Jahrbuch des Kunsthistorischen Museums Wien: Band 17/18 [1 ed.] 9783205206231, 9783205203834

Citation preview

JAHRBUCH DES KUNSTHISTORISCHEN MUSEUMS WIEN BAND 17/18

JAHRBUCH DES KUNSTHISTORISCHEN MUSEUMS WIEN, BAND 17/18, 2015/2016 ENTSPRICHT BAND 109/110 DER GESAMTEN REIHE: VORMALS JAHRBUCH DER KUNSTHISTORISCHEN SAMMLUNGEN DES ALLERHÖCHSTEN KAISERHAUSES (AB 1883) UND JAHRBUCH DER KUNSTHISTORISCHEN SAMMLUNGEN IN WIEN (1926—1998)

JAHRBUCH DES KUNSTHISTORISCHEN MUSEUMS WIEN BAND 17/18

2015/2016 BÖHLAU VERLAG WIEN KÖLN WEIMAR

HERAUSGEBER: KUNSTHISTORISCHES MUSEUM WIEN GENERALDIREKTORIN DR. SABINE HAAG REDAKTION: GABRIELE HELKE LEKTORAT: ELISABETH HERRMANN, BENJAMIN MAYR, ANNETTE SCHÄFER KREATIVDIREKTOR: STEFAN ZEISLER BILDBEARBEITUNG: SANELA ANTIC

Böhlau Verlag Wien Köln Weimar © 2016 KHM-Museumsverband ISBN 978-3-205-20383-4 ISSN 1605-2773 Alle Rechte, insbesondere das Übersetzen in fremde Sprachen, vorbehalten. Ohne ausdrückliche Genehmigung des Museums ist es nicht gestattet, dieses Buch oder Teile daraus auf photomechanischem Wege (Photokopie, Mikrokopie) zu vervielfältigen oder unter Verwendung elektronischer Systeme zu verarbeiten und zu verbreiten. Satz: Bettina Waringer, Wien Reproduktionen: Pixelstorm, Wien Druck und Bindung: Holzhausen, Wolkersdorf Gedruckt auf chlor- und säurefreiem Papier Printed in the EU

Inhalt

BEITRÄGE

MISZELLEN

Lothar Sickel Die römische Antikensammlung des Kanonikers Mario Conti. Wie die Wiener Grimani-Reliefs und die Ara Grimani nach Venedig gelangten Anne Markham Schulz Simone Bianco, the Grimani Collection of Antiquities and Other Unexpected Findings

27

Enrico Maria Dal Pozzolo Il problema della committenza della “Laura” di Giorgione: una revisione paleografica e un’ipotesi aperta

45

Mark Evans “Conterfettlein klein […] von miniature, von dem vleissigen Engellender”: British Renaissance Portraits in the Münzkabinett

59

Norbert Heger Die römische Bronzestatuette des Heerführers im Kunsthistorischen Museum in Wien und ihr Fundort im Land Salzburg

93

Stefano Pierguidi Il Giovane di Magdalensberg tra Salisburgo e Binche

99

Gianluca Tormen Appunti sulle terrecotte invetriate nella collezione (e nelle memorie di viaggio) di Tommaso degli Obizzi

105

Björn Blauensteiner Marten van Cleve (1526/27–1581). Prolegomena zu einer Neubewertung

119

Matteo Borchia Dipinti come doni diplomatici: novità su alcune opere di Guercino inviate a Vienna nel Seicento

133

Radim Vondráček The Provenance of the Thun-Hohenstein Albums: Děčín Castle Library – Its History and Vicissitudes

141

9

THUN-HOHENSTEIN ALBUMS PART II

Pierre Terjanian The art of the armorer in late medieval and Renaissance Augsburg: The rediscovery of the Thun sketchbooks (part II)

153

The Images

180

Appendix 286

ANHANG

Register 293 Abbildungsnachweis 308

BEITRÄGE

8

Lothar Sickel

Die römische Antikensammlung des Kanonikers Mario Conti Wie die Wiener Grimani-Reliefs und die Ara Grimani nach Venedig gelangten*

Die zwei berühmten Reliefbilder der Antikensammlung des Kunsthistorischen Museums in Wien, die eine Löwin und ein Schaf mit ihren Jungen zeigen, sind allgemein als Grimani-Reliefs bekannt (Abb. 1 und 2)1. Die Bezeichnung verweist auf ihren venezianischen Vorbesitzer: Zum Zeitpunkt ihrer Erwerbung durch den Kunsthändler und Sammler Michelangelo Guggenheim im Jahr 1883 befanden sich die beiden Skulpturen im ehemaligen Palast der Familie Grimani bei Santa Maria Formosa2. Ihre Aufstellung in der stanza del Doge Antonio ist durch Beschreibungen aus dem späten 18. und frühen 19. Jahrhundert dokumentiert3. Ihnen zufolge standen die Reliefs auf Postamenten, welche in die Wand gegenüber dem mit der Büste des Dogen Antonio Grimani besetzten Kamin eingelassen waren4. Eine anonyme *



1

2

3

Abb. 1: Löwin mit Jungen. Marmorrelief. Wien, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Antikensammlung, Inv.-Nr. I 605. (©: KHM-Museumsverband.)

4

9

Der vorliegende Beitrag basiert auf einem Vortrag, den ich am 15. Oktober 2014 am Institut für Kunstgeschichte der Universität Wien halten konnte. Mein Dank gilt der Kunsthistorischen Gesellschaft der Universität Wien sowie Herrn Prof. Michael Viktor Schwarz für die Einladung nach ­Wien. Danken möchte ich auch Herrn Direktor Dr. Georg Plattner für die Durchsicht des Manuskripts und fachliche Hinweise. Löwin mit Jungen: H. 94 cm, B. 81 cm; Inv.-Nr. I 605; Ergänzungen: Vorderteil des Kopfes der Löwin, Kopf und Schulter des Löwenjungen. Schaf mit Lamm: H. 95 cm, B. 81 cm; Inv.-Nr. I 604; Ergänzungen: Kopf des Schafes, dessen Hinterläufe und unterer Teil des Schwanzes. Aus der neueren Literatur zu den Reliefs seien angeführt: Eugenio La Rocca, Der augusteische Klassizismus, in: Ausstellungskatalog Wolf-Dieter Heilmeyer (Hg.), Die griechische Klassik. Idee oder Wirklichkeit, Berlin (Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Martin-Gropius-Bau) 2002, 627–655; hier: 630 (zur Datierungsproblematik), 641 f., Kat.-Nrn. 497 a–c; Patrick Schollmeyer, Die Bildhauerkunst während der Regierungszeit des Augustus (40 v. Chr. – 14 n. Chr.), in: Peter C. Bol (Hg.), Plastik der römischen Kaiserzeit bis zum Tode Kaiser Hadrians (Die Geschichte der antiken Bildhauerkunst, Bd. 4), Mainz 2010, 17–50, hier: 32–35, sowie Ausstellungskatalog Eugenio La Rocca u. a. (Hgg.), ­Augusto, Rom (Scuderie del Quirinale) 2013, 248 f., Kat.-Nrn. VI.9.1, VI.9.2 (Nadia Agnoli). Mit dem Tod Michele Grimanis 1865 endete die direkte Erblinie der Familie. Anschließend kam der Palast mit den verbliebenen Skulpturen in den Besitz eines Verwandten von Michele, Antonio Quirini. Nach und nach wurden einzelne Skulpturen, darunter die beiden Reliefs, veräußert, bevor der Palast schließlich 1897 von der Venice Art Company übernommen wurde. Siehe Irene Favaretto, „Una tribuna ricca di marmi …“: appunti per una storia delle collezioni dei Grimani di Santa Maria Formosa, in: Aquileia nostra 55, 1984, 205–240. Zur Geschichte und Restaurierung des Palastes siehe auch Annalisa Bristot Piana (Hg.), Palazzo Grimani a Santa Maria Formosa. Storia, arte, restauri, Verona 2008. „Ascesa la scala a lumaca, nella prima camera si vede nella principale nicchia a mano sinistra di chi entra, un’antica statua greca, da cui sembra rappresentarsi un Oratore che parli dalla tribuna. Dietro le sta un bellissimo rustico con tre busti al di sopra e due laterali. Nelle pareti a’ fianchi vi sono due bassi rilievi antichi: uno rappresentante una leonessa, l’altro una pecora, entrambi con i lor’ parti. In faccia vi è un pregiato camino. Sopra questo stavvi nel mezzo il busto del doge Antonio Grimani che accrebbe lustro alla famiglia […].“ Nach Gianantonio Moschini, Guida per la città di Venezia, Bd. 1, Venedig 1815, 202 f. Kurz erwähnt sind die beiden Reliefs auch in der aus dem Ende des 18. Jahrhunderts datierenden Schrift eines Anonymus: Pitture e scolture nel palazzo di casa Grimani a S.ta Maria Formosa, s. l., s. a., 2 f. Eine Fotografie des mit Büsten besetzten Kamins findet sich in Favaretto 1984 (zit. Anm. 2), 227. Eine Rekonstruktion der Aufstellung auch bei Marcella De Paoli, Intorno a Palazzo Grimani e alle sue

Abb. 2: Schaf mit einem Lamm. Marmorrelief. Wien, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Antikensammlung, Inv.-Nr. I 604. (©: KHM-Museumsverband.)

Zeichnung des 19. Jahrhunderts zeigt das Relief mit der Löwin in der damaligen Installation, zu der offenbar auch eine heute verschollene Büste eines Silens gehörte (Abb. 3)5. Die genauen Umstände, unter denen Guggenheim die Reliefs erwarb, sind noch ungeklärt. Über ihn kamen sie jedenfalls in den Besitz des Fürsten Johann II. von Liechtenstein, der sie wiederum 1885 dem kaiserlichen Hofmuseum zu Wien überließ, wo sie ab 1891 im damals gerade fertiggestellten Neubau präsentiert wurden. Seither gehören die Grimani-Reliefs zu den bedeutendsten Skulpturen der Antikensammlung des Kunsthistorischen Museums. Die Frage, zu welchem Zeitpunkt die beiden Reliefs in den Besitz der Familie Grimani gelangt waren, konnte die Forschung bislang nicht beantworten. Aus ihrem Verbleib im Palazzo Grimani bei Santa Maria Formosa ließ sich lediglich folgern, dass sie nicht zu den zahlreichen antiken Bildwerken gehört hatten, die gemäß der Verfügung des Patriarchen Giovanni Grimani vom 3. Februar 1587 zur Gründung einer öffentlichen Antikensammlung in Venedig bestimmt gewesen waren6. Bekannt-

5

6

10

raccolte di antichità, in: Atti dell’Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti. Classe di Scienze Morali, Lettere ed Arti 165, 2007, 419–459, hier: 453, Abb. 1. Die Zeichnung aus dem Archiv der Antikensammlung des Kunsthistorischen Museums in Wien (Inv.Nr. XIV Z 296) publizierte zuerst Volker Michael Strocka, Die Brunnenreliefs Grimani, in: Antike Plastik 4, 1965, 87–102, Taf. 53–57, hier: 100 und Abb. 7. Zur Schenkung des Giovanni Grimani siehe Rodolfo Gallo, Le donazioni alla Serenissima di Domenico e Giovanni Grimani, in: Archivio Veneto 50, 1952, 34–77; Pio Paschini, Il mecenatismo artistico del patriarca Giovanni Grimani, in: Studi in onore di Aristide Calderini e Roberto Paribeni, Bd. 3, Mailand 1957, 852–861; Marilyn Perry, The Statuario Publico of the Venetian Republic, in: Saggi e

Abb. 3: Anonyme Zeichnung der Aufstellung des Reliefs der Löwin mit Jungen im Palast der Familie Grimani in Venedig. 19. Jahrhundert. Wien, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Antikensammlung, Inv.-Nr. XIV Z 296. (©: KHM-Museumsverband.) Abb. 4: Wildschwein mit Frischlingen. Marmor­relief. Palestrina, Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Inv.-Nr. 78. (©: Palestrina, Museo Archeologico Nazionale.)

lich erreichten Grimanis Erben, dass nach dem Tod Giovannis am 3. Oktober 1593 nicht alle Skulpturen in den bei der Bibliothek von San Marco eingerichteten statuario pubblico überführt wurden. 1595 erhielten sie das Privileg, in ihrem Palast eingemauerte Inschriften und Reliefbilder behalten zu dürfen7. Ob die beiden Reliefs mit den Tierdarstellungen damals überhaupt schon zum Besitz der Grimani gehörten und unter jene Ausnahmeregel fielen oder ob sie erst in späteren Jahren in den Palast kamen, war lange Zeit nicht zu bestimmen8. Anders als die im statuario pubblico ausgestellten Skulpturen führten die im privaten Bereich des Palazzo Grimani verbliebenen Reliefs jedenfalls ein „Schattendasein“ abseits eines größeren Publikums. Die wissenschaftliche Auseinandersetzung mit den Darstellungen der Löwin und des Schafs begann daher erst mit ihrer Überführung nach Wien9. Als herausragende Artefakte antiker Bildhauerkunst fanden die beiden Reliefs früh eine entsprechend eingehende Würdigung in den Schriften von Theodor Schreiber und Franz Wickhoff10. Aus der konkaven Form der Marmorplatten sowie den kleimemorie di storia dell’arte 8, 1972, 75–150, 221–253 (Taf.). Zur Laufbahn Grimanis siehe auch Gino Benzoni – Luca Bortolotti, Giovanni Grimani, in: Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, Bd. 59, 2002, 613–622. 7 Siehe Favaretto 1984 (zit. Anm. 2), 206 f. Ferner Michel Hochmann, La famiglia Grimani, in: Michel Hochmann – Rosella Lauer – Stefania Mason (Hgg.), Il collezionismo d’arte a Venezia. Dalle origini al Cinquecento, Venedig 2008, 206–223, hier: 219 f. 8 Die bislang verfügbaren Materialien reichen nicht aus, um den Bestand der Sammlung Grimani am Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts zu rekonstruieren. Visuelle Zeugnisse wie die Skizze, die Federico Zuccari wohl 1582 während seines zweiten Aufenthalts in Venedig vom Inneren der Tribuna des Palastes anfertigte, bilden die rare Ausnahme. Zu der Skizze siehe Irene Favaretto – Marcella De Paoli, La tribuna ritrovata. Uno schizzo inedito di Federico Zuccari con l’„antiquario dell’Ill. patriarca Grimani“, in: Eidola 7, 2010, 97–135. 9 Ausführlich beschrieben sind die Reliefs gleichwohl bei Hans Dütschke, Antike Bildwerke in Ober­ italien, Bd. 5, Leipzig 1882, 151 f., Nrn. 388, 389; dort 150, Nr. 386 zu dem Satyrkopf, der über dem Löwinnen-Relief aufgestellt war (unsere Abb. 3). Jene Büste kam nachweislich nicht nach Wien. Dütschke referiert ferner Beispiele, denen zufolge die Reliefs zuvor gelegentlich als moderne Skulpturen der Renaissance angesehen wurden. 10 Siehe Theodor Schreiber, Die Wiener Brunnenreliefs aus Palazzo Grimani, Leipzig 1888; Franz Wickhoff, Der Stil der Genesisbilder und die Geschichte seiner Entwicklung, in: Wilhelm von Hartel – Franz Wickhoff (Hgg.), Die Wiener Genesis (Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses 15/16, Beilage), Bd. 2, Wien 1895, 1–96, hier: 17–23 (wieder abgedruckt in: Max Dvorak

11

nen Öffnungen in der Vase vor dem Lamm und im Maul eines der beiden Löwenjungen war leicht auf ihre ursprüngliche Funktion als Brunnen-Reliefs zu schließen. Uneins waren sich die Autoren allerdings in Bezug auf die zeitliche Bestimmung der Grimani-Reliefs, die Wickhoff als Arbeiten einer führenden Werkstatt augusteischer Zeit ansah, Schreiber hingegen deutlich später datierte11. Kurz nachdem Volker ­Michael Strocka den beiden Skulpturen 1965 eine weitere Detailstudie gewidmet hatte12, erfuhr die Diskussion eine richtungsweisende Wendung durch die Bekanntmachung der Ergebnisse einer Grabung am Fuß des ehemaligen Fortuna-Heiligtums von Palestrina, in deren Verlauf ab 1960 eine als macellum definierte Anlage mit fünf Nischen freigelegt worden war. Darin fand man neben einem dem „Divus Augustus“ geweihten Altar auch ein Relief mit der Darstellung einer Bache und ihrer sechs Frischlinge (Abb. 4)13. Format, Komposition, Stil und Thematik dieses Reliefs machten unmittelbar evident, dass es sich um ein Komplement zu den beiden bekannten Reliefbildern aus der Sammlung Grimani handelte14. Allem Anschein nach gehörten sie zu einem Zyklus, der einst ein Monument in Palestrina geziert hatte. Die Bestimmung eines seit dem frühen 20. Jahrhundert in Budapest bewahrten Relieffragments mit dem Zweig einer Platane als Bruchstück eines vierten Reliefs bestätigte diese Annahme15. Der ursprüngliche Standort der Reliefs wird nach heutiger Auffassung allerdings nicht wie zuvor im macellum lokalisiert, sondern im oberen Forum von Palestrina. Vermutet wird eine Verbindung mit dem aus den letzten Regierungsjahren des Kaisers Augustus datierenden Monument des Verrius Flaccus16. Eine Entstehung der Reliefs im imperialen Milieu würde sowohl die hohe künstlerische Qualität in der Ausführung als auch ihre Ikonographie erklären, illustrieren sie doch die unter Augustus vielfach propagierten Leitmotive des Friedens und der Fruchtbarkeit sowie den Lobpreis des einfachen Lebens im Einklang mit der Natur17. Die archäologische Bestimmung der Reliefs führt auf die eingangs erwähnte Pro­ blematik ihrer Sammlungsgeschichte zurück, denn unter der Prämisse, dass sich auch die beiden Reliefs in Wien ehemals in Palestrina befunden hatten, war es umso schwerer erklärbar, wann und wie sie nach Venedig in den Besitz der Grimani gelangt waren. Bisherige Erklärungsversuche datierten den Vorgang sehr unterschiedlich: entweder in die Jahre um 1500, als der Venezianer Marco Barbo sein Amt als Bischof von Palestrina genutzt haben könnte, um die Skulpturen in seine römische Residenz bei San Marco verbringen zu lassen, wo sie sich später Kardinal

