louise d’Orleans, Vittoria’s daughter-in-law. Madame du Deffans also acted as Vittoria’s agent in France for the transfer of luxury goods to the Florentine court, providing the Grand Duchess with new dresses from Paris every six months: ASF, MdP 6175, letter from Vittoria to Madame, Florence, 30 October 1668. And when Madame satisfied Vittoria’s request of gloves, linens, and laces from Paris in May 1668, the Grand Duchess was to repay in kind.. See Vittoria’s letter of thanks to Madame du Deffans, dated Florence, 11 May 1668 (ASF, MdP 6175). For the Marchioness du Deffans see de La Chenaye-Desbois, Dictionnaire, VIII, p. 405; and for her relationship with the Grand Duchess Vittoria, see Modesti, Women’s Patronage, pp. 62–63, 172. 40 ASF, MdP 6175, Vittoria to Madame du Deffans, Florence, 30 October 1668: Mi duole di udire, che non compiaccia l’aria di coteste paese [Francia] alla Trottolina; pur voglio sperare che ella havesse questa diff icoltà e che di qui avanti non sia à Maggio prossimo ella haverà f inito d’apprendere quel che l’hò costà inviata per imparare […] Mà se la poca salute della fanciulla non le havesse permesso allora d’instruirsi à bastanza, e sé allora pure ella stesse meglio, e potesse più attendere alle sue lezioni che non havere potuto fare per lo passato, io non soffermi nel consentirle cotesto soggiorno più lungo spazio. Onde VS si contenti di dirmene il suo giudizio, poiche sicome à lei, che la protege, partecipo il mio concetto, così ancora confido in lei, e in lei pure mi rimetto liberamente.

149

150

Adelina Modesti

Madame du Deffans herself was a loving and kind caretaker of the girl, as Vittoria gratefully acknowledged when she wrote ‘I thank you very affectionately for the caring gestures you continually make towards La Trottolina, and I await the response of the letter that I wrote you regarding this subject’. 41 In another letter from Vittoria, dated 26 April 1669, we learn that La Trottolina’s father has just died in Pisa. This is news that the Grand Duchess hopes that Madame can convey to the girl with the necessary care, requesting: I am notifying you directly so that the sad news is not conveyed to the young girl by just anyone, but that you yourself inform her with charity, and with the usual gentle manner with which you will know how to comfort her, and trust her to the Blessed Divine. 42

Vittoria, who herself attached a letter of condolence to the girl, informs Madame du Deffans to console La Trottolina by letting her know of the ‘utmost protection’ she, as Grand Duchess, holds towards her (‘la protezione che più di mai terrò di lei’). She also asks to be informed of the progress the young girl has made in her virtuous handiwork, and when she thinks she may return to Florence so as to be served, writing: Your Ladyship please advise me as you see fit, that she [La Trottolina] has profited in gaining the virtues, for which I sent her to Paris to learn, and when you believe she may return to Florence, so that I can avail myself of them. 43

Towards the end of the year, Vittoria again writes to Madame du Deffans to enquire after the young girl, hoping that she has become ‘habile’ (‘skilled’) in her work, and that she does not ‘want for anything’. 44 It appears from this same letter that La Trottolina was to remain in Paris with the Grand Duchess’s ongoing support till the Spring of 1670, when Vittoria finally ‘reclaimed’ her, again a much longer period than initially anticipated. 41 ASF, MdP 6175, Vittoria to ‘Madama la Marquise du Deffant’, Florence, 14 December 1668: ‘Je vous remerei bien affecitionnement des carerions que vous faict continuellement a la Trottolinne, et en attendans la response del la lettre que ie vous escrivij à son subject il y a quelques sepmainnes asseuré vous que ie serait toutte ma vie’. 42 ASF, MdP 6175, Vittoria to Madama du Deffans, Florence, 26 April 1669. See following note. 43 ASF, MdP 6175, Vittoria to Madama du Deffans, Florence, 26 April 1669:

[C]on carità, e con la solita suave maniera con cui saprà confortarla, e rimetterla nel divino Benedetto […] la protezione che più di mai terrò di lei […] con tal occasione V[ostra] S[ignoria] di accenarmi come le para, che ella habbia fatto profitto nell’apprendere le virtù, le quali io l’ho rinviata per imparare à Parigi, e quando ella giudichi, ch’io me nè possa valere, e la possa far tornare à Firenze.

44 ASF, MdP 6175, Vittoria to Madama du Deffans, Florence, 9 November 1669 (in French).

‘Una persona dependente all a Serenissima Gran Duchessa’ 

Thus, in this transnational cultural exchange, to perfect their lace-making and embroidery skills (as well as hairdressing) under a French maestra, the Grand Duchess paid for the two girls’ accommodation, an ongoing pension, and their tuition fees, as well as appointing each a French language tutor. On top of this, Vittoria provided the girls with monthly payments to ensure they were kept in the appropriate sartorial attire and for all their personal needs. She also furnished gifts such as jewellery for themselves as well as those they were to present to the French court, and ensured that the girls were provided with emotional support by appointing elite court women in her international socio-cultural networks and kin as their protectors. These are not isolated examples of Vittoria’s protection of her charges, her patronage of female cultural producers, and promotion of female creativity, which ranged from the applied arts and crafts to the liberal arts of painting, music, and poetry. Some of the women artists and artisans she had educated and personally subsidized were already ladies-in-waiting at the court, as was the case with Caterina Angiola Pieroncini and La Trottolina. Vittoria also often placed young girls in serbo (custodianship) in Florentine convents to undertake an education in the needle arts by local nuns before they entered into her service as court dame. 45 This was the case with Maria Maddalena Caligari, often referred to simply as ‘la fanciulla Caligari/a’. The girl’s name appears throughout Vittoria’s documents, and she was boarded as an educanda (pupil), at the cost to the Grand Duchess of 10 lire a month, at the convent of the Mendicanti in Florence during the mid 1680s. 46 Her education there focused on lace-making; she was to ‘learn to make lace’, especially ‘to learn Venetian point’, that is the raised needle lace of Venice known as gros point (fig. 6.2) which continued to be the most highly prized. 47

45 On the Grand Duchess Vittoria’s patronage of lace-making and textile arts in Florentine convents see Modesti, ‘Nun artisans’. 46 ASF, MdP 6251d, II, Entrata e Uscita A14, Doc. 171, insert dated 31 December 1684: ‘Pagati al Signore Giuseppe Conti sotto provveditore de Mendicanti per il vitto che dà S[ua] A[ltezza] per carità alle seguenti cioè […] Per Maria Maddalena Caligari da 12 luglio a tutto il di 31 dicembre a Lire 10 il mese, in tutto come per conto e ricevuta Lire 169’ (‘Paid to Mr Giuseppe Conti, vice overseer of the Mendicanti for the board that Her Highness provides as charity to the following (girls), that is […] For Maria Maddalena Caligari from 12 July to the end of 31 December at 10 Lire a month. In total as per the account and receipt Lire 169’). With receipt of the same date. 47 ASF, MdP 6251d, II, Entrata e Uscita A14, Doc. 98, insert dated 17 July 1684: ‘porto nostro fare a Mendicanti per la fanciulla [Caligara] che impare a far le trine, per una seggiola da sala, Lire 1:6.8’ (‘taken on our behalf to the Mendicanti, a salon chair (valued at) Lire 1:6.8, for the girl who is learning to make lace’); Doc. 114, insert dated 14 August 1684: ‘per una Toppa, e Chiave messa alla Cassa della fanciulla de Caligari, che e ne Mendicanti per imparare il punto di Venezia, Lire 1:6.8’ (‘for a lock and key placed in the chest owned by the girl de Caligari, who is in the Mendicanti to learn Venetian point, Lire 1:6.8’).

151

152

Adelina Modesti

Maria Maddalena Caligari, like all of Vittoria’s charges, received excellent treatment from the Grand Duchess, who extinguished her debts; paid for her convent board and tuition; provided her furnishings; and fed and clothed her.48 For example, on 17 July 1684, Grand Duchess Vittoria sent ‘la fanciulla Caligari’ a salon chair (‘seggiola da sala’); and on 14 August, a seal and key for her work case. 49 An earlier payment to the merchant Alessandro Ulivi of 63.9 scudi for providing ‘linen needed for the young girl Caligara’ was made on 1 July 1684. Vittoria’s seamstress Maria Galeotti was paid 4 lire to sew up this linen into underwear and other apparel ‘needed for the said Caligara’; these included four blouses and four aprons as well as two small collars, whilst another lira was paid to Galeotti to make up a pair of sheets, and 16 lire for eight towels for the young girl.50 Vittoria also had her comb maker, Jacopo Minchioni, produce ‘three combs and one small brush needed for the fanciulla’, for which he was paid 15 soldi on 11 July 1684.51 On 14 April 1685, lire 54.14.8 was reimbursed by Vittoria to Marchesa Artemisia della Cornia Medici, identified as ‘money paid by her to the young girl Caligari who is at the Mendicanti’, including money for a pair of shoes valued at lire 3.6.8, as recorded in a separate receipt of the same date.52

Conclusion The ladies-in-waiting and female cultural producers discussed above were protected and supported intuitively by the Grand Duchess who recognized, understood, and 48 ASF, MdP 6251d, II, Entrata e Uscita A14, Doc. 79, insert dated 26 June 1684: Scudi 14.6.8 ‘per riscuotere due polize di prestito della fanciulla Caligari’ (‘to collect two loan policies of the girl Caligari’). 49 See note 47 above. 50 ASF, MdP 6251d, Entrata e Uscita A14, Doc. 79, insert dated 1 July 1684: payment to Alessandro Ulivi of 63.9 scudi for ‘tele servite per la fanciulla Caligara […] e più pagati a Maria Galeotti per cucitura di biancherie servite per detta Caligara Lire 2.13.4 per 4 camice, Lire 6.4 per 4 Canavacci, Lire 1 per 4 grembuli, due collarini de Collo, e 4 passuole. Lire 1 per un paio di Lenzuola, Lire 16 per otto tele in tutto come ricevuta Scudi 5.16’ (‘linen needed for the girl Caligara […] and also paid to Maria Galeotti for sewing up white linenwear for the said Caligara, Lire 2.13.4 for four blouses, Lire 6.4 for four hemp pieces, Lire 1 for four aprons, two small neck collars, and four passuole [?]. Lire 1 for a pair of bed sheets, Lire 16 for eight towels, in total as per receipt Scudi 5.16’); with receipt of the same date. 51 ASF, MdP 6251d, II, Entrata e Uscita A14, Doc. 98, mandate dated Florence 26 (August 1684?): costs incurred by Pandolfo Ricci between 8 July to 1 August: Ducati 496_15.4, including on 11 July ‘pagati a Jacopo Minchioni Pettinaguolo per valuta di tre pettini e uno spazzolino serviti per la fanciulla Caligara, come per ricevuta. 15 soldi’ (‘paid to the combmaker Jacopo Minchioni for the value of three combs and a small brush needed for the young girl Caligara, as per receipt. 15 soldi’). With receipt of the same date. 52 ASF, MdP 6251d, II, Entrata e Uscita B1, Inserto 32, entry dated 14 April 1685: Lire 54.14.8 to Marchese Artemisia Medici ‘per denari pagati da lei alla fanciulla Caligari che sta ne Mendicanti’ (‘[reimbursement] for money paid by her to the young girl Caligari who is at the Mendicanti’).

‘Una persona dependente all a Serenissima Gran Duchessa’ 

wished to foster their emerging talent. Vittoria della Rovere saw to their general and religious as well as artistic education, identifying and nurturing, like a mother, the particular talents of each of the young girls, so that they could become not only ideal donne di palazzo (palace ladies) but also women with specialized skills that would enhance their positions at her court and in society. Being financially independent, the Grand Duchess spared no costs in ensuring that the needs of her ladies were met.53 That such protection and education of her young charges was a serious moral imperative for Vittoria della Rovere is highlighted in a letter the Grand Duchess sent to the Roman widower Marchese Carlo Francesco Spada (dated Florence, 9 May 1684). Referencing the count’s daughter, who was seeking a position at her court, the Grand Duchess wrote that it was, with full satisfaction I have accepted your offer of Signora Contessa Ortensia your daughter as one of my Ladies. […] I must conduct myself in this regard, and God be praised that I may be able to finish educating her more dearly than as if the Signora Marchesa your consort were alive.54

53 Grand Duchess Vittoria was the last heir of the Della Rovere patrimony, inheriting monies, jewels, lands, and a vast art collection from her grandfather, Francesco Maria II della Rovere, Duke of Urbino in 1631. For the devolution of the Della Rovere patrimony from Urbino to Florence see Miretti, ‘Dal ducato di Urbino’. Vittoria’s own personal f inances included 550,000 scudi, annual rent of over 5,171 ducats derived from properties in the State of Urbino, and income from her other territories in the Kingdom of Naples, as well as the patrimony she inherited from her paternal grandmother Duchess Livia della Rovere in September 1641, and the 65,000 scudi from her mother’s death in 1648 (return of Claudia de’ Medici’s dowry). In addition, the Grand Duchess was allocated 14,200 Ducats each year from her consort Grand Duke Ferdinand’s treasury, paid in two installments. See ASF, Depositaria Generale 1600, fols.1r–2r, entries dated 5 May 1655, 1/17 and 30 March 1658, 16/22. For Vittoria’s inheritance from her grandmother see ASF, Guardaroba Medicea 674, fols. 248r–249v: ‘Nota dell’Oro coniato, e delle Gioie, e altro dell’Eredità della Ser.ma Signora Duchessa Livia di Urbino, che la Serenissima Padrona ricevette di Settembre 1641 al Poggio Imperiale per mano del S[igno]r Niccolò Cerretani che l’arrecò allora da Pesaro in Fiorenza’. A full inventory of Livia’s jewels inherited by Vittoria is also found in ASF, Miscellanea Medicea 12, Insert 11, Folder no. 8, fols. 207r–209r. And in Folder 9 of the same filza (fols. 219r–228r) is a copy of Duchess Livia della Rovere’s will, dated 29 May 1639, which names her granddaughter Vittoria as her universal heir. For Vittoria’s mother’s dowry inheritance, which took 10 years to execute, see ASF, Despositoria Generale, 1570, fol. 31v, as cited by Straussman-Pflanzer, ‘Court Culture’, p. 285, n. 603. 54 ASF, MdP 6180, unpaginated minutes, Vittoria to Marchese Carlo Francesco Spada in Rome dated Florence, 9 May 1684: la piena sodisfazione colla quale ho accettato l’offerta statami da lei fatta della Signora Contessa Ortensia sua figlia per una delle mie Dame. […] basta che’Io mi conduca non pure a questo ma è gran Dio à poter finirgliela di educare come tanto più caro ciò mi sarebbe se vivesse la fù Signora Marchesa Consorte di V[ostra] S[ignoria] per dare ancora à essa una tal nuova caparra della mia speziale propensione verso la Casa Spada.

153

154

Adelina Modesti

After their service, which usually lasted four years, Vittoria’s principal dame were presented with a 2000 scudi dowry to either marry or profess as nuns.55 This level of protection was to continue even after the Grand Duchess died, for Vittoria left instructions in her 1676 testament that Caterina Angiola Pieroncini, amongst others, be given a dowry to enter a convent.56 Even in death Grand Duchess Vittoria della Rovere was to ensure that her loyal ladies-in-waiting were fully taken care of, as they most surely had been during her lifetime.

Bibliography Manuscript Sources ASF, Archivio di Stato, Florence, Depositaria Generale 1600 Giornale, e Ricordi è della Ser[enissi]ma Vittoria Leonora della Rovere Gran Duche[s] sa di Toscana, Cominciato qu[e]sto dì 5 Maggio 1655, in Firenze (1655–1685). Guardaroba Medicea 674 Revisione della Guardaroba della Serenissima Gran Duchessa per Amministrazione del Sig[no]re Jacopo Giacomini, Guardaroba dell’A[ltezza] S[erenissima] (19 Gennaio 1638–16 Aprile 1654 (revisionato da Bastiano Venturi Computista della Serenissima Gran Duchessa 19 Ottobre 1654–6 Maggio 1656). Manoscritti 160 Ricordi di Giovanni Battista Ricci, 10 Aprile 1637–19 Settembre 1678. MdP 6174 Mediceo del Principato 6174, Minute di Lettere della Gran Duchessa Vittoria della Rovere, 1664–1666.

55 BL, Add. Ms. 16495, fols. 220r–220v. 56 See Vittoria della Rovere’s Testament dated Florence, 10 December 1676: ‘Se parimente al tempo di nostra morte non fussero monacata la Caterin Angiola Pieroncini, e la Feliceana Portughese […] deva darsi la dote per monacarsi’ (‘Likewise, if at the time of our death Caterina Angiola Pieroncini and the Portughese Feliceana have not yet taken the veil […] a dowry for them to profess as nuns must be given them’); in ASF, Miscellanea Medicea 12, Insert 11, Folder 6, fol.125r. Caterina Angiola Pieroncini did in fact enter a nunnery in mid-1677, as Suor Maria Vittoria in homage to her patron, for a dowry of 300 scudi for the girl was paid by Vittoria della Rovere to the ‘Prioress and nuns’ of the Crocetta, Florence on 17 July (the same convent the Grand Duchess herself resided in before her marriage in 1637). Vittoria continued to provide Suor Maria Vittoria Pieroncini with various forms of subsistence for on 20 November 1677 she purchased a share valued at 112.3.10 scudi in the ‘luogo del Monte di Sale’ for the nun. For these two documents in ASF, MdP 6251B, see Straussman-Pflanzer, ‘Court Culture’, p. 192, n. 399.

‘Una persona dependente all a Serenissima Gran Duchessa’ 

MdP 6175 Mediceo del Principato 6175, Minute di Lettere della Ser[enissi]ma Gran Duchessa Vittoria da 16 Genn[ar]o 1666 ab.Inc[arnazio]ne à tutto Dicembre 1669 (16 January 1667–31 December 1669). MdP 6180 Mediceo del Principato 6180, Minute di lettere della Serenisssima Granduchessa Vittoria di Toscana 1681 à tutto Dicembre 1684. MdP 6186 Mediceo del Principato 6186, Lettere scritte al Sig[no]re Sen[ato]re Cerchi Seg[reta]rio della Ser[enissim]a Gran Duchessa Vittoria da 2 jennaio 1663 ab inc[arnazion]e al 31 Xbre 1666 (2 January 1664–31 December 1666). MdP 6251d, II, Entrata e Uscita A14 Mediceo del Principato, Filza dell’Entrata e Uscita A14 della Tesaureria della Serenissima Gran Duchessa Vittoria di Toscana. MdP 6251d, II, Entrata e Uscita B1 Mediceo del Principato 6251d, II, Filza dell’Entrata e Uscita B1 della Tesaureria della Serenissima Gran Duchessa Vittoria di Toscana. MdP 6263 Mediceo del Principato 6263, Quaderni ed Inventari della Guardaroba della Ser[enissi] ma Gran Duchessa Vittoria della Rovere. Miscellanea Medicea 12, Insert 11, Folder 6 Miscellanea Medicea 12, Insert 11, Folder 6, Vittoria della Rovere Ultimi Testa[menti] cioè Testamenti e Codicilli: ‘Copia del Testamento della Ser[enissi]ma Gran Duchessa Vittoria in Carte 25, ricevuto p[er] mano di me: Girolamo Tozzetti Notaro publico fiorentino, 14 Xmbre 1676. In Firenze’ (fols. 113r–138r). Miscellanea Medicea 12, Insert 11, Folder 8 Miscellanea Medicea 12, Insert 11, Folder 8, Granduchessa Vittoria della Rovere in Medici. Mobili e Gioie e Quadri. Inventari 1635–1675. Miscellanea Medicea 12, Insert 11, Folder 9 Miscellanea Medicea 12, Insert 11, Folder 9, Testamento (in Copia) di Donna Livia di Montefeltro Duchessa d’Urbino che instituì Sua Erede universale la Gran Duchessa Vittoria della Rovere Sua Nipote, e Moglie di Ferdinando II°. BL, British Library, London, Add. Ms. 16495. Add. Ms. 16495, Scritture della Casa Medici e Toscana, Tomo II, del Cav. Don Vincenzio Ranuzi: ‘Racolta di Notizie attenenti alla Ser:ma Casa Medici, et al Governo Toscana dal principio del suo Regnare, fino al presente, nella quale sono inserite anche molti cose di Firenze, degna di memoria, 1689’ (anon.) fols. 183r–262r.

155

156

Adelina Modesti

Published Sources Barocchi, Paola, and Giovanna Gaeta Bertelà, eds. Collezionismo Mediceo e storia artistica, II: Il Cardinale Carlo, Maria Maddalena, Don Lorenzo, Ferdinando II, Vittoria della Rovere 1621–1666 (Florence: S.P.E.S., 2005). Bautier, Pierre. ‘Les portraits de Vittoria della Rovere Grande-Duchesse de Toscane par Suttermans’, Revue Belge d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de l’Art 10, no. 1 (1940), 35–39. Benadusi, Giovanna. ‘The Gender Politics of Vittoria della Rovere’, in Medici Women: the Making of a Dynasty in Grand Ducal Tuscany, ed. by Giovanna Benadusi and Judith C. Brown (Toronto: CRRS, 2015), pp. 264–301. ––– ‘Carteggi e negozi della granduchessa Vittoria della Rovere (1634–1694)’, in Le Donne Medici nel sistema Europeo delle corti (XVI–XVIII secolo), ed. by Giulia Calvi and Riccardo Spinelli, 2 vols. (Florence: Edizione Polistampa, 2008), I, pp. 415–432. Chenaye-Desbois, Francoise-Alexandre Aubert de La. Dictionnaire de la noblesse, contenant les généalogies, l’histoire & la chronologie des familles nobles de France…, 10 vols. (Paris: Antoine Boudet, 1774). Dabbs, Julia K. ‘Anecdotal Insights: Changing Perceptions of Italian Women Artists in Eighteenth-Century Life-Stories’, Eighteenth-Century Women: Studies in Their Lives, Work and Culture 5 (2008), 29–52. D’Ovidio, Antonella. ‘Sul mecenatismo musicale di Vittoria della Rovere, granduchessa di Toscana: alcune considerazioni’, in Firenze e la musica. Fonti, protagonisti, committenza, ed. by Cecilia Bacherini, Giacomo Sciommeri, and Agostino Ziino (Rome: Istituto Italiano per la Storia della Musica, 2014), pp. 283–311. ––– ‘Patronage, Sacrality and Power at the Court of Vittoria della Rovere: Antonio Veracini’s Op. 1 Trio Sonatas’, Journal of the Royal Musical Association 135, no. 2 (2010), 281–314. Fabbri, Maria Cecilia. ‘La Sala delle Allegorie a Palazzo Pitti’, in Fasto di Corte. La decorazione murale nelle residenze dei Medici e dei Lorena, ed. by Mina Gregori, 4 vols. (Florence: edifir, 2006), II, pp. 151–165. Kettering, Sharon. ‘The Patronage Power of Early Modern French Noblewomen’, The Historical Journal 32, no. 4 (Dec. 1989), 817–841. Miretti, Monica. ‘Dal ducato di Urbino al granducato di Toscana. Vittoria della Rovere e la devoluzione del patrimonio’, in Le donne Medici nel sistema europea delle corti. XVI–XVIII secolo, ed. by Giulia Calvi and Riccardo Spinelli, 2 vols. (Florence: Edizione Polistampa, 2008), I, pp. 313–326. Modesti, Adelina. Women’s Patronage and Gendered Cultural Networks in Early Modern Europe: Vittoria della Rovere Grand Duchess of Tuscany (New York and London: Routledge, 2020). ––– ‘Gendered Dynastic Identities at the Medici Court: Four Generations of Women in Power’, in Gender and Generations: Spaces, Times, Identity, ed. by Gabriella Valera, Ecaterina Lung, and Christopher Heath. Special Issue of Chronica Mundi 13, Issue 1 (2018), 222–238.