11

12 13

14

15 16

17

12

[Hg.], Die Schriften Franz Wickhoffs, Bd. 3, Berlin 1912, 33–41). Der Deutung Wickhoffs widersprach Theodor Schreiber, Die hellenistischen Reliefbilder und die augusteische Kunst, in: Jahrbuch des Kaiserlich Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 11, 1896, 78–101, hier: 78, 81–83. Unterschiedliche Auffassungen bestehen noch in der neueren Literatur. Als Arbeiten flavischer Zeit sind die Reliefs etwa angeführt bei Brigitte Hundsalz, Das dionysische Schmuckrelief, München 1987, 248 f., Nr. K 160. Siehe Strocka 1965 (zit. Anm. 5). Angezeigt wurden die Funde erstmals in einer Besprechung des Aufsatzes Strockas von Ranuccio ­Bianchi Bandinelli in: Dialoghi di Archeologia 1, 1967, 125–129, hier: 128 f. Im Archiv der Antikensammlung des Kunsthistorischen Museums in Wien findet sich ein Brief vom 14. Juni 1967 aus Rom, adressiert an deren damaligen Direktor Rudolf Noll, in dem dieser von Valnea Santa Maria Scrinari, Leiterin der Soprintendenza ai beni archeologici, über die Aufstellung des Wildschwein-Reliefs im Museum von Palestrina informiert wird. Ausführlich publiziert wurden die Grabungs­ergebnisse erst von Nadia Agnoli, Palestrina. Il cosidetto macellum, in: Atti della Accademia nazionale dei Lincei. Classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche. Rendiconti 9, 1998, 157–181. Zum Altar des „Divus Augustus“ siehe Dietrich Boschung, Die Bildnisse des Augustus, Berlin 1993, 138, Nr. 63. Zum Relief mit dem Wildschwein siehe Beatrice Palma, Il rilievo tipo „Grimani“ da Palestrina, in: Prospettiva 6, 1976, 46–49, und Nadia Agnoli, Museo archeologico nazionale di Palestrina. Le sculture, Rom 2002, 207–217, Nr. III.3. Das Fragment wurde 1908 von Paul Arndt aus römischem Handel erworben. Siehe Antonio Giuliano, Un quarto rilievo della serie Grimani, in: Xenia 9, 1985, 41–46. Siehe Filippo Coarelli, Il monumento di Verrio Flacco nel foro di Preneste, Palestrina 1987 (wieder abgedruckt in: ders., Revixit ars. Arte e ideologia a Roma. Dai modelli ellenistici alla tradizione repubblicana, Rom 1996, 455–469, hier: 466 f.). Dort auch zur Deutung der vier Reliefs als Allegorien der vier Jahreszeiten. Zum antiken Forum Palestrinas siehe auch Stefano Pittaccio, Il foro intramuraneo a Preneste. Origini e trasformazioni, Rom 2001. Siehe Paul Zanker, Augustus und die Macht der Bilder, München 1987, 303 f.

Abb. 5: Testament des Kanonikers Mario Conti vom 16. April 1572 mit der Auflistung der Skulpturen in seinem Besitz, Detail. Rom, Staatsarchiv, Collegio dei Notai Capitolini, vol. 651, fol. 477v. (©: Rom, Staatsarchiv, Publikationslizenz: ASR 71/2014.)

Domenico Grimani angeeignet habe; oder in die Zeit nach der Inbesitznahme Palestrinas durch die Papstfamilie Barberini im Jahr 1630 – in der Annahme, die Barberini hätten sich bei den Grimani mit der Schenkung der Reliefs für die Überlassung von Grundstücken zum Ausbau ihres Palastes unterhalb des Quirinals erkenntlich gezeigt18. Gewiss war Domenico Grimani ein ebenso leidenschaftlicher Antikensammler wie seine Neffen Marino und Giovanni Grimani, und auch spätere Angehörige der Familie bemühten sich nach 1595 um den erneuten Ausbau der Sammlung19. Beide Hypothesen verfehlen jedoch die Lösung des Problems. Als zutreffend erweisen sie sich nur hinsichtlich der zwischenzeitlichen Aufbewahrung der beiden Reliefs in Rom, denn diese Annahme wird nun durch neu aufgefundene Dokumente bestätigt. Der Nachweis war eine ganz unerwartete Entdeckung, die bei der zunächst flüchtigen Sichtung der letztwilligen Verfügung eines Kanonikers namens Mario Conti gelang, der zwischen dem 7. und 10. Februar 1573 verstarb. Sein Testament datiert vom 16. April 1572 und enthält die bislang früheste Erwähnung der beiden heute in Wien befindlichen Reliefbilder20. Sie gehörten zu einer Reihe weiterer Skulpturen, die damals in Contis Weingärten aufgestellt und zum Verkauf durch seine Erben bestimmt waren. Der Erlös sollte die Erfüllung der von dem Kanoniker verfüg18

Zur Frühdatierung des Vorgangs siehe Coarelli 1996 (zit. Anm. 16), 467; zur Spätdatierung siehe A ­ gnoli 2002 (zit. Anm. 14), 214–216. Die Villa Grimani lag unweit des von den Barberini 1623 erworbenen Palazzo Sforza (siehe Maurizio Crocco, Roma. Via Felice: da Sisto V a Paolo V, Rom 2002, 102–107). Die Verhandlungen über den Erwerb von Palestrina durch die Barberini begannen bereits 1626 (siehe Jörg Martin Merz, Das Heiligtum der Fortuna in Palestrina und die Architektur der Neuzeit [Römische Forschungen der Bibliotheca Hertziana, Bd. 29], München 2001, 107 f.). 19 Zu Domenico Grimani (1461–1523) siehe Pio Paschini, Domenico Grimani, cardinale di Marco, Rom 1943 (zur Antikensammlung bes. 146–150), sowie Marilyn Perry, Cardinal Domenico Grimani’s Legacy of Ancient Art to Venice, in: Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 41, 1978, 215–244. Zu Marino Grimani (1488–1546) siehe Pio Paschini, Le collezioni archeologiche dei prelati Grimani del Cinquecento, in: Atti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia, Rendiconti 5, 1926–1927, 149–190. 20 Siehe Archivio di Stato, Rom [fortan ASR], Collegio dei Notai Capitolini, vol. 651, fol. 476–478, hier: fol. 477v. Conti verfasste am 20. Januar sowie am 6. und 7. Februar 1573, wenige Tage vor seinem Tod, noch drei Kodizille. Im letzten vermachte er der Basilika von Santa Maria Maggiore zwei silberne Kandelaber (siehe ASR, Collegio dei Notai Capitolini, vol. 651, fol. 482–485).

13

ten Legate an kirchliche Einrichtungen und Verwandte gewährleisten. Am Rande des Testaments ist in einem gesonderten Vermerk aufgelistet, um welche Skulpturen es sich handelte (Abb. 5). Groß war Contis Sammlung nicht, denn die Aufstellung verzeichnet insgesamt nur 15 Bildwerke. An Position 7 und 8 sind die Reliefs mit den Darstellungen einer Löwin und eines Schafes mit ihren Jungen aufgeführt. Die Verfügung sei hier – einschließlich der grammatikalischen Fehler – im Wortlaut zitiert: „Item lassa le statue si vendano trovate in le sue vigne et delli denari se ne cavano se mettano in tanti censi overo stabili per pagare detti legati. [sodann am Rand] cioè [1] una statua ignuda chiamata Commodo imperatore in forma de gladiatore integra. [2] Item una testa di Venere più di naturale co’il suo busto. [3] Item un’altra testa di Ottaviano augusto giovane più di naturale co’il busto. [4] Item un’altra testa di Settimio Severo co’il suo busto. [5] Item un’altra testa di un Re greco – con il suo busto con tutti li scabelli delle teste. [6] Item una statua di Minerva integra. Item doi quadri di 5 palmi de altezza in circa; [7] in una co’ una leonessa che allatta doi figlioli di marmoro. [8] Item un’altro quadro dove vi è dentro una pecora che allatta un’agnello in un bosco. [9] Un postamento di statua figurato da 4 bande et dove ci sono queste parole ‚hic locus sacer est‘. [10–14] Item cinque statue senza teste et braccie che stanno allo intrare della porta grande. [15] Item uno Hercole piccolo che strozza un leone.“ Die Einträge sind knapp, doch ist vollkommen evident, dass sich die Positionen 7 und 8 nur auf die heute in Wien bewahrten Grimani-Reliefs beziehen können. Im April 1572 gehörten die beiden Skulpturen folglich jenem Kanoniker Mario Conti. Ein weiteres Relief, von dem das erwähnte Bruchstück in Budapest hätte stammen können, besaß er offenbar nicht. Bevor es im Weiteren unternommen werden soll, auch die übrigen Einträge des Verzeichnisses zu analysieren und die Frage zu klären, wie die Reliefs nach Venedig in den Besitz der Grimani gelangten, ist zunächst die Identität jenes Mario Conti genauer zu bestimmen. Die erwähnte Stellung als Kanoniker an Santa Maria Maggiore bekleidete M ­ ario wahrscheinlich schon im Jahr 153721. Es sei präzisiert, dass er gewiss ein Säkularkanoniker, also ein weltlicher Chorherr, war; spätestens ab März 1551 verfügte er über eine eigene Wohnung außerhalb des Konvents22. Seine klerikale Laufbahn lässt sich noch weiter bis in das Jahr 1529 zurückverfolgen; im Dezember war Mario Conti bereits Benefiziat an San Giovanni in Laterano. Damals übernahm er einen Weingarten in der Nähe der Basilika23. Zum Zeitpunkt der Inbesitznahme des Grundstücks muss Conti mindestens 21 Jahre alt gewesen sein, woraus sich schließen lässt, dass er wahrscheinlich in den Jahren um 1500 geboren wurde. Seine familiäre Herkunft ist nicht einfach zu bestimmen. Anders als damals üblich, machte Mario Conti selbst in offiziellen Dokumenten keine Angaben dazu. Dies gilt für das erwähnte Testament vom 16. April 1572 ebenso wie für eine erste letztwillige Verfügung, die

21 So angegeben bei Paolo De Angelis, Basilicae S. Mariae Maioris de Urbe a Liberio papa I usque ad Paulum V Pont. Max., Rom 1621, 46. 22 Am 6. März 1551 übertrug ihm Laura Magnapera ein Haus bei der „Croce della Trinità“ im Rione Campo Marzo. Der Vorgang ist in einem späteren Dokument vom 27. Oktober 1568 angezeigt. Damals überließ Conti das Haus dem Ospedale di San Giacomo degli Incurabili (siehe ASR, Notai AC, vol. 3556, fol. 489, 490). 23 Der Garten lag „conspectu porte Sancti Jo. Lateran.“. Der Pachtvertrag in den Akten des Notars Sano Perelli ist nur aus einer Kopie bekannt (siehe ASR, Ospedale di San Giacomo, vol. 164, fasc. 9). Contis Pacht der Vigna erwähnt allerdings auch der römische Chronist Giovan Pietro Caffarelli (siehe ­Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ferraioli 282, fol. 330r).

14

Mario Conti zehn Jahre zuvor, am 4. April 1562, aufgesetzt hatte24. In dieser früheren Fassung ist noch keine Rede von seinen Skulpturen, was freilich nicht ausschließt, dass er damals bereits einige besaß. Soweit es sich bislang anhand verschiedener Archivalien ermitteln ließ, hatte Mario wenigstens drei Brüder, Pietro, Onofrio und Bernardino, sowie zwei Schwestern namens Graziosa und Ippolita25. In Ippolitas Testament vom 8. Januar 1532 wird der Namen des Vaters genannt26. Er hieß Giuliano Conti, aber weitere Nachweise zu seiner Person waren nicht beizubringen. Gleichwohl ist es keine reine Spekulation zu vermuten, dass er aus Valmontone stammte, einer kleinen Ortschaft, die nicht weit von Palestrina entfernt liegt und damals Feudalbesitz der Familie Conti war27. Eine legitime Abstammung aus der Adelslinie ist zwar ausgeschlossen, da die Söhne Bernardino und Onofrio nachweislich bürgerlichen Standes waren28, möglicherweise war Giuliano aber ein illegitimer Sprössling der Adelsfamilie Conti, vielleicht sogar des Herrn von Valmontone, Pietro Paolo Conti, der um 1505 verstarb29. Die bislang bekannte Genealogie könnte unvollständig sein30. Der familiäre Hintergrund bietet so immerhin eine mögliche Erklärung, wie die beiden Reliefs aus Palestrina einst in den Besitz der Conti gelangt waren. Das Problem der Überführung der Skulpturen nach Rom bleibt vorerst aber ungeklärt. Im Schrifttum über die römischen Antikensammlungen des frühen 16. Jahrhunderts findet sich, soweit bekannt, keine Notiz zu den Reliefs. Wenn sie jemals zur Ausstattung des erwähnten macellum gehört hatten, so müssten sie deutlich vor dem Renaissancezeitalter entnommen worden sein, denn es erscheint wenig plausibel, dass die Fundstelle bis zum 16. Jahrhundert noch zugänglich war und erst in der Folge verschüttet wurde. Archäologisch interessierte Architekten und Gelehrte wie Pirro Ligorio und Piero Vettori, die Palestrinas antike Stätten gründlich erkun24 Siehe ASR, Collegio dei Notai Capitolini, vol. 502, fol. 217, 220. 25 Im Schrifttum zur Familie Conti ist keines der Geschwister erwähnt. Siehe Felice Contelori, Genealogia familiae Comitum Romanorum, qua cum primariis nobilitatis Romanae Principibus Affinitates indicantur, Rom 1650; Marco Dionigi, Genealogia di casa Conti, Parma 1663; Giuseppe Cascioli, Memorie storiche di Poli con molte notizie inedite della celebre famiglia Conti di Guadagnolo, San Gregorio da Sassola [u. a.], Rom 1896; Lucia Calzona, Il Palazzo Sforza Conti di Segni, in: Claudia Cieri Via (Hg.), Lo specchio dei Principi. Il sistema decorativo delle dimore storiche nel territorio romano, Rom 2007, 83–101. Zur Geschichte der Familie bis zum 14. Jahrhundert siehe Marc Dykmans S. J., D’Innocent III à Boniface VIII. Histoire des Conti et des Annibaldi, in: Bulletin de l’Institut Historique belge de Rome 45, 1975, 19–211. Zur Antikensammlung der Herzöge von Poli im 18. Jahrhundert siehe Anna Maria Riccomini, Artisti neoclassici a Roma. Studi dall’antico dalle collezioni Late, Conti, Varese, Nari e altre raccolte minori, in: Rivista dell’Istituto Nazionale di Archeologia e Storia dell’Arte 59, 2004, 281–298, hier: 288–290. 26 Siehe ASR, Collegio dei Notai Capitolini, vol. 751, fol. 260. Zu ihren Erben bestimmte Ippolita ihre Brüder, ohne sie namentlich zu nennen. Dass sie die Schwester von Mario, Bernardino und Onofrio war, belegt ein Dokument zu Ippolitas Nachlass vom 9. Februar 1554; siehe ASR, Collegio dei Notai Capitolini, vol. 971, fol. 438. 27 Im römischen Census des Jahres 1527 ist ein „Juliano de Valmontone“ (leider ohne Angabe des Familiennamens) als Vorstand eines Haushalts von sieben Personen bei San Martino ai Monti verzeichnet; siehe Egmont Lee, Descriptio Urbis. The Roman census of 1527, Rom 1985, 35, Nr. 240. In der Nachbarschaft wohnte eine Familie aus Palestrina; ebenda, Nr. 237. 28 Onofrio Conti war spätestens seit 1530 mit Margherita Barisciani verheiratet. Aus der Ehe gingen der Sohn Giuliano und die Töchter Porzia und Tarquinia hervor. In den Jahren 1541 und 1549 bekleidete Onofrio ein öffentliches Amt als Bezirksvorsteher des Rione Colonna. Er verstarb zwischen Juli 1570 und April 1572. Letztmalig ist er am 30. Juni 1570 dokumentiert, als er zusammen mit Bernardino für Mario bürgte, der an diesem Tag einen Kredit aufnahmen (siehe ASR, Notai dell’Auditore Camerae, vol. 2264, fol. 707–708). Der wohl jüngere Bruder Bernardino war von 1540 bis 1578 in Rom als Notar tätig. Als Hausnotar der römischen Familie Giustini war er 1557 in einen Kriminalfall verwickelt (siehe Thomas V. Cohen, Love and Death in Renaissance Italy, Chicago – London 2004, 79–106, passim). 29 Aus Contis Ehe mit Giulia Sforza ging die um 1488 geborene Tochter Maria hervor, die ihren Vetter Giovanni Conti heiratete. Im Testament der Giulia Sforza vom 8. November 1509 findet sich kein Hinweis auf ein Stiefkind, was aber nicht verwundern muss; siehe ASR, Collegio dei Notai Capitolini, vol. 1732, fol. 116, 121 [Kopie in: ASR, Archivio Santacroce, vol. 1063, unpaginiert]. Gleiches gilt für die Testamente der Maria Conti; siehe ASR, Collegio dei Notai Capitolini, vol. 1287, fol. 131, 138 (5. Juni 1551); vol. 1288, fol. 632, 657 (29. Juni 1555); sowie vol. 1521, fol. 757–762 (7. Dezember 1563). Ein Testament des Pietro Paolo Conti war bislang nicht zu ermitteln. 30 Siehe Gabriele De Bianchi, Storia di Valmontone, Valmontone 1981, 344 f., sowie Christoph Weber, Genealogien zur Papstgeschichte, Bd. 1, Stuttgart 1999, 264.

15

deten, hätten das Relief mit dem Wildschwein und den Altar des „Divus Augustus“ schwerlich übersehen und unerwähnt gelassen31. Von Interesse ist in diesem Zusammenhang ein frühes Dokument vom Juni 1530, das sich auf die Pacht zweier Grundstücke durch Onofrio Conti bezieht32. Eines davon befand sich bei der Torre dei Conti, dem alten Geschlechterturm der Conti in der Nähe der Kaiserforen. Die räumliche Nähe ist möglicherweise Indiz eines familiären Verbundes. Das zweite von Onofrio gepachtete Grundstück lag „apud domum Illustrissimi domini de Penestrine“. Letzteres müsste also ein Haus der Familie Colonna gewesen sein, zu deren Feudalbesitz Palestrina damals gehörte. Es ließe sich also auch vermuten, dass die Reliefs einst von den Colonna nach Rom gebracht wurden und bei der Auflösung ihrer Sammlung am Ende des 15. Jahrhunderts oder später in den Besitz der Conti übergingen33. Belege dafür gibt es bislang aber nicht. Nur annähernd zu bestimmen ist auch die Lage der Weingärten Mario Contis, in denen, seinem Testament von 1572 zufolge, die Skulpturen aufgestellt waren. Die bereits erwähnte Vigna bei San Giovanni in Laterano kommt als Aufstellungsort kaum in Betracht, denn die Umgebung des Laterans war um die Mitte des 16. Jahrhunderts kein bevorzugter Ort für die Einrichtung eines Skulpturengartens. Wahrscheinlich standen die besten Stücke der Sammlung Conti in einem anderen Garten, der auf dem Quirinal in der Nähe der in den Diokletiansthermen eingerichteten Kirche Santa Maria degli Angeli gelegen war (Abb. 6). Mario und seine Brüder erwarben das Grundstück am 23. Januar 1564 von Jacopo und Gabriele della Porta34. Dieser Vorgang hing gewiss mit der unter Pius IV. ab Oktober 1560 erfolgten Neuanlage der nach ihm benannten Via Pia zusammen35. Nach dem Erwerb der Vigna kam es wegen der Begrenzung des Grundstücks zu Auseinandersetzungen mit den benachbarten Mönchen von Santa Maria degli Angeli36. Wie späteren Dokumenten zu entnehmen ist, verfügte Contis Garten über ein Haupt- und ein Nebengebäude, war von Seiten der Via Pia aus zugänglich und grenzte rückwärtig an die weitläufigen Grundstücke des Konvents37. Wahrscheinlich lag er nicht weit von Santa Susanna entfernt in jenem Areal, auf dem unter Sixtus V. der Mosesbrunnen (die Fontana dell’Acqua Felice) errichtet wurde38. Anders als beim Lateran gab es in der Umgebung der Diokletiansthermen seit dem frühen Cinquecento diverse Antikengärten, die wie die Sammlung Carpi zu den bekanntesten der Stadt gehörten39. Mario Contis Skulpturensammlung hatte dort also ein illustres Umfeld. Sicherlich sollte auch sein Garten nicht nur dem otium genügen, 31 Zur archäologischen Erkundung Palestrinas im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert siehe Fausto Zevi, Proposta per un’interpretazione dei rilievi Grimani, in: Prospettiva 7, 1976, 38–41, sowie insbesondere Merz 2001 (zit. Anm. 18), 47–53 und 62–68. 32 Siehe ASR, Collegio dei Notai Capitolini, vol. 520 (2. Teil), fol. 60. 33 Zur Antikensammlung der Colonna siehe Kathleen Wren Christian, Empire without End. Antiquities Collections in Renaissance Rome, c. 1350–1527, New Haven 2010, 313–315. 34 Siehe ASR, Notai del Tribunale delle Acque e Strade, vol. 3 (III), fol. 9, 10. Der erwähnte Giacomo della Porta ist mit dem Architekten gleichen Namens nicht identisch. Am 25. Januar 1564 erfolgte eine Vermessung des Grundstücks durch Matteo Romano und Bartolomeo Gritto; Zeugen waren Agapito und Giulio Conti. 35 Zur topographischen Situation siehe Claudia Conforti, Via Pia: Rus in Urbe, in: Paragone 82, 2008, 21–31, sowie Federico Bellini, Michelangelo, la strada e la Porta Pia, in: Studi romani 59, 2011, 74– 109, hier: 77 f. (Aufstellung der Eigner von Grundstücken entlang der Via Pia, aber ohne Hinweis auf die Vigna der Della Porta oder Conti). 36 Die Dokumente zur concordia zwischen den Conti und den Mönchen von Santa Maria degli Angeli datieren vom 10. Juli 1564 und vom 12. September 1565 (siehe ASR, Collegio dei Notai Capitolini, vol. 1522, fol. 436v–438, sowie vol. 1523, fol. 804v–805v [ebenfalls in vol. 1516, fol. 9–11]). 37 Eine Beschreibung, die beim Verkauf der Vigna im Herbst 1573 erstellt wurde, lautet: „vinea cum domo, vasca et tribus alijs aedificijs […] petiarum quinque cum dimidia […] intra moenia Alme Urbis in via Pia nuncupata propre ipsas termas diocletianas […] a duobus lateribus sunt vinee et bona dicti monasterij Sancte Marie de Angelis et ante et ab alio latere vie publice.“ ASR, Ospedale di San Giacomo, vol. 40, fol. 108–115, hier: fol. 111v. Zum Verkauf der Vigna siehe Anm. 58. 38 Siehe Nicoletta Cardano, Guide rionali di Roma. Rione XVIII, Castro Pretorio, Bd. 3, Rom 2000, 32 f. 39 Zur Vigna Carpi siehe Christian Hülsen, Römische Antikengärten des XVI. Jahrhunderts, Heidelberg 1917, 43–84, sowie Elena Svalduz, Abitare e vivere nella capitale: Alberto e Rodolfo Pio da Carpi a Roma, in: Manuela Rossi (Hg.), Alberto III e Rodolfo Pio da Carpi. Collezionisti e mecenati, Udine 2004, 30–48.

16

Abb. 6: Mario Cartaro, Plan der Stadt Rom von 1576 mit der Umgebung von Santa Maria degli Angeli und den Gärten entlang der Via Pia, Detail. (©: Rom, Bibliotheca Hertziana.)

sondern auch repräsentativen Interessen dienen. Allerdings erlauben die geringen Kenntnisse über seine Person und sein privates Umfeld vorerst keine präzise Aussage darüber, ob Contis Antikengarten, außer standesgemäße Gelehrsamkeit vorzuspiegeln, auch wie damals vielfach üblich den antiken Ursprung der eigenen Familie dokumentieren und so nebenbei den defectus natalium, die vermutlich illegitime Herkunft Marios und seiner Brüder, übertünchen sollte. Während die Antikensammlung Contis mit nur 15 Objekten im Vergleich zu den prominenten Kollektionen der Cesi, Farnese oder Medici als geradezu winzig anzusehen ist, so liefern die beiden Grimani-Reliefs doch ein klares Indiz dafür, dass die Stücke im Besitz des Kanonikers zumindest teilweise von erlesener Qualität waren. In den meisten Fällen gelingt es vorerst aber nicht, die im Testament von April 1572 zumeist nur knapp beschriebenen Skulpturen sicher mit heute bekannten Bildwerken zu identifizieren. Dies gilt für die vier Büsten (Venus, Septimius Severus, „un Re greco“ und „Ottaviano augusto giovane più [grande] di naturale“) ebenso wie für die fünf Statuen ohne Kopf am Eingang des Gartens, die schon damals ungedeutet blieben. Präziser charakterisiert erscheint hingegen die an Position 1 beschriebene Statue, die angeblich Kaiser Commodus als Gladiator zeigte. Eine solche Darstellung wäre im Rom des 16. Jahrhunderts beinahe singulär gewesen; dennoch geht der Versuch zur Identifizierung der Skulptur vorerst ins Leere. Es ist nämlich durchaus nicht sicher, dass die damalige Bestimmung der Figur als Darstellung des Commodus wirklich richtig war; aus heutiger Sicht erscheint dies sogar eher zweifelhaft. In seiner um 1549/50 verfassten Beschreibung der römischen Antikensammlungen erwähnt der Bologneser Gelehrte Ulisse Aldrovandi nur eine als Commodus gedeutete Statue – bei ihr handelte es sich um die bekannte Monumentalfigur von Herkules und Telephos, die sich schon damals im Vatikan befand40. Die Bezeichnung des Gladia­ tors der Conti als Commodus war vermutlich ebenso irrig wie die Fehldeutung des Arnold van Buchell, der die heute in Neapel befindliche Statue des sogenannten Farnese-Kriegers um 1587/88 ebenfalls ganz abwegig als Commodus beschrieb41. 40 Zur Rezeption und Restaurierung der berühmten Statue im 16. Jahrhundert siehe Fritz Eugen Keller, Das rechte Bein des Commodus. Van Heemskercks Skulpturenstudium im Statuengarten des vatikanischen Belvedere, in: Tatjana Bartsch – Peter Seiler (Hgg.), Rom zeichnen. Maarten van Heemskerck 1532–1536/37, Berlin 2012, 49–68. 41 „Sunt Commodi marmorei duo nudi, unus puerum a se occisum manibus tenens, alter pugionem.“ Arnold von Buchell, Iter Italicum (2. Teil), in: Archivio della R. Società Romana di Storia Patria 24, 1901, 49–93, hier: 52; siehe auch William Stenhouse, Visitors, Display, and Reception in the Antiquity Collections of late Renaissance-Rome, in: Renaissance Quarterly 58, 2005, 397–434, hier: 416. Die erste der von Buchell erwähnten Statuen (heute Neapel, Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Inv.-Nr. 5999) wurde bereits 1546 gefunden und wird als Darstellung von Neoptolemos and Astyanax gedeutet; die zweite war vermutlich der Lucius Verus (heute Neapel, Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Inv.-Nr. 6095) aus dem Garten der Farnese beim Foro Romano, der 1644 als „Gladiator“ gedeutet wurde (siehe

17

Ein anderes Beispiel bietet die unterlebensgroße Statue des Odysseus aus dem Vermächtnis des Kardinals Domenico Grimani in Venedig (Abb. 7)42; auch sie wurde noch im 18. Jahrhundert traditionell als Commodus gedeutet43. Die Statue in der Sammlung Conti zeigte also wohl einfach einen Bärtigen in kämpfender Pose, den man nach den Vorstellungen des 16. Jahrhunderts für Commodus halten konnte. Dies allein bietet freilich keine Grundlage für eine sichere Identifizierung. Eindeutig geklärt ist lediglich, dass sich die Statue im März 1583 noch im Nachlass von Marios Bruder Bernardino Conti befand. Außerdem besaß er noch vier Büsten, von denen aber nicht sicher ausgesagt werden kann, ob sie zuvor Mario gehört hatten44. Als Contis Erben vier Monate nach seinem Tod am 1. Juli 1573 ein Inventar der Antiken erstellten, fehlte bereits eine kleine Figur, die im Testament vom April 1572 ganz zum Schluss an Position 15 noch aufgeführt wird: „Item uno Hercole piccolo che strozza un leone.“45 Die kleine Statue des mit dem Löwen kämpfenden Herkules war offenbar verkauft worden, doch ist der Vorgang bislang undokumentiert. Anders als im Fall des Commodus wurde die Ikonographie der Darstellung hier aber gewiss richtig erfasst, und Statuetten des genannten Bildtypus sind für die damalige Zeit so selten, dass die Identifizierung gelingen kann. Möglicherweise handelt es sich bei der Skulptur aus der Sammlung Conti um die etwa 65 Zentimeter hohe Marmorstatuette, die sich seit 1887 in der Eremitage in St. Petersburg befindet (Abb. 8a und 8b). Es ist dies eine rundum vortrefflich gearbeitete Figur, die auf ein von Lysipp geschaffenes Urbild zurückgeht, das schon in der Antike in Malerei und Skulptur vielfach reproduziert wurde46. Seit Oskar Waldhauer wird die Statuette der Eremitage in das späte 2. nachchristliche Jahrhundert datiert47. Ihre Provenienz kann bislang nur bis an den Anfang des 18. Jahrhunderts und in die Sammlung Medici nach Florenz zurückverfolgt werden. Druckgraphisch reproduziert wurde sie 1734 im Tafelwerk Museum Florentinum des Antonio Francesco Gori48. Es gibt aber keinen ein-

42 43

44

45 46

47 48

18

­Bertrand Jestaz, L’inventaire du Palais et des propriétés Farnèse à Rome en 1644, Rom 1994, 201, Nr. 4899). Höhe insgesamt 105 cm; Venedig, Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Inv.-Nr. 98. Siehe Antonio Maria Zanetti, Delle antiche statue greche e romane, che nell’antisala della Libreria di San Marco, e in altri luoghi publici di Venezia si trovano, Bd. 1, Venedig 1740, Taf. XXXII. Zanetti zweifelte zwar an der traditionellen Deutung, übernahm sie aber dennoch in die Bildlegende. Zur neueren Bestimmung als Odysseus siehe Irene Favaretto (Hg.), Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Venezia, Mailand 2004, 59, Nr. II.14 (Marcella De Paoli). Das Inventar von Bernardinos Nachlass ist äußerst knapp gehalten und wurde in einer kaum leserlichen Handschrift erstellt. Der Vermerk zu den Skulpturen lautet: „Item la mita de uno Conito [sic] de marmoro e quattro teste de marmoro ch una de Faustina, le altre tre non sa che cosa siano.“ ASR, 30 Notai Capitolini, uff. 24, vol. 91, fol. 214. Die Statue gehörte Bernardino offenbar nur anteilig. In seinem letzten Testament vom 11. Juli 1581 bestimmte er Bartolomeo, den unehelichen Sohn seines Neffen Giuliano di Onofrio Conti, zum Haupterben (siehe ASR, 30 Notai Capitolini, uff. 24, vol. 89, fol. 799, 800), da dessen Vater, der in einer älteren Verfügung vom 2. März 1581 noch Erwähnung findet, wohl in der Zwischenzeit verstorben war (siehe ebenda, vol. 89, fol. 169–171). Bernardino Conti selbst starb am 18. Januar 1583 und wurde in Santa Maria sopra Minerva bestattet (siehe Archivio Storico del Vicariato di Roma, S. Maria sopra Minerva, morti 1575–1623, fol. 27v). Über den Verbleib der Skulpturen aus seinem Nachlass ist nichts bekannt. Da Bartolomeo noch minderjährig war, fungierte Onofrios Witwe, Margherita Barisciani, als Tutorin. Das Inventar vom 1. Juli 1573 entspricht ansonsten den Angaben im Testament von 1572 (siehe ASR, Ospedale di San Giacomo, vol. 40, fol. 96v). Eine Aufstellung der bekannten Statuetten findet sich bei Frank Brommer, Denkmälerlisten zur griechischen Heldensage, Bd. 1: Herakles, Marburg 1971, 102 f. Zur Diskussion um die ursprüngliche Gestalt der für den Dekor des Herakles-Monuments in Alyzeia bestimmten Skulpturen Lysipps siehe Elaine Loeffler, Lysippos’ Labours of Herakles, in: Marsyas 6, 1954, 8–24; Arnold von Salis, Löwenkampfbilder des Lysipp (Winckelmannsprogramm der Archäologischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin, 112), Berlin 1956, 24 f.; Paolo Moreno, Iconografia lisippea delle imprese di Eracle, in: Mélanges de l’École française de Rome, Antiquité 96, 1984, 117–174, sowie Wassiliki Felten, Herakles and the Nemean Lion, in: Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, Bd. V/1: Herakles – Kenchrias, Zürich – München 1990, 16–34, hier: 33. Oskar Waldhauer, Die antiken Skulpturen der Eremitage, Bd. 1, Berlin 1928, 34. Antonio Francesco Gori, Museum Florentinum, Bd. III, Florenz 1734, Taf. LXV, LXVI (wieder abgedruckt in: Pierluigi Panza, Statue del tesoro mediceo, Mailand 1991, Taf. LXV, LXVI). Die Skulptur ist in Johan Zoffanys berühmter Darstellung der Tribuna der Uffizien (um 1775; Windsor Castle, Roy­ al Collection) am rechten Bildrand neben der Venus Medici zu sehen.

Abb. 7: Die im 18. Jahrhundert als ­„Commodus“ gedeutete Odysseus-Statue im Museo Archeologico Nazionale in Venedig. Aus: Antonio Maria Zanetti, Delle antiche ­statue greche e romane, Bd. 1, Venedig 1740, Taf. XXXII. Kupferstich. (©: Rom, Biblioteca dell’Istituto di Storia dell’Arte.)

deutigen Nachweis, wann die Skulptur dorthin gelangt war und woher sie stammte. Die hier erwogene Assoziation mit der Skulptur im Besitz des Mario Conti hat damit zwar hypothetischen Charakter; einige Indizien deuten gleichwohl darauf hin, dass eine Figur vom Typ der Statuette in der Eremitage im späten 16. Jahrhundert in Rom oder in Florenz bekannt gewesen sein müsste. Ein Reflex findet sich sehr wahrscheinlich in Federico Zuccaris Darstellung der gleichen Szene in dem um 1598 entstandenen Deckenfresko seines römischen Wohnhauses (Abb. 9)49. Der mit dem Nemeischen Löwen ringende Herkules ist zwar keine exakte Kopie des antiken Vorbildes, doch zeigt Zuccari den Heroen interessanterweise in Rücken- und den Löwen in Frontalansicht, was in der frühmodernen Bildtradition des Themas ganz ungewöhnlich ist und anzeigt, dass der Maler nach einem vollplastischen Modell gearbeitet hat. Eine der St. Petersburger Statuette zumindest ähnliche Figur müsste Zuccari also wohl gesehen haben – vielleicht war es sogar die Skulptur der Sammlung Conti. Ein anderes Objekt aus dem früheren Besitz des Mario Conti lässt sich hingegen vollkommen zweifelsfrei identifizieren: die auf vier Seiten mit Reliefs dekorierte 49 Zu Zuccaris Fresken siehe zuletzt Julian Kliemann, Bilder für eine Akademie. Die malerische Ausstattung des Palastes unter Federico Zuccari, in: Sybille Ebert-Schifferer – Elisabeth Kieven (Hgg.), 100 Jahre Bibliotheca Hertziana. Der Palazzo Zuccari und die Institutsgebäude 1590–2013, München 2013, 138–181.