‘Una persona dependente all a Serenissima Gran Duchessa’ 

––– ‘“Nelle mode le più novelle”: The Latest Fashion Trends (Textiles, Clothing and Luxury Fabrics) at the Court of Grand Duchess Vittoria della Rovere of Tuscany’, in Telling Objects: Contextualizing the Role of the Consort in Early Modern Europe, ed. by Jill Bepler and Svante Norrhem (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2018), pp. 107–129. ––– ‘Nun Artisans, Needlecraft, and Material Culture in the Early Modern Florentine Convent’, in Artiste nel chiostro. Produzione artistica nei monasteri femminili in età moderna, ed. by Sheila Barker (Florence: Nerbini 2015), special issue of Memorie Domenicane 46 (2015), 53–71. ––– ‘The Self-Fashioning of a Female “Prince”: the Cultural Matronage of Vittoria della Rovere’, in Representing Women’s Authority in the Early Modern World, ed. by Eavan O’Brien (Rome: Aracne, 2013), pp. 253–297. ––– ‘Diplomatic and Cultural Partnerships in Early Modern Europe: Vittoria della Rovere and Cosimo III de’ Medici’, in Moving Elites: Women and Cultural Transfers in the European Court System, Proceedings of an International Workshop (Florence, 12–13 December 2008), ed. by Giulia Calvi and Isabelle Chabot (Florence: EUI Working Papers [HEC 2010/02], 2010), pp. 157–181. Del Piazzo, Marcello. Gli ambasciatori TOSCANI del principato (1537–1737) (Rome: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato, 1953). Ranum, Patricia M. Portraits Around Marc-Antoine Charpentier (Baltimore: Patricia Ranum, 2004). Rocco, Patricia. ‘Maniera Devota, Mano Donnesca: Women’s Work and Stitching for Virtue in the Visual Culture of the Conservatori in Early Modern Bologna’, Italian Studies 70, no. 1 (February 2015), 76–91. Spinelli, Riccardo. ‘Baldassare Franceschini detto Il Volterrano, e Carlo Dolci nelle collezioni di Vittoria della Rovere e di Francesco Maria de’ Medici. Nuovi documenti, precisazioni, identificazioni’, Studi Storia dell’Arte 23 (2012), 183–200. ––– ‘Pietro Dandini e le commissioni di Vittoria della Rovere per la villa del Poggio Imperiale a Firenze (1679–1693)’, Bollettino della Accademia degli Euteleti della Città di San Miniato 88 (2010), 77, 119–142. ––– ‘Vittoria della Rovere: passione collezionista e mecenatismo della granduchessa madre’, in Fasto di Corte. La decorazione murale nelle residenze dei Medici e dei Lorena, ed. by Mina Gregori, 4 vols. (Florence: edifir, 2007), III, pp. 11–24. ––– ‘Vittoria della Rovere (1622–1695)’, in Il giardino del granduca. Natura morta nelle collezioni medicee, ed. by Marco Chiarini (Turin: SEAT, 1997), pp. 154–203. Straussman-Pflanzer, Eve. ‘The Medici’s First Woman Court Artist: The Life and Career of Camilla Guerrieri Nati’, in Women Artists in Early Modern Italy. Careers, Fame, and Collectors, ed. by Sheila Barker (Turnhout: Brepols/Harvey Miller, 2016), pp. 121–134. ––– ‘Court Culture in 17th-Century Florence: The Art Patronage of Medici Grand Duchess Vittoria della Rovere (1622–1694)’, Ph.D. Dissertation, New York University (Ann Arbour: UMI Dissertation Publishing, 2010).

157

158

Adelina Modesti

About the author Adelina Modesti is Honorary Senior Fellow at University of Melbourne. Her pub­ lications focus primarily on women’s cultural production and female patronage networks in seventeenth-century Italy and Europe; these include monographs on Elisabetta Sirani (2014) and Vittoria della Rovere (2020), and essays on Artemisia Gentileschi and Margherita de’ Medici.

Appendix ASF, MdP 6186. Letter from Caterina Angiola Pieroncini to Alessandro Cerchi and Vittoria della Rovere, dated Paris, 11 April 1665 Molt’ Ill[ust]re Sig[no]re e Mia Sig[nor]a P[ad]rona Coll[endissi]ma Alcuni giorni sono, mi significò il Sig[nor] Residente, avere La Serenissima Nostra Padrona benignamente risoluto che io ritorni all’attual servizio dell’A[ltezza] S[ua] S[erenissi]ma. Il che ò udito con indicibil contento; quale si rinnovella in me ognivolta, che io rifletto a q[ue]sta mia tornata: E ciò m’accade ad ogni momento ci si fissa il pensiero. Parendomi: anzi senza dubbio conoscendomi obbligatissima alle cortesi et amorevoli dimostrazioni di q[ue]sta mia maestra, che con affetto materno ammi insegnato La Professione; essendo sempre stata celantissima di farmi imparare speditamente; vorrei pure Lasciarle un segno di riconoscenza, conforme fanno tutte l’altre scolari alla loro partenza; e delle quali sono stata trattata (non sapendo p[er] qual mia fortuna) da essa mia Maestra molto più avvantaggiosamente. S[ignoria] V[o]stra ancora; secondo lo stile che ò visto praticare, da quelle che si sono partite; fare un regalo alla Sottomaestra da cui in materia d’apprendere si cava più profitto, che dalla Maestra medesima. Parmi similmente indispensabile il lasciar qualche ricordo degli obblighi che io ò contratto con una tal Madama Maddalena donna di Camera della Sig[no]ra Principessa di Guisa: nella quale, e nel tempo delle mie malatie, e ne’ bisogni di comprarmi, o ordinarmi da rivestirmi, e nell’accompgnature fattemi moltissime volte da casa la Maestra al Palazzo di Madamigella di Guisa, e altrove; posso dire aver scorto un’affezione verso di me più che parentevole. A q[ue]ste tre dunque mi sta sul cuore, p[er] le sopraddette ragioni di far qualche donativo: onde prego sommamente V[ostra] S[ignori]a a degnarsi di favorirmi di qualche apertura appresso la Padrona Serenissima in quei modi, che a V[ostra] S[ignori]a parranno più proprii. Circa la somma (p[er] quanto ò visto, che anno fatto l’altre già mie compagne) giudico, che sia molto proporzionato un dono di dieci doppie p[er] la Maestra e p[er] la Sottomaestra uno di 4, o 5 doppie: e p[er] la

‘Una persona dependente all a Serenissima Gran Duchessa’ 

donna di Madamigella di Guisa altre 5, o 6 doppie: Sicche con venti doppie in circa si potranno contentare le predette persone alle quali invero io sono estremamente obbligata. Mi perdoni V[ostra] S[ignori]a del troppo ardire, che io piglio d’infastidirla pregandola di nuovo a farmi l’onore d’un tale’ uficio appresso La Serenissima Gran Duchessa. O’ consegnato q[ue]sto giorno all’Intendente del Sig[no]re Residente una scatola entrovi un paio di ricci p.[er] la Sig[no]ra Giovannina Guidi comandatimi più settimane sono da V[ostra] S[ignori]a et il detto Intendente ammi assicurato, q[ue]sta sera, d’averli consegnati al corriere, che de’e partir domattina: con che rispettosamente riverisco V[ostra] S[ignori]a Parigi 11 Aprile 1665 D[i] V[ostra] S[ignori]a Molto Ill[ust]re Dev[otissi]ma et obl[igat]a Serva

Cat[eri]na Angiola Pieroncini

Most Illustrious Lord and My Most Respected Mistress It has been some days since the Signor Resident [Marucelli] informed me that Our Most Serene Mistress has kindly resolved that I return to the actual service of Her Most Serene Highness. I received this news with indescribable happiness, which renews itself every time I reflect on my return. And this occurs every time I fix my thoughts upon it. It seems to me, or rather I am sure that I am most obliged to the courteous and loving demonstration of my maestra, who with maternal affection taught me the Profession [of lace-making]. Being always most eager to make me learn quickly, I would like to leave her a token of my gratitude as is the custom of the other pupils on their departure, amongst whom I have been treated (not knowing why my good fortune) much more advantageously by her my Maestra. Furthermore Your Lordship, given the practice I have observed by those that are leaving, I would like to give a gift to the Sottomaestra, from whom I have gained even more in matters of learning than from the Maestra herself. It also seems indispensable that I leave some record of my obligations to a certain Madama Maddalena, Lady of the Bedchamber to Princess de Guise, who, in times of my illness and when I needed to buy or have clothing ordered, or in the many times she accompanied me from the Maestra’s house to the palace of Mademoiselle de Guise or elsewhere, I can say showed me even more than a familial level of affection. For the above reasons I wish with all my heart to leave these three [women] some gift. I thus summarily request Your Lordship to deign favour me by making some approach toward Her Most Serene Mistress in any way Your Lordship deems most appropriate. Regarding the price (as I have seen already made by my companions) I estimate that it would be most appropriate a gift of ten doppie for the Maestra, and

159

160

Adelina Modesti

for the Sottomaestra one of 4 or 5 doppie; and for the lady of Mademoiselle de Guise another 5 or 6 doppie. So that with about 20 doppie the abovementioned people, to whom I am truly extremely obliged, can be pleased. Your Lordship please forgive the ardour with which I disturb you, praying once again to honour me with your office with Her Most Serene Grand Duchess. I have today consigned to the Royal Official of the Signore Resident a small box containing some curled hair extensions for the Signora Giovanna Guidi which Your Lordship ordered from me some weeks ago, and the said Official assured me tonight that he had consigned them to the courier that is leaving tomorrow morning. With which I respectively commend myself to Your Lordship. Paris, 11 April 1665 For Your Most Illustrious Lordship Most Devoted and Obliged Servant Caterina Angiola Pieroncini

7.

Life at Court: Luisa Roldán in Madrid 1689–1706 Catherine Hall-van den Elsen

Abstract Catherine Hall-van den Elsen considers the career of Luisa Roldán (1652–1706), one of Spain’s most renowned female artists, who was appointed Escultora de Cámara (sculptor to the Royal Chamber) to both Kings Carlos II and Felipe V. As the daughter of a well-known Sevillian sculptor, Roldán developed her skills in a busy workshop that produced life-sized polychrome wood sculptures. But when the artist arrived in Madrid with her family in late 1688, she found an uncertain economic environment and a very different market, with reduced demand for the sculpture with which she was familiar. Roldán set about identifying an alternative product to suit the tastes of the royal and noble residents of Madrid’s Corte y Villa, proving herself an able interpreter of religious and political environment. Keywords: Spanish terracotta sculpture; polychromed wooden sculptures; Women at the Court of Carlos II; Spanish art of the Early Modern period; art market; Habsburg courts

Luisa Roldán (also known as La Roldana, 1652–1706) served as Escultora de Cámara (Sculptor to the Royal Chamber) in the Spanish court during the final decade of the Habsburg King Carlos II and the early rule of Felipe V, the first of Spain’s Bourbon kings.1 The first female to hold that title and one of the very few women who appeared in Antonio Palomino’s Lives (El Parnaso…, 1724), our understanding of Luisa’s life and artistic output has developed gradually, with the pace of scholarship increasing after 1964 when Beatrice Gilman Proske published some of the artist’s 1 Early versions of this chapter were presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Spanish and Portuguese Historical Studies, Modena, 26–29 June 2014; the Sixteenth Century Society Conference, Bruges, 18–20 August 2016; and the Renaissance Society of America Conference, New Orleans 23–25 March, 2018. I am grateful to conference participants for their helpful comments and suggestions.

Jones, T.L. (ed.), Women Artists in the Early Modern Courts of Europe: c. 1450–1700. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2021 doi 10.5117/9789462988194_ch07

162 

Catherine Hall-van den Elsen

correspondence with the court.2 Proske’s articles represented a significant step forward in Roldana scholarship, providing invaluable glimpses of the challenges and successes that Luisa experienced. Like those of many court artists, the letters that Proske published have a predominantly unhappy tone, affording insight into Luisa’s dire financial straits and suggesting a series of questions for scholarly consideration, among them: How did Luisa survive in Madrid? How were she and her work received in the Villa y Corte (town and royal court)? What skills did she need to grasp the opportunities that were open to her? This chapter records progress towards resolving those questions, augmenting the information provided in Proske’s three articles and adding a sketch of Luisa’s early development in Andalucía. Luisa Roldán was the daughter of the renowned Sevillian sculptor Pedro Roldán and his wife, Teresa de Mena y Villavicencio. Pedro and Teresa had survived the devastating Andalucían plague of the late 1640s, and from the early 1650s their growing family enjoyed financial stability as demand for Pedro’s work increased steadily. The second oldest surviving child of twelve, Luisa’s gender prevented her from participating in Seville’s renowned (albeit short-lived) Academia de la Pintura, Escultura y Dorado (Academy of Painting, Sculpture and Gilding) founded by Bartolomé Esteban Murillo and others, and attended by her father. Attendance at the Academy or formal training outside her father’s studio would have challenged the conventions associated with the subordinate female roles described in much contemporary literature.3 Although traditional views of women’s roles were widely promulgated there is growing evidence that girls’ participation in their family’s professional activities was not uncommon.4 In in the absence of a surviving male heir (Luisa’s brother Marcelino was born when she was ten years old) it is likely that her father deemed it appropriate to encourage Luisa’s talent so that she might assist him in the studio. This was not unusual in artistic families of the time. Two of Pedro’s peers, the painters Juan de Valdés Leal in Seville and Pedro de Mena in Málaga adopted similar approaches to facilitating the development of their daughters’ talents – María and Luisa Valdés de Morales and Claudia and Andrea de Mena were recognized in their time as accomplished artists.5 Luisa’s artistic development was likely advanced through exposure both to her father’s workshop and to Seville’s wider community of artists and artisans. This 2 Palomino de Castro y Velasco, El Parnaso, pp. 684–685. Also, Proske, ‘Luisa Roldán’; Mrs. Proske generously shared her knowledge of Luisa’s work during my visits to the Hispanic Society of America in New York in the 1980s. 3 Spanish Golden Age literature is replete with examples of women who strayed outside societal norms. Rarely did their behaviour escape ridicule, and sometimes censure. See (among many other texts) Hernández Bermejo, ‘La imagen’; Smith and Stoll, The Perception; and Sánchez and Saint-Saëns, eds., Spanish Women. 4 Iradiel Murugarren, ‘Familia’, p. 227. 5 Little is known of the output of these four painters; see Aranda Bernal, ‘Ser mujer’, pp. 46–47.

Life at Court: Luisa Roldán in Madrid 1689–1706 

thriving population conceived and prepared paintings, sculptures, processional floats, triumphal arches and monuments to commemorate religious feast days and events in the lives of the royal family. The objects they created proclaimed the glory of Catholic Spain by means of visual images, fulfilling St. Bonaventure’s recommendation that ‘those who do not know, may at least read by seeing upon the walls things they have not the power to read in books’.6 Besides providing the opportunity to work on the skills required of a sculptor and grow a remarkable artistic talent, Luisa’s training in her father’s studio inculcated a strong sense of self-confidence that she drew on many times during her life. When Luisa was nineteen she married Luis Antonio de los Arcos, a young sculptor and the son of a painter whose family lived in a nearby Sevillian suburb. Luis Antonio may have been attached to the Roldán studio after an apprenticeship with the sculptor Andrés Cansino, a family friend and neighbour.7 Luisa’s father opposed the match but, in an impressive display of determination, the young woman appealed to the ecclesiastical court for permission to marry, an action that paved the way for three other Roldán children to do the same.8 For seventeen years following their marriage Luisa and Luis Antonio lived in Seville, producing six children during their time there, only two of whom survived infancy. The couple worked together on commissions with Luis Antonio’s younger brother Tomás de los Arcos who painted at least some of their work. Apparently without the endorsement or protection of Luisa’s father, the trio primarily produced life-sized, freestanding sculptures for churches and religious brotherhoods in Seville, Cádiz, and other Andalucían towns.9 As Luisa’s skills developed so did her reputation throughout Andalucía.10 In 1688, Luisa and Luis Antonio donated the impressive Virgen de la Soledad (fig. 7.1) to the Monasterio de la Victoria in Puerto Real in exchange for masses to be said for their souls.11

6 In 1629 Lope de Vega referenced St. Bonaventure’s writings on the purpose of holy images, in a text that Carducho later attached as an appendix to his Diálogos de la pintura (Madrid, 1633). For a translation of the original Latin text, see Enggass and Brown, Sources, p. 169. 7 In 1671 Luisa declared ‘toda su vida conoce al dicho Luis Antonio, porque ha sido aprendiz de su casa’ (‘she has known Luis Antonio all her life, since he was apprentice in her father’s house’); see Montoto, ‘El casamiento’, p. 145. 8 See Torrejón Díaz, ‘El entorno’. 9 For a detailed discussion of Luisa’s Andalucían work, see Hall-van den Elsen, Luisa Roldán (2021), pp. 41–85. 10 Luis Antonio signed contracts for work in Seville. No signed contracts have been found in Cádiz but references to Luisa’s work have been found in both the municipal archives and churches there. In addition, autograph documents dated 1684 and 1687 were placed inside the heads of both the Ecce Homo and San Germán in Cádiz Cathedral. 11 Hall-van den Elsen, Fuerza e intimismo, pp. 260–262.

163

164 

Catherine Hall-van den Elsen

Figure 7.1 Luisa Roldán, Our Lady of Solitude / Virgen de la Soledad, 1688, polychromed wood head and hands, image to be dressed, 150 cm, Venerable y Real Cofradía de Penitencia de Nuestra Señora de la Soledad y Santo Entierro de Nuestro Señor Jesucristo, Puerto Real (Cádiz). Image Credit: Rafael García Ramírez.

Perhaps emboldened by their successes at home, Luisa and Luis Antonio, with their eight-year-old son, Francisco, and five-year-old daughter, Rosa Maria, left an apparently secure future in southern Spain for Madrid, expecting (or hoping) that their immersion in Counter-Reformation religious expression and indisputable talent as sculptors in wood might serve them well in the capital city. From Seville, with its frequent public manifestations of religious sentiment involving life-sized or over-life-sized works in wood, Luisa would have found the prospect of living in the capital enticing. As the Royal court settled in Madrid after its move from Valladolid in 1606, the new capital became a beacon for the nobility and for religious orders. This inevitably led to demand for noble palaces, municipal and military buildings,

Life at Court: Luisa Roldán in Madrid 1689–1706 

churches and convents. Capital of Spain, seat of the Spanish court, and home to hundreds of nobles, clergy, and wealthy traders, the city offered the possibility of regular commissions. Churches overflowed with the faithful: Madrid’s thirteen parishes and six parochial annexes each had an average of 12,000 communicants, a number significantly larger than that of Seville’s parishes.12 The court had long fostered associations with painters, the most fortunate and astute of whom found themselves elevated to positions of relative esteem, including Painter to the King and Painter to the Royal Chamber. These positions might, in turn, lead to roles of significant responsibility within the palace such as the Keeper of the King’s paintings and furnishings.13 For sculptors, the enticement of working for the royal palace, and in close proximity to the renowned painters of the day, added to the lure of the titles of Court Sculptor (Escultor del Rey) and Sculptor to the Royal Chamber (Escultor de Cámara). Although irregularly granted and only intermittently remunerated, these titles proved irresistible for sculptors from both northern and southern Spain. Earlier in the seventeenth century, the presence at court of the Sevillian Conde-Duque de Olivares had been a beacon for Andalucían sculptors including Juan Martínez Montañés and Alonso Cano. Pedro de Mena spent time in Madrid between 1662 and 1664 under the patronage of Don Juan de Austria; and José de Mora served as Escultor de Cámara from 1672 until he left the capital for the last time in 1680.14 Each one would have discovered that winning prestige from their association with the court and Madrid’s noble families was more easily achieved than a reliable income. Although they may have arrived in Madrid with the expectation of enjoying some success, none remained there for more than a few years except Cano, who was mostly occupied with commissions for paintings. Some returned home after only a few months. The affinity the sculptors felt with the environments of their home cities must have proved seductive compared to the insecurity of the livelihood for which they had to struggle in Madrid, deemed by a contemporary ‘the city that everyone serves, and that serves no-one’.15 As a female sculptor with little or no support within the court, nor association with an established workshop, Luisa had to rely on her talent rather than connections to make her way in this new, challenging environment. By the final decade of the seventeenth century the Spanish court was in a precarious state, bowed by the debt accumulated after decades of economic problems. When Luisa began her involvement with the court, King Carlos II, then thirty-one 12 Pinto Crespo, ‘La iglesia, organización y presencia’, p. 301. 13 For a description of the activities of court painters during this period see Aterido, El final del Siglo de Oro, pp. 321–333; and Véliz Bomford and Aterido, ‘Caring for the King’s Pictures’. 14 For information about sculptors in the Spanish court see Martín González, El escultor en palacio. 15 ‘pues [Madrid] la sirven todas, y a nadie sirve’; from Núñez de Castro, Libro histórico politico, cited in Defourneaux, Daily Life, p. 66.

165

166 

Catherine Hall-van den Elsen

years old, was in the twenty-fifth year of his reign. In fact, his mother, Mariana of Austria, had ruled as regent for much of that time, with a multitude of advisers from various factional groups influencing and supporting her decision-making. Carlos, the child of Mariana and her uncle Philip IV, was the last in the Spanish Habsburg line. The King’s health was an ongoing political concern, and during his reign nations jostled for advantage based upon varied reports of the monarch’s precarious well-being. While some ambassadors wrote home to report that Carlos was close to death, that he could not walk unassisted, and that he was virtually illiterate, others commented on his robust constitution.16 Portraits of the unfortunate king present a stark juxtaposition between his physical appearance and his opulent surroundings, which represented his political and social importance. Spain’s international reputation was waning, no doubt encouraged by mixed reports of the monarch’s health. A man of great religious faith, Carlos placed trust in God and his ministers to maintain the viability of a nation near bankruptcy.17 Pedro Villafranca’s engraving of Juan José de Austria Supporting the Spanish Monarchy (fig. 7.2) portrays the válido (the king’s favourite, often tasked with affairs of government) bearing the weight of government while a frail Carlos is dressed in military attire, awkwardly wielding a sword and surrounded by religious references including the papal tiara and the keys of St. Peter.18 Luisa and her family arrived in Madrid before February 1689, when María Bernarda, their seventh child and fifth daughter, was baptized.19 During their first few months in Madrid, Luisa and Luis Antonio confronted different challenges to those of many of the migrants who came to the capital expecting to be absorbed into the labour market of manual, or even skilled workers. They had particular products to sell in a limited marketplace. No evidence has been found of other women who came to court to ply their trade as sculptors, and it appears likely that Luisa had no precedent to call on. As a trailblazer, perhaps even a curiosity at court, she would have been careful not to stray beyond societal expectations of her gender. Among the factors that would have influenced the family’s survival strategy were the state of the economy; the likely reception of a new Andalucían sculptor by the Church, the court, nobility, and wealthy merchants; and what ‘products’ might be developed to meet an untapped or as yet unidentified desire in Madrid society. It is likely that Luisa would have anticipated or aspired to at least two potential sources of income: a regular ración, 16 Evolving attitudes to Carlos II are explored in Ribot, ‘El Rey ante el espejo’, pp. 13–52. 17 For a comprehensive discussion of Carlos II ’s reign see Contreras, Carlos II el hechizado. 18 See Chenel, ‘Don Juan José de Austria’. 19 María Bernarda was Luisa’s last known child. Romero Torres transcribed the text of her baptism record in ‘La escultora’, p. 147, n. 31. She was probably the ‘María de los Arcos’ who married in Madrid in 1709. Baptisms of six children are recorded in Seville, but only one of those children, Francisco, survived to adulthood. See Hall-van den Elsen, Fuerza e Intimismo, pp. 38, 230, 232, 234–235.

Life at Court: Luisa Roldán in Madrid 1689–1706 

Figure 7.2 Pedro de Villafranca, Juan José de Austria Supporting the Spanish Monarchy, 1678, engraving, 245 x 169 mm, Biblioteca Nacional, Madrid. Image Credit: Images owned by the National Library of Spain.

167

168 

Catherine Hall-van den Elsen

Figure 7.3 Luisa Roldán, Rest on the Flight into Egypt, c. 1690, terracotta with polychrome, 41 x 26 x 28 cm, Hispanic Society of America, New York. Image Credit: Courtesy of the Hispanic Society of America, New York.

a retainer that assured an employer such as the royal palace or a noble family of her availability for projects, and/or ayudas de costa, specific sums granted to cover the costs of producing works. Some artists who were attached to the court received other emolumentos, benefits such as accommodation, medical, and pharmaceutical supplies, the granting of which appears to have favoured painters and been based on the application of precedents and comparisons rather than established rules.20 Early investigations must have lead Luisa and Luis Antonio to realize that the demand in Madrid for the large works in wood on which their renown was based would not be enough to sustain the family. They quickly recognized the potential of terracotta as an alternative medium, one with which Luisa probably experimented while still in her family’s Sevillian workshop. The earliest known signed and dated work by Luisa in Madrid represents is, in fact, a small terracotta group entitled The Rest on the Flight into Egypt, dated 1691 (fig. 7.3); the first of many such sculptures that she produced during 20 On 9 December 1694, Luisa wrote to the King, asking for the entitlements that she was due and that had been given to those who had occupied the same position. See AGP, Carlos II: Administrativa, Legajo 631, Empleados, escultores’ transcribed in Hall-van den Elsen, Fuerza e intimismo, p. 268.

Life at Court: Luisa Roldán in Madrid 1689–1706 

Figure 7.4 Luisa Roldán, Ecstasy of Mary Magdalene, c. 1690, terracotta with polychrome, 30.5 x 44.5 x 25 cm, Hispanic Society of America, New York. Image Credit: Courtesy of the Hispanic Society of America, New York.

her sixteen years in Madrid. With a few exceptions, the terracotta works fall into three categories: episodes from the life of the Virgin; variations of the theme of the Virgin and Child; and groups of the Holy Family with a saint. Many of these sculptures were inspired by paintings produced by her father’s peers in Seville, particularly Bartolomé Murillo. The dimpled body of the Christ Child, the Virgin Mary’s oval face, the youthful St. Joseph, their carefully rendered but simple robes, and the subsidiary elements at their feet, became characteristic features of Luisa’s terracotta works during the next decade. A significant exception to the sacra conversazione theme is the striking Ecstasy of Mary Magdalene (fig. 7.4) in which the unconscious penitent is about to be lifted to the heavens as a reward for her penance. Two versions are known, one in a Spanish private collection, and the other in the collection of the Hispanic Society, New York. The popularity of this type of group may have been the catalyst for the production of larger groups, which culminated in a now-lost nativity scene comprising 173 figures commissioned towards the end of Luisa’s life by the Duke of Infantado for a convent in Priego, Cuenca.21 A small number of these works include the use of underpinning symbolic messages, most likely in response to specific commissions. 21 Hall-van den Elsen, Fuerza e intimismo, p. 302. The nativity scene is presumed lost or destroyed.

169

170 

Catherine Hall-van den Elsen

No documentation has been found to indicate how Luisa was introduced to the court. At the time sculpture appears to have had a low profile – court sculptors included Enrique Cardón (d. 1700) and Pedro Alonso de los Ríos (1641–1702), but the output of each has faded into obscurity. Although Palomino wrote that Luisa enjoyed the patronage of the courtier Cristóbal de Ontañón, who was also a supporter of Luca Giordano, no evidence has yet come to light about the extent of his patronage of Luisa and little information about him is to be found in the Royal Palace archive. We know that Ontañón’s fortunes diminished in the century’s last decade so it is unlikely that he would have been in a position to offer Luisa any significant financial support.22 While working on the production of delicate terracotta sculptures, Luisa was also producing over life-sized wooden sculptures. A terminus post quem for her work at court is provided by the date, May 1692, painted along with her name and title (Escultora de Cámara), on the towering figure of St. Michael and the manacles of the very humanized devil who writhes at his feet (fig. 7.5). The earliest known written evidence of Luisa’s relationship with the court is dated 15 October 1692, when a royal decree bestowed upon her the position of Escultora (Sculptor).23 The only known female court artist working at that time, Luisa was among many artists who were due (or overdue!) some income. In her earliest known letter to the King, received on 14 November of that same year, she asks that Carlos II provide her with a ración, as she had three children and ‘other family’ to feed and clothe. The letter establishes an anxious tone that Luisa sustained with more or less intensity for the next ten years: She asks your majesty to indicate a retainer to go with the title of sculptor to the royal chamber so that she can feed herself and her three children and other family in consideration of the five years that she has worked on the image of the angel and for more than a year and a half working in the palace in the service of your majesty and the queen, and for this please order that she be paid a retainer, because she is a woman and awaits your royal charity.24 22 See Romero Torres, ‘Don Cristóbal de Ontañón y Enríquez’. 23 The date of execution May 1692 is painted on the devil’s manacles. Luisa’s royal title can be seen on the base of the work, likely added after it was confirmed in October of that year. 24 AGP Carlos II: Administrativa, Legajo 631, Empleados, escultores, transcribed in Hall-van den Elsen, Fuerza e intimism, pp. 264–265:

Lo que pide ha VMag que le señale racion juntamente con la merced que VMag la yso de escultora de camara para que se pueda sustentar y bestirse y tres yjos que tiene y demas familia […] en conciderasion que a cinco años que se trabaja en hacer la Ymagen del Anjel y tan bien ha año y medio que esta en Palacio trabajando en el servicio de VMag y de la Reyna y por esto señor se tenga por serbido mandar se le de Racion por ser Muger que ha si lo espera de la R piedad.

Life at Court: Luisa Roldán in Madrid 1689–1706 

In correspondence dated 13 December 1692, the Condestable de Castilla (Íñigo Melchor Fernández de Velasco y Guzmán) advised the monarch that although Luisa had been offered the position of Escultora, she had not been able to accept it because there was no remuneration attached. Just a few days later, on 17 December, the dire situation was addressed, although not resolved, when the king ordered that Luisa receive 5 reales a day. Although Luisa was granted the ración we have no evidence to indicate whether or when she actually received it. On 9 December 1694, two years after her original appointment, she requested the entitlements that her predecessors had received, specifically that the administration ‘give her the salary and other benefits that are owed to her and have been given to those who have served in the same position’.25 The ‘benefits’ that she sought included rooms in the prestigious Casa de Tesoro, a prominent building close to the royal apartments, which housed the apartments of court painters and other privileged individuals. Velázquez had lived there in 1655 and it may have been the aposento (accommodation) granted to Jose de Mora in 1672. While the roles of court painters appear to have been well understood, the entitlements associated with Luisa’s occupation appear to have presented some difficulties. A letter from the court accountant compares her entitlement to a house in which to live with the provisions made to an accomplished carver: With regard to the apartment, I find in these books information that it is due to the sculptor’s office, but it is confusing and it seems that if she has this right, it will be given to her by the board as to the carver.26

Not only was her request for this desirable accommodation denied, but the palace was slow to identify a source for the funds that she had been granted. A letter to the King regarding the issue advised, ‘The Condestable may not release [the retainer] unless Your Majesty advises the source from which it is to be taken’.27 Luisa’s plea reveals the precarious plight of artists whose livelihoods depended on a court that was very slow to pay. Her letters are unarguably plaintive, but she was only one among many court artists who found themselves in dire straits. Her tone conveys similarly desperate circumstances to those described by the court painter Francisco Rizi in August 1661 when he wrote: ‘many maravedíes are owed, 25 ‘se le den los gajes y demas emolumentos que le tocan y se han dado a los que han servido en la misma Plaza’; see Proske, ‘Luisa Roldán’, part 1, 624, p. 128. 26 ‘En quanto a la Casa de Aposento allo en estos libros noticia toca al oficio de escultor, pero es confusa y me pareze si la tiene se le dara por la junta como al cuchillero’, AGS, Casa Real, Legajo 319 fols. 369r–373r; in Amat, Luisa Roldán, p. 192. 27 ‘Dise que el Condestable no la puede despachar çino es señalandole VSa Magd de que caudal se le a de dar la Racion que le toca ha el Oficio’; in Proske, ‘Luisa Roldán’, part 1, 624, p. 128.

171

172 

Catherine Hall-van den Elsen

both in salary and for the works that have been done […] and he finds himself without a house, like those that his predecessors have enjoyed’.28 When Luisa did eventually receive the daily retainer of 5 reales that the king had granted she was not by any means comfortably off, for at the time a single loaf of bread in Madrid cost 1 real.29 Her letters to the King and Queen paint a picture of penury but they do not provide any real insight into the family’s financial circumstances. Given the space, materials, and tools needed to house her family and practice her trade, additional income was a necessity whether through ayudas de costa (payments for works done for the court), private commissions, or Luis Antonio’s other earnings, the details of which are yet to be established. Although it has been assumed that the court was her only source of income in Madrid, Luisa would have known of other ways to maintain the family. The Rest on the Flight into Egypt (fig. 7.3), completed the year before her royal appointment, may have been created for a private client, as a gift for a person of influence at court, or to be sold in a shop open to the public.30 The size, material, and subject matter of this terracotta suggest that, in the absence of a large studio or apprentices, Luisa had settled on a strategy of creating small, relatively portable works that were inexpensive to produce but that would assure an income by meeting the desires of Madrid’s noble families. Terracotta sculpture was a potentially lucrative product, but apart from its presence in Neapolitan nativity scenes, it was not an especially popular material for finished works of Spanish art. A previous Escultor de Cámara, Giovanni Battista Morelli, left a few examples of terracotta works in the royal collections when he died in 1669, but the material was not yet in common use when Luisa and Luis Antonio arrived in Madrid.31 By adopting the medium, the couple appears to have identified a niche in the art market that resulted from the expansion of the mercantile class in Madrid, and the subsequent construction of large houses with oratories. Luisa’s terracotta sculptures were of small dimensions (they did not usually exceed 50 cm in height and width, nor 40 cm in depth) and their intimate themes promoted reflection on the holy family and the saints. Small religious images were popular 28 ‘se le deven muchos maravedis asi de su salario como de las obras que ha hecho […] y por que se halla desacomodado y sin casa de aposento como la han gozado sus antezesores’; in Lamas Delgado, ‘Nuevas consideraciones’, p. 78. 29 For a detailed discussion of living standards see Llopis Agelán and García Montero, ‘Precios y salarios’, p. 303. 30 Palomino and others refer to painting workshops and studios in Madrid that were open to the general public. For a discussion of this aspect of the art market and a very welcome contribution to our developing understanding of it, see Aterido, El final del siglo de oro, pp. 291–294. 31 Agulló y Cobo, ‘El escultor Morelli y sus hijos’, pp. 26–35. One of Morelli’s works is held by the Museo Nacional del Prado.

Life at Court: Luisa Roldán in Madrid 1689–1706 

vehicles for developing a personal relationship with Christ through the mediation of the saints, as endorsed by the Council of Trent.32 Luisa’s delicate works facilitated this meditative practise. After producing the Rest on the Flight into Egypt, Luisa continued to work in both clay and wood, demonstrating expertise in both materials. Her versatility proved effective, because after the early production of a few wooden carvings for the court, Luisa’s work during her years in Madrid focused almost exclusively on terracotta. In 1692 Luisa signed a less complex terracotta work, the Virgin with the Christ Child and St. John the Baptist (Chicago, Loyola University Museum of Art) as well as a simple Virgin Sewing (Madrid, private collection). Like the Rest on the Flight into Egypt, the form and style of these works in terracotta anticipated, and probably served as models for, her later works in the same medium.33 Demand for these compositions was steady. In 1701, Luisa claimed to have made more than eighty scenes in the twelve years during which she had worked at the royal palace.34 In the three centuries since their creation many of these and others commissioned by private patrons have been dispersed, damaged, or possibly destroyed. Today, we know of approximately thirty terracotta pieces, autograph or securely attributed, distributed mostly in private collections, convents, and museums in Spain, Great Britain, and the United States.35 The marked similarities in the design of the groups, figures and faces, indicate that thematic and compositional repetition was common. The formula she had found was popular, facilitating the efficient production of a large number of sculptures in the medium. The first known wooden sculpture Luisa produced in Madrid is the aforementioned Saint Michael Smiting the Devil (fig. 7.5). The bold, over life-sized and vigorous work announced her presence, in the same way that Luca ‘fa presto’ Giordano, the esteemed, newly arrived Pintor de Cámara to the court, was doing with his innovative works on the ceilings of the monastery of El Escorial.36 Already a favourite in Catholic Spain, the figure of St. Michael conquering the devil had become increasingly 32 From the Council of Trent Twenty-Fifth session, 3–4 December 1563, On the invocation, veneration, and relics, of saints, and on sacred images, http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch25.htm (accessed 30 July 2019): they especially instruct the faithful diligently concerning the intercession and invocation of saints; the honour (paid) to relics; and the legitimate use of images: teaching them, that the saints, who reign together with Christ, offer up their own prayers to God for men; that it is good and useful suppliantly to invoke them, and to have recourse to their prayers, aid, [and] help for obtaining benefits from God.

33 Luisa’s repeated use of similar figures in different terracotta works is discussed by Trusted, ‘Art for the Masses’, pp. 46–60. 34 ‘a mas de dose Anos que esta ocupada en Palacio donde a echo mas de ochenta estatuas por mandado de Vsttra Al za’, AGP, Felipe V: Administrativa, Legajo 390; transcribed in Hall-van den Elsen, Fuerza e intimismo, p. 289. 35 Luisa’s terracotta works are discussed in Hall-van den Elsen, Fuerza e intimismo, Chapter 6. 36 Fuentes Lázaro, ‘Luca Giordano’, pp. 4–25.

173

174 

Catherine Hall-van den Elsen

Figure 7.5 Luisa Roldàn, The Archangel St. Michael Smiting the Devil, 1692, polychromed wood, 230 cm, Real Monasterio de San Lorenzo de El Escorial, Madrid. Image Credit: © PATRIMONIO NACIONAL.

Life at Court: Luisa Roldán in Madrid 1689–1706 

important as the King’s life drew to a close and Spain’s future became a generalized preoccupation.37 Palomino tells us that the first works painted by Giordano on his arrival in Madrid in May 1692 were of Saint Michael, a sure sign of the archangel’s importance to the Spanish crown: ‘[Giordano] arrived in Madrid in May [1692] and his first two large paintings were the Battle and the Triumph of the glorious St. Michael, against Lucifer’s rebellion’.38 Palomino himself painted a St. Michael in the same year.39 Luisa’s St. Michael is a powerful image, demonstrating her awareness of these challenging religious and social contexts. The archangel’s military apparel as a representation of the Church Militant and the cowering devil’s association with heresy and the court’s enemies were well-known motifs in seventeenth century Spain. St. Michael astutely alludes to the King’s role as defender of the Catholic faith. This role was made very clear in Villafranca’s engraving of Carlos II and Juan Jose de Austria (fig. 7.2), reminding us that one of the key responsibilities of royal power was the vigorous defence of the faith, while the affairs of government were in the hands of the válido. Luisa’s sculpture and Villafranca’s print share a common message about the importance of the preservation of the Catholic nation’s religious identity. The power transmitted by St. Michael’s agitated cloak, the firmness with which the archangel treads on his enemy’s body, and his raised right arm, wielding the sword, reflect the Spanish court’s rejection of its enemies and a determination to combat any opposition. Padre Juan Eusebio Nieremberg’s Prayer to Saint Michael for the Kingdom of Spain (1643) reflects a confidence in the figure whose dominion is embodied in Luisa’s sculpture: Most Holy President of the Kingdom of Heaven, Governor of the Angelic Republic, and powerful Protector of the Catholic Church, we humbly beg you to watch over the King of Spain, who is so Catholic, and who has so truthfully served the Church that you defend and protect. […] The Lord chose you to eliminate the rebels of this Monarchy, and to reduce the turmoil they create. 40 37 See Martínez Leiva, ‘St Michael defeating the Devil by Lorenzo Vaccaro’. 38 ‘Llegó a Madrid por el mes de mayo de dicho año; y lo primero que pintó, fueron dos cuadros grandes, el uno de la Batalla, y el otro del Triunfo del glorioso Arcángel San Miguel, contra la rebeldía de Lucifer’; Palomino de Castro y Velasco, El Parnaso, p. 465. 39 Palomino’s painting is in the Detroit Institute of Arts. 40 In Nieremberg, De la devocion, p. 269:

Santissimo Presidente del Reyno de los cielos, Governador de la Republica Angelica, y poderoso Protector de la Iglesia Catolica, humildemente te suplicamos mires por el Reyno de España, que tan Catolico es, y que con tantas veras ha servido a la Iglesia de Christo, que tu defiendes, y amparas. […] A ti te escogió el señor, para que reduzgas los rebeldes desta Monarquia, y sosiegues sus alteraciones.

175

176 

Catherine Hall-van den Elsen

Luisa’s St. Michael was installed in the monastery of El Escorial, winning the court’s admiration. 41 In 1764 Andrés Ximénez celebrated the work in prose, proclaiming it ‘so bizarre, and perfect, that it can compete with the most famous statues of the Ancients’. 42 In 1800, Juan Ceán Bermúdez used similar praise, despite noting that terracotta was a more appropriate medium for the ‘delicacy of [Luisa’s] sex’. In his biographical sketch Ceán included four lines of a poem by Isidoro de Burgos Mantilla y Bárcena, (unknown except for the lines that Ceán transcribed) celebrating Luisa’s interpretation of the archangel. 43 The years following Luisa’s compelling introductory statements in terracotta and wood did not bring the financial security she might have anticipated. The economies of both Madrid and the court were under significant strain. Court funds did not easily stretch, as can be seen in a letter from the Consejo de Castilla of 1693 to the king and queen which explains that their spending must reduce, ‘so acute are the financial strains’.44 Records in the royal palace reveal sporadic payments of Luisa’s retainer, occasionally augmented by ayudas de costa, additional payments from either the king or the queen for the completion of a work for the palace or in response to a specific plea from the sculptor. Luisa’s correspondence with the court ebbed and flowed, from a flurry of six letters in 1695 to none at all in 1696. The changing rates of correspondence and the absence of dated work may indicate a decrease in her active involvement with the court, or perhaps an encounter with an as yet unidentified private patron. We have little information about what support Luisa’s husband Luis Antonio may have provided the family; we know that in 1696 and 1697 he applied twice, both times unsuccessfully, for the position of ayuda de la furriera at court (a role supporting the keeper of the king’s pictures). This position of considerable esteem was usually occupied by Pintores del Rey and Pintores de Cámara such as Herrera el Mozo, Claudio Coello, and Luca Giordano, so despite his claims of being Luisa Roldán’s husband and a sculptor in his own right, his petition was never likely to succeed. On the second occasion he lost out to another candidate who did not need to be paid.45 We have evidence that Luis Antonio was the appraiser of the sculpture left in the estate of the Condesa de Villaumbrosa in 1702, and we know that he represented a 41 ‘la admiración de la corte’; from Ceán Bermúdez, Diccionario histórico…, IV, p. 237. 42 ‘tan bizarra, y perfecta, que puede competir con las estatuas más célebres de los Antiguos’; in Andrés Ximénez, Descripción, pp. 427–428. 43 ‘Fatigas de los cinceles / Destramente a un leño infunden, / Que al ser humano compite / Con sacras similitudes’; see Ceán Bermúdez, Diccionario histórico…, IV, p. 237. 44 ‘siendo tan estrechos los ahogos’; in Dominguez Ortiz, ‘Los gastos de corte’, p. 122. 45 Luca Giordano held the titles during his stay in Madrid as did other artists including Francisco Ruiz de la Iglesia, Claudio Coello and, before him, Juan Bautista del Mazo. Palomino applied for the position at the same time as Luis Antonio, but was also unsuccessful.

Life at Court: Luisa Roldán in Madrid 1689–1706 

family of Belgian merchants in 1705, which indicates that his knowledge was held in some regard by members of the aristocracy and the international community surrounding the court. 46 From time to time markers of financial optimism in the de los Arcos-Roldán household can be gleaned amidst the apparent economic gloom affecting the villa y corte. These included the enslavement of a person by purchase in 1698. While holding of enslaved persons was not uncommon at this time in Madrid, the enslavement of the seventeen-year-old Cathalina Francisca for 960 reales indicates that (at least for a period) the family’s financial straits were not as acute as might have been thought.47 This occurred in the same year as the Oropesa uprising, when in Madrid crowds publicly protested their poverty outside the gates of the royal palace. After more than a decade in Madrid, Luisa must have experienced the death of King Carlos II in November 1700 as a setback. Soon after, the new Bourbon king, seventeen-year-old Felipe V, arrived in Madrid, bringing with him the classical tastes favoured by his grandfather, the Sun King Louis XIV of France, as well as a familiarity with the Roman, Bolognese, and French works housed in Versailles. 48 Luisa’s prospects must have seemed uncertain, so she lost no time in campaigning for a place for herself in the new court, ruled by a new royal house. One week after the new King’s formal entry into Madrid, on 24 April, she sent Felipe two terracotta works. Soon after that she petitioned for the renewal of her position as Escultora de Cámara, with the associated salary. The details contained in the earliest known letter Luisa sent to Felipe V, dated 1 May 1701, suggest that not much had changed in relation to her status and her financial stability since she first wrote to his predecessor, nine years earlier: Just as she was about to achieve her reward for her work and study God took the King […] and as a result she has no resources with which to maintain herself and her children. For this reason she begs the king to order that she be given something so that she can feed herself and her children and a house in which to live. 49

46 For the Condesa de Villaumbrosa estate, see Agulló y Cobo, Documentos sobre escultores, p. 16. Notice of the work for the Belgians is found in AHPN, protocolo 14664, fols. 154r–156v. 47 For documentation of the purchase of Cathalina Francisca, see AHPN, protocolo 10508, 7 de mayo de 1698, fols. 264r–265r, transcribed in Hall-van den Elsen, Fuerza e intimismo, p. 278. 48 González García, ‘Academies’, p. 9. 49 From AGP, Expedientes Personales, Caja 914, Expediente 29, first published by Proske, ‘Luisa Roldán’, part 1, p. 130, n. 21: Y quando abia de lograr el premio de su gran trabaxo y estudio se llebo Dios a el Rey por cuia causa quedo […] con tan grabe nesecidad que le falta lo preciso para mantenerse ella y sus ijos. Y por esto es precisada a supplicar a Vuestra Magestad se tenga por serbido mandar se le de para poderse alimentar ella y sus ijos y casa en que vibir.

177

178 

Catherine Hall-van den Elsen

On 3 June Luisa wrote to Felipe V again, explaining: For over twelve years she has worked in the court, making more than eighty statues for His Majesty, paying for them with her own effort and money without having received a reward. And when she hoped [for the reward] God took the King. She is owed five years’ salary of one thousand Reales each year, and for this reason they have evicted her from her house that is owned by the Trinitarian nuns for being late with her rent. She begs Your Highness to order that she be paid her due, because she has nothing else with which to pay and be relieved of such a great burden.50

Luisa was eventually appointed Sculptor to the Royal Chamber ‘without pay, and owing 3,750 maravedíes’ on 9 October 1701.51 Her appointment was approved, notwithstanding the ambivalence of Fadrique Álvarez de Toledo Osorio, VII Marqués de Villafranca, the Mayordomo Mayor who wrote to the king on the same day: Your Majesty orders me to advise you in this matter and in terms of execution I advise you that it is with sculpture in clay that this woman has the greatest talent and which the King Our Lord who is in Heaven liked, since, as for the rest, her execution of works in wood is not remarkable.52

The apparently lukewarm endorsement by Villafranca, a long-time supporter of the Bourbon cause, reflected his understanding of the new King. Villafranca would have known that Luisa’s large wooden sculptures were unlikely to have interested Felipe, whose taste was inclined to those of his French grandfather. Indeed, many of the Pintores de Cámara who were attached to Felipe’s household were of Italian 50 AGP, Felipe V: Administrativa, Legajo 390; transcribed in Hall-van den Elsen, Fuerza e intimismo, p. 289:

dise que a mas de dose años que esta ocupada en palacio donde a echo mas de ochenta estatuas por manadado de Va Alt a costeandolas con su trabaxo y dinero çin aber tenido premio y quando lo esperaba se llebo Dios A el Rey. Y por que esta debiendo de la caza cinco años a racion de mil reales cada año y por esto le echan de la casa que es de las monjas Trinitarias y allandose tan pobre para pagar tan justa deuda supplico a Vuestra Alteza se tenga por serbido mandar se le pague lo que se le esta debiendo de los gaxes por no tener otra cosa de que pagar y salir de tan gran fatiga.