19

Abb. 8a: Herkules erwürgt den Nemeischen Löwen, Vorderansicht. Marmorstatuette. St. Petersburg, Eremitage, Inv.-Nr. A 498. (©: St. Petersburg, Eremitage.) Abb. 8b: Herkules erwürgt den Nemeischen Löwen, Rückansicht. Marmorstatuette. St. Petersburg, Eremitage, Inv.-Nr. A 498. (©: St. Petersburg, Eremitage.)

Abb. 9: Federico Zuccari, Herkules im Kampf mit dem Löwen. Um 1598. Deckenfresko in Rom, Palazzo Zuccari. (©: Rom, Bibliotheca Hertziana.)

­ asis, die im Testament von 1572 an Position 9 aufgeführt ist und nach Aussage des B entsprechenden Vermerks mit einer Inschrift versehen war: „hic locus sacer est“. Aufgrund dieses Zitats ist das Objekt leicht nachzuweisen. Es handelt sich um die sogenannte Ara Grimani im Museo Archeologico Nazionale in Venedig (Abb. 10a und 10b)50. Die erwähnte Inschrift (CIL V 2288) ist nicht mehr erhalten, sie war aber im frühen 18. Jahrhundert noch gut sichtbar51. Vermutlich wurde sie entfernt, Höhe 96 cm nach Giovanna Luisa Ravagnan, Ara Grimani, in: Ausstellungskatalog Restituzioni 2000. Capolavori restaurati, Vicenza (Gallerie di Palazzo Leoni Montanari) 2000, 50–57. Etwas andere Maßangaben bei Isabella Borghero, Ara Grimani, in: Luigi Sperti (Hg.), Rilievi greci e romani del Museo archeologico di Venezia, Rom 1988, 106–119, Nr. 36. 51 Die Inschrift zitiert Antonio Maria Zanetti, Delle antiche statue greche e romane, che nell’antisala 50

20

Abb. 10a: Statuenbasis aus der Sammlung Grimani (Ara Grimani), Längsseite. Venedig, Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Inv.-Nr. 263. (©: Venedig, Museo Archeologico Nazionale.) Abb. 10b: Statuenbasis aus der Sammlung Grimani (Ara Grimani), Schmalseite. Venedig, Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Inv.-Nr. 263. (©: Venedig, Museo Archeologico Nazionale.)

weil man sie, wohl irrtümlich, nicht für antik, sondern für einen späteren Zusatz hielt. Wie ihre Benennung anzeigt, gehört die zumeist in das letzte vorchristliche Jahrhundert datierte Ara Grimani zu den bekanntesten Objekten im Bestand der venezianischen Antikensammlungen. Die hohe Wertschätzung verdankt sich vor allem den vier Reliefbildern, die auf den Seiten der Basis bacchantische Szenen mit Nymphen und Satyrn zeigen. Ihre künstlerische Qualität ist mit Ausnahme einer Szene auf der rückwärtigen Seite, die vielleicht nicht zum originalen Zustand gehört, abermals durchweg exzellent. Die traditionelle Bezeichnung ara deutet die Basis als Altar, allerdings wird mehrheitlich vermutet, dass sie einst als Sockel einer Statue diente und wahrscheinlich eine Bacchus-Figur trug52. Die gleiche Funktion hatte sie offenbar auch in der Sammlung Conti, wie die Beschreibung von 1572 als „postamento de statua“ anzeigt. Anders als die beiden Grimani-Reliefs in Wien fand die Ara Grimani schon im 18. Jahrhundert das Interesse bildender Künstler – unter ihnen Jacques-Louis David, der die Reliefszenen um 1787 in Skizzen festhielt und den Motivschatz später für Gemälde verwendete53. In der neueren Forschung wird gelegentlich die Auffassung vertreten, bereits Correggio habe die Ara Grimani gekannt, denn die liebevolle Umarmung der sitzenden Nymphe durch den Satyrn in einem der Reliefs (Abb. 10b) galt als direktes Vorbild für seine Darstellung von Jupiter und Io54. Der Nachweis,

della Libreria di San Marco, e in altri luoghi publici di Venezia si trovano, Bd. 2, Venedig 1743, Taf. XXXVI. 52 So zuletzt Olaf Dräger, Religionem significare. Studien zu reich verzierten römischen Altären und Basen aus Marmor, Mainz 1994, 261–264, Nr. 114. 53 Davids Zeichnungen nach der Basis befinden sich in New York und Oxford (siehe Pierre Rosenberg – Louis-Antoine Prat [Hgg.], Jacques-Louis David, 1748–1825. Catalogue raisonné des dessins, Bd. 1, Mailand 2002, 675, Nrn. 1018, 1019). 54 Siehe Elfriede R. Knauer, Zu Correggios Io und Ganymed, in: Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 33, 1970, 61–67. Die These übernahmen Phyllis Pray Bober – Ruth Rubinstein, Renaissance Artists and Antique Sculpture [1986], London 2010, 137, Nr. 93. Grundlage der Assoziation war die Annahme, die Basis habe sich 1523 im Besitz des Kardinals Domenico Grimani befunden.

21

dass sich die Ara Grimani um 1572 im Besitz des bislang völlig unbekannten Kanonikers Mario Conti befand, erhärtet jedoch den Zweifel an der Plausibilität jener These55. Indes bleibt unklar, wann und aus welcher Quelle Conti die Basis erwarb. Alle verfügbaren Daten legen nahe, dass er beim Aufbau seiner kleinen Antikensammlung sehr wählerisch vorging und in erster Linie an der künstlerischen Qualität der Objekte interessiert war. Vielleicht bemühte sich Mario Conti sogar um die Restaurierung beschädigter oder unvollständiger Stücke. In diesem Zusammenhang ist anzumerken, dass sein Bruder Bernardino Conti als Vertrauter der ­Familie Giustini im November 1548 das Grabmal des Girolamo Giustini in S ­ anta Maria della Pace bei Raffaello da Montelupo, einem Mitarbeiter Michelangelos, in Auftrag gab56. Kontakte zu führenden römischen Bildhauerwerkstätten, in denen Restaurierungen durchgeführt werden konnten, bestanden also durch­aus57. Wenn wir davon ausgehen können, dass Mario Conti tatsächlich ein sachkundiger und ambitionierter Antikensammler war, muss es umso merkwürdiger erscheinen, dass er nicht am Erhalt der Kollektion interessiert war, sondern im Gegenteil testamentarisch deren Verkauf anordnete. Wahrscheinlich erfolgte die Entscheidung in Absprache mit seinem Bruder Bernardino; sie wurde jedenfalls von den Erben befolgt. Nach Marios Tod im Februar 1573 nahm Bernardino im Namen der Familie zunächst alle Erbgüter in Besitz. Am 7. März 1573 traf er eine Vereinbarung zum Verkauf des Weingartens bei Santa Maria degli Angeli an Silvestro Gottardi58. Aber erst am 1. Mai wurde der Wert der Immobilie auf knapp 1400 Scudi geschätzt; ein durchaus hoher Preis, der bestätigt, dass die Vigna Conti kein bescheidenes Anwesen gewesen sein kann59. Die Skulpturen ließ Bernardino vor dem Verkauf abtransportieren. Wie die gesamte Erbschaft Mario Contis waren auch sie Gegenstand einer Erbteilung zwischen der Familie Conti einerseits und dem Ospedale di San ­Giacomo degli Incurabili andererseits, das Mario in seinem letzten Testament zum Haupterben bestimmt hatte60. An das Hospital gingen vier der insgesamt 15 Skulpturen, darunter die besten Stücke, nämlich die beiden Reliefs und die Statuenbasis, die nun auch als „Ara Conti“ bezeichnet werden könnte. Die Übergabe an den Vorstand des Hospitals erfolgte allerdings erst am 14. Juni 157461. In der Folge standen die Skulpturen zum Verkauf. Lokale Sammler wie die Kardinäle Alessandro Farnese, Luigi d’Este und Ferdinando de’ Medici oder Adlige wie der antikenbegeisterte Giovan Giorgio Cesarini waren aber offenbar nicht am Erwerb interessiert62. Die Nachricht, dass in Rom interessante und etwas ungewöhnliche Antiken aus dem Besitz des Kanonikers Conti zum Verkauf standen, gelangte bis nach Venedig. Von dort gab der Patriarch Giovanni Grimani seinem römischen Agenten den Auftrag

55 Siehe Luba Freedman, Correggio’s Io as Reflective of Cinquecento Aesthetic Norms, in: Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien 84, 1988, 93–103, hier: 101. 56 Christoph Luitpold Frommel, Miszellen zu Sangallo dem Jüngeren, Rosso und Montelupo in S. Maria della Pace in Rom, in: Il Vasari 21, 1963, 144–148. Zu Bernardino Conti und den Giustini siehe Anm. 26. 57 Dies lässt sich bekanntlich auch über den Patriarchen Giovanni Grimani sagen. In seinem Auftrag arbeitete etwa Tiziano Aspetti an der Restaurierung antiker Skulpturen (siehe Marcella De Paoli, „Opera fatta diligentissimamente“. Restauri di sculture classiche a Venezia tra Quattro e Cinquecento, Rom 2004, 158–161). 58 ASR, Collegio dei Notai Capitolini, vol. 1536, fol. 193–195. Bislang war nicht festzustellen, ob die von Gottardi erworbene Vigna mit dem Weingarten identisch ist, den die Brüder Matteo und Orazio Panzani im Jahr 1587 für den Bau des Mosesbrunnens zur Verfügung stellten (siehe die Literatur in Anm. 38). 59 Gutachter waren Girolamo Valperga und Bartolomeo Gritto (siehe ASR, Collegio dei Notai Capitolini, vol. 1536, fol. 515v, 516). 60 Im Juni 1573 nahm die Administration des Hospitals einige Immobilien aus Contis Nachlass in Besitz (siehe ASR, Ospedale di San Giacomo, vol. 40, fol. 86v–90). 61 Siehe ASR, Ospedale di San Giacomo, vol. 40, fol. 150v. 62 Zu Cesarini, Schwiegersohn des Kardinals Farnese und ein Vertrauter von Ferdinando de’ Medici, siehe Lothar Sickel, Adonis als Narziss: Provenienz und Bedeutungswandel einer Statue aus der Sammlung Cesarini, in: Pegasus. Berliner Beiträge zum Nachleben der Antike 9, 2007, 193–207, sowie ders., La „Roma Capitolina“: Da Villa Cesarini al Campidoglio, in: Bollettino d’arte 144, 2008, 117–128.

22

zum Kauf einiger der Skulpturen, die er vielleicht sogar kannte. ­Grimani hatte sich nämlich zwischen 1550 und 1566 mehrfach in Rom aufgehalten, und seine Villa beim Quirinal lag nicht weit vom Garten der Conti entfernt63. Ein Zahlungsbeleg vom 29. Januar 1575 dokumentiert jedenfalls, dass der Agent Grimanis dem Ospedale di San Giacomo degli Incurabili damals 100 Goldscudi für mehrere Skulpturen aus Contis Nachlass zahlte: „Da statue vendute scudi cento quattordici bajocchi 60, che forono scudi 100 d’oro in oro […], havuti dal Partriarcha [di] Aquilea [Giovanni Grimani], per mano di uno suo agente, et forono per dette statue haute dalla detta heredità del q. ms. Mario del Conte […].“64 Die Skulpturen sind zwar nur summarisch erfasst; mangels Alternativen kann sich der Vorgang aber nur auf die beiden Reliefs beziehen. Mit Blick auf den damaligen Handelswert antiker Bildwerke sind die 100 Goldscudi nicht als überwältigend hoher, aber doch als durchaus stattlicher Betrag anzusehen65. Sehr wahrscheinlich wurden die Reliefs noch im Frühjahr 1575 nach Venedig transportiert und in der Sammlung Grimani aufgestellt. Ein von Pio Paschini angezeigter Vermerk vom 22. Februar 1575 registriert den Eingang mehrerer Skulpturen: „due tavole historiate et due figurine senza testa, tutte di marmo, antiche“66. Zumal in Anbetracht der zeitlichen Nähe von kaum einem Monat ließe sich leicht vermuten, dass sich der Eintrag auf die am 29. Januar erworbenen Skulpturen aus dem Nachlass Contis beziehen müsste, doch lässt die Notiz, dass die Tafeln offenbar „Historien“ zeigten, eine sichere Assoziation mit den ­Grimani-Reliefs fraglich erscheinen. Aus Rom kamen noch andere Reliefs in die Sammlung Grimani. Das bekannteste Beispiel ist sicherlich das Relief der Suovetaurilia, das aus dem Nachlass des Patriarchen Giovanni in den statuario pubblico überführt und nach der Besetzung Venedigs durch französische Truppen im Mai 1797 nach Paris verbracht wurde67. ­Ulisse Aldrovandi hatte das Relief noch 1549/50 im Treppenhaus des Palazzo Venezia in Rom gesehen, und aus dem Jahr 1553 datiert der Reproduktionsstich im Speculum Romanae Magnificentiae des Antonio Lafreri (Abb. 11)68. Erst in der Folge kann die Skulptur nach Venedig gelangt sein. Möglicherweise bezieht sich der zitierte Eingangsvermerk vom 22. Februar 1575 auf dieses Relief mit der Darstellung des opfernden Tiberius. Es wäre eine bemerkenswerte Koinzidenz, sollten die beiden Grimani-Reliefs und die Suovetaurilia etwa gleichzeitig in Venedig eingetroffen sein. Im Palazzo Grimani hätte man sie zu einem raren Ensemble augusteischer Kunst arrangieren können. Noch im Verlauf des Jahres 1575 dürfte jedenfalls auch die Ara Grimani nach Venedig gelangt sein. Ihre Erwerbung ist in einem Zahlungsbeleg vom 16. April 1575

63 Zur Villa Grimani siehe Anm. 18. 64 ASR, Ospedale di San Giacomo, vol. 164, fasc. 9, darin: „Libro della (e)redità del q. Mario del Conte“, fol. 8v. 65 Vergleichswerte liefert die Schätzung der Skulpturen im Nachlass des am 4. Dezember 1587 verstorbenen Kardinals Giacomo Savelli. Bei den meisten Skulpturen lag der Wert deutlich unter 100 Scudi. Eine Skulpturengruppe mit „Ercole che ammazza l’Idra“ erzielte indes einen Spitzenwert von 300  Scudi (siehe Francesco Mandica, Materiali per servire allo studio della collezione antiquaria Savelli, in: Xenia antiqua 9, 2000, 147–150). 66 Paschini 1926–1927 (zit. Anm. 19), 164. 67 Zu dem Relief siehe Ausstellungskatalog Irene Favaretto (Hg.), Lo Statuario Pubblico della Serenissima. Due secoli di collezionismo di antichità, 1595–1797, Venedig (Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana) 1997, 150 f., Kat.-Nr. 13 (Giulio Bodon), sowie Matilde De Angelis d’Ossat, Le collezioni Barbo e Grimani di scultura antica, in: Maria Giulia Barberini – Matilde De Angelis d’Ossat – Alessandra Schiavon (Hgg.), La storia del Palazzo di Venezia: dalle collezioni Barbo e Grimani a sede dell’ambasciata veneta e austriaca, Rom 2011, 23–66, hier: 34–36. Anstelle des Reliefs kam 1816 ein Niobiden-Sarkophag nach Venedig, der zuvor aus der Sammlung Borghese in Rom nach Paris gelangt war (siehe JeanLuc Martinez [Hg.], Les antiques du Musée Napoléon. Édition illustrée et commentée des volumes V et VI de l’inventaire du Louvre de 1810, Paris 2004, 473, Nr. 956 [Niobiden]; 483, Nr. 975 [Suovetaurilia]). 68 Siehe Christian Huelsen, Das Speculum Romanae Magnificentiae des Antonio Lafreri, in: Collectanea variae doctrinae Leoni S. Olschki bibliopolae Florentino Sexagenario obtulerunt Ludwig Bertalot, ­Giulio Bertoni [u. a.], München 1921, 121–170, hier: 126, 153, Nr. 52. Zur Rezeption des Reliefs im Cinquecento siehe Bober – Rubinstein 2010 (zit. Anm. 54), 241, Nr. 190.

23

Abb. 11: Relief der Suovetaurilia. In: Antonio Lafreri, Speculum Romanae Magnificentiae, 1553. Kupferstich. (©: Rom, Bibliotheca Hertziana.)

dokumentiert. Der Verkauf brachte dem Ospedale di San Giacomo degli Incurabili diesmal einen Erlös von 30 Scudi69. Die Übergabe erfolgte durch einen Funktionär des Hospitals, Alessandro Grandi alias Del Grande, der selbst als Sammler antiker Skulpturen und mehr noch als Agent des Kardinals Luigi d’Este bekannt ist70. Dass er sich die Reliefs und die Basis nicht für eigene Zwecke reservierte, ist ebenso merkwürdig wie bemerkenswert. Käufer der Basis war der Antikenhändler Flaminio Galgano, der wahrscheinlich auch schon am 29. Februar den Ankauf der Reliefs für den Patriarchen Grimani getätigt hatte. Aus der Korrespondenz des römischen Gelehrten Fulvio Orsini ist bekannt, dass Galgano schon in den Jahren vor 1575 Geschäftsbeziehungen zu Giovanni Grimani unterhielt71. Die Ara Grimani gehörte also nachweislich zu den Skulpturen, die im Februar 1587 Gegenstand der erwähnten Schenkung Grimanis an die Stadt Venedig waren. Sie verblieb bis heute im statuario pubblico, während die Grimani-Reliefs 1883 aus dem Palazzo Grimani nach Wien gelangten. Darzustellen galt es hier die frühere Präsenz der Skulpturen in der Sammlung des römischen Kanonikers Mario Conti. Dessen Antikengarten liefert ein weiteres Beispiel dafür, dass in Rom auch abseits der großen, sozusagen höfischen Sammlungen eine sehr lebendige Kultur privaten Sammlertums florierte. Vielfach nur kurzzeitig und in kleinem Rahmen wie bei Conti, brachte sie bemerkenswerte Kollektionen hervor, die im Schrifttum der Zeit gleichwohl kaum Spuren hinterlassen haben und eher selten in den Blickpunkt der Forschung rücken72. Dass Mario Conti anhand einer eher 69 „Da un basamento di marmoro scudi trenta de moneta che ci è certe figure dentro di rilevo, venduto a ms. Flaminio Galgano, portò ms. Alessandro del Grande, nostro guardiano.“ Quelle wie Anm. 64. 70 Siehe Clifford M. Brown, Our Accustomed Discourse on the Antique. Cesare Gonzaga and Gerolamo Garimberto, two Renaissance Collectors of Greco-Roman Art, New York 1993, 213–215. Nach dem Tod des Kardinals d’Este im Dezember 1586 war Grandi einer der Kustoden der Antikensammlung in Tivoli (siehe Carmelo Occhipinti, Giardino delle Esperidi. Le tradizioni del mito e la storia di Villa d’Este a Tivoli, Rom 2009, 54). 71 Siehe Clifford M. Brown, The „studio del clarissimo Cavaliero Mozzanico in Venezia“. Documents for the Antiquarian Ambitions of Francesco I de’ Medici, Mario Bevilacqua, Alessandro Farnese and Fulvio Orsini, in: Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen 41, 1999, 55–76, hier: 76. 72 Zu anderen römischen Privatsammlungen des 16. Jahrhunderts siehe Henning Wrede, Der Antikengarten der Del Bufalo bei der Fontana di Trevi, Mainz 1983; Eleonora Ronchetti, Sulla collezione di antichità di Eurialo Silvestri, in: Ricerche di Storia dell’arte 97, 2009, 77–87, sowie Lothar Sickel, Die

24

vagen dokumentarischen Fährte als Eigentümer einer solchen Sammlung entdeckt werden konnte, hat seinen Grund wesentlich in der hohen künstlerischen Qualität der Skulpturen in seinem Besitz. Es ist der einzigartige Charakter der Grimani-Reliefs, der ihre Identifizierung sogar anhand eines knappen Inventarvermerks ermöglichte.