51 The debt refers to the media annata tax that was levied on servants of the court. Luisa was required to pay the tax in 1695, and again when her title was renewed by Felipe V. 52 In Proske, ‘Luisa Roldán’, part 1, p. 130, note 22:

Ordename V Mgd que sobre esta ynstancia diga mi parecer. Y en su execuçión dixe a Su Mgd que esta muger en lo que tiene mas abilidad es en lo que toca a las hechuras de tierra por lo qual gusto de ella el Rey Nuestro Sr que goza de Dios pues por lo demas la practica suya no es considerable por lo que mira a obras de Madera.

Life at Court: Luisa Roldán in Madrid 1689–1706 

and French origin although a number of Spanish-born painters did retain their titles ad honorem.53 After the reign of Felipe V commenced, a new patron began to commission works from Luisa in both wood and in terracotta. The X Duque del Infantado, Juan de Dios de Silva y Haro, ordered the first of many works in 1701. His accounts record the allocation of 5,758 reales to Luisa on 9 March. Even more substantial sums followed in the subsequent few years; these included payments for 173 figures for the aforementioned, now-lost, nativity scene; ‘the Ecce Homo’; and ‘the Virgin feeding the Christ Child’.54 The spectacularly large nativity scene was destined for the convent of Nuestra Señora del Rosal in Priego, Cuenca. The duke was a patron of the convent and of the mother superior, Madre Gerónima de Jesús.55 The work survived until 1936, disappearing after the convent was destroyed during the Spanish Civil War. The other sculptures listed in the Duque’s accounts may have been intended for the convent or for private chapels in his palaces. Besides these documented payments, however, no examples of Luisa’s work for the Duque have been definitively identified. A little-known Ecce Homo, on loan to the church of San Marcos in León (fig. 7.6), may be the work of that name listed in the Infantado accounts, although an early provenance has not been established.56 This work from Luisa’s late Madrid period represents a return to her Sevillian artistic roots. Unsigned, but persuasively attributed on stylistic grounds, this masterful Ecce Homo exemplifies Luisa’s style. Her painstaking definition of Christ’s tormented torso, arms, hands, and exhausted facial expression, enhanced by Luisa’s brother-in-law’s exceptionally fine polychromy, bring the reality of very human experience close to the viewer. The haunting, life-sized figure also shares many characteristics with two earlier Andalucían versions of the theme, one in Cádiz Cathedral and another in the Church of San Francisco y San Eulogio in Córdoba, securely attributed to Luisa. These also feature the downward gaze, tilted head that leads attention to the very marked structure of the clavicle, curls carefully carved around the shoulders, and clearly defined veins. But while the earlier Ecce Homo sculptures are dominated by a sense of resignation and fatigue, lighter flesh tones in the San Marcos version call attention to a more hesitant expression on the face of Christ. In another departure from the Andalucían versions, the rope and the crown of thorns that now accompany the San Marcos Ecce Homo were made separately, and post-date the sculpture. 53 Aterido, El final del Siglo de Oro, p. 360. 54 AHN, Osuna: cartas 393/12, transcribed in Hall-van den Elsen, Fuerza e intimismo, pp. 302–303. 55 In 1672 his father paid her dowry upon Madre Gerónima’s entry into the convent, and probably supported her throughout his life; on this, see Rodríguez de Cisneros, Vida de la venerable Sor Gerónima…; first noted in Hall-van den Elsen, ‘Life and Work’. 56 Cabaco and Abades, ‘Una obra inedita’.

179

180 

Catherine Hall-van den Elsen

Figure 7.6 Luisa Roldán, Ecce Homo, c. 1701, polychromed wood, c. 140 cm. León, Church of San Marco. Image Credit: Author, permission requested from Confraternity of Jesús de la Redención, León.

After an extended period of financial uncertainty, Luisa may have looked forward to the eighteenth century with optimism. Her role at court had survived the transition from the Habsburgs to the Bourbons and she had found a noble patron who was prepared to pay her regularly for her work. Still one more achievement remained

Life at Court: Luisa Roldán in Madrid 1689–1706 

that bolstered her successes and prestige. Upon submitting a terracotta relief of the Virgo Lactans to the Roman Accademia de San Luca, in 1706 Luisa received the title ‘Accademica di Mérito’, an award that would surely have enhanced her reputation.57 Under the direction of Carlo Maratta, the Accademia was supported by Pope Clement XI, who used it to foster artistic endeavour in Rome. Many papal artists of the early eighteenth century participated in student competitions funded by the pope at the Accademia. It is likely that Luisa knew of the Accademia’s papal connection through her son Francisco, who studied painting in Rome under Maratta.58 We know the relief that Luisa submitted to the Academy only through the description in the archives of the Roman Accademia: ‘a Madonna in clay relief done by her own hand, coloured with putti and Our Lord’.59 Two small, terracotta reliefs of the Virgin with the Christ Child survive that may be similar to the work submitted to Maratta, one of which is now in the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela and the other in the Museo de Bellas Artes, Seville. On 10 January 1706, the very day she was honoured by the Roman Academy, Luisa died in Madrid. Her death occurred just five days after the artist made a will that she was too weak to sign. In the short and simple document Luisa declares that she has no property to leave her children.60 She could not afford to pay for her funeral and was buried as a pauper. Such financial straits contrast markedly with the financially comfortable existence that her family appear to have enjoyed during their time in Seville, as suggested by the houses that Luis Antonio had sub-let and the enslaved persons that they had held. It is possible that the brevity of her will relates to a sudden, unexpected illness, but without further information it is not possible to establish the circumstances of the sculptor’s final days. Neither Luisa nor Luis Antonio (who died five years later, in 1711) declared any property in their testaments. In fact, Luis Antonio’s will refers to a debt of 6,000 reales relating to unpaid rent from the previous century about which Luisa had written to Felipe V in 1701.61 Luisa’s burial record, formerly in Madrid’s Church of San Andrés but now lost, registered her residence in the ‘houses of the Duque del Infantado’ in the Calle

57 ASAN, vol. 46/A, fols. 49r–50r, transcribed in Hall-van den Elsen, Fuerza e intimismo, p. 305: ‘Accademica di Merito: Donna Aloisa de los Arcos da Madrid, Castigliana, la quale havendo dato in dono una Madonna di rilievo di cretacotta fatta di sua mano colorita con putti e Nostro Signore’. 58 Serrano Estrella, ‘El regalo devocional entre España y Roma’, p. 303, note 52. 59 Ibid. 60 AHPN, Protocolo 10515, fols. 124r–124v, transcribed in Hall-van den Elsen, Fuerza e intimismo, pp. 304; also see ídem, pp. 305–306. 61 See note 50 above for Luisa’s reference to her family’s eviction from a house owned by the Trinitarian nuns. For Luis Antonio’s will, see APPN, Protocolo 13625, fols. 578r–579v (alt. pag. fols. 596r–597v), transcribed in Hall-van den Elsen, Fuerza e intimismo, pp. 311–312.

181

182 

Catherine Hall-van den Elsen

del Gato, a street in a prosperous zone of Madrid.62 The street no longer exists but once backed on to the Duque del Infantado’s palace in the parish of San Andrés. This accommodation may have been provided by the Duque, as no records of a debt to him have been located. Luisa Roldán was an unarguably resilient and productive woman. Palomino acknowledged her role as one of Madrid’s foremost sculptors, and declared that she left ‘an immortal name’.63 Despite Palomino’s praise, Luisa’s declaration of poverty suggests that the role of court sculptor was still far from a lucrative one. An active sculptor, recipient of funds from the Royal Court and the Duque del Infantado, wife of a man who was (at least occasionally) involved in commerce of some kind, and mother of a son who studied art in Rome, Luisa’s last recorded statement implies that she died in abject poverty.64 While recognized as the practitioner of a liberal art, and the only Spanish artist of her time to be honoured by the Roman Academy, at court she barely received the benefits of an artisan. Luisa’s gender did not prevent her from marrying the man of her choosing or from achieving the recognition of her contemporaries. Her presence as a woman at court appears to have created few, if any, ripples; no records have been found that identify gender as a career-restraining issue from the perspectives of the institutions with which she engaged. The only letter that has been identified in which she refers to her gender was written in November 1692, early in her time at court.65 The responses to that letter do not indicate that any attention was paid to the fact that she was female. It is possible that Luisa bore the dual responsibility of breadwinner and family caregiver although we have no information about the role that Luis Antonio, his family, servants, or enslaved persons may have played in supporting her career. Luisa’s life in Madrid was characterized by her status as an outsider on various levels: as a sculptor in an environment where painting received greater acclaim; a female in a male-dominated artistic community; and as an Andalucían in the capital many years after the influx of artists from that province had waned. Her enduring and indeed now-growing public recognition owes much to her ability to adapt to dynamic circumstances, by reaching beyond gendered horizons, by moving cities, by changing the medium with which she worked, and by referencing contemporary concerns in her sculptures. Palomino’s reference to Luisa’s immortal 62 The Calle del Gato is included in Pedro Texeira’s map of Madrid, Mantua carpetanorum sive matritum urbs regia; Antwerp 1656, Joannis and Jacobi van Veerle. 63 Palomino de Castro y Velasco, El Parnaso, p. 464. Palomino knew Luisa and Luis Antonio, and describes having often visited Luisa at her home. 64 Spanish law acknowledged the right of a husband over all commonly held property, but wills of the time are replete with exemptions, usually relating to inheritances and dowries. 65 See note 24.

Life at Court: Luisa Roldán in Madrid 1689–1706 

name rings true today, acknowledging an artist of significance whose work in terracotta and wood embodies the concerns of the turbulent religious and social environment she inhabited.

Bibliography Manuscript Sources AGP, Archivo General del Palacio Real, Madrid, Carlos II: Administrativa, legajo 631. Expedientes Personales, Caja 914, Expediente 29. Felipe V: Administrativa, legajo 390. AGS, Archivo General de Simancas, Simancas, Casa Real, Legajo 319. AHN, Archivo Histórico Nacional, Madrid, Osuna: Cartas 393/12. AHPN, Archivo Histórico de Protocolos Notariales, Madrid, Protocolo 10508, folios 264r–265r. Protocolo 10515, folios 124r–124v. Protocolo 13625, folios 578r–79v. Protocolo 14664, folios. 154r–156r/v. APPN, Archivo Provincial de Protocolos Notariales, Madrid, Protocolo 13625, fols. 578r–79v (alternative pagination fols. 596r–97v). ASAN, Archivio Storico dell’Accademia Nazionale di San Luca, Rome, Vol. 46/A, fols. 49r–50r.

Published Sources Agulló y Cobo, Mercedes. ‘El escultor Morelli y sus hijos en la Corte española’, Boletín del Museo Nacional de Escultura 6 (2002), 26–35. ––– Documentos sobre escultores, entalladores y ensambladores de los siglos XVI al XVIII (Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid, 1978). Amat, Elena. Luisa Roldán: su vida y sus obras (Madrid: Universidad Central, 1927). Aranda Bernal, Ana. ‘Ser mujer y artista en la España de la edad moderna’, in Roldana, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Jose Luis Romero Torres and Antonio Torrejón (Seville: Junta de Andalucía, 2007), pp. 33–51. Aterido, Ángel. El final del Siglo de Oro: la pintura en Madrid en el cambio dinástico 1685–1726 (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 2015).

183

184 

Catherine Hall-van den Elsen

Cabaco, Sergio, and Abades Jesús. ‘Una obra inédita de la Roldana en Madrid’, La Hornacina (2 September 2001). Accessed 20 January 2018, http://www.lahornacina.com/ articulosroldana.htm. Carducho, Vicente. Diálogos de la pintura: su defensa, origen, esse[n]cia, definicion, modos y diferencias (Madrid: Francisco Martínez, 1633). Ceán Bermúdez, Juan. Diccionario histórico de los más ilustres profesores de las bellas artes en España, 6 vols. (Madrid: Real Academia de San Fernando, 1800). Chenel, A.P. ‘Don Juan José de Austria sostiendo la monarquía de Pedro de Villafranca: imagen del valimiento’, Imago: Revista de emblemátca y cultura visual 3 (2011), 35–50. Contreras, Jaime. Carlos II el hechizado: poder y melancolia en la corte del último Austria (Madrid: Temas de Hoy, 2003). Defourneaux, Marcelín. Daily Life in Spain in the Golden Age (London: Allen and Unwin, 1970). Domínguez Ortiz, Antonio. ‘Los gastos de Corte en la España del siglo XVII’, in Homenaje a Jaume Vicens Vives, 2 vols. (Barcelona: 1967), II, pp. 113–124. Enggass, Robert, and Jonathan Brown. Sources and Documents: Italy and Spain (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1970). Espinosa Romero, Jesús, Juan Antonio González Pañero, José Sánchez Jurado, and José A. Nieto Sánchez. ‘La feudalización de la sociedad madrileña en el siglo XVII’, in Madrid, atlas histórico, ed. by Virgilio Pinto Crespo (Madrid: Lunwerg Editores, 2001), pp. 182–193. Fuentes Lázaro, Sara. ‘Luca Giordano en la basílica de el Escorial. Fortuna crítica y recepción según talavera, santos y Palomino’, Reales sitios: revista del patrimonio nacional 178 (2008), 4–25. González García, Juan Luis. ‘Academies and Amateurs: Philip V’s Collecting between France and Spain’, Dieciocho 35, no. 1 (Spring 2012), 7–20. Hall-van den Elsen, Catherine. Luisa Roldán (London: Lund Humphries, 2021). ––– ‘Luisa Roldán’ in Oxford Bibliographies in Art History, ed. by Thomas DaCosta Kauffman (New York: Oxford University Press, 2020). ––– Fuerza e intimismo: Luisa Roldán escultora 1652–1706 (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 2018). ––– ‘Luisa Roldán, “La Roldana”: aportaciones documentales y artísticas’, in Roldana, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Jose Luis Romero Torres and Antonio Torrejón Díaz (Seville: Junta de Andalucía, 2007), pp. 19–32. ––– ‘The Life and Work of Luisa Roldán 1652–1706, with a Catalogue Raisonné’, Ph.D. Dissertation (Melbourne: La Trobe University, 1992). Hernández Bermejo, María Angeles. ‘La imagen de la mujer en la literatura moral y religiosa de los siglos XVI y XVII’, Revista de Historia 8–9 (1987–1988), 175–188. Iradiel Murugarren, Paulino. ‘Familia y función económica de la mujer en actividades no agrarias’, in La condición de la mujer en la Edad Media: actas del coloquio celebrado en la Casa de Velázquez, 5–7 November 1984 (Madrid: Universidad Complutense, Casa de Velázquez, 1985), pp. 223–260.

Life at Court: Luisa Roldán in Madrid 1689–1706 

Lamas Delgado, Eduardo. ‘Nuevas consideraciones sobre los títulos cortesanos del pintor Francisco Rizi’, Archivo Español de Arte 325 (2009), 73–78. Llopis Agelán, Enrique, and Héctor García Montero. ‘Precios y salarios en Madrid, 1680–1800’, Investigaciones de Historia Económica 7 (2011), 295–309. Martín González, Juan José. El escultor en palacio: viaje a través de escultura de los Austria (Madrid: Gredos, 1991). Martínez Leiva, Gloria. ‘St. Michael Defeating the Devil by Lorenzo Vaccaro: A Sculpture to Intercede for the Souls of Several Important Owners’, Journal of the History of Collections 30 (March 2018). Accessed 20 March 2018, https://doi.org/10.1093/jhc/fhw046. McKendrick, Melveena. Women and Society in Spanish Drama of the Golden Age: A Study of the Mujer Varonil (London: Cambridge University Press, 1974). Montoto, Santiago. ‘El casamiento de la Roldana’, Boletín de la Academia Sevillana de Buenas Letras 4, no. 15 (1920), 113–120; no. 16 (1920), 144–148. Nieremberg, Iuan Eusebio. De la devocion, y patrocinio de San Migvel principe de los Angeles antigvo tvtelar de los godos y protector de España: en que se proponen sus grandes excelencias, y titulos que ay para implorar su patrocinio (Mexico: Viuda de Bernardo Calderón, 1643). Núñez de Castro, Alonso. Libro histórico politico: solo Madrid es corte y el cortesano en Madrid (Madrid: Riero y Tejada and Rico de Miranda, 1675). Palomino de Castro y Velasco, Asisclo Antonio. El parnaso Español pintoresco Laureado, vol. 3, Con las vidas de los pintores, y estatuarios eminentes españoles, qve con svs heroycas obras han illustrado la nación, 2nd ed. (Madrid: Bedmar, 1796). ––– Lives of the Eminent Spanish Painters and Sculptors, trans. by Nina Ayala Mallory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988). Pinto Crespo, Virgilio, ed. Madrid, atlas histórico de la ciudad siglos IX–XIX (Madrid: Lunwerg Editores, 2001). ––– ‘La iglesia, organización y presencia’, in Madrid, atlas histórico de la ciudad siglos IX–XIX, ed. by Virgilio Pinto Crespo (Madrid: Lunwerg Editores, 2001), pp. 296–311. Proske, Beatrice Gilman. ‘Luisa Roldán at Madrid’, Connoisseur, part 1, 624 (1964), pp. 128–132; part 2, 625 (1964), pp. 199–203; part 3, 626 (1964), pp. 269–273. Ribot, Luis ‘El rey ante el espejo. historia y memoria de Carlos II’, in Carlos II. El rey y su entorno cortesano, ed. by L. Ribot (Madrid: Centro de Estudios Europa Hispánica, 2009), pp. 13–52. ––– ed. Carlos II. El rey y su entorno cortesano (Madrid: Centro de Estudios Europa Hispánica, 2009). Rodríguez de Cisneros, Juan. Vida de la venerable Sor Gerónima de Jesús y Carillo, monja profesa y abadesa que fue en el Convento de la Inmaculada Concepción, extramuros de Priego (Madrid: Tomás Rodríguez Frías, 1727). Romero Torres, José Luis. ‘Don Cristóbal de Ontañón y Enríquez, protector de la escultora Luisa Roldán y otros artistas de la corte de Carlos II’, Cuadernos de los Amigos de los Museos de Osuna 17 (2015), 30–36.

185

186 

Catherine Hall-van den Elsen

––– ‘La escultora Luisa Roldán. Del arte sevillano al ambiente cortesano’, in Roldana, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Jose Luis Romero Torres and Antonio Torrejón Díaz (Seville: Junta de Andalucía, 2007), pp. 127–147. Sánchez, Magdalena, and Alain Saint-Saëns Alain, eds. Spanish Women in the Golden Age: Images and Realities (Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1996). Serrano Estrella, Felipe. ‘El regalo devocional entre España y Roma: el “Nazareno” de Luisa Roldán’, Goya: Revista de arte 353 (2015), 288–303. Smith, Dawn, and Anita K. Stoll, The Perception of Women in Spanish Theatre of the Golden Age (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1991). Soubeyroux, Jacques. ‘Pauperisme et rapports sociaux a Madrid au XVIIIème siècle’, Ph.D. Dissertation (Lille: Université de Lille, 1971). Torrejón Díaz, Antonio. ‘El entorno familiar y artístico de La Roldana, el taller de Pedro Roldán’, in Roldana, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Jose Luis Romero Torres and Antonio Torrejón Díaz (Seville: Junta de Andalucía, 2007), pp. 53–75. Trusted, Marjorie. ‘Art for the Masses: Spanish Sculpture in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries’, in Sculpture and Its Reproductions, ed. by Anthony Hughes and Erich Ranff (London: Reaktion Books, 1997), pp. 46–60. Véliz Bomford, Zahira, and Ángel Aterido. ‘Caring for the King’s Pictures: Artists and Restorers in the Spanish Royal Collection, 1576–1814’, The Burlington Magazine 158, no. 1359 (June 2016), 447–459. Ximénez, Andrés. Descripción del Real Monasterio de San Lorenzo del Escorial, (Madrid: Antonio Marín, 1764).

About the author Catherine Hall-van den Elsen completed her doctoral thesis at La Trobe University, Melbourne. She has published contributions to the catalogue Roldana (Seville, 2007), a monograph Fuerza e Intimismo: Luisa Roldán (Madrid, 2018) and an annotated bibliography on Roldán (Oxford, 2020), and an English-language monograph Luisa Roldán (London, 2021).

Bibliography Manuscript Sources AGP, Archivo General del Palacio Real, Madrid, Carlos II: Administrativa, legajo 631. ‘Etiquetas’, Caja 49, Sección Histórica, exp. 3. Expedientes Personales, Caja 914, Expediente 29. Felipe V: Administrativa, legajo 390. AGS, Archivo General de Simancas, Simancas, Casa Real, Legajo 319. Casa Real, Nomina de la Casa de la Reina, leg. 53 and leg. 52, n.1, fol. 153r. Casas y Sitios Reales, leg. 36, 37, 40 and 41. Casas y Sitios Reales, leg. 79, fol. 60r and leg. 40, fol. 625r. Estado, leg. 1210, fols. 153r and 190r. Secretarias Provinciales, libro 1335, fols. 201r–202v. AHN, Archivo Histórico Nacional, Madrid, Consejos, leg. 15188. Consejos. Cámara de Castilla. Patronato Osuna: Cartas 393/12. AHPN, Archivo Histórico de Protocolos Notariales, Madrid, Protocolo 10508, fols. 264r–2655. Protocolo 10515, fols. 124r–124v. Protocolo 13625, fols. 578r–579v. Protocolo 14664, fols. 154r–156r/v. APPN, Archivo Provincial de Protocolos Notariales, Madrid, Protocolo 13625, fols. 578r–579v (alternative pagination fols. 596r–597v). ASAN, Archivio Storico dell’Accademia Nazionale di San Luca, Rome, Vol. 46/A, fols. 49r–50r. ASCr, Archivio di Stato, Cremona, Archivio Notarile 1045, 1000. Filciae Fragmentorum 26, 27, 33. ASF, Archivio di Stato, Florence, Depositaria Generale 1600 Giornale, e Ricordi è della Ser[enissi]ma Vittoria Leonora della Rovere Gran Duche[s] sa di Toscana, Cominciato qu[e]sto dì 5 Maggio 1655, in Firenze (1655–1685). Ducato di Urbino, classe I, Divisione G, filza 184, fol. 54r, 57r/v. Ducato di Urbino, classe I, Divisione G, filza 184, fol. 619r.

188 Bibliography

Guardaroba Medicea 674 Revisione della Guardaroba della Serenissima Gran Duchessa per Amministrazione del Sig[no]re Jacopo Giacomini, Guardaroba dell’A[ltezza] S[erenissima] (19 Gennaio 1638–16 Aprile 1654 (revisionato da Bastiano Venturi Computista della Serenissima Gran Duchessa 19 Ottobre 1654–6 Maggio 1656). Manoscritti 160 Ricordi di Giovanni Battista Ricci, 10 Aprile 1637–19 Settembre 1678. MdP 6174 Mediceo del Principato 6174, Minute di Lettere della Gran Duchessa Vittoria della Rovere, 1664–1666. MdP 6175 Mediceo del Principato 6175, Minute di Lettere della Ser[enissi]ma Gran Duchessa Vittoria da 16 Genn[ar]o 1666 ab.Inc[arnazio]ne à tutto Dicembre 1669 (16 January 1667–31 December 1669). MdP 6180 Mediceo del Principato 6180, Minute di lettere della Serenisssima Granduchessa Vittoria di Toscana 1681 à tutto Dicembre 1684. MdP 6186 Mediceo del Principato 6186, Lettere scritte al Sig[no]re Sen[ato]re Cerchi Seg[reta]rio della Ser[enissim]a Gran Duchessa Vittoria da 2 jennaio 1663 ab inc[arnazion]e al 31 Xbre 1666 (2 January 1664–31 December 1666). MdP 6251d, II, Entrata e Uscita A14 Mediceo del Principato, Filza dell’Entrata e Uscita A14 della Tesaureria della Serenissima Gran Duchessa Vittoria di Toscana. MdP 6251d, II, Entrata e Uscita B1 Mediceo del Principato 6251d, II, Filza dell’Entrata e Uscita B1 della Tesaureria della Serenissima Gran Duchessa Vittoria di Toscana. MdP 6263 Mediceo del Principato 6263, Quaderni ed Inventari della Guardaroba della Ser[enissi]ma Gran Duchessa Vittoria della Rovere. MdP, filza 4902, fol. 56v Mediceo del Principato, filza 4902, fol. 56v. Miscellanea Medicea 12, Insert 11, Folder 6 Miscellanea Medicea 12, Insert 11, Folder 6, Vittoria della Rovere Ultimi Testa[menti] cioè Testamenti e Codicilli: ‘Copia del Testamento della Ser[enissi]ma Gran Duchessa Vittoria in Carte 25, ricevuto p[er] mano di me: Girolamo Tozzetti Notaro publico fiorentino, 14 Xmbre 1676. In Firenze’ (fols. 113r–138r). Miscellanea Medicea 12, Insert 11, Folder 8 Miscellanea Medicea 12, Insert 11, Folder 8, Granduchessa Vittoria della Rovere in Medici. Mobili e Gioie e Quadri. Inventari 1635–1675. Miscellanea Medicea 12, Insert 11, Folder 9

Bibliography 

Miscellanea Medicea 12, Insert 11, Folder 9, Testamento (in Copia) di Donna Livia di Montefeltro Duchessa d’Urbino che instituì Sua Erede universale la Gran Duchessa Vittoria della Rovere Sua Nipote, e Moglie di Ferdinando II°. ASMi, Archivio di Stato, Milan, Famiglie 6, Anguissola. ASMn, Archivio di Stato, Mantua, Gonzaga Esteri, b. 590, fol. 96r. Biblioteca Olivierana, Pesaro, Ms. 375, vol. VI, c. 99v. BL, British Library, London, Add. Ms. 16495. Ms Add 16495, Scritture della Casa Medici e Toscana, Tomo II, del Cav. Don Vincenzio Ranuzi: ‘Racolta di Notizie attenenti alla Ser:ma Casa Medici, et al Governo Toscana dal principio del suo Regnare, fino al presente, nella quale sono inserite anche molti cose di Firenze, degna di memoria, 1689’ (anon.) fols. 183r–262r. Add. Ms. 28354, fols. 84r, 88r, 93v, 289r, 290r, 299r, 300r, 376r. BNE, Biblioteca Nacional de España, Madrid, Ms. 10.129, ‘Etiquetas de Palacio. Felipe II’, fols. 75r–91v. Ms. 6176, Relacion del rrecibimiento y fiestas que se hizieron a la reyna nra senora, muger del rrey don felipe nro senor, quando el ano de quins. e sesenta e cinco fue a ver a la reina de Francia su madre y al rey de Francia su hermano a Francia en vayona que (es) tres leguas de la raya de castilla, fols. 127r/v–136r/v. R/4474, Dignidad de las damas de la reyna. noticias de su origen, y honores. consagrada a sus aras por un devoto. Impreso en 26 noviembre 1670. R/31738, López de Villalobos, Francisco, Libro intitulado los problemas de villalobos: que tracta de cuerpos naturales y morales; y dos dialogos d[e] medicina; y el tractado de las tres gra[n]des; y vna cancion; y la comedia de amphytrion. Impreso en casa de George Coci 1544, fol. XIr. BNF, Bibliothèque Nacional de France, Paris, Fonds français, vol. 6614, fol. 58r.

Published Sources Agulló y Cobo, Mercedes. ‘El escultor Morelli y sus hijos en la Corte española’, Boletín del Museo Nacional de Escultura 6 (2002), 26–35. ——— Documentos sobre escultores, entalladores y ensambladores de los siglos XVI al XVIII (Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid, 1978).

189

190 Bibliography

Akkerman, Nadine and Birgit Houben, eds. The Politics of Female Households: Ladies-inWaiting across Early Modern Europe (Leiden: Brill, 2014). Alberi, Eugenio. Relazioni degli ambasciatori veneti al senato, ser. I, V (Florence: Clio, 1861). ——— Relazioni degli ambasciatori veneti al senato, ser. II, V (Florence: Clio, 1857). Allgemeines Künstler-Lexikon, Die Bildenden Künstler aller Zeiten und Völker, 112 vols. (Munich and Lipsia: K. G. Saur, 1983‒). Alonso Sánchez Coello y el retrato en la corte de Felipe II, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Juan Miguel Serrera (Madrid: Museo Naciónal del Prado, 1990). Álvarez-Ossorio Alvariño, Antonio. ‘El arte de medrar en la corte: rey, nobleza y el código del honor’, in Familias, poderosos y oligarquías: Seminario ‘Familia y élite de poder en el reino de Murcia. Siglos XV–XIX, ed. by Francisco Chacón Jiménez and Juan Hernández Franco (Murcia: EDITUM, 2001), pp. 39–60. Amat, Elena. Luisa Roldán: su vida y sus obras (Madrid: Universidad Central, 1927). Angelika Kauffmann, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Bettina Baumgärtel (Ostfildern: Düsseldorf, Kunstmuseum, 1998). Angelika Kauffmann, Ein Weib von ungeheurem Talent, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Tobias G. Natter (Ostfildern: Bregenz, Vorarlberger Landesmuseum, 2007). Anguissola Scotti, Orazio. La famiglia Anguissola (Piacenza: Gallarati, 1976). Aranda Bernal, Ana. ‘Ser mujer y artista en la España de la edad moderna’, in Roldana, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Jose Luis Romero Torres and Antonio Torrejón Díaz (Seville: Junta de Andalucía, 2007), pp. 33–51. Aretino, Pietro. Lettere, 3 vols. (Venice: Francesco Marcolini, 1538). Aristotle. De generatione animalium, trans. by Arthur Platt (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910). Artemisia, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Letizia Treves (London: National Gallery Company, 2020). Aterido, Ángel. El final del Siglo de Oro: la pintura en Madrid en el cambio dinástico 1685–1726 (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 2015). Baader, Hannah, ed. Im Agon der Künste, Paragonales Denken, ästhetische Praxis und die Diversität der Sinne (München: Fink, 2007). Bal, Miek, ed. The Artemisia Files: Artemisia Gentileschi for Feminists and Other Thinking People (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005). Baldwin, Pamela Holmes. ‘Sofonisba Anguissola in Spain: Portraiture as Art and Social Practice at a Renaissance Court’, Ph.D. Dissertation (Bryn Mawr: Bryn Mawr College, 1995). Bandera, Padre Giovanni. Marta Tana Gonzaga (Castelgoffredo: Cassa rurale e artigiana, 1991). Barker, Emma. ‘Women Artists and the French Academy: Vigée-Lebrun in the 1780s’, in Gender and Art, ed. by Gill Perry (London: Yale University Press, 1999), pp. 108–127. Barletta, Chiara. ‘Ritratto di donna’, in Dipinti e disegni della pinacoteca civica di Pesaro, ed. by Giardini Claudio, Negro Emilio, Pirondini Massimo (Modena: Artioli, 1993), p. 124.

Bibliography 

Barocchi, Paola, and Giovanna Gaeta Bertelà, eds., Collezionismo Mediceo e storia artistica, II: Il Cardinale Carlo, Maria Maddalena, Don Lorenzo, Ferdinando II, Vittoria della Rovere 1621–1666 (Florence: S.P.E.S., 2005). Bartsch, Adam. Le peintre graveur, 21 vols. (Vienna: J.V. Degen, 1803–1821). Bath, Michael. Emblems for a Queen: The Needlework of Mary, Queen of Scots (London: Archetype, 2008). Battersby, Christine. Gender and Genius: Towards a Feminist Aesthetics (London: Women’s Press, 1989). Bautier, Pierre. ‘Les portraits de Vittoria della Rovere Grande-Duchesse de Toscane par Suttermans’, Revue Belge d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de l’Art 10, no. 1 (1940), 35–39. Bellini, Paolo, ed. L’opera incisa di Adamo e Diana Scultori (Vicenza: Neri Pozza, 1991). Benadusi, Giovanna. ‘The Gender Politics of Vittoria della Rovere’, in Medici Women: The Making of a Dynasty in Grand Ducal Tuscany, ed. by Giovanna Benadusi and Judith C. Brown (Toronto: CRRS, 2015), pp. 264–301. ——— ‘Carteggi e negozi della granduchessa Vittoria della Rovere (1634–1694)’, in Le Donne Medici nel sistema Europeo delle corti (XVI–XVIII secolo), ed. by Giulia Calvi and Riccardo Spinelli, 2 vols. (Florence: Edizione Polistampa, 2008), I, pp. 415–432. Bertolotti, Antonio. ‘Prime notizie della tipografia in Mantova’, Il Bibliofilo 10 (1889), 26–30. Benzoni, Gino. ‘Francesco Maria della Rovere’, in Dizionario Biograf ico degli italiani. Accessed 12  Februar y 2016, http://w w w.treccani.it/enciclopedia/ francesco-maria-ii-della-rovere-duca-di-urbino_%28Dizionario-Biografico%29/. Bertomeu Masiá, Maria José. La guerra secreta de Carlos V contra el Papa: La cuestión de Parma y Piacenza en la correspondencia del cardenal Granvela (Valencia: Universitat de Valéncia, 2011). Birnfeld, Nicole. ‘Ein Leben für die Kunst? – Anmerkungen zu Pictura-Darstellungen nördlich der Alpen’, in (En)gendered, Frühneuzeitlicher Kunstdiskurs und weibliche Porträtkultur nördlich der Alpen, ed. by Simone Roggendorf and Sigrid Ruby (Marburg: Jonas, 2004), pp. 111–122. Bissell, Raymond Ward. Artemisia Gentileschi and the Authority of Art (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1999). Bohn, Babette. ‘Il fenomeno della firma, Elisabetta Sirani e le firme dei pittori a Bologna’, in Elisabetta Sirani, ‘pittrice eroina’ 1638–1665, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Jadranka Bentini and Vera Fortunati (Bologna: Museo Civico Archeologico, 2004), pp. 107–117. Bonetti, Carlo. ‘Nel centenario di Sofonisba Anguissola’, Archivio Storico Lombardo 3 (1928), 285–306. Boogert, Bob C. van den. ‘Mary of Hungary as a Patron of the Arts’, in Los inventarios de Carlos V y la familia imperial, ed. by Juan Luis González García, 3 vols. (Madrid: Fernando Villaverde, 2010), III, pp. 2807–2822. Boorsch, Suzanne, and David Landau. ‘Mantegna and Prints’, The Burlington Magazine 135 (1993), 826–828.

191

192 Bibliography

Boorsch, Suzanne, Michal Lewis, and R.E. Lewis. The Engravings of Giorgio Ghisi (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1985). Borea, Evelina. ‘Stampa figurativa a pubblico dalle origini all’affermazione nel Cinquecento’, in Storia dell’arte italiana, Parte 1, Materiali e problemi, vol. 2, L’artista e il pubblico, ed. by Giovanni Previtali, Giulio Bollati, and Paolo Fossati (Turin: Giulio Einaudi editore, 1979), pp. 317–413. Borghini, Millo. Sofonisba: una vita per la pittura e la libertà (Milan: Spirali, 2006). Borzello, Frances. A World of Our Own, Women as Artists (London: Thames and Hudson, 2000). ——— Wie Frauen sich sehen, Selbstbildnisse aus fünf Jahrhunderten (Munich: Blessing, 1998). de Bourdeilles (Sieur de Branthóme), Pierre. ‘Rodomontades et gentilles rencontres espagnoles’, in Oeuvres complètes, 20 vols. (Paris: Lahure, 1858–1895), VII (1873), pp. 1–177. Brancati, Francesca. ‘Ritratto della dama spagnola’, in Pittura baroccesca nella provincia di Pesaro e Urbino, ed. by Cleri Bonita, (Pesaro: Società Pesarese di Studi Storici, 2008), pp. 134–135. Bronzino, Agnolo. Rime in Burla (Rome: Istituto delle Enciclopedia Italiana, 1988). Bury, Michael. ‘Infringing Privileges and Copying in Rome, c. 1600’, Print Quarterly 22 (2005), 133–138. ——— The Print in Italy, 1550–1620 (London: The British Museum Press, 2001). ——— ‘On Some Engravings by Giorgio Ghisi Commonly Called “Reproductive”’, Print Quarterly 10 (1993), 4–19. Cabaco, Sergio, and Abades Jesús. ‘Una obra inédita de la Roldana en Madrid’, La Hornacina (2 September 2001). Accessed 20 January 2018, http://www.lahornacina.com/ articulosroldana.htm. Calegari, Grazia. ‘Alcuni rapporti tra i Della Rovere e la corte spagnola’, in Pesaro nell’età dei Della Rovere, ed. by Brancati Maria Letizia, 2 vols. (Venice: Marsilio, 2002), II, pp. 307–322. Campbell, Angela, and Andrew Raftery. ‘Remaking Dürer: Investigating the Master Engravings by Masterful Engraving’, Art in Print 2, no. 4 (2012), 15–21. Campbell, Lorne, and Susan Foister. ‘Gerard, Lucas and Susanna Horenbout’, The Burlington Magazine 128, no. 1003 (Oct. 1986), 719–727. Campbell, Stephen J. ‘Introduction’, in Artists at Court: Image-Making and Identity (1300–1500), ed. by Stephen J. Campbell (Boston: Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, 2005), pp. 9–18. Canova, Andrea. ‘Gian Marco Cavalli incisore per Andrea Mantegna e altre notizie sull’oreficeria e la tipografia a Mantova nel XV secolo’, Italia medioevale e umanistica 42 (2001), 149–179. Caravaggio, Originale und Kopien im Spiegel der Forschung, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Jürgen von Harten and Jean Hubert Martin (Ostfeldern: Düsseldorf, Museum Kunst Palast, 2006). Carducho, Vicente. Diálogos de la pintura: su defensa, origen, esse[n]cia, definicion, modos y diferencias (Madrid: Francisco Martínez, 1633).

Bibliography 

Caroli, Flavio. Sofonisba Anguissola e le sue sorelle (Milan: Mondadori, 1987). Catherine la Grande, Un art pour l’Empire, chefs-d’oeuvre du Musée de l’Ermitage de SaintPétersbourg, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Nathalie Bondil (Toronto: Art Gallery of Ontario / Montreal Museum of Fine Arts, 2005). Castiglione, Baldassare. The Book of the Courtier, trans. by George Bull (New York: Penguin, 1967). Ceán Bermúdez, Juan. Diccionario histórico de los más ilustres profesores de las bellas artes en España, 6 vols. (Madrid: Real Academia de San Fernando, 1800). Chenaye-Desbois, Francoise-Alexandre Aubert de La. Dictionnaire de la noblesse, contenant les généalogies, l’histoire & la chronologie des familles nobles de France…, 10 vols. (Paris: Antoine Boudet, 1774). Chenel, A.P. ‘Don Juan José de Austria sostiendo la monarquía de Pedro de Villafranca: imagen del valimiento’, Imago: Revista de emblemátca y cultura visual 3 (2011), 35–50. Chicago, Judy, and Edward Lucie-Smith. Der andere Blick, Die Frau als Modell und Malerin (Munich: Knesebeck, 2000). Christadler, Maike. Kreativität und Geschlecht, Giorgio Vasari’s ‘Vite’ und Sofonisba Anguissolas Selbst-Bilder (Berlin: Reimer, 2000). Christiansen, Keith. ‘The Case for Mantegna as Printmaker’, The Burlington Magazine 135 (1993), 604–612. ——— ‘Some Observations on Mantegna’s Painting Technique’, in Andrea Mantegna, ed. by Jane Martineau (London: Thames and Hudson, 1992), pp. 68–78. Cole, Michael W. Sofonisba’s Lesson: A Renaissance Artist and her Work (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2020). Coller, Alexandra. ‘How to Succeed at Court: Annibal Guasco’s Advice to his Daughter Lavinia and Renaissance Manuals of Conduct’, California Italian Studies 4, no. 2 (2013), 1–31. Contreras, Jaime. Carlos II el hechizado: poder y melancolia en la corte del último Austria (Madrid: Temas de Hoy, 2003). Cremer, Annette C., Matthias Müller, and Klaus Pietschmann, eds. Fürst und Fürstin als Künstler, Herrschaftliches Künstlertum zwischen Habitus, Norm und Neigung (Berlin: Lukas, 2018). Cropper, Elizabeth. ‘New Documents for Artemisia Gentileschi’s Life in Florence’, The Burlington Magazine 135 (1993), 760–761. Dabbs, Julia K. Life Stories of Women Artists, 1550–1800, An Anthology (Farnham: Ashgate 2009). ——— ‘Anecdotal Insights: Changing Perceptions of Italian Women Artists in EighteenthCentury Life-Stories’, Eighteenth-Century Women: Studies in Their Lives, Work and Culture 5 (2008), 29–52. Dadson, Trevor. ‘The Education, Books and Reading Habits of Ana de Mendoza y de la Cerda’, in Women’s Literacy in Early Modern Spain and the New World, ed. by Anne J. Cruz and Rosilie Hernández (Farnham: Ashgate, 2011), pp. 79–102.

193

194 Bibliography

D’Arco, Carlo. Istoria della vita ed delle opera di Giulio Pippi Romano (Milan: Torchi di Gaspare Truffi, 1838). De Carlos Bertrán, Luís. Alexander (Barcelona: Crítica, 2018). De Clippel, Karolien. Catharina van Hemessen (1528–na 1567). Een monografische studie over een ‘uytnemende wel geschickte vrouwe in de conste der schilderyen’ (Brussels: KVAB Paleis der Academiën, 2004). De Cruz Medina, Vanessa. ‘Margarita de Cardona y sus hijas, damas entre Madrid y elImperio’, in Las relaciones discretas entre las Monarquías Hispana y Portuguesa. Las Casas de las Reinas (siglos XV-XIX), ed. by José Martínez Millán and Maria Paula MarçalLourenço, 3 vols. (Madrid: Polifemo, 2009), II, pp. 1267-1300. Defourneaux, Marcelín. Daily Life in Spain in the Golden Age (London: Allen and Unwin, 1970). Dennistoun, James. Memorie dei Duchi di Urbino (1440–1630), trans. by Giorgio Nonni, 2 vols. (Urbino: Quattroventi, 2010). Die Malerei ist weiblich, Friederike Juliane von Lisiewska, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Dirk Blübaum and Tobias Pfeifer-Helke (Berlin: Staatliches Museum Schwerin, 2017). Domínguez Ortiz, Antonio. ‘Los gastos de Corte en la España del siglo XVII’, in Homenaje a Jaume Vicens Vives, 2 vols. (Barcelona: 1967), II, pp. 113–124. D’Ovidio, Antonella. ‘Sul mecenatismo musicale di Vittoria della Rovere, granduchessa di Toscana: alcune considerazioni’, in Firenze e la musica. Fonti, protagonisti, committenza, ed. by Cecilia Bacherini, Giacomo Sciommeri, and Agostino Ziino (Rome: Istituto Italiano per la Storia della Musica, 2014), pp. 283–311. ——— ‘Patronage, Sacrality and Power at the Court of Vittoria della Rovere: Antonio Veracini’s Op. 1 Trio Sonatas’, Journal of the Royal Musical Association 135, no. 2 (2010), 281–314. Droz-Emmert, Marguerite. Catharina van Hemessen: Malerin der Renaissance (Basel: Schwabe Verlag, 2004). Drucker, Johanna. ‘Is There a Digital Art History?’, Visual Resources 29 (2013), 5–13. Edmond, Mary. ‘Teerlinc, Levina’, Grove Art Online (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003). Accessed 26 November 2016, http://www.oxfordartonline.com/subscriber/article/grove/ art/T083626. Eichberger, Dagmar, and Lisa Beaven. ‘Family Members and Political Allies: The Portrait Collection of Margaret of Austria’, Art Bulletin 77, no. 2 (June 1995), 225–248. Elisabeth Louise Vigée Le Brun, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Joseph von Baillio and Xavier Salmon (Paris: Paris, Grand Palais / New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art / Ottawa, Musée des Beaux-Arts du Canada, 2015). Elisabetta Sirani, ‘pittrice eroina’ 1638–1665, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Jakandra Bentini and Vera Fortunati (Bologna: Museo Civico Archeologico, 2004). Enggass, Robert, and Jonathan Brown. Sources and Documents: Italy and Spain (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1970).