SUMMARY

The paper presents new information on the history of the two “Grimani reliefs” that came to Vienna in 1885. The reliefs depict a lioness and a sheep with, respectively, her cub and her lamb; during the age of Augustus they decorated a fountain in the sanctuary of Fortuna in what is now Palestrina. With the help of newly discovered documents the author shows that the two sculptures were in the collection assembled by Canon Mario Conti in Rome at least since April 1572. As laid down in Conti’s will, they were presented to the hospital of San Giacomo degli Incurabili in June 1574, which sold them in January 1575 to Patriarch Giovanni Grimani, a native of Venice. Additional research presented here focuses on Canon Conti himself, on his family, and on his vigna near Santa Maria degli Angeli, one of the numerous gardens embellished with sculptures laid out there in the Cinquecento. The author also attempts to identify the other sculptures mentioned in documents as in Conti’s collection, among them a small statuette depicting Hercules and the Nemean lion, which he tentatively identifies as the one now in the Hermitage in St. Petersburg, and the base know as the Ara Grimani now in the Museo Archaeologico in Venice. It, too, was acquired by Patriarch Grimani in 1575 from Conti’s estate. The Conti Collection is an instructive example of the refined taste in antiquities that characterised many private collectors in 16th century Rome.

römische Antikensammlung der Zabrera alias Chiabrera und das Studium antiker Inschriften im Umkreis des Paolo Manuzio, in: Marburger Jahrbuch für Kunstwissenschaft 35, 2008, 113–137 (eine italienische Fassung mit Ergänzungen erschien in: Ligures. Rivista di archeologia, storia, arte e cultura ligure 7, 2009, 21–38). Das Inventar der Sammlung Zabrera vom 22. Mai 1573 wurde zuvor bereits angezeigt von Michel Hochmann, Venise et Rome 1500–1600. Deux écoles de peinture et leurs é­ changes, Genf 2004, 105.

25

26

Anne Markham Schulz

Simone Bianco, the Grimani Collection of Antiquities and Other Unexpected Findings*

The statue of a Muse in the Museo Archeologico at Venice, donated by Giovanni Grimani to the Serenissima in 1593, occupies a preeminent place in the history of Venetian sculpture as the single example of an antique work whose Renaissance reintegration can be attributed, dated, and construed (Figs. 1 and 2). The Muse is almost universally held to have been supplied with a head, right forearm, hands, feet, base, and a support by Tullio Lombardo at approximately the time of his execution of the Tomb of Doge Andrea Vendramin, recorded as underway by Marin Sanudo in 1493. Tullio’s restoration, moreover, is assumed to have transformed the Muse into a figure of Cleopatra, portrayed on the point of committing suicide by drinking poison.1 As a consequence of this identification, Tullio has been accorded a significant role as a restorer of antiquities, whose activity in that branch of sculpture had a profound effect upon his art.2 I shall attempt to prove that this interpretation is *



1

2

Fig. 1: Simone Bianco, Sophonisba/Muse, ­detail. Probably after 1528. (©: author.)

27

At the Museo Archeologico in Venice Michela Sediari kindly gave me easy access to the Sophonisba/ Muse and Marcella De Paoli answered all my questions. I am much indebted to Claudia Kryza-Gersch, who not only furnished me a preview of her article on the newly discovered heads in Vienna and gave me valuable advice on this paper, but was responsible for gaining me permission to photograph in the Munich Residenz. To all those who facilitated my photography at the Residenz, especially Christian Quaeitzch, I wish to extend my sincerest thanks. With great courtesy and expenditure of time, Manuela Laubenberger put at my disposal the Bust of a Woman in storage at the Antikensammlung of the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Linda Hinners, the Bust of a Man in storage at the Nationalmuseum, Stockholm and Dino Tomasso at the Tomasso Brothers’ Gallery in London. Davide Gasparotto provided information about the relief in Modena and suggested I look at the collection of the Munich Residenz. Besides furnishing photographs, Sergei Androsov guided me through storage at the Hermitage, while Konrad Schlegel assisted me repeatedly at the Kunsthistorisches Museum. The beautiful photographs of the heads in Munich were made by Mauro Magliani. This attribution, dating and interpretation are due to Debra Pincus, “Tullio Lombardo as a Restorer of Antiquities: an Aspect of Fifteenth Century Venetian Antiquarianism,” in Arte veneta, vol. XXXIII, 1979, pp. 29–42. Pincus was followed by: Orietta Rossi Pinelli, “Chirurgia della memoria: scultura antica e restauri storici,” in Salvatore Settis (ed.), Memoria dell’antico nell’arte italiana, vol. 3, Dalla tradizione all’archeologia, Turin, 1986, pp. 181–250, here pp. 208–209; Norbert Huse – Wolfgang Wolters, The Art of Renaissance Venice: Architecture, Sculpture, and Painting, 1460–1590, trans. Edmund Jephcott, Chicago – London, 1990, p. 147; Irene Favaretto – Gustavo Traversari, Tesori di scultura greca a Venezia. Raccolte private del ’500 al Museo Archeologico, Venice, 1993, pp. 119–120; Alison Luchs, Tullio Lombardo and Ideal Portrait Sculpture in Renaissance Venice, 1490–1530, Cambridge, 1995, pp. 26, 50, 109; Wendy Stedman Sheard, “Bernardo e Pietro Bembo, Pietro, Tullio e Antonio Lombardo: metamorfosi delle tematiche cortigiane nelle tendenze classicistiche della scultura veneziana,” in exhibition catalogue Maria Grazia Bernardini (ed.), Tiziano. Amor Sacro e Amor Profano, Rome (Palazzo delle Esposizioni), 1995, pp. 118–132, here p. 120; Maria Cristina Dossi, “L’altare Graziani Garzadori in Santa Corona a Vicenza e un restauro di Antonio Lombardo,” in Paragone, vol. XLVIII, nos. 15–16, 1997, pp. 24–46, here pp. 33–34; Giovanna Nepi Scirè, “… che non parean più quelle …: Restauri e restauratori per lo Statuario,” in exhibition catalogue Irene Favaretto – Giovanna Luisa Ravagnan (eds.), Lo statuario pubblico della Serenissima. Due secoli di collezionismo di antichità, 1596–1797, Venice (Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana), 1997, pp. 113–114, here p. 113; Massimo Ferretti, “Il ‘San

wrong on every count and that the protagonist of the story is really Simone Bianco. The Muse is dated by archeologists to the second half of the second century B.C. and is said to reproduce a figure from the late Hellenistic marble group of nine ­Muses by Philiskos of Rhodes, described by Pliny the Elder in his Natural History (XXXVI, 34); our figure, which originally would have held a scroll, probably depicted Clio.3 The figure in the Museo Archeologico comes from the collection which Giovanni Grimani, Patriarch of Aquileia, offered to the Venetian state on 3 February 1587 (modern style), some years before his death on 3 October 1593. There is no evidence concerning the date of Grimani’s acquisition of the statue, which could or could not have come from the estate of his uncle Domenico. In a testament of 16 August 1523, made eleven days before his death, Cardinal Domenico Grimani had left his collection, renowned especially for its antiquities, to the Venetian Republic, but the Signoria had accepted only sixteen antique sculptures, comprising eleven busts and five statues (of which ours was not one), and returned the rest to Cardinal and Patriarch Marino Grimani (d. 1546), Domenico’s heir and Giovanni’s elder brother. The statues that the Signoria did not accept, as well as new acquisitions by Marino and Giovanni, were displayed in their palace at Santa Maria Formosa until the collection, restored and inventoried, was transferred to the Statuario Pubblico in the Libreria di San Marco, inaugurated in 1596. The lead seal applied to the rear of the Muse proves that it was part of this consignment.4 In its present state – as everyone has perceived – the Muse appears to be suffering extreme emotional distress. In view of her expression, it was assumed that the bowl she holds in her upraised right hand alluded to a draught of poison which she was about to consume. The statue was identified, dubiously at first (“è comune opinione”) by Anton-Maria Zanetti the Younger (1736), and unreservedly a few years later in a joint work by Anton-Maria Zanetti the Younger and Anton-Maria Zanetti the Elder (pt. 1, 1740), as Cleopatra expiring from the bite of an asp coiled around her proper left upper arm, just visible beneath the drapery of her himation.5 Thus, the Muse en-

Fig. 2: Sophonisba/Muse. Second half of the 2nd cen. B.C.; Simone Bianco, probably after 1528. Marble. Venice, Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Sala VIII, inv. no. 53. (©: Venice, Museo Archeologico Nazionale.)

3

4

5

28

Marco’ del Duomo di Ravenna: Tullio Lombardo caccia due intrusi del ‘Thieme-Becker’,” in Prospettiva, nos. 95–96, 1999 (2000), pp. 2–23, here p. 7, with some reservations; Matteo Ceriana, “Profilo della scultura a Venezia tra il 1450 e il 1500,” in Gennaro Toscano – Francesco Valcanover (eds.), Da Bellini a Veronese: temi di arte veneta, Venice, 2004, pp. 23–81, here p. 49; Irene Favaretto – Marcella De Paoli – Maria Cristina Dossi (eds.), Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Venezia, Milan, 2004, p. 39, no. I.14 (entry by Maria Cristina Dossi); Marcella De Paoli, “Opera fatta diligentissimamente”. Restauri di scultura classiche a Venezia tra Quattro e Cinquecento, Rome, 2004, pp. 153–157 and passim; exhibition catalogue Matteo Ceriana (ed.), Gli Este a Ferrara. Il camerino di alabastro. Antonio Lombardo e la scultura all’antica, Ferrara (Castello Estense), 2004, p. 190, no. 37 (entry by Marcella De Paoli); Michel Hochmann, Venise et Rome 1500–1600. Deux écoles de peinture et leurs échanges, Geneva, 2004, p. 142; exhibition catalogue Mina Gregori (ed.), In the Light of Apollo. Italian Renaissance and Greece, Athens (National Gallery – Alexandros Soutzos Museum), 2003–2004, vol. 1, pp.  433–434, nos. X.11 a–c (entry by Roberta Roani); ibid., pp. 515–516, no. XIV.8 (entry by Mina Gregori); Laurie Fusco – Gino Corti, Lorenzo de’ Medici, Collector and Antiquarian, Cambridge, 2006, pp. 314–315, Doc. 136; Chrysa Damianaky, “Il busto di Giovane santo di Tullio Lombardo in Santo Stefano a Venezia: un riesame,” in Matteo Ceriana (ed.), Tullio Lombardo, scultore e architetto nella Venezia del Rinascimento. Atti del convegno di studi, Venezia, Fondazione Giorgio Cini, 4–6 aprile 2006, Verona, 2007, pp. 168–181, here pp. 172, 177; Alessandra Sarchi, “Cultura e pratica antiquaria nel percorso di Antonio Lombardo. Una proposta per il cosiddetto Ermafrodito Grimani,” in ibid., pp.  345–360, here p. 356; eadem, Antonio Lombardo (Studi di arte veneta, vol. 15), Venice, 2008, pp. 93–94, with reservations; Valeria Cafà, “Ancient Sources for Tullio Lombardo’s Adam,” in Metropolitan Museum Journal, vol. 49, pp. 32–47, here p. 33. The marble figure measures 109 cm in height without its Renaissance base. For the classical figure see Gustavo Traversari, La statuaria ellenistica del Museo Archeologico di Venezia, Rome, 1986, pp. 57– 59, no. 18. For the Grimani collection and donation see Pio Paschini, “Le collezioni archeologiche dei prelati Grimani del Cinquecento,” in Atti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia. Rendiconti, ser. 3, vol. 5, 1926–1927, pp. 149–190; Rodolfo Gallo, “Le donazioni alla Serenissima di Domenico e Giovanni Grimani,” in Archivio Veneto, ser. 5, vols. L–LI, 1952, pp. 34–77; Marilyn Perry, “Cardinal Domenico Grimani’s Legacy of Ancient Art to Venice,” in Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, vol. XLI, 1978, pp. 215–244. Pincus 1979 (cited note 1), pp. 32–33, quoting Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, MS it., Cl. IV, 122 (=5101), Antonio Maria d’Alessandro Zanetti, Descrizione delle statue, de’ busti, e d’altri marmi

tered the art historical literature with Cleopatra’s name and bears it still today. Nevertheless, in an inventory of 1659 Giovanni Neysi hesitantly suggested that the figure might represent Artemisia,6 while Giuseppe Valentinelli, following Winckelmann and others, pointed out that the supposititious asp on the figure’s left upper arm was actually an arm band in the form of a serpent – a common piece of jewelry in ancient Greece and Rome.7 If this is an armilla, then, clearly, the figure is not being bitten by an asp. In sum, the frequency with which Renaissance representations show Cleopatra expiring from snake-bite and the absence of any known scenes depicting her suicide by poison8 make it exceedingly unlikely that this statue was meant to depict Cleopatra. On the other hand, the figure could represent Artemisia who was so despondent after the death of her husband Mausolus that she “mixed his ashes in her daily drink and […] gradually died away in grief”.9 But since this course of action took two years to result in death, whereas our heroine’s death appears to be imminent, the figure probably does not represent Artemisia either. In fact, there is only one classical heroine who, not only killed herself instantaneously by drinking poison, but was a great favorite in Renaissance literature – Sophonisba. Among ancient authors, the death of Sophonisba was most amply described by Livy in Ab urbe condita libri CLXII (XXX,15),10 while Petrarch took up the story of her death with great enthusiasm – to judge from the length at which he told it in Africa (V,697– 773)11 and Boccaccio included her among his 106 famous women.12 Sophonisba was a Carthaginian princess, daughter of Hasdrubel, who had been married off by her father to Syphax, king of the Numidians, in order to secure the latter’s allegiance in the second Punic war. Syphax, however, was defeated by Masinissa, king of a rival band of Numidians and ally of the Roman leader Scipio Africanus. Thus Sophonisba fell into Masinissa’s hands. A nineteenth-century account of her death is worth quoting: “[…] her beauty exercised so powerful an influence [upon her conqueror Masinissa], that he not only promised to spare her from captivity, but, to prevent her falling into the power of the Romans, determined to marry her himself. Their nuptials were accordingly celebrated without delay, but Scipio (who was apprehensive lest she should exercise the same influence over Masinissa which she had previously done over Syphax) refused to ratify this arrangement, and upbraiding Masinissa with his weakness, insisted on the immediate surrender of the princess. Unable to resist this command, the Numidian king spared her the humiliation of captivity, by sending her a bowl of poison, which she drank without hesitation, and thus put an end to her own life.”13 Whether the crowned heroines who gaze upward unperturbedly while holding their bowl aloft, painted by Giovan Francesco Caroto (Verona, Museo del Castelvecchio, antichi dell’Antisala della Libreria Publica […], 1736, c. XIX [12r], no. 84: “È comune opinione, che questa sia Cleopatra, che si stia soffrendo volontariamente la velenosa puntura dell’aspide.” Also Antonio Maria di Girolamo Zanetti – Antonio Maria d’Alessandro Zanetti, Delle antiche statue greche e romane, che nell’Antisala della Libreria di San Marco, e in altri luoghi pubblici di Venezia si trovano, pt. 1, Venice, 1740, no. V: “Questa fuor d’ogni dubbio è l’idea di Cleopatra.” 6 Marilyn Perry, “The Statuario Publico of the Venetian Republic,” in Saggi e memoria di storia dell’arte, vol. VIII, 1972, pp. 76–150, here pp. 129–130, no. 23. 7 Giuseppe Valentinelli, Marmi scolpiti del Museo Archeologico della Marciana di Venezia, Prato, 1866, pp. 108–109, no. 166. For similar armillæ see Laura Breglia, Catalogo delle oreficerie del Museo Nazionale di Napoli, Rome, 1941, pp. 85–86, nos. 827–845. 8 Andor Pigler, Barockthemen. Eine Auswahl von Verzeichnissen zur Ikonographie des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts, vol. 2, Profane Darstellungen, Budapest – Berlin, 1956, pp. 382–386. 9 William Smith (ed.), Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, vol. I, Abaeus – Dysponteus, London, 1844, p. 377, s.v. Artemisia. See also Pigler 1956 (cited note 8), pp. 356–357. 10 No doubt, the story was less accessible in its Greek versions: Diodorus Siculus, The Library of History, XXVII,7; Cassius Dio, Zonaras, IX,13; Appian, The Punic Wars, XXVIII. 11 Francesco Petrarch’s account is shorter in De viris illustribus, VI,82–86. 12 Giovanni Boccaccio, Famous Women, trans. and ed. by Virginia Brown, Cambridge, MA, 2001, pp. 288– 295. Boccaccio concluded with a most unchristian moral: “To have faced certain death so boldly would have been a great and admirable deed worthy of notice even in the case of an old man, tired of life and with nothing to hope for except his demise. It was far more so for a young queen who, so far as knowledge of the world is concerned, was just entering upon life and beginning to see what joys it held.” (p. 295.) 13 Smith 1844 (cited note 9), vol. III, Oarses – Zygia and Zygius, p. 875, s.v. Sophonisba.