Bibliography 

Espinosa Romero, Jesús, Juan Antonio González Pañero, Sánchez José Jurado, and José A. Nieto Sánchez. ‘La feudalización de la sociedad madrileña en el siglo XVII’, in Madrid, atlas histórico, ed. by Virgilio Pinto Crespo, (Madrid: Lunwerg Editores, 2001), pp. 182–193. Ewing, Dan. ‘Marketing Art in Antwerp, 1460–1560: Our Lady’s Pand’, Art Bulletin 72, no. 4 (Dec. 1990), 558–584. Fabbri, Maria Cecilia. ‘La Sala delle Allegorie a Palazzo Pitti’, in Fasto di Corte. La decorazione murale nelle residenze dei Medici e dei Lorena, ed. by Mina Gregori, 4 vols. (Florence: edifir, 2006), II, pp. 151–165. Falomir Faus, Miguel. ‘Imágenes de poder y evocaciones de la memoria. Usos y funciones del retrato en la corte de Felipe II’, in Felipe II. Un monarca y su época (Madrid: Museo Naciónal del Prado, 1998), pp. 203–228. Fantini, Bonifazio. Breve trattato della vita di Raffaele Mota, Reggiano pittore famoso (Reggio, 1616; Parma: Tipografia Carmignani, 1850). Fantoni, Marcello. ‘Introduction’, in The Court in Europe, ed. by Marcello Fantoni (Rome: Bulzoni, 2012), pp. 11–24. Fantoni, Marcello, and Maria Kusche, eds. Sofonisba Anguissola: A Renaissance Woman (Washington, D.C.: National Museum of Women in the Arts, 1995). Ferrari, Daniela, ed. Giulio Romano: repertorio di fonti documentarie, 2 vols. (Rome: Ministero per i beni culturali e ambientali, Ufficio centrale per i beni archivistici, 1992). ffolliott, Sheila. ‘“Più che famose”: Some Thoughts on Women Artists in Early Modern Europe’, in Women Artists in Early Modern Italy: Careers, Fame, and Collections, ed. by Sheila Barker (London/Turnhout: Harvey Miller/Brepols, 2016), pp. 15–27. ——— ‘Early Modern Women Artists’, in The Ashgate Research Companion to Women, ed. by Allyson M. Poska, Jane Couchman, and Katherine A. McIver (Burlington: Ashgate, 2013), pp. 423–444. Fletcher, Pamela. ‘Reflections on Digital Art History’, in ‘CAA Re-Views: Field Editors’ Reflections’, caa.reviews 18 June 2015. Accessed 25 February 2017, http://www.caareviews. org/reviews/2726#fnr8. Fletcher, Shelley. ‘A Closer Look at Mantegna’s Prints’, Print Quarterly 18 (2001), 3–41. Forney, Kristine. ‘“Nymphes gayes en abry du Laurier”: Musical Instruction for the Bourgeois Woman’, Musica Disciplina 49 (1995), 151–187. Francchia, Carmen. ‘Women’s Artistic Production and Their Visual Representation in Early Modern Spain’, in A Companion to Spanish Women’s Studies, ed. by Xon de Rose and Geraldine Hazbun (Rochester and Suffolk: Boydell & Brewer, 2011), pp. 129–142. Franco, Nicolo. La Philena. Historia amorosa ultimamente composta (Mantua: Iacomo Ruffinelli, 1547). Frank, Christoph. ‘Auf dem Weg vom ersten zum vierten Rom, Johann Friedrich Reiffensteins antiquarische Agententätigkeit im Palazzo Zuccari (1767–1793)’, in 100 Jahre Bibliotheca Hertziana – Max-Planck-Institut für Kunstgeschichte, Der Palazzo Zuccari

195

196 Bibliography

und die Institutsgebäude 1590–2013, ed. by Elisabeth Kieven (Munich: Hirmer, 2013), pp. 182–201. Freisen, Ilse E. ‘Review of the Court Artist: On the Ancestry of the Modern Artist by Martin Warnke’, Renaissance and Reformation/Renaissance et réforme 19 (1995), 76–78. Friedman, Susan Stanford. ‘Creativity and the Childbirth Metaphor: Gendered Difference in Literary Discourse’, Feminist Studies 13 (1987), 49–82. Frye, Susan. ‘Sewing Connections: Elizabeth Tudor, Mary Stuart, Elizabeth Talbot and Seventeenth-Century Anonymous Needleworkers’, in Maids and Mistresses, Cousins and Queens: Women’s Alliances in Early Modern England, ed. by Susan Frye and Karen Robertson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 165–182. Fuentes Lázaro, Sara. ‘Luca Giordano en la basílica de el Escorial. Fortuna crítica y recepción según talavera, santos y Palomino’, Reales sitios: revista del patrimonio nacional 178 (2008), 4–25. Fumagalli, Elena, and Raffaella Morselli. ‘Introduction’, in The Court Artist in SeventeenthCentury Italy, ed. by Elena Fumagalli and Raffaella Morselli (Rome: Bulzoni, 2014), Kindle edition. Accessed 30 November 2016. Fumarco, Cristina. ‘Opere lombarde nel Musée Condé di Chantilly: dipinti e disegni dalla collezione di Henri d’Orléans Duca d’Aumale’, Arte Lombarda 149 (2007), 55–68. Galen. On the Natural Faculties, trans. by A.J. Brock, Loeb Classical Library, vol. 71. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1916). Gamberini, Cecilia. ‘Magdalena Girón Osuna’, in Historia de dos pintoras. Sofonisba Anguissola y Lavinia Fontana, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Leticia Ruiz Gómez (Madrid: Museo Naciónal del Prado, 2019), pp. 160–161. ——— ‘Sofonisba Anguissola at the Court of Philip II’, in Women Artists in Early Modern Italy: Careers, Fame, and Collectors, ed. by Sheila Barker (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), pp. 29–38. García Prieto, Elisa. ‘La Infanta Isabel Clara Eugenia de Austria, la formación de una princesa europea y su entorno cortesano’, Ph.D. Dissertation (Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 2013. Garrard, Mary D. Artemisia Gentileschi and Feminism in Early Modern Europe (London: Reaktion Books, 2020). ——— ‘Here’s Looking at Me: Sofonisba Anguissola and the Problem of the Woman Artist’, Renaissance Quarterly 47, no. 3 (1994), 556–622. ——— Artemisia Gentileschi, The Image of the Female Hero in Italian Baroque Art (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989). Gaude-Ferragu, Murrielle, and Cécile Vincent-Cassy, eds., ‘La dame de cœur’. Patronage et mécénat religieux des femmes de pouvoir dans l’Europe des XIVe–XVIIe siècles (Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2016). Gaze, Delia, ed. Dictionary of Women Artists, 2 vols. (London: Fitzroy Dearborn, 1997). Gellman, Lola B. ‘Hemessen, Catharina van’, in Dictionary of Women Artists, ed. by Delia Gaze, 2 vols. (London and Chicago: Taylor & Francis, 1997), I, pp. 661–664.

Bibliography 

Ghirardi, Angela. ‘Women Artists of Bologna, The Self-Portrait and the Legend from Caterina Vigri to Anna Morandi Manzolini (1413–1774)’, in Lavinia Fontana of Bologna, 1552–1614, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Vera Fortunati (Milan and Washington, D.C.: The National Museum of Women in the Arts, 1998), pp. 32–47. ——— ‘Lavinia Fontana allo specchio. Pittrici e autoritratto nel secondo Cinquecento’, in Lavinia Fontana, 1552–1614, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Vera Fortunati (Milan: Electa, 1994), pp. 37–52. González de Amezúa y Mayo, Agustín. Isabel de Valois Reina de España (1546–1568), 3 vols. (Madrid: Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores. Dirección General de Relaciones Culturales, 1949). González García, Juan Luis. ‘Academies and Amateurs: Philip V’s collecting between France and Spain’, Dieciocho 35, no. 1 (Spring 2012), 7–20. Goodden, Angelica. ‘Angelica Kauffman: Attenuating the Body’, in The Eighteenth-Century Body: Art, History, Literature, Medicine, ed. by Angelica Goodden (Oxford: Lang, 2002), pp. 135–156. Grazia, Margreta de. ‘Imprints: Shakespeare, Guttenbert and Descartes’, in Alternative Shakespeares, ed. by Terrence Hawkes (London and New York: Routledge, 1996), pp. 63–94. Greer, Germaine. The Obstacle Race: The Fortunes of Women Painters and Their Work (London: Tauris Parke, 2001). ——— Das unterdrückte Talent, Die Rolle der Frauen in der bildenden Kunst (Berlin: Ullstein, 1980). Gronau, Giorgio. Documenti artistici urbinati (Florence: Sansoni, 1936). Gschwend, Annemarie Jordan. ‘The Manufacture and Marketing of Flemish Tapestries in Sixteenth Century Brussels Two Habsburg Patrons and Collectors: Mary of Hungary and Caterine of Austria’, in Ao modo da Flandres: disponibilidade, inovaçao e mercado de arte na época dos Descobrimentos (1415–1580), ed. by Bernardo J. Garcîa and Fernando Grilo (Lisbon: Fundación Carlos de Ambberes, 2005), pp. 91–113. Guasco, Annibale. Discourse to Lady Lavinia his daughter. Concerning the Manner in Which She Should Conduct Herself When Going to Court as Lady-in-Waiting to the Most Serene Infanta, Lady Caterina, Duchess of Savoy, ed. by Peggy Osborn (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2003). Guazzoni, Valerio. ‘Donna, pittrice e gentildonna. La nascita di un mito femminile del Cinquecento’, in Sofonisba Anguissola e le sue sorelle, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Mina Gregori (Milan: Leonardo Arte, 1994), pp. 57–70. Gudiel, Jerónimo. Compendio de algunas historias de España: donde se tratan muchas antiguedades dignas de memoria y especialmente se da noticia de la antigua familia de los Girones y de otros muchos linajes (Alcalá: en casa de Juan Iñiguez de Lequeríca, 1577). Guerzoni, Guido, and Guido Alfani. ‘Court History and Career Analysis: A Prosopographic Approach to the Court of Renaissance Ferrara’, The Court Historian 12, no. 1 (2007), 1–12. Guicciardini, Lodovico. Descrittione di M. Lodovico Guicciardini patritio fiorentino, di tutti i paesi bassi… (Antwerp: Silvius, 1567).

197

198 Bibliography

Hall, Marcia B., and Tracy E. Cooper, eds. The Sensuous in the Counter-Reformation Church (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012). Hall-van den Elsen, Catherine. Luisa Roldán (London: Lund Humphries, 2021). ——— ‘Luisa Roldán’ in Oxford Bibliographies in Art History, ed. by Thomas DaCosta Kauffman (New York: Oxford University Press, 2020). ——— Fuerza e intimismo: Luisa Roldán escultora 1652–1706 (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 2018). ——— ‘Roldán, Luisa’, in Dictionary of Women Artists, ed. by Delia Gaze, 2 vols. (London and Chicago: Taylor & Francis, 1997), I, pp. 1192–1194. ——— ‘Luisa Roldán, “La Roldana”: aportaciones documentales y artísticas’, in Roldana, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Jose Luis Romero Torres and Antonio Torrejón Díaz (Seville: Junta de Andalucía, 2007), pp. 19–32. ——— ‘The Life and Work of Luisa Roldán 1652–1706, with a Catalogue Raisonné’, Ph.D. Dissertation (Melbourne: La Trobe University, 1992). Harris, Ann Sutherland. ‘Artemisia Gentileschi and Elisabetta Sirani, Rivals or Strangers?’, Woman’s Art Journal 31 (2010), 3–12. Hattendorff, Claudia. Künstlerhommage, Ein Bildtypus im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert (Berlin: Reimer, 1998). Hernández Bermejo, María Angeles. ‘La imagen de la mujer en la literatura moral y religiosa de los siglos XVI y XVII’, Revista de Historia 8–9 (1987–1988), 175–188. Hieronymus Bosch, Visions of Genius, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Matthijs Ilsink and A. M. Koldeweij (’s-Hertogenbosch: Noordbrabants Museum, 2016). Historia de dos pintoras. Sofonisba Anguissola y Lavinia Fontana, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Leticia Ruiz Gómez (Madrid: Museo Naciónal del Prado, 2019). Honig, Elizabeth Alice. ‘The Art of Being ‘Artistic’: Dutch Women’s Creative Practices in the 17th Century’, Woman’s Art Journal 22, no. 2 (2001/2), 31–39. ——— Painting and the Market in Early Modern Antwerp (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998). Horace. Satires, Epistles and Ars Poetica, trans. by H.R. Fairclough (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978). I della Rovere: Piero della Francesca, Rafffaello, Tiziano, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Paolo Dal Poggetto (Milan: Electa 2004). I Medici e le scienze, Strumenti e macchine nelle collezioni granducali, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Filippo Camerota and Mara Miniati (Florence: Museo degli Argenti, 2008). Iradiel Murugarren, Paulino. ‘Familia y función económica de la mujer en actividades no agrarias’, in La condición de la mujer en la Edad Media: actas del coloquio celebrado en la Casa de Velázquez, 5–7 November 1984 (Madrid: Universidad Complutense, Casa de Velázquez, 1985), pp. 223–260. Italian Women Artists from Renaissance to Baroque, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Vera Fortunati Pietrantonio, Jordana Pomeroy, and Claudio Strinati (Washington D.C.: National Museum of Women in the Arts, 2007).

Bibliography 

Jacobs, Fredrika H. Defining the Renaissance Virtuosa: Women Artists and the Language of Art History and Criticism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). ——— ‘Woman’s Capacity to Create: The Unusual Case of Sofonisba Anguissola’, Renaissance Quarterly 47, no. 1 (1994), 74–101. Jacobson Schutte, Anne. ‘Irene di Spilimbergo, The Image of a Creative Woman in Late Renaissance Italy’, Renaissance Quarterly 44 (1991), 42–61. James, Susan E. The Feminine Dynamic in English Art, 1485–1603: Women as Consumers, Patrons, and Painters (Burlington: Ashgate, 2009). Jolly, Penny Howell. Picturing the Pregnant Magdalene in Northern Art, 1430–1550: Addressing and Undressing the Sinner-Saint (Burlington: Ashgate, 2014). Jones, Tanja. ‘Makers, Towards the Study of Women Artists in the Early Modern Courts’, in Künstlerinnen, Neue Perspektiven auf ein Forschungsfeld der Vormoderne, ed. by Markwart Herzog, Sylvia Heudecker, Birgit Ulrike Münch, and Andreas Tacke (Petersberg: Michael Imhof Verlag, 2017), pp. 34–43. ——— ‘Digital Interventions: Towards the Study of Women Artists in the Early Modern Courts’, in New Technologies in Medieval and Renaissance Studies, ed. by Colin Wilder and Matthew Davis (ITER: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, in press). Justi, Carl. ‘Philipp II als Kunstfreund’, in Miscellaneaneen aus drei Jahrhunderten Spanischen Kunstlebens, 2 vols. (Berlin: Grote, 1908), II, pp. 1–36. Karpinski, Caroline. ‘The Print in Thrall to its Original: A Historiographic Perspective’, Studies in the History of Art 20 (1989), 101–109. Kerkhoff, Jacqueline. Maria van Hongarije en haar hof (1505–1558), Tot plichtsbetrachting uitverkoren (Hilversum: Verloren, 2008). Kettering, Sharon. ‘The Patronage Power of Early Modern French Noblewomen’, The Historical Journal 32, no. 4 (Dec. 1989), 817–841. King, Catherine. ‘Portrait of the Artist as a Woman’, in Gender and Art, ed. by Gill Perry (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999), pp. 37–60. ——— ‘Looking at Sight: Sixteenth-Century Portraits of Woman Artists’, Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschicte 58, no. 3 (1995), 381–406. Klein, Lisa. ‘Your Humble Handmade: Elizabethan Gifts of Needlework’, Renaissance Quarterly 50, no. 2 (1997), 459–493 Krückmann, Peter O., Johannes Erichsen, and Kurt Grübl. Die Eremitage in Bayreuth, Amtlicher Führer (Munich: Bayerische Schlösserverwaltung, 2011). Krückmann, Peter O. Das Bayreuth der Markgräfin Wilhelmine (Munich: Prestel, 1998). Kusche, Maria. ‘Más retratos de Sofonisba Anguissola’, in Sapientia Libertas (Madrid: Museo del Prado, 2007), pp. 182–190. ——— ‘Sofonisba Anguissola – Leben und Werk’, in Sofonisba Anguissola, Die Malerin der Renaissance (um 1535–1625), Cremona – Madrid – Genua – Palermo, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Sylvia Ferino-Pagden (Vienna: Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, 1995), pp. 23–57.

199

200 Bibliography

——— ‘Sofonisba Anguissola: Her Life and Work’, in Sofonisba Anguissola, A Renaissance Woman, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Sylvia Ferino-Pagden and Maria Kusche (Washington, D.C.: The National Museum of Women in the Arts, 1995), pp. 26–105. ——— ‘Sofonisba e il ritratto di rappresentanza ufficiale nella corte spagnola’, in Sofonisba Anguissola e le sue sorelle, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Mina Gregori (Milan: Leonardo Arte, 1994), pp. 117–152. ——— ‘La antigua galería de retratos del Pardo su importancia para la obra de Tiziano, Moro, Sánchez Coello y Sofonisba Anguissola y su significado para Felipe II, su fundador’, Archivo español de arte 65, no. 257 (1992), 1–36. ——— ‘Sofonisba Anguissola retratista de la corte española’, Paragone 43, nos. 509–511 (1992), 3–34. ——— ‘Sofonisba Anguissola, vuelta a Italia, continuación de sus relaciónes con la corte española’, Paragone 43, no. 513 (1992), 10–35. ——— ‘Sofonisba Anguissola en España retratista en la corte de Felipe II junto a Alonso Sánchez Coello y Jorge de la Rua’, Archivo español de arte 62, no. 248 (1989), 391–420. Lamas Delgado, Eduardo. ‘Nuevas consideraciones sobre los títulos cortesanos del pintor Francisco Rizi’, Archivo Español de Arte 325 (2009), 73–78. Land, Norman E. ‘Apelles and the Origin of Giotto’s O’, Source 25, no. 1 (Fall 2005), 6–9. Landau, David, and Peter Parshall. The Renaissance Print, 1470–1550 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994). Landau, David. ‘Mantegna as Printmaker’, in Andrea Mantegna, ed. by Jane Martineau (London: Thames and Hudson, 1992), pp. 44–54. Langedijk, Karla. The Portraits of the Medici, 15th–18th Centuries, 3 vols. (Florence: 1981–1987). Lapierre, Alexandra. ‘The “Woman Artist” in Literature: Fiction or Non-Fiction?’, in Italian Women Artists from Renaissance to Baroque, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Vera Fortunati (Washington, D.C.: National Museum of Women in the Arts, 2007), pp. 75–81. Lavinia Fontana of Bologna, 1552–1614, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Vera Fortunati (Milan and Washington, D.C.: The National Museum of Women in the Arts, 1998). L’entrata della serenissima et illustrissima signora Caterina d’Austria spose del eccelentissimo Duca to Mantova, et Marchese di Monferrato nella detta sua città; con l’ordine di tornei, giostre, banchetti, comedie, musiche, & altri sontuosi apparecchi fatti per la venuta sua, cosa non meno maravigliosa da vedere, che degna d’etterna memoria (Mantua: Giacomo Ruffinelli, 1549). Letwin, Hilary. ‘“Old in Substance and New in Manner”: The Scultori and Ghisi Engraving Enterprise in Sixteenth-Century Mantua and Beyond’, Ph.D. Dissertation (Johns Hopkins University, 2013). Leuschner, Eckhard. ‘The Papal Printing Privilege’, Print Quarterly 15 (1998), 359–370. Levey, S.M. The Embroideries at Hardwick Hall: A Catalogue (London: National Trust, 2007). Lincoln, Evelyn. The Invention of the Italian Renaissance Printmaker (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000).

Bibliography 

——— ‘Making a Good Impression: Diana Mantuana’s Printmaking Career’, Renaissance Quarterly 50 (1997), 1101–1147. Litta, Pompeo. Familie celebri di Italia, 20 vols. (Milan: P.E. Giusti, 1819–1852). Llopis Agelán, Enrique, and Héctor García Montero. ‘Precios y salarios en Madrid, 1680–1800’, Investigaciones de Historia Económica 7 (2011), 295–309. Locker, Jesse M. Artemisia Gentileschi: The Language of Painting (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2015). Luchetti, Marcello. ‘Un enigmatico ritratto cinquecentesco di donna e tre nuovi ritratti dei Della Rovere’, in Studi pesaresi. Rivista della Società pesarese di studi storici 7 (2019), 99–114. ‘Lucrezia d’Este’, in Enciclopedia Treccani. Accessed 20 March 2018, http://www.treccani. it/enciclopedia/lucrezia-d-este/. Mainz, Valerie. ‘Court Artists’, in Dictionary of Women Artists, ed. by Delia Gaze, 2 vols. (London: Fitzroy Dearborn, 1997), I, pp. 37–43. Maiwald, Salean A. Von Frauen enthüllt, Aktdarstellungen durch Künstlerinnen vom Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart (Berlin: Grambin, 1999). Mann, Judith. Artemisia Gentileschi: Taking Stock (Turnhout: Brepols, 2005). Mannings, David, and Martin Postle. Sir Joshua Reynolds, A Complete Catalogue of his Paintings, 2 vols. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000). Marie-Antoinette, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Pierre Vallaud (Paris: Galeries nationales du Grand Palais, 2008). Markey, Lia. ‘The Female Printmaker and the Culture of the Reproductive Print Workshop’, in Paper Museums: The Reproductive Print in Europe, 1500–1800, ed. by Rebecca Zorach and Elizabeth Rodini (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), pp. 51–75. Martín González, Juan José. El escultor en palacio: viaje a través de escultura de los Austria (Madrid: Gredos, 1991). Martineau, Jane, ed. Andrea Mantegna (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1992). Martínez Leiva, Gloria. ‘St. Michael Defeating the Devil by Lorenzo Vaccaro: A Sculpture to Intercede for the Souls of Several Important Owners’, Journal of the History of Collections 30 (March 2018). Accessed 20 March 2018, https://doi.org/10.1093/jhc/fhw046. Martinez Millán, José. “La Corte de Felipe II: la Casa de la Reina Ana”, in La monarquia de Felipe II a debate, ed. by Ribot García Luís Antonio (Madrid: Sociedad Estatal para la Conmemoración de los Centenarios de Felipe II y Carlos V, 2000), pp. 159–184. Mason, Peter. ‘André Thevet, Pierre Belon, and Americana in the Embroideries of Mary Queen of Scots’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 78 (2015), 207–221. Massari, Stefania. Incisori mantovani del ‘500. Giovan Battista, Adamo, Diana Scultori, e Giorgio Ghisi, dalle collezioni del Gabinetto Nazionale della Stampe e Calcografia Nazionale (Rome: De Luca, 1981). Mävers, Sophie-Luise. ‘“… die Frauenzimmer, wenn sie Mahlerinnen werden woollen”, Über die Ausbildungssituation von malenden Frauen im 18. Jahrhundert’, in Aufgedeckt, Malerinnen im Umfeld Tischbeins und der Kasseler Kunstakademie, ed. by Martina Sitt,

201

202 Bibliography

Projektseminar eines Masterkurses Kunstwissenschaft (Norderstedt: ConferencePoint Verlag, 2016), pp. 21–22. May, Gita. ‘A Woman Artist’s Legacy: The Autobiography of Elisabeth Vigée Le Brun’, in Eighteenth-Century Women and the Arts, ed. by Frederick M. Keener and Susan Lorsch (New York: Praeger, 1988), pp. 225–235. McKendrick, Melveena. Women and Society in Spanish Drama of the Golden Age: A Study of the Mujer Varonil (London: Cambridge University Press, 1974). Meloni Trkulja, Silvia and Elena Fumagalli. Giovanna Garzoni, Still Lifes (Paris: Bibliothèque de l’Image, 2000). Mentelle, Edme. ‘Mademoiselle Basseporte, peintre’, Revue universelle des arts 13 (1861), 139–147. Merkel, Kerstin. ‘Elisabetha Sirani und Guido Reni – die Memoria eines anachronistischen Künstlerpaares’, in Künstlergrabmäler, Genese – Typologie – Intention – Metamorphosen, ed. by Birgit Ulrike Münch, Markwart Herzog, and Andreas Tacke (Petersberg: Michael Imhof Verlag, 2011), pp. 137–150. Messbarger, Rebecca. Signora Anna, Anatomin der Aufklärung, Eine Kulturgeschichte aus Bologna (Berlin: AB – Die Andere Bibliothek, 2015). Michelini Tocci, Luigi. Le pitture di Pesaro (Pesaro: Cassa di Risparmio di Pesaro, 1959). Miretti, Monica. ‘Dal ducato di Urbino al granducato di Toscana. Vittoria della Rovere e la devoluzione del patrimonio’, in Le donne Medici nel sistema europea delle corti. XVI–XVIII secolo, ed. by Giulia Calvi and Riccardo Spinelli, 2 vols. (Florence: Edizione Polistampa, 2008), I, pp. 313–326. Modesti, Adelina. Women’s Patronage and Gendered Cultural Networks in Early Modern Europe: Vittoria della Rovere Grand Duchess of Tuscany (New York and London: Routledge, 2020). ——— ‘Gendered Dynastic Identities at the Medici Court: Four Generations of Women in Power’, in Gender and Generations: Spaces, Times, Identity, ed. by Gabriella Valera, Ecaterina Lung, and Christopher Heath. Special Issue of Chronica Mundi 13, Issue 1 (2018), 222–238. ——— ‘“Nelle mode le più novelle”: The Latest Fashion Trends (Textiles, Clothing and Luxury Fabrics) at the Court of Grand Duchess Vittoria della Rovere of Tuscany’, in Telling Objects. Contextualizing the Role of the Consort in Early Modern Europe, ed. by Jill Bepler and Svante Norrhem (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2018), pp. 107–129. ——— ‘Nun Artisans, Needlecraft, and Material Culture in the Early Modern Florentine Convent’, in Artiste nel chiostro. Produzione artistica nei monasteri femminili in età moderna, ed. by Sheila Barker (Florence: Nerbini 2015), special issue of Memorie Domenicane 46 (2015), 53–71. ——— Elisabetta Sirani ‘Virtuosa’: Women’s Cultural Production in Early Modern Bologna (Turnhout: Brepols, 2014).