29

inv. no. 1260-1B341) and Giampietrino (Isola Bella, Borromeo Collection, cat. no. 15b), or the turbaned figure already drinking in Andrea Mantegna’s companion pan-

Fig. 3: Elder Son of Laocoon, detail. Plaster cast. Vatican City, Musei Vaticani, inv. no. 1067. (©: Berlin, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut.)

el to Tuccia (London, National Gallery, inv. no. NG1125B), represent Sophonisba or Artemisia is uncertain. But engravings by Georg Pencz and Heinrich Aldegrever, which show the heroine bringing a chalice to her lips in the presence of a servant, bear inscriptions with Sophonisba’s name.14 The honorable death of Sophonisba was popular in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century painting15 and inspired a great many tragedies from the sixteenth century on.16 In the dedication of his tragedy­ La Sofonisba of 1502 to Isabella d’Este, Galeotto del Carretto described his heroine thus: “più tosto elesse di bere il veleno da Massinissa suo novo sposo mandato, che perdendo libertade andar cattiva in servitù de’ Romani.”17 Gian Giorgio Trissino’s vernacular drama Sofonisba, written in 1515 and published in Rome in July of 1524, enjoyed a great success; a second corrected edition was published in September of the same year and a third edition in Vicenza in 1529.18 It was translated into French and spawned numerous dramas on the theme in many languages. A second assumption easily confuted is the dating of the restoration of the Muse to the last decade of the fifteenth century, for her expression was clearly inspired by the face of the elder son of the Hellenistic group of the Laocoon by Agesandrus, Polidorus and Atenodorus of Rhodes, discovered on the Esquiline in Rome on 14 January 1506 and installed in the Cortile delle Sculture in the Belvedere (Fig. 3).19 From that source come the sideways and upwardly directed glance, the low and deeply furrowed hairless brows and the slightly parted lips. The head of the Muse belongs to the genre of copies of the head of the elder son, of which several examples can be traced in Venice to the first half of the sixteenth century. To the three heads exhibited in Ferrara in 2004,20 one of which I ascribed to Antonio Lombardo who died in 1516,21 I can now add another in the Antiquarium of the Residenz at Munich.22 According to the Antiquarium catalogue, the Munich exemplar could well have been carved in Venice some decades later and sent to Albrecht V, Duke of Bavaria, by the dealer Niccolò Stoppio who, in a letter of 20 June 1567 listing the contents of a shipment from Venice, recorded “un figlio di Laocoonte che sta nel belvedere”. Indeed, imitations of the Laocoon’s elder son are found in numerous sculptures in Venice and Padua of the second and third decades of the sixteenth century.23

14 Robert A. Koch (ed.), The Illustrated Bartsch, vol. XVI (formerly vol. VIII, pt. 3), Early German Masters: Jacob Bink, Georg Pencz, Heinrich Aldegrever, New York, 1980, p. 112, no. 82 (343), p. 169, no. 62 (348), respectively. 15 Pigler 1956 (cited note 8), pp. 413–415. 16 See Charles Ricci, Sophonisbe dans la tragédie classique italienne et française, Turin, 1904 (Slatkine Reprint, Geneva, 1970), pp. 26–84, and A. José Axelrad, Le Thème de Sophonisbe dans les principales tragédies de la littérature occidentale, Lille, 1956, pp. 18–27. 17 Lovanio Rossi, “‘La Sofonisba’ di Galeotto del Carretto,” in Levia gravia, vol. 2, 2000, pp. 181–187, especially p. 186. Del Carretto’s play was published at Venice only in 1546. 18 Beatrice Corrigan, “Introduction,” in Two Renaissance Plays [Ludovico Ariosto, Il Negromante; Giovanni Giorgio Trissino, Sofonisba], Manchester, 1975, p. 15. 19 Francis Haskell – Nicholas Penny, Taste and the Antique. The Lure of Classical Sculpture 1500–1900 [1981], New Haven – London, 1988, pp. 243–247, no. 52. 20 The heads came from the National Museum at Warsaw, the Museo Civico Amedeo Lia at La Spezia, and the Kunsthistorisches Museum at Vienna. Another example is known to have been sold at Christie’s, New York, lot 106, on 13 January 1993 from the William Rockhill Nelson Trust in Kansas City (MO). For these heads see exh. cat. Ferrara 2004 (cited note 2), pp. 206–211, nos. 43–45 (entries by Anne Markham Schulz), and exhibition catalogue Sabine Haag (ed.), All’Antica. Götter & Helden auf Schloss Ambras, Innsbruck (Schloss Ambras), 2011, p. 77, no. 1.3.2 (entry by Claudia Kryza-­ Gersch). 21 This attribution was seconded by Sarchi 2008 (cited note 2), pp. 274–275, no. 30. 22 Inv. no. 232, for which see Ellen Weski – Heike Frosien-Leinz, Das Antiquarium der Münchner Residenz. Katalog der Skulpturen, Munich, 1987, text vol., pp. 367–368, no. 238. See also ibid., p. 457, doc. 34. Two plaster heads of the elder son of Laocoon, mentioned in an inventory of 1621, are at Innsbruck in the Schloss Ambras, for which see Elisabeth Scheicher, Führer durch das Kunsthistorische Museum, vol. 24, Die Kunstkammer, Innsbruck, 1977, pp. 162–163, nos. 408–409. 23 They comprise Antonio Minello’s Effigy of Dionigi Naldi da Brisighella, of 1512–15 in SS. Giovanni e Paolo, Venice, and the Investiture of St. Anthony of 1517 in the Cappella del Santo, Sant’Antonio, Padua; Bartolomeo Bergamasco’s St. Sebastian in the High Altar of the church of San Rocco at Venice

30

Fig. 4: Tullio Lombardo, Adam, detail. Ca. 1495–1500. White marble. New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Fletcher Fund, inv. no. 36.163. (©: New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art.)

On the basis of its source alone, therefore, the restoration of Sophonisba is unlikely to predate ca. 1510. But its subject has a more immediate cultural context among the small single figure reliefs executed chiefly by Giammaria Mosca in the 1520s,24 the great majority of whose subjects depict physical and mental anguish as a prelude to death, generally by suicide. The fascination with the theme of agony no doubt is due to the influence of the Laocoon, which proved that pain, even when not stoically endured, could provide sculptors with a noble theme. Thus Philoctetes, whose festering wound was so painful and so putrid that he was abandoned by his comrades on the Island of Lemnos, appears in four reliefs by Mosca and his shop; Mucius Scaevola holds his hand in a flame to prove his fortitude in three reliefs; Portia is shown about to kill herself by consuming live coals from her brazier, Cleopatra succumbs to the bite of an asp while Eurydice is on the point of receiving her lethal snake-bite. Dido in a bronze plaquette by Mosca and Lucrezia in a marble relief by another contemporary sculptor are depicted about to stab themselves to death.25 Within this group of heroines who welcomed death in order to preserve their honor, Sophonisba finds a fitting place. If the Grimani Muse was given a new head no earlier than ca. 1520 and not in the 1490s, what sculptor is most likely to have made it? Tullio Lombardo, who did not die until 1532, naturally comes to mind, but the face of Sophonisba is so different from Tullio’s customary physiognomies that one wonders how the label gained such currency. In support of her attribution, Pincus compared Sophonisba to Tullio’s Adam in the Metropolitan Museum (Figs. 1 and 4), yet what is far more striking is the contrast provided by the fleshiness of Adam’s nose and cheeks, the bulge beneath his brows, the fullness of his lips, the rounded contours of his face. By contrast, the substance of Sophonisba’s face has been so sublimated that features come to occupy of 1520–22, and Giammaria Mosca’s relief of Mucius Scaevola in the Staatliche Kunstsammlung at Dresden from the later 1520s. 24 Since Mosca was born between ca. 1495 and 1499, it is unlikely that any of his single figure reliefs were carved prior to 1520. A terminus ante quem is provided for them by the sculptor’s sudden departure for Poland in April 1529. 25 These reliefs and their cultural context are discussed by Anne Markham Schulz, Giammaria Mosca called Padovano, a Renaissance Sculptor in Italy and Poland, University Park, PA, 1998, vol. 1, pp.  61–82. For the marble reliefs see also exh. cat. Ferrara 2004 (cited note 2), pp. 250–261, 276–289, nos. 60–64, 70–75 (entries by Anne Markham Schulz, Sergei Androsov, and Alessandra Sarchi). For the plaquette of Dido in the Museo Nazionale di Palazzo Venezia, Rome, which I am now convinced is by Giammaria Mosca, see exhibition catalogue Franco Ambrosio (ed.), Donatello e il suo tempo. Il bronzetto a Padova nel Quattrocento e nel Cinquecento, Padua (Musei Civici), 2001, pp. 232–233, no. 63 (entry by Monica De Vincenti).

31

Fig. 5: Simone Bianco, Bust of a Man. White marble. Paris, Musée du Louvre, inv. no. MR 2498. (©: Paris, Musée du Louvre.)

a disproportionately large area of the contracted surface. The nose is very long and thin and perfectly straight, the nostrils are tiny, and the lids are rendered by the finest of strips. The lips are so attenuated that the upper lip nearly disappears while the lower lip does not nearly reach the corners of the mouth. Though Tullio’s un­ identifiable Virtue in the Tomb of Doge Giovanni Mocenigo in SS. Giovanni e Paolo from ca. 1522 is nearly thirty years later than the Adam and much closer to the presumed date of Sophonisba’s restoration, it is equally dissimilar in style. A more promising candidate, it seems to me, is Simone Bianco. Since there are no works of his comparable in subject matter or function, we must look to small Morellian details in the head of Sophonisba, in order to prove his authorship. The low furrowed brows, which conform to the same very moderated S-curves create a similarly troubled expression in Simone’s inscribed Bust of a Man in the Louvre (Fig.  5).26 Eyeballs in both heads are shifted to the corner of the eye and eyelids and tear ducts are made by equally fine incisions. In contrast to the rounded and abstracted surface of Tullio’s faces, Simone’s subtle probing of the contours of Sophonisba’s face yields an unstable surface subject to constant, if hardly perceptible, change. Lips are nearly fleshless; indeed, the upper lip in both Sophonisba and the Louvre head has almost no substance at all. Protuberant, but blunted and dimpled chins like ­S ophonisba’s recur in most of Simone’s female heads. To be sure, her hair looks nothing like the elaborate contemporary coiffures characteristic of Bianco’s busts

26 Inv. no. MR 2498. Geneviève Bresc-Bautier (ed.), Les sculptures européennes du musée du Louvre, Paris, 2006, p. 83. The bust is inscribed on the rear in Greek letters: “SIMON LEUKOS VENETOS EPOIEI” (Simone Bianco Venetian made [this]).

32

of women: the regular series of waves that flow from a central part, derived from reflections of Praxiteles’ Aphrodite of Cnidos or comparable depictions of a female goddess, were mandatory, however, in the restoration of an antique sculpture; the hair of Antico’s women, whether Venus or Cleopatra, is virtually identical.27 Simone di Niccolò Bianco is a sculptor on whom recent scholarship has increasingly focused as art historians and dealers, in the wake of a seminal article by Peter Meller,28 have come to recognize his hand in a number of previously unpublished works. Simone came from Loro in the upper Valdarno, located in the province of Arezzo,29 but by 1512 had become a Venetian citizen. Called “sculptor,” he was documented for the first time in June of that year, when he – along with the lapicida Martino dal Vedello – contracted with the Confraternity of the Holy Sacrament in Treviso to carve four marble reliefs of Old Testament prefigurations of the Last Supper and the Eucharist, including the Visit of the Three Angels to Abraham, the Meeting of Abraham and Melchizedek, and the Gathering of Manna. The price of 350 ducats suggests fairly large reliefs.30 Presumably the reliefs were intended for the vestibule of the Chapel of the Holy Sacrament in the Cathedral of Treviso, which had been decorated lavishly not long before with statuary and reliefs by Giambattista and Lorenzo Bregno.31 Why the apparent newcomer was preferred to the Bregno in this case is unfathomable. At any rate, the reliefs were never made; indeed, Simone Bianco is not known to have ever carved a narrative of this kind and reliefs by him of any size are rare. Simone’s name appears in several contemporary sources. In Lo verde antico of 1524 the Friulian Niccolò Liburnio dedicated a quatrain to him and elsewhere compared him to “bellin” (presumably, Giovanni Bellini).32 Marcantonio Michiel records having seen in 1532 in the Venetian house of the merchant Andrea Odoni a freestanding marble foot on a base carved by Simone, no doubt in imitation of an antique fragment, and his freestanding marble statuette, two Venetian feet in height (69.4 cm), of the nude Mars carrying a helmet on his shoulder.33 The statue of Mars and the foot were plausibly identified with two works reproduced in a catalogue of sculptures for sale from the Grimani palace in Santa Maria Formosa by the mid-nineteenth-century dealer Antonio Sanquirico,34 although the route which took the ­Odoni figures to Palazzo Grimani is obscure. The heads by Simone mentioned by Pietro Aretino in 1538 and Giorgio Vasari in 1550 as sent by the merchant Pandolfo ­Cenami to the King of France35 could refer to Simone’s two male classicizing busts in the 27 See Antico’s Venus in the Walters Art Museum, Baltimore; Venus Felix and Atropos, Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Kunstkammer; Crouching Venus, Madrid, Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection; ­Cleopatra, Boston, Museum of Fine Arts. 28 Peter Meller, “Marmi e bronzi di Simone Bianco,” in Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz, vol. XXI, 1977, pp. 199–210. 29 See Simone’s testament of 20 November 1547 transcribed by Gustav Ludwig, Archivalische Beiträge zur Geschichte der venezianischen Kunst, ed. by Wilhelm Bode, Georg Gronau, and Detlev Freiherr von Hadeln, Berlin, 1911, pp. 21–22. For a succinct account of Simone’s career see Günter Meißner – Andreas Beyer – Bénédicte Savoy, Wolf Tegethoff (eds.), Saur allgemeines Künstlerlexikon. Die bildenden Künstler aller Zeiten und Völker, vol. 10, Berrettini – Bikkers, Munich – Leipzig, 1995, pp. 445– 447, s.v. Bianco, Simone di Niccolò (entry by Anne Markham Schulz). 30 Gerolamo Biscaro, “Note storico-artistiche sulla Cattedrale di Treviso. II: La Cappella del Santissimo,” in Nuovo Archivio Veneto, ser. 2, vol. XVIII, pt. 1, 1899, pp. 179–197, here p. 188. 31 Anne Markham Schulz, Giambattista and Lorenzo Bregno. Venetian Sculpture in the High Renaissance, Cambridge, 1991, pp. 162–163, no. 15. 32 Niccolò Liburnio, Lo Verde antico delle cose volgari di Messer Nicolo Liburnio nuovamente uscite in luce, Venice, 1524, [38v, 54v], first reported by Giovanni Agosti, “Su Mantegna, 2. (All’ingresso della ‘maniera moderna’),” in Prospettiva, no. 72, 1993, pp. 66–82, here p. 81, note 58; idem, “Un amore di Giovanni Bellini,” in Francesco Caglioti – Miriam Fileti Mazza – Umberto Parrini (eds.), Ad Alessandro Conti (1946–1994), Pisa, 1996, pp. 45–83, here p. 70. 33 Marcantonio Michiel, Der Anonimo Morelliano (Marcanton Michiel’s Notizia d’opere del disegno) [1521–1543], trans. and ed. by Theodor von Frimmel, Vienna, 1896, pp. 82, 86. Andrea Odoni was portrayed in the midst of his collection by Lorenzo Lotto in a painting of 1527 in the Royal Collec­ tion, Windsor. 34 Irene Favaretto, “Simone Bianco: uno scultore del XVI secolo di fronte all’antico,” in Quaderni ticinesi di numismatica e antichità classiche, vol. XIV, 1985, pp. 405–422, here pp. 405–408. 35 Pietro Aretino, Lettere sull’arte, vol. I, 1526–1542, ed. by Ettore Camesasca, Milan, 1957, pp. 118–121,

33

Louvre36 and another belonging to the Louvre but exhibited at the Château de Compiègne. Simone’s name recurs in the second published edition of Pietro Aretino’s Cortigiana (1542)37 and Pietro’s letter of January 1546 to Christoph Fugger of Augsburg, resident at Venice, praised as Simone’s generous patron.38 Two letters of 25 June 1538 and May 1548 from Pietro to Simone testify to the warm friendship between the two Aretines.39 The second letter recalled the portrait of the wife of the Venetian patrician Nicolò Molin with an approbation that Titian and Jacopo Sansovino seconded, but criticized the “ruvidezza” of the figure’s intertwined tresses. Aretino’s letter of December 1553 to Titian calls Simone “pittore” and speaks of his extreme parsimony as though the sculptor were still alive.40 It is the last we hear of him. Simone frequently appeared in the role of witness before Venetian notaries: his signatures convey his patronymic, his place of origin, and his presence in Venice on the day in question. That he was conscious of his exceptional ability transpires from the fact that he always signed himself “sculptor”, rather than the more commonplace “lapicida” or “taiapiera”.41 A declaration to the tax office made by Giovanni di Alvise Emo on 1 December 1516 listed as a tenant in a house he owned in the parish of San Marcuola “mo simon scultor” who paid an annual rent of 10 ducats – an amount that indicates not unusually modest quarters.42 On 17 February 1525 (modern style) Simone was called before the Giudici dell’Esaminador to testify to the last wishes of his uncle, the late Ser Marin Bianco da Loro.43 Simone indited his own testament on 20 November 1547. As his executors he named his friend, the jeweler Alvise dei Lovrieri, the candle-maker Giovanni Battista Cormali da Brescia, Salvador Boco voltaruolo and Domenico Biondo painter.44 To Biondo Simone left a quarter of his residual estate.

especially p. 120, LXXVI; Giorgio Vasari, Le vite de’ più eccellenti pittori scultori e architettori, nelle redazioni del 1550 e 1568, ed. by Rosanna Bettarini and Paola Barocchi, Florence, 1971, vol. III, pt. 1 (text), p. 625, in the life of Vittore Carpaccio. For Vasari’s debt to Aretino see Barbara Agosti, “Intarsi dell’Aretino nella Torrentiniana,” in Prospettiva, nos. 141–142, 2011 (2012), pp. 158–163, here p. 158. For Cenami see Rosella Lauber, “Memoria, visione e attesa. Tempi e spazi del collezionismo artistico nel primo Rinascimento veneziano,” in Michel Hochmann – Rosella Lauber – Stefania Mason (eds.), Il collezionismo d’arte a Venezia. Dalle origini al Cinquecento, Venice, 2008, pp. 40–81, here p. 52. 36 Bresc-Bautier 2006 (cited note 26), pp. 82–83. 37 Pietro Aretino, La Cortigiana, act 3, scene vii. 38 Aretino 1957 (cited note 35), vol. II, 1543–1555, p. 128, CCXCVIII. For Fugger see Andrew John Martin, “Dürers Rosenkranzfest und eine Fuggergrablege mit einem Gemälde von Battista Franco in San Bartolomeo di Rialto: Zu den verwirrenden Angaben in Francesco Sansovinos Venetia città nobilissima et singolare (1581),” in Studia Rudolphina, vol. VI, 2006, pp. 59–63. 39 Aretino 1957 (cited note 35), vol. I, pp. 118–121, LXXVI, and vol. II, pp. 244–245, CDLIV. 40 Ibid., vol. II, p. 438, DCLXV. 41 Venice, Archivio di Stato (hereafter ASVe), Archivio notarile, Testamenti, B. 790 (not. Sebastiano Pilloto), no. 29, 2 April 1529; ibid., Testamenti, B. 190 (not. Girolamo Canali), no. 419, 12 April 1535; ibid., Testamenti, B. 78 (not. Carlo Bianco), no. 221, 9 March 1536; ibid., Testamenti, B. 776 (not. Zaccaria Priuli), no. 38, 4 March 1537; ibid., Testamenti, B. 78 (not. Carlo Bianco), no. 137, 4 June 1544; ibid., Testamenti, B. 776, (not. Zaccaria Priuli), no. 38, 24 September 1544. In 1546 a “Ser Simon taiapiera da Veniesia” was listed among the members of the Scuola Grande di San Marco; ASVe, Scuola Grande di San Marco, Reg. 4 (Mariegola 1480–1540), c. 137v, but this is unlikely to refer to Simone Bianco, since he was denominated “taiapiera”, not “sculptor”. Simone, together with the painter Vettor Brunelli, witnessed a testament on 13 June 1529; Gustav Ludwig, “Archivalische Beiträge zur Geschichte der venezianischen Malerei,” in Jahrbuch der Königlich Preußischen Kunstsammlungen, vol. XXVI, supplement, 1905, pp. 1–159, here p. 151. Lauber (2008, cited note 35, p. 52) found Simone among the witnesses to an inventory of the patrician Giovanni Antonio Memmo on 3 January 1533, while Alessandra Lotto discovered his signature on the testament, dated 12 April 1534, of Angela, natural daughter of Vincenzo di Doge Antonio Grimani; Alessandra Lotto, “Il collezionismo artistico dei Grimani di Santa Maria Formosa nel Cinquecento,” in Venezia arti, vol. XVII–XVIII, 2003–2004 (2006), p. 24. 42 ASVe, Dieci Savi alle Decime, B. 44 (San Marcuola), no. 168. 43 ASVe, Giudici dell’Esaminador, Esami e testamenti, B. 1, fasc. 1 cc. 17r and v. Since I discovered the document, the fondo has been rearranged and the busta in question can no longer be found. 44 Domenico Biondo was a collaborator of Bonifazio de’ Pitati in whose shop at Sant’Alvise he worked. Son of Damiano, Biondo is recorded between 1529 and 1553, but his one documented painting does not survive. The documents concerning him were published by Gustav Ludwig, “Bonifazio di Pitati da Verona, eine archivalische Untersuchung,” in Jahrbuch der Königlich Preußischen Kunstsammlungen, vol. XXII, 1901, pp. 61–78 and pp. 180–200, here p. 72 and pp. 180–183; ibid., vol. XXIII, 1902, pp. 36–66, here pp. 64–65, and Michelangelo Muraro, “Il memoriale di Zuan Paolo da Ponte,” in Archivio veneto, ser. 5, vol. XLIV–XLV, 1949 (1950), pp. 77–88, here pp. 86–87. For a brief account of

34

From his testament it would appear that Simone had neither wife nor child. Indeed, his nearest living relative evidently was a nephew living in Famagosta, Cyprus. A

Fig. 6: Simone Bianco, Bust of a Woman (“Fabia Orestilia”). White and red mottled marble. Munich, Residenz, Antiquarium, cat. 330, inv. no. 167. (©: Magliani.)

goldsmith, Marco Caorlino, was present as witness.45 Bianco’s date of death is not known. Since the Sophonisba/Muse was not recorded in the Grimani collection (or elsewhere) until 1593, we cannot be sure that a Grimani patron entrusted Simone ­Bianco after ca. 1520 with its restoration. Nonetheless, the fact that Simone received two notable commissions from Marino Grimani in the 1520s makes it more than plausible that it was he who ordered Simone’s head of Sophonisba. Documents recently discovered by Michel Hochmann reveal that Simone Bianco was paid by Marco Grimani on behalf of his brother Marino for work on bronze busts of the late Doge Antonio Grimani and his son, Cardinal Domenico Grimani, between 29 July 1523 and 7 January 1524.46 On 1 February 1526 Marin Sanudo saw the two bronze busts in Santa Maria Formosa; they had been borrowed by the parish priest in order to ornament the church, host to the doge and Signoria at vespers on the feast-day of the Purification of the Virgin.47 These busts were praised in a letter from Giovanni Battista Malatesta to Federico II Gonzaga, Marquis of Mantua. On 15 March 1526 Federico had asked his agent in Venice to learn the price of a series of life-size bronze busts of famous military leaders and find out who should make them. Malatesta replied that they would cost 40 ducats per head and that there was one (unnamed) sculptor who “lavora molto bene, e tra le altre molte sue belle opere el mi ha mostrato le teste delli Serenissimo e Reverendissimo Grimani fate novamente tanto belle che non se li potria aggionger”.48 The sculptor would accept Gonzaga’s commission willingly, but nothing more is heard of it; nor have the Grimani busts ever come to light.49 If, indeed, the patron of Sophonisba’s restoration was a Grimani, then the Muse’s transformation is not likely to predate December 1528, when the Signoria returned the unwanted portions of Domenico Grimani’s bequest – over 170 miscellaneous pieces – to Marco Grimani.50 How much before Simone’s death, sometime after December 1553, he might have restored the Muse is impossible to say; Marino died on 28 September 1546, but acquisitions and restorations continued to be made by Giovanni until the second Grimani donation.51

45 46

47

48 49

50 51

35

his life see Meißner et al. 1995 (cited note 29), vol. XI, Bīklār – Bobrov, p. 122, s.v. Biondo, Domenico (entry by Reinhold Wortmann). Ludwig 1911 (cited note 29), pp. 21–22. Michel Hochmann, “Les collections des familles ‘papalistes’ à Venise et à Rome du XVIe au XVIIIe siècle,” in Olivier Bonfait et al. (eds.), Geografia del collezionismo. Italia e Francia tra il XVI e il XVIII secolo. Atti delle giornate di studio dedicate a Giuliano Briganti, Roma, 19–21 settembre 1996, Rome, 2001, pp. 203–223, here pp. 219–221. The documents have been published most recently by Victoria Avery, Vulcan’s Forge in Venus’ City. The Story of Bronze in Venice 1350–1650, Oxford, 2011, p. 367, doc. 55. Marin Sanudo, I diarii, vol. 40, Venice, 1894, col. 758: “Et cussì si andò iusta il solito a vespero a Santa Maria Formosa, dove el piovan nuovo, pre’ Piero di... (sic) fe conzar benissimo la chiexia [...] e vidi do retrati come el vivo dal busto in su di bronzo, videlicet il serenissimo missier Antonio Grimani e suo fiol cardinal Grimani; sichè la chiexia fo conzada benissimo di tapezarie.” Hochmann 2001 (cited note 46), pp. 219–221. Avery (2011, cited note 46, p. 132) hypothesized that Bianco’s Bust of Antonio Grimani might be identical with the bronze bust from the Galleria Giorgio Franchetti alla Ca’ d’Oro, now exhibited in Palazzo Grimani at Santa Maria Formosa. Despite its convincing identification as Antonio Grimani, this work cannot be the documented Grimani portrait for two reasons: the bronze bust does not represent a doge and it bears no evidence of Bianco’s hand. For this see Daniele Ferrara, “Il busto in bronzo di Antonio Grimani. Ipotesi sull’attribuzione e sui contesti,” in Matteo Ceriana – Victoria Avery (eds.), L’industria artistica del bronzo del Rinascimento a Venezia e nell’Italia settentrionale. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi, Venezia, Fondazione Giorgio Cini, 23 e 24 ottobre 2007, Verona, 2008, pp. 156–177, here pp. 157–162, who demonstrated that the bust represents Antonio Grimani as Procuratore di San Marco, a position he held between 1516 and 1521. Avery’s attribution was also rejected by Claudia Kryza-Gersch, “Discovered in the Stores: Two Female Busts by Simone Bianco in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna,” in Peta Motture – Emma Jones – Dimitrios Zikos (eds.), Carvings, Casts & Collectors. The Art of Renaissance Sculpture, London, 2013, pp. 72–87, here p. 85, note 12. Paschini 1926–1927 (cited note 4), pp. 156–157; Gallo 1952 (cited note 4), p. 38; Perry 1978 (cited note 4), p. 222. Paschini 1926–1927 (cited note 4), pp. 162–165.

Fig. 7: Simone Bianco, Bust of a Woman (“Fabia Orestilia”), detail. Munich, Residenz. (©: Magliani.) Fig. 8: Simone Bianco, Bust of a Girl. White marble. Leeds, Tomasso Brothers Fine Art. (©: Tomasso Brothers.)

It has not been observed hitherto that the quality of the head is incomparably b ­ etter than that of the other restorations to the figure – chiefly, its hands and feet (Fig. 2).52 Indeed, Sophonisba’s head is considerably smaller in scale than her hands and feet and far better adapted to the size of her limbs and torso. Since the figure’s expression corresponds precisely to her attribute and gesture, it is unlikely that one campaign to add a head and another to reintegrate the figure with hands, feet, drapery, and a support were distinct from one another. Rather, Simone may have been part of an équipe involved in restoring the Grimani antiquities and, as the most accomplished of the team, was naturally assigned the head. However that may be, the feet of Sophonisba are identical to the feet of another statue from the bequest of Giovanni Grimani, the Peplophoros (Venice, Museo Archeologico Nazionale, inv. no. 15), and were doubtless carved by the same mediocre lapicida.53 In addition to the head of Sophonisba, there are three freestanding busts and one relief by Simone Bianco that have not been recognized as his till now. Given his close acquaintance with the sculpture of classical antiquity, it is not surprising that two of his heads, both of marble, in the Antiquarium of the Residenz at Munich (inv. nos. 167 and 248) were displayed for centuries as ancient Roman works. In their catalogue of the collection of 1987, to be sure, Ellen Weski and Heike Frosien-Leinz observed, not only that the heads were not antique, but that their coiffures derived from Renaissance models; on the basis of their classicizing profiles, however, the heads were catalogued as nineteenth-century.54 But comparison with the unsigned 52 The rendering of her proper right foot is characterized by the excessive contraction of the big toe at its mid-point where the second joint should be; the space between the first and second toes is exaggerated whereas the second and third toes touch; the strap of the sandal is displaced toward the inside of her foot. Sophonisba’s hands are equally gross: wrists are thick and inelegant and the knuckles of her right hand show the same contraction as the knuckles of her toes. 53 In this, I concur with the attribution of De Paoli (2004, cited note 2, pp. 156, 191, 202). The Peplophoros is called here Abbondanza-Demetra and is assigned the number R1. 54 Weski – Frosien-Leinz 1987 (cited note 22), pp. 424–425, nos. 329–330.

36

Fig. 9: Simone Bianco, Bust of a Woman. White marble and stucco. Munich, Residenz, Paramentenkammer, cat. 329, inv. no. 248. (©: Magliani.) Fig. 10: Simone Bianco, Bust of a Woman. White marble. Kunsthistorisches Museum, Sammlungen Schloss Ambras, inv. no. PA 654. (©: KHM-Museumsverband.)

Bust of a Woman in Berlin (Fig. 12), the first classicizing female bust to enter B ­ ianco’s canon,55 the Bust of a Woman formerly owned by Patricia Wengraf Ltd. in London and auctioned on 8 November 2012 at Christie’s, Paris,56 the Head of a Girl owned by Tomasso Brothers Fine Art, Leeds (Fig. 8),57 and a female bust in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, recently discovered at Schloss Ambras (inv. no. PA 654) and published by Claudia Kryza-Gersch (Fig. 10),58 all of which are persuasively ascribed to Simone on the basis of their resemblance to his inscribed Portrait of a Woman in the Statens Museum, Copenhagen (inv. no. 5516), prove that he is the author of the Munich heads as well. The head which terminates at the mid-point of the shoulders and is inserted into a colored marble sixteenth-century bust is located in front of a window along the left wall of the Antiquarium (Figs. 6 and 7); beneath is an inscription which, no doubt, 55 Ursula Schlegel, „Simone Bianco und die venezianische Malerei,” in Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz, vol. XXIII, 1979, pp. 187–196; Luchs 1995 (cited note 2), p. 105; Gregori 2003–2004 (cited note 2), pp. 515–516, no. XIV.8; exhibition catalogue Alison Luchs (ed.), Tullio Lombardo and Venetian High Renaissance Sculpture, Washington, D.C. (National Gallery of Art), 2009, pp. 78–81, no. 4 (entry by Matteo Ceriana). 56 Without identifying its owner, the bust was convincingly assigned to Simone Bianco by Ursula Schlegel, “Eine unbekannte Büste von Simone Bianco,” in Antologia di belle arti, ser. 2, fasc. 35–38, 1990, pp. 148–152. On 8 November 2013 the bust was auctioned by Christie’s, Paris, in sale no. 3560: Le goût français – arts décoratifs du XIIe au XIXe siècle, lot 177. See also Thomas Martin, “Michelangelo’s Brutus and the Classicizing Portrait Bust in Sixteenth-Century Italy,” in Artibus et historiae, vol. XIV, no. 27, 1993, pp. 67–83, here p. 81, note 24; Luchs 1995 (cited note 2), p. 113. 57 Sarah Blake McHam – Alison Luchs, “Venetian Expressive Busts. Portraiture, Narrative, or Fantasy?,” in exh. cat. Washington D.C. 2009 (cited note 55), pp. 60–65, here p. 63; exhibition catalogue Scultura III: Tomasso Brothers Fine Art, New York (Otto Naumann), 2010, pp. 26–27, no. 6 (entry by Carolyn Miner) 58 Exh. cat. Innsbruck 2011 (cited note 20), pp. 246–247, no. 4.20, and Kryza-Gersch 2013 (cited note 49), pp. 72–87, especially pp. 82–85. A female head (inv. no. I 1490), in storage in the Antikensammlung of the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, was also attributed to our sculptor by Kryza-Gersch. But the plodding diligence of its execution seems to me indicative of an early 19th-century imitation of a bust by Simone Bianco, which – at the time – presumably was thought to be antique.