Bibliography 

——— ‘The Self-Fashioning of a Female “Prince”: the Cultural Matronage of Vittoria della Rovere’, in Representing Women’s Authority in the Early Modern World, ed. by Eavan O’Brien (Rome: Aracne, 2013), pp. 253–297. ——— ‘Diplomatic and Cultural Partnerships in Early Modern Europe: Vittoria della Rovere and Cosimo III de’ Medici’, in Moving Elites: Women and Cultural Transfers in the European Court System, Proceedings of an International Workshop (Florence, 12–13 December 2008), ed. by Giulia Calvi and Isabelle Chabot (Florence: EUI Working Papers [HEC 2010/02], 2010), pp. 157–181. Montoto, Santiago. ‘El casamiento de la Roldana’, Boletín de la Academia Sevillana de Buenas Letras 4, no. 15 (1920), 113–120; no. 16 (1920), 144–148. Moxey, Keith. ‘Hieronymus Bosch and the “World Upside Down”: The Case of The Garden of Earthly Delights’, in Visual Culture: Images and Interpretations, ed. by Norman Bryson, Michael Ann Holly, and Keith Moxey (Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press, 1994), pp. 104–140. Moxon, Joseph. Mechanick Exercises on the Whole Art of Printing (1683–84) (London: Oxford University Press, 1978). Mraz, Gerda, and Gottfried Mraz. Maria Theresia, Ihr Leben und ihre Zeit in Bildern und Dokumenten (Munich: Süddeutscher Verlag, 1979). Muñoz Fernández, Angela. ‘La casa delle Regine. Uno spazio politico nella Castiglia del Quattrocento’, Genesis. Rivista della Societá italiana delle storiche (Rome: Viella 2002), pp. 71–95. Murphy, Caroline P. ‘The Economics of the Woman Artist’, in Italian Women Artists from Renaissance to Baroque, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Vera Fortunati Pietrantonio, Jordana Pomeroy, and Claudio Strinati (Washington, D.C.: National Museum of Women in the Arts, 2007), pp. 23–30. ———‘Lavinia Fontana and Le Dame della Città: understanding female artistic patronage in late sixteenth-century Bologna’, Renaissance Studies 10 (1996), 190–208. Nagel, Alexander. The Controversy of Renaissance Art (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2011). Newman, John. ‘Reynolds and Hone, ‘The Conjuror’ Unmasked’, in Reynolds, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Nicholas Penny (London: Royal Academy of Arts, 1986), pp. 344–354. Nieremberg, Iuan Eusebio. De la devocion, y patrocinio de San Migvel principe de los Angeles antigvo tvtelar de los godos y protector de España: en que se proponen sus grandes excelencias, y titulos que ay para implorar su patrocinio (Mexico: Viuda de Bernardo Calderón, 1643). Nochlin, Linda. ‘Warum hat es keine bedeutenden Künstlerinnen gegeben?’, in Rahmenwechsel. Kunstgeschichte als feministische Kulturwissenschaft, ed. by Beate Söntgen (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1996), pp. 27–56. ——— ‘Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?’, in Art and Sexual Politics: Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?, ed. by Thomas B. Hess and Elizabeth C. Baker (New York: MacMillan, 1971), pp. 1–39.

203

204 Bibliography

Núñez de Castro, Alonso. Libro histórico politico: solo Madrid es corte y el cortesano en Madrid (Madrid: Riero y Tejada and Rico de Miranda, 1675). Onians, John. Bearers of Meaning: The Classical Orders in Antiquity, the Middle Ages, and the Renaissance (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988). Opitz, Claudia. ‘Gleichheit der Geschlechter oder Anarchie? Zum Gleichheitsdiskurs in der Querelle des Femmes und in der politischen Theorie um 1600’, in Geschlechterstreit am Beginn der europäischen Moderne, Die Querelle des Femmes, ed. by Gisela Engel, Friederike Hassauer, Brita Rang, and Heide Wunder (Königstein: Heimer, 2004), pp. 307–329. Orazio and Artemisia Gentileschi: Father and Daughter Painters in Baroque Italy, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Keith Christiansen and Judith W. Mann (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2001). Pagani, Valeria. ‘Adamo Scultori and Diana Mantovana’, Print Quarterly 9 (1992), 72–87. Palomino de Castro y Velasco, Asisclo Antonio. El parnaso Español pintoresco Laureado, vol. 3, Con las vidas de los pintores, y estatuarios eminentes españoles, qve con svs heroycas obras han illustrado la nación, 2nd ed. (Madrid: Bedmar, 1796). ——— Lives of the Eminent Spanish Painters and Sculptors, trans. by Nina Ayala Mallory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988). Park, Katharine, and Lorraine J. Daston. ‘Unnatural Conceptions: The Study of Monsters in Sixteenth and Seventeenth-Century France and England’, Past & Present 92 (1981), 20–54. Parker, Deborah. ‘Women in the Book Trade in Italy, 1475–1620’, Renaissance Quarterly 49 (1996), 509–541. Parmentier, R.A. ‘Marie de Hongrie et la Madone vander Paele’, Annales de la Société d’émulation de Bruges 69 (1926), 388–391. Payne, Alina A. ‘Mescolare, Composti and Monsters in Italian Architectural Theory of the Renaissance’, in Disarmonia bruttezza e bizzarria nel Rinacsimento, ed. by Luisa Secchi Tarugi (Florence: Franco Cesati Editore, 1998), pp. 273–294. Peréz de Tudela Gabaldón, Almudena. ‘Sofonisba Anguissola en la corte de Felipe II’, in Historia de dos pintoras. Sofonisba Anguissola y Lavinia Fontana, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Leticia Ruiz Gómez (Madrid: Museo Naciónal del Prado, 2019), pp. 53–69. ——— ‘Las relaciones artísticas de la familia della Rovere con la corte española durante el reinado de Felipe II en la correspondencia del Archivo de Estado de Florencia’, in Centros de poder italianos en la Monarquía Hispana, ed. by José Martínez Millán and Manuel Rivero, 3 vols. (Madrid: IULCE, 2010), III, pp. 1543–1714. ——— ‘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, ed. by José Martínez Millán and Maria Paula Marçal Lourenço, 3 vols. (Madrid: Polifemo, 2009), III, pp. 1576–1616. Perkinson, Stephen. ‘Engin and Artifice: Describing Creative Agency at the Court of France, ca. 1400’, Gesta 41, no. 1 (2002), 51–67.

Bibliography 

Perlingieri, Ilya Sandra. Sofonisba Anguissola, The First Great Woman Artist of the Renaissance (New York: Rizzoli, 1992). Perry, Gill. ‘Women Artists, “Masculine” Art and the Royal Academy of Art’, in Gender and Art, ed. by Gill Perry (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999), pp. 90–107. Pescasio, Luigi. L’arte della stampa a Mantova nei secoli XV–XVI–XVII (Mantua: Padus, 1971). Petrucci, Francesco. Ferdinand Voet (1639–1689) detto Ferdinando de’ Ritratti (Rome: Bozzi, 2005). Petteys, Chris, Hazel Gustow, Ferris Olin, and Verna Ritchie, Dictionary of Women Artists: An International Dictionary of Women Artists Born before 1900 (Boston; G.K. Hall, 1985). Pfisterer, Ulrich, and Valeska von Rosen, eds., Der Künstler als Kunstwerk, Selbstporträts vom Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart (Stuttgart: Reclam, 2005). Del Piazzo, Marcello. Gli ambasciatori TOSCANI del principato (1537–1737) (Rome: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato, 1953). Pinessi, Orietta. Sofonisba Anguissola: un pittore alla corte di Filippo II (Milan: Selene, 1998). Pinto Crespo, Virgilio, ed. Madrid, atlas histórico de la ciudad siglos IX–XIX (Madrid: Lunwerg Editores, 2001). ——— ‘La iglesia, organización y presencia’, in Madrid, atlas histórico de la ciudad siglos IX–XIX, ed. by Virgilio Pinto Crespo (Madrid: Lunwerg Editores, 2001), pp. 296–311. Pizzagalli, Daniela. La signora della pittura: vita di Sofonisba Anguissola, gentildonna e artista nel Rinascimento (Milan: Rizzoli, 2003). Podestà, Gian Luca. ‘Dal delitto politico alla politica del delitto. Parma 1545–1611’, in Complots et conjurations dans l’Europe moderne. Actes du colloque international organisé à Rome, 30 September–2 October 1993 (Rome: Publications de l’École Française de Rome, 1996), pp. 698–699. Dal Poggetto, Paolo. I Della Rovere: Piero della Francesca, Raffaello, Tiziano (Milan: Electa, 2004). Pon, Lisa. Raphael, Dürer, and Marcantonio Raimondi: Copying and the Italian Renaissance Print (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004). Proske, Beatrice Gilman. ‘Luisa Roldán at Madrid’, Connoisseur, part 1, 624 (1964), pp. 128–132; part 2, 625 (1964), pp. 199–203; part 3, 626 (1964), pp. 269–273. Pulini, Massimo. ‘1656, Ritratto di Ginevra Cantofoli pittrice’, in Elisabetta Sirani, ‘pittrice eroina’ 1638–1665, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Jadranka Bentini and Vera Fortunati, (Bologna: Museo Civico Archeologico, 2004), pp. 135–141. Quilligan, Maureen. ‘Elizabeth’s Embroidery’, Shakespeare Studies 29 (2001), 208–215. Ragazzi, Anna Teresa. ‘Giovanni Anguissola governatore in Lombardia, ambasciatore di Filippo 2º nella Svizzera e in Genova’, Strenna Piacentina 18 (1940), 62–65. ——— ‘Il conte Giovanni Anguissola’, Graduate Thesis (Milan: Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Milano, Facoltà di Storia, 1939). Ranum, Patricia M. Portraits Around Marc-Antoine Charpentier (Baltimore: Patricia Ranum, 2004).

205

206 Bibliography

Raponi, Nicola. ‘Giovanni Anguissola’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, 100 vols. (Rome: Treccani, 1960–), III (1961), pp. 318–320. Reiss, Sheryl E. ‘Beyond Isabella and Beyond: Secular Women Patrons of Art in Early Modern Europe’, in The Ashgate Research Companion to Women and Gender in Early Modern Europe, ed. by Allyson M. Poska, Jane Couchman, and Katherine A. McIver (Burlington: Ashgate, 2013), pp. 445–467. Repetti, Silvia. ‘Dall’aspetto pensoso e dall’opinione tenace: il conte piacentino Giovanni Anguissola (1514–1578)’, Graduate Thesis (Milan: Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Milano, Facoltà di Scienze della Formazione, 2008). Rhodes, D.E. ‘Some Notes on F.O. of Mantua, Torquato Tasso, and Others’, British Museum Quarterly 31 (1966), 1–4. de Ribera, Pietro Paolo. Le Glorie inmortali de Trionfi èd eroiche impresse d’ottocento quaranta cinque Donne illustri, antiche è moderne, Cioè in sacra Scrittura, Teologia, Profetia, Filosofia, Retorica, Gramatica, Medicina, Astrologia, Leggi civili, Pittura, Musica, Armi, ed in altre virtù principali, tra le quali vi lono molte versate in Santità, Virginità, Penitenza, Digiuni, Vigilie, Orationi, Meditationi, Martirio, Costanza, Pietà, Carità, Lealtà, Castimonia e Magnanimità… (Venice: Evangelista Deuchino, 1609), pp. 313–316. Ribot, Luis ‘El rey ante el espejo. historia y memoria de Carlos II’, in Carlos II. El rey y su entorno cortesano, ed. by L. Ribot (Madrid: Centro de Estudios Europa Hispánica, 2009), pp. 13–52. ——— ed. Carlos II. El rey y su entorno cortesano (Madrid: Centro de Estudios Europa Hispánica, 2009). del Río Barredo, María José. ‘Las mujeres en el ceremonial público del Madrid moderno’, in El Madrid de las mujeres: Avances hacia la visibilidad (1833–1931), ed. by Fernández Vargas Valentina, 2 vols. (Madrid: Comunidad de Madrid, 2009), I, pp. 69–95. Rippl, Gabriele. ‘Anne Killigrew (ca. 1660–1685)’, in Englische Frauen der Frühen Neuzeit, Dichterinnen, Malerinnen, Mäzeninnen, ed. by Gesa Stedman (Darmstadt: Primus-Verlag, 2001), pp. 137–147. Rocco, Patricia. ‘Maniera Devota, Mano Donnesca: Women’s Work and Stitching for Virtue in the Visual Culture of the Conservatori in Early Modern Bologna’, Italian Studies 70, no. 1 (February 2015), 76–91. Rodríguez de Cisneros, Juan. Vida de la venerable Sor Gerónima de Jesús y Carillo, monja profesa y abadesa que fue en el Convento de la Inmaculada Concepción, extramuros de Priego (Madrid: Tomás Rodríguez Frías, 1727). Rodríguez Marín, Francisco. La filida de Gálvez de Montalvo. Discursos leidos ante la Real Academia de la Historia en la recepción pública del Excmo (Madrid: Revista de arch., bibl. y museos, 1927). Rodríguez Salgado, Maria José. ‘“Una perfecta princesa”: casa y vida de la reina Isabel de Valois (1559–1568)’, Cuadernos de Historia Moderna, part 1, attach. 2 (2003), pp. 39–96.

Bibliography 

Romero Torres, José Luis. ‘Don Cristóbal de Ontañón y Enríquez, protector de la escultora Luisa Roldán y otros artistas de la corte de Carlos II’, Cuadernos de los Amigos de los Museos de Osuna 17 (2015), 30–36. ——— ‘La escultora Luisa Roldán. Del arte sevillano al ambiente cortesano’, in Roldana, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Jose Luis Romero Torres and Antonio Torrejón Díaz (Seville: Junta de Andalucía, 2007), pp. 127–147. Rosenbaum, Aleander. Der Amateur als Künstler, Studien zu Geschichte und Funktion des Dilettantismus im 18. Jahrhundert (Berlin: Mann, 2010). Rothstein, Bret L. ‘Jan van Hemessen’s Anatomy of Parody’, in The Anthropomorphic Lens: Anthropomorphism, Microcosmism and Analogy in Early Modern Thought and Visual Arts, ed. by Walter Melion, Bret Rothstein, and Michel Weemans (Leiden: Brill, 2015), pp. 457–479. Roworth, Wendy Wassyng, Mary D. Sheriff, and Anna Lena Lindberg, ‘Academies of Art’, in Dictionary of Women Artists, ed. by Delia Gaze, 2 vols. (London: Fitzroy Dearborn, 1997), I, pp. 43–55. Sacchi, Rossana. ‘Documenti per Sofonisba Anguissola’, Paragone 39, no. 457 (1988), 71–89. de Salazar y Acha, Jaime. La casa del rey de Castilla y León en la edad media (Madrid: Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales, 2000). Sánchez, Magdalena, and Alain Saint-Saëns Alain, eds. Spanish Women in the Golden Age: Images and Realities (Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1996). Sani, Bernardina. Rosalba Carriera, 1673–1757, Maestra del pastello nell’Europa ancien régime (Turin: Allemandi, 2007). Savio, Fedele. ‘Le famiglie della Rovere e Tana parenti di S. Luigi Gonzaga. Memorie storico – genealogiche’, Giornale Araldico, nos. 1–2 (1890), 3–19. Schenker, Alexander M. The Bronze Horseman, Falconet’s Monument to Peter the Great (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003). Schmidt-Liebich, Jochen, ed. Lexikon der Künstlerinnen 1700–1900, Deutschland, Österreich, Schweiz (Berlin: De Gruyter Saur, 2005). Schmidt-Linsenhoff, Viktoria. ‘Dibutadis, Die weibliche Kindheit der Zeichenkunst’, kritische berichte 4 (1996), 7–20. Schweikhart, Gunther. ‘Boccaccios De claris mulieribus und die Selbstdarstellungen von Malerinnen im 16. Jahrhundert’, in Der Künstler über sich in seinem Werk: internationales Symposium der Bibliotheca Hertziana, Rom, 1989, ed. by Matthias Winner (Weinheim: VCH, Acta Humaniora, 1992), pp. 112–136. Serrano Estrella, Felipe. ‘El regalo devocional entre España y Roma: el “Nazareno” de Luisa Roldán’, Goya: Revista de arte 353 (2015), 288–303. Simons, Patricia. The Sex of Men in Premodern Europe: A Cultural History (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011).

207

208 Bibliography

Silver, Larry. Peasant Scenes and Landscapes (Pittsburgh: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994). Smith, Dawn, and Anita K. Stoll, The Perception of Women in Spanish Theatre of the Golden Age (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1991). Sofonisba Anguissola: A Renaissance Woman, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Sylvia Ferino-Pagden and Maria Kusche (Washington, D.C.: National Museum of Women in the Arts, 1995). Sofonisba Anguissola, Die Malerin der Renaissance (um 1535–1625), Cremona – Madrid – Genua – Palermo, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Sylvia Ferino-Pagden (Vienna: Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna, 1995). Sofonisba Anguissola e le sue sorelle, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Mina Gregori (Rome: Leonardo Arte, 1994). Soubeyroux, Jacques. ‘Pauperisme et rapports sociaux a Madrid au XVIIIème siècle’, Ph.D. Dissertation (Lille: Université de Lille, 1971). Spear, Richard E. ‘Artemisia Gentileschi: Ten Years of Fact and Fiction’, The Art Bulletin 82 (2000), 568–579. Spinelli, Riccardo. ‘Baldassare Franceschini detto Il Volterrano, e Carlo Dolci nelle collezioni di Vittoria della Rovere e di Francesco Maria de’ Medici. Nuovi documenti, precisazioni, identificazioni’, Studi Storia dell’Arte 23 (2012), 183–200. ——— ‘Pietro Dandini e le commissioni di Vittoria della Rovere per la villa del Poggio Imperiale a Firenze (1679–1693)’, Bollettino della Accademia degli Euteleti della Città di San Miniato 88 (2010), 77, 119–142. ——— ‘Vittoria della Rovere: passione collezionista e mecenatismo della granduchessa madre’, in Fasto di Corte. La decorazione murale nelle residenze dei Medici e dei Lorena, ed. by Mina Gregori, 4 vols. (Florence: edifir, 2007), III, pp. 11–24. ——— ‘Vittoria della Rovere (1622–1695)’, in Il giardino del granduca. Natura morta nelle collezioni medicee, ed. by Marco Chiarini (Turin: SEAT, 1997), pp. 154–203. Spinks, Jennifer. Monstrous Births and Visual Culture in Sixteenth-Century Germany (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009). Stighelen, Katlijne van der. ‘Amateur Art as a Social Skill and a Female Preserve’, in Dictionary of Women Artists, ed. by Delia Gaze, 2 vols. (London: Routledge, 2011), I, pp. 66–80. ——— ‘Ravissantes ou Cassantes Féminines ou Indociles? Les femmes artistes de Pays-Bas mérionaux entre 1500 et 1800’, in A chacun sa grâce: femmes artistes en Belgique et aux Pays-Bas 1500–1950, ed. by Katlijne van der Stighelen and Mirjam Westen (Amsterdam: Ludion, 1999), pp. 27–41. Straussman-Pflanzer, Eve. ‘The Medici’s First Woman Court Artist: The Life and Career of Camilla Guerrieri Nati’, in Women Artists in Early Modern Italy. Careers, Fame, and Collectors, ed. by Sheila Barker (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), pp. 121–134. ——— ‘Court Culture in 17th-Century Florence: The Art Patronage of Medici Grand Duchess Vittoria della Rovere (1622–1694)’, Ph.D. Dissertation, New York University (Ann Arbour: UMI Dissertation Publishing, 2010).

Bibliography 

Strunck, Christina. Christiane von Lothringen am Hof der Medici, Geschlechterdiskurs und Kulturtransfer zwischen Florenz, Frankreich und Lothringen (1589–1636) (Petersberg: Michael Imhof Verlag, 2017). ——— ‘Hofkünstlerinnen, Weibliche Karrierestrategien an den Höfen der Frühen Neuzeit’, in Künstlerinnen, Neue Perspektiven auf ein Forschungsfeld der Vormoderne, ed. by Markwart Herzog, Sylvia Heudecker, Birgit Ulrike Münch, and Andreas Tacke (Petersberg: Michael Imhof Verlag, 2017), pp. 20–37. ——— ‘Mutterschaft und Herrschaft, Kontinuitäten und Umbrüche (16.–19. Jahrhundert)’, in Dicker als Wasser, Konzepte des Familiären in der zeitgenössischen Kunst, ed. by Andreas Baur, Amely Deiss, Milena Mercer, and Ina Neddermeyer (Cologne: Villa Merkel, 2016), pp. 194–209. ——— ‘The Original Setting of the Early Life of Taddeo Series, A New Reading of the Pictorial Program in the Palazzo Zuccari, Rome’, in Taddeo and Federico Zuccaro, Artist-Brothers in Renaissance Rome, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Julian Brooks (Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2007), pp. 112–125. Summers, David. Michelangelo and the Language of Art (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981). Tacke, Andreas, ed. Hofkünstler und Hofhandwerker in deutschsprachigen Residenzstädten der Vormoderne (Petersberg: Michael Imhof Verlag, 2017). Taggard, Mindy Nancarrow. ‘Luisa Roldán’s Jesus of Nazareth: The Artist as Spiritual Medium’, Woman’s Art Journal 19 (1998), 9–15. A Tale of Two Women Painters, Sofonisba Anguissola and Lavinia Fontana, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Leticia Ruiz Gómez (Madrid: Museo Nacional del Prado, 2019). Talvacchia, Bette. ‘The Word Made Flesh: Spiritual Subjects and Carnal Depictions in Renaissance Art’, in The Sensuous in the Counter-Reformation Church, ed. by Marcia B. Hall and Tracy E. Cooper (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 49–73. ——— ‘Bronzino’s Del pennello and the Pleasures of Art’, Frame 24, no. 2 (2011), 21–38. ——— Taking Positions: On the Erotic in Renaissance Culture (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999). Tamalio, Raffaele. ‘Ferrante Gonzaga’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani. Accessed 15 October 2016, http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/ferrante-gonzaga_res-2dcedc5f87ee-11dc-8e9d-0016357eee51_%28Dizionario-Biografico%29/. Tittler, Robert. ‘The “Feminine Dynamic” in Tudor Art: A Reassessment’, The British Art Journal 17, no. 1 (2016), 123–131. Torrejón Díaz, Antonio. ‘El entorno familiar y artístico de La Roldana, el taller de Pedro Roldán’, in Roldana, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Jose Luis Romero Torres and Antonio Torrejón Díaz (Seville: Junta de Andalucía, 2007), pp. 53–75. Trusted, Marjorie. ‘Art for the Masses: Spanish Sculpture in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries’, in Sculpture and Its Reproductions, ed. by Anthony Hughes and Erich Ranff (London: Reaktion Books, 1997), pp. 46–60.

209

210 Bibliography

Valerius, Robert. Weibliche Herrschaft im 16. Jahrhundert, Die Regentschaft Elisabeths I. zwischen Realpolitik, Querelle des femmes und Kult der Virgin Queen (Herbolzheim: Centaurus Verlag & Media, 2002). de la Válgoma y Díaz-Varela, Dalmiro. Norma y ceremonia de las reinas de la Casa de Austria (Madrid: Escilicer, 1958). Vasari, Giorgio. Le vite de’ più eccellenti pittori scultori e architettori nelle redazioni del 1550 e 1568, Testo a cura di Rosanna Bettarini, Commento secolare a cura di Paola Barocchi, 8 vols. (Florence: Sansoni, 1966–1997). Vasari, Giorgio. Le vite de’ più eccellenti pittori, scultori ed architettori, ed. by G. Milanesi, 9 vols. (Florence: G.C. Sansoni, 1906). ——— Le vite de’ più eccellenti pittori, scultori et architettori, 3 vols. (Florence: Giunti, 1568). Véliz Bomford, Zahira, and Ángel Aterido. ‘Caring for the King’s Pictures: Artists and Restorers in the Spanish Royal Collection, 1576–1814’, The Burlington Magazine 158, no. 1359 (June 2016), 447–459. Vicioso, Julia. ‘Costanza Francini: A Painter in the Shadow of Artemisia Gentileschi’, in Women Artists in Early Modern Italy: Careers, Fame, and Collectors, ed. by Sheila Barker (London/Turnhout: Harvey Miller/Brepols, 2016), pp. 99–120. Vigée Le Brun, Elisabeth Louise. Die Erinnerungen der Malerin Vigée-Lebrun, 2 vols. (Weimar: Duncker, 1912). ——— Souvenirs de Mme. Louise-Élisabeth Vigée-Le Brun, Notes et portraits, 1755–1789 (Paris: A. Fayard, 1909). Vitruvius. On Architecture, trans. Frank Granger, Loeb Classical Library, vol. 251 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1934). Volz, Gustav Berthold, ed. Friedrich der Große und Wilhelmine von Baireuth, Band II: Briefe der Königszeit, 1740–1758 (Berlin: Koehler, 1926). Waddington, Raymond B. ‘Meretrix et stampificata: Gendering the Printing Press’, in Books Have Their Own Destiny, ed. by Robin B. Barnes, Robert A. Kolb and Paula L. Presley (Kirksville, MO: Thomas Jefferson University Press, 1998), pp. 131–141. Wallen, Burr. Jan van Hemessen: An Antwerp Painter Between Reform and Counter-Reform (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1983). Warnke, Martin. Hofkünstler, Zur Vorgeschichte des modernen Künstlers, 2nd ed. (Cologne: DuMont, 1996). Warnke, Martin. The Court Artist: On the Ancestry of the Modern Artist, trans. by David McLintock (1985; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). Wasmer, Marc-Joachim. ‘Die Künstlertochter Marietta Robusti, genannt Tintoretta’, in Unser Kopf ist rund, damit das Denken die Richtung wechseln kann, Festschrift für Franz Zelger, ed. by Matthias Wohlgemut and Marc Fehlmann (Zurich: Verlag Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 2001), pp. 463–494.

Bibliography 

——— ‘Die Casa Buonarroti in Florenz, ein Geniedenkmal für Michelangelo’, in Künstlerhäuser von der Renaissance bis zur Gegenwart, ed. by Eduard Hüttinger (Zurich: Waser, 1985), pp. 121–138. Welch, Evelyn. ‘Painting as Performance in the Italian Renaissance Court’, in Artists at Court: Image-Making and Identity (1300–1500), ed. by Stephen J. Campbell (Boston: Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum), pp. 19–32. Wenzel, Michael. ‘Beauties, Wits and Fools. Die Schönheitengalerie der Königin Maria II. von England als Repräsentationsort weiblicher Handlungsräume’, in Der Hof, Ort kulturellen Handelns von Frauen in der Frühen Neuzeit, ed. by Susanne Rode-Breymann and Antje Tumat (Cologne: Böhlau, 2013), pp. 256–273. ——— ‘Frauengalerien im Kontext der enzyklopädischen Porträtsammlungen in den Kunst- und Wunderkammern – Die Beispiele München und Innsbruck’, in (En)gendered, Frühneuzeitlicher Kunstdiskurs und weibliche Porträtkultur nördlich der Alpen, ed. by Simone Roggendorf and Sigrid Ruby (Marburg: Jonas, 2004), pp. 87–110. Wien, Iris. Joshua Reynolds, Mythos und Metaphor (Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 2009). Witcombe, Christopher L.C.E. Copyright in the Renaissance: Prints and Privilegio in SixteenthCentury Venice and Rome (Leiden: Brill, 2004). Women Artists: 1550–1950, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Ann Sutherland Harris and Linda Nochlin (Los Angeles and New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1975). Woods-Marsden, Joanna. Renaissance Self-Portraiture, The Visual Construction of Identity and the Social Status of the Artist (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998). Ximénez, Andrés. Descripción del Real Monasterio de San Lorenzo del Escorial (Madrid: Antonio Marín, 1764). Zimmerman, Margarete. ‘La “Querelle des Femmes” come paradigma culturale’, in Tempi e spazi di vita femminile tra medioevo ed età moderna, ed. by Silvana Seidel Menchi, Anne Jacobson Schutte, and Thomas Kuehn (Bologna: Il mulino, 1999), pp. 157–173. ——— ‘Vom Streit der Geschlechter, Die französische und italienische Querelle des Femmes des 15. bis 17. Jahrhunderts’, in Die Galerie der Starken Frauen, Die Heldin in der französischen und italienischen Kunst des 17. Jahrhunderts, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Bettina Baumgärtel and Silvia Neysters (Munich: Kunstmuseum Düsseldorf / Hessisches Landesmuseum Darmstadt, 1995), pp. 14–33. Zorach, Rebecca, and Elizabeth Rodini. ‘On Imitation and Invention: An Introduction to the Reproductive Print’, in Paper Museums: The Reproductive Print in Europe, 1500–1800, ed. by Rebecca Zorach and Elizabeth Rodini (Chicago: David and Alfred Smart Museum of Art, University of Chicago, 2005), pp. 1–29. Zuccari Molinarini, Cecilia. ‘Die Bewohner des Palastes im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert’, in 100 Jahre Bibliotheca Hertziana – Max-Planck-Institut für Kunstgeschichte, Der Palazzo Zuccari und die Institutsgebäude 1590–2013, ed. by Elisabeth Kieven (Munich: Hirmer, 2013), pp. 66–71.

211

212 Bibliography

Zvereva, Alexandra. ‘“Par commandement et selon devys d’icelle dame”, Catherine de Médicis commanditaire de portraits’, in Il mecenatismo di Caterina de’ Medici, Poesia, feste, musica, pittura, scultura, architettura, ed. by Sabine Frommel and Gerhard Wolf (Venice: Marsilio, 2008), pp. 215–228. Zweig, Benjamin. ‘Forgotten Genealogies: Brief Reflections on the History of Digital Art History’, International Journal for Digital Art History 1 (2015), 38–49. Zwischen Ideal und Wirklichkeit, Künstlerinnen der Goethe-Zeit zwischen 1750 und 1850, exhibition catalogue, ed. by Bärbel Kovaleski (Ostfildern-Ruit: Schlossmuseum Gotha / Rosgartenmuseum Konstanz, 1999).

Index academies see specific cities Accademica di Mérito 181 Aertsen, Pieter 77 Alée, Mademoiselle 143, 146–47, 148–49 Alonso de los Rios, Pedro 170 Álvarez de Toledo Osorio, Fadrique 178 Anguissola, Giovanni 94, 98 Anguissola, Sofonisba 13–29, 21–23, 25–27, 35–37, 41–43, 45, 47, 56–58, 61, 71, 75–76, 83, 85–87, 91–106, 121 Anne of Austria, queen, consort of Philip II, king of Spain 96–97, 103–06 Antonio de la Cueva, marquis of Ladrada 104–06 Antwerp art market 71, 73, 76–77, 80 cathedral 73 Pand 76–77 schools 75 St. Luke’s Guild 74, 87 Apelles 51, 76 Arcos, Luis Antonio de los 163–64, 166, 168, 172, 176, 181–82 Arcos, Tomás de los 163 Aretino, Pietro 123 Aristotle 122–24 Barocci, Federico 27, 100–01, 106 Basseporte, Madeleine Françoise 38–39 Bermúdez, Juan Ceán 176 Bertani, Giovanni Battista 118, 131 Bianchi, Lucrezia 38 Boccaccio, Giovanni 42, 75–76 Bourbon, courts 161, 177–78, 180; see also individual rulers/associated artists by name Bronzino, Agnolo 123–24 Bruegel the Elder, Pieter 77 Buonarroti, Michelangelo 13, 35, 41 Caligari, Maria Maddalena 141, 151–52 camarera mayor 98; see also household; casa de la reina Campi, Bernardino 57 Cano, Alonso 165 Capriani da Volterra, Francesco 116, 129 Caravaggio, Michelangelo Merisi da 56, 80 Cardón, Enrique 170 Carlos II, king of Spain 26, 45, 161, 165–66, 168, 170–72, 175–78 Carriera, Rosalba 38–40, 45, 51–52, 58 casa de la reina 94–95, 98–99, 104, 106; also see household; camarera mayor; etiquetas; mayordomo mayor casa del rey 94; see also household Casa de Tesoro 171

Casalini Torrelli, Lucia 38 Casoni, Felice Antonio 45 Castiglione, Baldassare 21, 83–84 Catherine de’ Medici, queen, consort of Henry II, king of France 47, 95, 99 Cerchi, Alessandro 142–48, 158 Cesare I Gonzaga, count of Guastalla 116, 129 Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor 77, 94 Charles the Bold, duke of Burgundy 77 Charpentier, Marc-Antoine 143 Chéron, Elisabeth-Sophie 38, 40, 45, 51, 58 Chrétien de Morien (alt. Kerstiaen de Moryn) 23, 73 Christine de Pisan 46 Christóbal de Ontañón 170 Ciacón, Alonso 44 Clement XI, pope 181 clientage 21–22, 26; see also women artists, gifts to; women artists, salaries of Clouet, François 95 Clovio, Giulio 42 Coeck van Aelst, Pieter 77 Collot, Marie-Anne 38, 40–41, 46 condestable de castilla 171; see also household convents 26, 139, 141, 144, 151–52, 154, 165, 169, 173, 179; see also specific cities court artist, defining 18–21, 36–37, 116 defining 18–19 see also ruler names and/or locations for specific courts dama(s) della reina 26, 92, 94–97, 101, 105–06; see also household; women artists, titles awarded to/ identified by dame 141, 144, 149, 151, 153–54; see also women artists, titles awarded to/identified by De claris mulieribus see Boccaccio, Giovanni De institutione feminae christianae see Vives, Juan Luis Deffans, Madame du (alt. Marchioness, MarieFrançoise de Mechinet) 149–50 Del Pozzo, Isabella 38 Dietzsch, Barbara Regina 38, 51 digital humanities 13, 17, 27–28; see also Global Makers Project disegno 116, 121 Dolce, Lodovico 131 donne di palazzo 153; see also household; women artists, titles awarded to/identified by drawing, as a discipline 40, 48–49, 95, 121, 141; see also disegno duque del Infantado see de Juan de Dios de Silva y Haro

214 

Index

Edward VI, king of England 25 Eleonora d’Austria, duchess of Mantua 119–20, 127–29 Elizabeth I, queen of England 20, 23–25, 42 engraving, as medium 19, 115–16, 118, 123, 133; see also printmaking escultor/a de cámara 26, 161, 165,170–71, 177; see also women artists, titles awarded to/identified by escultor/a del rey 165; see also women artists, titles awarded to/identified by etiquetas 96, 98, 105–106; see also casa de la reina and household Eyck, Jan van 78–79 fecit 121, 129; see also women artists, signatures by Felipe V, king of Spain 26, 161, 177–79, 181 Ferrante I Gonzaga of Castiglione 13, 94, 97 Fetti, Lucrina 37 Florence 26, 35, 98, 139–41, 143, 145–46, 148–55 Casa Buonarroti 35 Convent of the Mendicanti 151–52 Floris, Frans 77 Fontana, Lavinia 16, 37, 43–45, 76, 83, 112 Francesco Maria II della Rovere, duke of Urbino 98–100, 103–04, 153 Francesco I de Medici, grand duke of Tuscany 35, 98 Fratelli, Giovanna 38, 37, 141 Galen 122–23 Galeotti, Maria 152 Galli Bibiena, Maria Oriana 38 Garzoni, Giovanna 37, 40, 45, 50, 59 Gasc, Anna Rosina de 38, 40, 51 genius 35, 51, 61–62; see also ingenium Gentileschi, Artemisia 16, 35, 37, 39, 40, 45, 47, 51, 55–56, 153 Ghisi, Giorgio 117–18, 120, 133 Giordano, Luca 170, 173, 175–76 Giotto di Bondone 75 Girón Osuna, Magdalena 98–103, 106 Global Makers Project 13, 17, 27–29; see also digital humanities Gonzaga, Claudio 119, 124, 127 Gonzaga, courts 19, 113, 115–18, 129, 133; see also individual rulers/associated artists by name Gonzaga, Ferrante see Ferrante I Gonzaga of Castiglione Gonzaga, Scipione 119–20 Gregory XIII, pope 119 gros point see lace(making) guarda mayor (de damas) 96, 105; see also household Guerrieri Nati, Camilla 17, 26 Guglielmo I Gonzaga, duke of Mantua 120 Guicciardini, Lodovico 85, 87

Guidobaldo della Rovere, duke of Urbino 98–99 guilds 17, 21, 74, 79; see also specific cities Habsburg, courts 14, 22–23, 71, 73–80, 83, 85–87, 94, 161, 166, 180; see also individual rulers/ associated artists by name hair, dressing of 145–47, 151, 161 Hemessen, Caterina (alt. Catharina) van 16–17, 20, 23–26, 37, 47, 50, 71–77, 80–87, 94 Hemessen, Jan (Sanders) van 74, 80, 83, 86–87 Henry VIII, king of England 21, 23, 25, 84 Hercules 52–53 Hilliard, Nicholas 23–24 Historia naturalis see Pliny the Elder Holbein, Hans (the Younger) 25 Hone, Nathaniel 54–55 Horace 49, 131 Horenboult, Susanna (alt. Horenbout) 21, 23, 25, 37, 47, 74, 84–86 Horenboult, Gherhaert (alt. Horenbout) 85 Houbraken, Jakob 59–60 household as administrative units 20, 23–27, 74, 84, 87, 91–92, 94–98, 101, 104–05, 178 courtships within 96–99 regulation of conduct within 22, 92, 105–06 see also Camerera Mayor; casa de la reina; Casa de Tesoro; casa del rey, condestable de castilla; donne di palazzo; dama(s) della reina; dame; donne di palazzo; etiquetas; guarda mayor (de damas); mayordomo mayor; patronage; pintor de cámara; pintores del rey; Regolamenti della Guardaroba; women artists, titles awarded to/identified by Il cortegiano see Castiglione, Baldassare incidebat 121, 131 ingenium (alt. ingegno) 75–76, 86, 121; see also genius inventor 118–19, 121–22, 128–29 invenzione 16, 120–21 Isabel of Valois, queen, consort of Philip II of Spain 13–15, 25–26, 43, 86, 91, 93–96, 98–99, 103–05 Juan de Dios de Silva y Haro, duke of the Infantado 169, 179, 181–82 Juan José de Austria 166, 175 Kauffmann, Angelika (alt. Angelica) 18, 35–36, 38–42, 45, 50–56, 58–59 Killigrew, Anne 38, 47, 50 Koerten, Johanna 38, 45 La Trottolina (lady-in-waiting to Vittoria della Rovere) 139–51 Labille-Guiard, Adélaide 38, 40

215

Index 

lace(making) 21, 139–42, 146–47, 151, 159 point de France 141–42 Venetian gros point 141, 146, 151 ladies-in-waiting 13, 17, 20–26, 43, 47, 49, 71, 73–74, 84–87, 91–99, 101, 103–06, 139, 141, 143–45, 148–49, 151–154 dowries for 26, 99, 104, 105, 144, 154 see also dama(s) della reina; dame; donne di palazzo; and household; women artists, titles awarded to/identified by Lämmerhirt, Marianne 38, 47 Lanfranco, Giovanni 55 Le Brun, Charles 35, 49 Leonardo da Vinci 36, 122 Lisiewska, Anna Rosina see Gasc, Anna Rosina de Lisiewska, Friederike Julianne von 38, 40, 58 Lisiewska-Therbusch, Anna Dorothea 38, 40 London 16, 25, 40, 42, 51, 54, 59, 78, 85, 115 cathedral 54 Royal Academy of Arts (London) 40, 54, 59 Louis XIV, king of France 143, 149, 177 luxury goods 77, 141–42, 149; see also embroidery; lace(making); textiles Madrid 17, 26, 78, 104, 161–62, 164–69, 172–77, 179, 181–82 Mantegna, Andrea 116–17 Mantua 13, 17, 19, 94, 113–20, 125–29, 132 Palazzo Ducale 129, 132 Palazzo Te 117, 119–20, 125–26, 137 Mantuana, Diana (alt. Scultori) 17, 19, 113–25; 127–33 Maratta, Carlo 181 Marcia (alt. Iaia) 42, 75–76 Margaret of Austria, regent of the Netherlands 77–79, 85 Maria Carolina of Austria, queen, consort of Ferdinand IV & III, king of Sicily and Naples 48, 50 Maria Theresia, Holy Roman Empress 48, 50 Mariana of Austria, queen, consort of Philip IV, king of Spain 166 Marie de Lorraine, duchesse de Guise 143–48, 159–60 Marqués de Villafranca see Álvarez de Toledo Osorio, Fadrique Martinez Montañés, Juan 165 Marucelli, Giovanni Filippo (abbot) 142–48; 159 Mary, duchess of Burgundy 77 Mary I, queen of England, consort of Philip II, king of Spain 25 Mary of Hungary, regent of the Netherlands 17, 23–24, 71, 73–74, 77–80, 84–87 Maschi, Bernardo 99, 103–04 Maximillian I, Holy Roman Emperor 77 mayordomo mayor 95, 104–05, 178; see also household and casa de la reina Medici, Carlo de’ 146

Mena, Andrea de 162 Mena, Claudia de 162 Mena, Pedro de 162, 165 Mencia de Mendoza 80 Metamorphoses see Ovid Michael, saint 170, 173, 175 Minchioni, Jacopo 152 modello 116, 118, 121, 123, 129 Mora, Jose de 165, 171 Morelli, Giovanni Battista 172 Moser, Mary 38 Murillo, Bartolomé Estaban 162, 169 Negri, Girolamo 94–95 Oosterwijck, Maria van 37 Osanna, Benedetto 117–18 Osanna, Francesco 117–18 Ovid 78 painting as medium 13, 17, 20–21, 43, 45, 49–52, 56, 71, 73–74, 80, 83–84, 87, 92, 95, 116, 141, 151, 162–63, 165, 169, 181–82 of history, as genre 49–50, 56, 62, 78, 80 of still life, as genre 40, 45–46, 50 of portraits see portraiture, as genre; self portraiture see also disegno paintrix 25; see also household; women artists, titles awarded to/identified by Paladini, Arcangela 37, 51 Palomino, Antonio 161–62, 170, 172, 175–76, 182 Pand see Antwerp papal privilege 113, 119–20 paragone 54 Paris 21, 139, 141, 143–50, 158, 160 as center of fashion 139, 141, 145–46, 149–50 needleworking in 141, 143, 145–46, 148, 150 Parr, Catherine, queen of England 23, 25, 85 patronage networks of 21–22, 141–42 responsibilities of 22, 25–26, 92, 104, 144–45, 148, 151, 153, 167–68, 170–71; see also household seeking 41–46, 73, 77, 84–86, 153, 164, 166, 170, 177–78 pezzuola see lace(making) Philip II, king of Spain 13, 15, 26, 36, 73, 85, 91–92, 94–100, 102, 104–06 Philip IV, king of Spain 166 Philip of Burgundy 79 Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy 77 Pierluigi Farnese, duke of Parma and Piacenza 94, 98 Pieroncini, Caterina Angiola 139–49, 151, 154, 158–60

216 

Index

pictrix domine regine 25; see also women artists, titles awarded to/identified by pietra dura 50 pintor de cámara 19, 22, 173, 176, 178 pintores del rey 176 pittrice 26; see also women artists, titles awarded to/identified by Pliny the Elder 42, 75 pornography 125 portraiture, as genre 16, 41–43, 49–50, 62, 74, 77–83, 86, 103; see also painting; self portraiture Priego Nuestra Señora del Rosal, convent of 179 printmaking as medium 17, 20, 113, 116–18, 120–24, 129 procreative metaphors for 122-24, 127–29, 131–33 rarity of women practitioners of 114–15, 119, 123 see also engraving Properzia de’ Rossi 45, 61 Proske, Beatrice Gilman 161–62 querelle des femmes 47–48, 51, 62 Raffaelino da Reggio (alt. Raffaele Motta) 115, 121, 129 Raimondi, Marcantonio 114, 118 Raphael (Sanzio da Urbino) 59, 102 Regolamenti della Guardaroba 144; see also household; patronage, responsibilities of Reni, Guido 56 Reynolds, Joshua 41, 53–55 ritrarre 120 Robert, Félicité Henriette 38, 40 Robusti, Marietta 37, 39, 51 Roldán, Luisa (alt. La Roldana) 17, 26, 38, 40, 45–46, 161–66, 167–83, 186 Roldán, Pedro 162–63, 169 Romano, Giulio 19, 113–22, 124–29, 131–32 Rome 17, 19, 53, 80, 115–16, 119–20, 128–29, 133, 153, 181–82 Accademia di San Luca 59, 181–82 Rubens, Peter Paul 47, 54 Ruffinelli, Giacomo 117–18 Ruysch, Rachel 35, 38, 46, 59–60 Sánchez Coello, Alonso 22, 92, 102–03, 176 Sartori Hoffmann, Felicita 38 sculpture as medium 17, 20, 40, 61, 77, 161–63, 170, 173, 182 in marble 26, 46 in terracotta 45–46, 161, 168–70, 172–73, 176–79, 181, 183 in wood 45–46, 161, 164, 168, 170–71, 173, 176, 178–79, 183 Scultori, Adamo 115, 117–18, 120 Scultori, Giovanni Battista 114–15, 117–18, 120–21, 133 self portraiture

as genre 42–45, 51–54, 71–72, 74–76, 80, 83–84, 87 see also painting; portraiture Serlio, Sebastiano 131 Seville 162–66, 169, 181 Academia de la Pintura, Escultura y Dorado 162 Shakespeare, William 123 Sirani, Elisabetta 35, 38, 40, 45, 52, 55–58, 158 Siriès, Violante Beatrice 38 Spada, Carlo Francesco 153 Stock, Dorothea Johanna 38, 40, 47 Teerlinc, Lievene (alt. Levina) 22–25, 37, 42, 47, 74 textiles 17, 20 embroidery 19–20, 139–42, 146, 151 needlework 20–21, 139, 141–43, 145 see also lace(making) Tiepolo, Antonio 97 Titian (Tiziano Vicelli) 78–79 Treu, Katharina 38, 40 Triva, Flaminia 37 Tudor, courts 19–20, 23–25; see also individual rulers/associated artists by name Urbino 99–103, 153; see also individual rulers/ associated artists by name Ulivi, Alessandro 152 Valdés Leal, Juan de 162 Valdés de Morales, Luisa 162 Valdés de Morales, Maria 162 valet(s) de chambre 47 Vallayer-Coster, Anne 38, 40 Vasari, Giorgio 14, 16, 45, 50, 61, 76, 87, 113–14, 120–22, 133 Vigée Le Brun, Elisabeth 35, 38–40, 45, 49–50, 54, 59, 83, Vitruvius 131 Vittoria della Rovere, grand duchess of Tuscany 17, 21, 26, 139–54, 158 Vives, Juan Luis 75 Warnke, Martin 17–18, 22, 35–37, 47-48, 61–62, 116 Waser, Anna 38 Weyden, Rogier van der 74, 77–79 Wilhelmine of Brandenburg-Beyreuth 48–49 Winckelmann, Johann Joachim 41 Wolters, Henriette 38, 51 women artists: academic membership of 39–40, 54, 59, 162, 181; see also individual academies by name as marvels 35, 45–46, 62, 113, 115, 129–31, 133, 166 education of 18, 21, 23, 25, 43, 45, 48, 56, 59, 62, 71, 74–76, 80, 83–87, 115–17, 118, 120–21, 139–46, 148–49, 151, 153, 162–63 career and/or market strategies of 18, 36, 41–46, 83, 84–87, 166–68, 172–73 gifts to 21–27, 92, 144–45, 146, 148, 151–52, 171, 176–78; see also clientage

217

Index 

guild membership of 74, ingenuity of 80, 84, 86, 87, 114; see also genius; ingenium; and invenzione marriages of 22–26, 39, 73, 92, 96–97, 99, 103–04, 116, 144, 163 professional status of 13, 19–21, 25, 28, 39–40, 49, 71, 74, 77, 87, 118, 162, 165, 168 salaries of 22–26, 37, 87, 94, 144–45, 151–52, 166, 168, 170–72, 176–78; see also clientage; household; and women artists, gifts to signatures by 16, 22, 25, 55, 71, 86, 92, 115, 121–22, 129, 163, 168, 173; see also fecit

social status of 13, 22, 25, 43–45, 50, 61, 73–74, 83, 85, 91–92, 101, 182 study of 16–21, 27–28, 36–37, 61-62 titles awarded to/identified by 18–19, 21, 28, 40, 85, 161, 170–71, 178, 181; see also Accademica di Mérito; dama(s) della reina; dame; donne di palazzo; escultora de camara; escultora del rey; ladies-in-waiting, paintrix, pictrix domine regine, pittrice, Escultora de Cámara Ximénez, Andrés 176 Zucchi, Giuseppe Carlo 59