37

was applied ad hoc and reads “FABIS / GORD / VXOR” in reference to Fabia ­Orestilia, wife of the Roman proconsul of Africa, M. Antonius Gordianus surnamed Africanus (d. 238 A.D.). Although it seems to represent a girl slightly older than the sitter portrayed in the Tomasso brothers’ Head of Girl (Fig. 8), and unlike that head, possesses lightly incised irises and pupils, it could not be more similar unless it were a replica. The same fashionable coiffure,59 rendered with great particularity, is combined with a highly generalized physiognomy derived from classical heads of Venus or Minerva: foreheads are low, hairless brows are straight and low, eyes are large, and broad flat noses are not pinched or indented at the bridge. Indeed, the very great similarity of the two marble heads suggests that these were not portraits at all, but rather idealized depictions of beautiful girls in the flower of their youth. The Head of a Woman over a doorway in Room 91 in the Paramentenkammer of the Residenz (Figs. 9 and 11) retains a few of the original folds of a chiton but also is inserted in a bust which does not belong to it – this one of stucco; the disfiguring seam is quite visible. The closest cognate of this bust is the one that formerly belonged to Patricia Wengraf. The hair at the nape swept upward recurs in the Bust of a Woman in the Bode-Museum, Berlin (Fig. 12). Tucked beneath the furled locks of hair in the bust in Munich are telltale braids that descend from the love knot at the crown. The current collection of the Antiquarium in Munich was assembled very largely in the mid-sixteenth century by Albrecht V, Duke of Bavaria, with entire collections purchased at Venice through the agency of the rival dealers, the Mantuan Jacopo Strada (d. 1588) and the Fleming Niccolò Stoppio (d. January 1570).60 In 1567 Strada succeeded – after long negotiations – in acquiring for Albrecht the collection of Andrea Loredan.61 But Simone Bianco’s works are more likely to have been bought in Venice by Stoppio, who made a specialty of heads – more widely available and cheaper than statues; moreover, since he ascribed special importance to the condition of the works he sold, Stoppio was often as content to supply sculptures after the antique that were perfectly preserved as antiques themselves. Between December 1566 and July 1567 Stoppio purchased for the duke 84 heads, among which were a great many that were not antique. Indeed, since Bianco’s heads in the Antiquarium are not signed, as so many of them were (in Greek),62 they could easily Although her hair is kinky, the woman portrayed in the Double Portrait inscribed by Tullio Lombardo in the Ca’ d’Oro, probably from the early 1490s, is wearing an analogous coiffure. A similar hair style is worn by women in two paintings by Giovanni Cariani, Gentiluomini e cortigiani, 1519, Bergamo, private collection, and Lot and his Daughters, ca. 1540, Milan, Castello Sforzesco, inv. no. 27, for which see Rodolfo Pallucchini – Francesco Rossi, Giovanni Cariani, Bergamo, 1983, pp. 112–113, no. 22, and pp. 126–127, no. 49, respectively. 60 Renate von Busch, Studien zu deutschen Antikensammlungen des 16. Jahrhunderts, PhD thesis, Eberhard-Karls-Universität, Tübingen 1973, pp. 115–122 and 139–146, especially pp. 141–142, and Heike Frosien-Leinz, „Zur Bedeutung des Antiquariums im 16. Jahrhundert,“ in Weski – Frosien-Leinz 1987 (cited note 22), pp. 32–64, especially pp. 32–39, repeated in abbreviated form by eadem, “Venezianische Antikennachahmungen im Antiquarium der Münchner Residenz aus der Sammlung Albrechts V.,” in Venezia e l’archeologia (Rivista d’archeologia. Supplementi, vol. 7), Rome, 1990, pp. 209–215, here p. 210. In this article she also assigns to Simone Bianco six heads in the Residenz (nos. 201–203, 231, 232, 243). I do not concur with her attributions which, in fact, have found no echo in the literature. 61 For the collections of Andrea Loredan and Jacopo Strada see Isabella Cecchini’s corresponding biographical entries in Hochmann et al. 2008 (cited note 35), pp. 293–294, and pp. 310–312, respectively. 62 They are the male busts in the Nationalmuseum at Stockholm; in the Kunsthistorisches Museum at Vienna; in the Château de Compiègne and the Louvre, where there are two, and one female bust in the Statens Museum for Kunst in Copenhagen. In addition, a relief of the Saviour in bust-length in the Collection of Count Schönborn in the Schloss Weißenstein in Pommersfelden is also signed in Greek. Three records mention marble busts inscribed in the same fashion. These records may refer to the same, or to two or three different, objects; one of these records refers to an identifiable bust, but the others may document a lost work or works. The busts in question comprise 1. male bust seen in the Hofbibliothek at Vienna in 1752 (Marco Foscarini, Della letteratura veneziana, vol. I, Padua, 1752, p. 351, note 40; Giammaria Mazzuchelli, Gli scrittori d’Italia, cioè notizie storiche, e critiche intorno alle vite e agli scritti dei letterati italiani, vol. II, pt. 2, Brescia, 1760, p. 1164; Emanuele Antonio Cicogna, Delle inscrizioni veneziane, vol. V, Venice, 1842, pp. 218, 660–661); 2. bust of Augustus, without a laurel crown but wearing a pallium, in the collection of the Reichshofrat Joachim Albrecht von Hess, Vienna, who through inheritance had acquired the great Viennese collection known as the Museum Francianum of the Imperial Treasurer Josef Angelo de France (1691–1761). The collection 59

38

Fig. 11: Simone Bianco, Bust of a Woman, detail. Munich, Residenz. (©: Magliani.)

Fig. 12: Simone Bianco, Bust of a Woman. White marble. Berlin, Bode-Museum, inv. no. 12/71. (©: Berlin, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin.)

Fig. 13: Simone Bianco, Profile Bust of a Woman. White marble relief. Modena, Galleria Estense, inv. no. 2045. (©: Magliani.)

39

Fig. 14: Simone Bianco, Head of Septimius ­Severus. Bronze. St. Petersburg, Hermitage ­Museum, inv. no. Н.ск-311. (©: St. Petersburg, Hermitage Museum.)

have passed for antiques. The marble relief of a bust-length female profile facing right in the Galleria Estense at Modena also proves to be a work by Simone Bianco (Fig. 13).63 The fullness of cheek and chin suggests a matron, not a girl. Her physi-

was later sold off by von Hess (Georg Heinrich Martini – Joseph Hilarius Eckhel – Friedrich Wolfgang Reiz, Musei Franciani descriptio, vol. II, Comprehendens signa, capita et imagines […], Leipzig – Saalbach, 1781, pp. 105–106, no. 189 [entry by Georg Heinrich Martini]; for the collection see also Allgemeine deutsche Biographie, vol. VII, Ficquelmont – Friedrich Wilhelm III. von Sachsen-Altenburg, Leipzig, 1878, [reprint Berlin, 1968], p. 206, s.v. France, Josef de [entry by Heinrich Kábdebo]); 3. bust of a man (Hadrian?) offered for sale in Paris in 1880 by a great Hungarian family (Antoine Héron de Villefosse, “Demande de renseignements sur un sculpteur italien,” in Bulletin monumental, ser. 5, vol. XLVI, 1880, pp. 379–380), which Kryza-Gersch (2013, cited note 49, p. 76) convincingly identified with the Bust of a Man in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna (Kunstkammer, inv. no. KK 7125); and 4. freestanding Putto bearing a torch in the possession of the Munich – then New York – dealer A. S. Drey between 1924 and 1935. The sculpture had come from Palazzo degli Albizzi, Florence. Unlike all the other inscribed works, this sculpture bore on its base Bianco’s name in Italian (Leo Planiscig, “Simone Bianco,” in Belvedere, vol. V, 1924, pp. 157–163, here p. 161; exhibition catalogue Exhibition of Sculpture of the Italian Renaissance, New York [A. S. Drey Galleries], 1935, p. 15, no. 38). 63 Inv. no. 2045; the relief measures 35 x 26 cm; Roberto Salvini, “Sculture inedite al Museo Estense,” in Emporium, vol. CV, 1947, pp. 153–166, here p. 162: circle of Tullio Lombardo; idem, La Galleria Estense di Modena (Itinerari dei musei e monumenti d’Italia, vol. 25), Rome, 1955, p. 40 (Sala XX): Arte veneziana, inizio sec. XVI; Luchs 1995 (cited note 2), p. 162, no. 52; exhibition catalogue Andrea Bacchi – Luciana Giacomelli (eds.), Rinascimento e passione per l’antico. Andrea Riccio e il suo tempo, Trent (Castello del Buonconsiglio – Museo Diocesano Tridentino), 2008, pp. 508–509, no. 116 (entry by Andrea Bacchi), with the same generic attribution. In comparison to the very similar marble relief of a female head in profile privately owned (formerly Tomasso Brothers Fine Art, Leeds), which he catalogued, Bacchi found the Modena relief inferior in quality – “un busto più sgrammaticato” that betrays “un’incerta gestione del rapporto spaziale fra la cornice e la ‘testa’”. By contrast, I rate the Modena relief above the female head exhibited at Trent: a comparison of the two underscores the accurate foreshortening in the features of the face in Modena; the plastic and spatial differentiation of folds which hint at the existence of a body; the presence of the farther shoulder; the narrowing of the braid as it descends, the uncrowded placement of the head on the surface of the relief. Nonetheless, the dependence of the Tomasso Brothers’ head on a model by Simone Bianco is incontestable.

40

Fig. 15: Simone Bianco, Bust of a Man. White marble. Stockholm, Nationalmuseum, inv. no. NMSk 75a. (©: Stockholm, Nationalmuseum.) Fig. 16: Simone Bianco, Bust of a Man (Hadrian?). White marble. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Kunstkammer, inv. no. KK 7125. (©: KHM-Museumsverband.)

ognomy shows the usual generically classicizing features, but her hair is rendered in very low relief with a great deal of incised detail. The waves of hair clinging closely to the skull have the same density and follow the same slightly but consistently varied paths as the tresses of the Berlin sitter’s hair (Fig. 12); only the lower part of the ear is visible beneath the hair and short locks escape to curl around it, like the strands of the Wengraf Girl and the bust from Schloss Ambras, while the intertwining plaits in Modena recur in almost every head by Simone. It is amusing to note that, unless he was portraying a particular woman (as he appears to have done in the Copenhagen Bust of a Woman), the sculptor hardly altered his female physiognomies, but he rarely repeated coiffures or drapery. I would also attribute to Simone Bianco a bronze head in the Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg (Fig. 14).64 The image includes the entire neck but only a small portion of the chest and shoulders and ends below in a neat horizontal cut: probably the head was meant to be inserted in a marble bust. The crimping of a linen shirt is visible at the squared neckline of some heavier unidentifiable garment from which a decorative border rises. The head is identified as a Portrait of Emperor Septimius Severus (146–211 A.D.; emperor from 193 A.D.) and is currently labeled “Venetian sculptor, first quarter of the sixteenth century”. The antique type on which our head is based was known as the “Serapis-Severus portrait type” because of its adoption of the separate strings of corkscrew locks falling onto the figure’s forehead, which “belong uniquely to the iconography of the Egyptian god of the lower world”.65 The long

64 Sergei Androsov, Museo statale Ermitage. La scultura italiana dal XIV al XVI secolo, Milan, 2008, p. 139, no. 159. The bust was acquired by the museum before 1865. It has an artificial black patina and measures 56 cm in height. There is a large patch in the lower part of the beard under the portrait’s proper right cheek, probably due to a casting flaw, and another patch in the right eye. Doubtless, the locks of hair and beard, as well as the incisions of the eyebrows, were finished after casting. The rear of the head is rather flat and less highly worked: a rough area in back suggests what the unfinished surface of the cast must have looked like. I reject Androsov’s claim (ibid., pp. 138–139, no. 158) that the Portrait of Septimius Severus had a pendant in the Hermitage’s bronze Portrait of Hadrian, replicated as an independent work in innumerable versions in bronze and once in marble. 65 Anna Marguerite McCann, The Portraits of Septimius Severus, A. D. 193–211 (Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, vol. XXX), Rome, 1968, pp. 109–117 and 155–178, nos. 46–97.

41

Fig. 17: Bust of a Man. Venetian, 16th cen. Bronze. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Kunstkammer, inv. no. KK 5615. (©: KHM-Museumsverband.)

moustache, divided in the center and drooping over the corners of the mouth is common to this type; the turn and tilt of the head likewise follow Roman portraits of Septimius Severus. Apart from its extraordinary quality, certain features point to the hand of Simone Bianco in the bronze. They include the rounded bulge of the low brows in which there are incised short, wavy lines – moderated S-curves – that are identical in their calligraphy to the hairs incised in Simone’s inscribed marble Portrait of a Man in the Nationalmuseum, Stockholm (Fig. 15). Like the head in Stockholm, the tear-ducts of Septimius Severus, with their incised membrane, are created by a detour in the curvature of the lids. The lateral view of both heads has occasioned very slight perspectival distortions, which qualify the symmetry of the face. Though the beard of Septimius Severus is longer than that of the inscribed marble Bust of a Man in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna (Fig. 16), the vigorous play of the tousled, short, hook-shaped locks, every one of which is distinctive in its length, thickness, and rhythm, is analogous. The quality of the Hermitage portrait provides a standard by which to judge the other bronze heads of men attributed to Simone Bianco: in comparison to this, every one of them, including the widely accepted Head of a Man in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna (Fig. 17), is wanting.66 66

42

The most plausible – but ultimately unacceptable – contender for inclusion in Simone Bianco’s oeuvre is the bronze Head of a Man in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna (Kunstkammer, inv. no. KK 5615), proposed by Meller (1977, cited note 28, p. 202) and seconded by Sergei O. Androsov, “Bemerkungen zu Kleinplastiken zweier Ausstellungen (Leningrad, 1977 – Budapest, 1978),” in Acta historiae artium, vol. XXVI, 1980, pp. 143–157, here p. 147; Manfred Leithe-Jasper, Renaissance Master Bronzes from the Collection of the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, Washington D.C., 1986, pp. 138– 139, no. 30, with earlier bibliography; Irene Favaretto, “Antico o moderno? Un ritratto inedito della collezione rinascimentale di Marco Mantova Benavides,” in: Nicola Bonacasa – Giovanni Rizza (eds.), Ritratto ufficiale e ritratto privato (Atti della II Conferenza Internazionale sul Ritratto Romano, ­Rome, 26–30 Sept. 1984), Rome, 1988, pp. 289–294, here p. 293; Victoria Avery, “The Production, Display and Reception of Bronze Heads and Busts in Renaissance Venice and Padua: Surrogate Antiques,” in Jeanette Kohl – Rebecca Müller (eds.), Kopf/Bild. Die Büste in Mittelalter und Früher Neuzeit, ­Munich

Although Simone Bianco’s extant production was largely limited to heads and busts,67 the busts had different origins and patrons and served different functions. There were, first of all, portraits of real sitters, to which genre the Portrait of the Wife of Nicolò Molin mentioned by Pietro Aretino, as well as the busts in Stockholm, Copenhagen, in the Paramentenkammer of the Munich Residenz, and the newly found Portrait of a Woman in Vienna belong; these works were doubtless all bespoke. A second category comprised imitation antique busts, such as the Vienna Portrait of a Man probably intended as Hadrian, the Septimius Severus, and the two pseudo-Roman male busts in the Louvre and one in Compiègne; these might have been ordered individually by a private collector such as Christoph Fugger or produced in series for export by an agent – probably to an aristocratic patron who needed several to furnish a gallery or hall. The busts of generically beautiful women, such as the Girls owned by the Residenz at Munich and Tomasso Brothers and the Woman owned by the Bode-Museum at Berlin, together with the one formerly owned by Patricia Wengraf, evidently represented neither real Venetians nor Roman heroines, but corresponded to the contemporary partiality for images of beautiful women by Jacopo Palma il Vecchio, T ­ itian, and Paris Bordone. Conceivably they were made on speculation and ordered or purchased directly from Simone’s workshop. If so, along with the contemporary sculptor active in Padua and Venice, Giammaria Mosca, Simone Bianco would have been among the first Venetian sculptors to produce marble sculptures without commissions and to make multiples based on closely related – if not identical – models to satisfy collectors or dealers who could choose from a pre-existent stock. It is surely not coincidental that all but one of Bianco’s portraits ended up very far from Venice and that his only Venetian work is the restored head of Sophonisba.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG

Wir wissen, dass die als Fragment erhaltene hellenistische Statue, die heute im Archäologischen Museum in Venedig aufbewahrt wird, sich seit dem späten 16. Jahrhundert in der Sammlung von Giovanni Grimani befand. Bisher wurde angenommen, dass sie um 1490 von Tullio Lombardo restauriert wurde. Anne Markham Schulz schlägt nun vor, dass der Kopf der Statue nicht von Tullio, sondern um 1530 von Simone Bianco, einem venezianischen Porträtbildhauer, der für Grimani tätig war, ergänzt worden ist. Diese Ergänzung solle die Muse zudem nicht – wie bisher angenommen – zu einer Kleopatra im Augenblick des Selbstmords gemacht haben, sondern vielmehr zu einer Sophonisba, die Selbstmord durch Gift beging, um der Gefangenschaft durch die Römer zu entgehen. Die Autorin identifiziert Bianco nicht nur als Schöpfer des Kopfes dieser Sophonisba, sondern auch als den der Marmorbüsten von zwei jungen Frauen im Antiquarium der Münchner Residenz, die wahrscheinlich um 1567 in Venedig als mutmaßliche Antiken erworben wurden. Weiters schreibt sie Simone das Marmorrelief einer jungen Frau in der Galleria Estense in Modena sowie den Kopf des Septimius Severus in der Eremitage in St. Petersburg zu. Letzterer dokumentiert Biancos Expertise im Umgang mit Bronze. Sein Formenkanon legt nahe, dass einige Büsten Porträts wiedergeben, andere – möglicherweise für den Export bestimmt – Antikennachahmungen waren; diese sowie auch die Büsten „Schöner Frauen“ mögen nicht Auftragswerke gewesen, sondern als Fertigprodukte Kunden und Kunstagenten angeboten worden sein. War dies der Fall, würde dies ein sehr frühes Beispiel dieser Praxis darstellen.

– Berlin, 2007, pp. 75–112, here p. 91. Claudia Kryza-Gersch (exh. cat. Trent 2008, cited note 63, pp. 312–313, no. 35 [entry]) is alone in having questioned the attribution of the head to Simone Bianco, which she called “problematica”. Indeed, a comparison of the hair of the Vienna bust with that of the Hermitage bronze reveals, in the former, a poverty of imagination and a lack of refinement. The back of the heads of Simone’s inscribed busts in the Louvre (inv. nos. MR 1594 and MR 2598) shows a very different treatment, altogether comparable to his rendering of female coiffures. 67 The marble statue of Amor carrying a torch, inscribed in Italian “SIMON. BIANCO”, published and illustrated by Planiscig (1924, cited note 62, pp. 161–162, fig. 4) has never come to light.

43

44

Enrico Maria Dal Pozzolo

Il problema della committenza della “Laura” di Giorgione: una revisione paleografica e un’ipotesi aperta* Com’è noto, uno de i problemi irrisolti posti dalla produzione di Giorgione si lega alla committenza del Ritratto di giovane donna del Kunsthistorisches Museum di Vienna, noto con la tradizionale denominazione di “Laura” (fig. 1). La sua storia collezionistica finora nota parte nel 1636, quando fu venduta dal mercante lagunare Bartolomeo della Nave a Lord Hamilton, tramite l’ambasciatore inglese nella Serenissima, il visconte Basil Feilding. In un inventario redatto in italiano essa è indicata come una “Laura del Petrarca, alto palmi 2 largo 1 ½ del med(esi)mo” [“Georgione”], mentre in quello inglese – probabilmente di poco successivo – come una “Petraces Laura pal. 2 & 1 1/5” di Giorgione1. Le misure corrisponderebbero a quelle attuali (cm 41 x 33,6) solo adottando il palmo romano2 e più volte si è riproposta la possibilità che vi sia stata una precoce decurtazione in basso, laddove una mano sarebbe stata posata sul grembo (forse per alludere a una gravidanza). Tale possibilità è stata indotta da quanto appare in una delle numerose Gallerie realizzate da David Teniers II per l’arciduca Leopoldo Guglielmo d’Asburgo, che acquisì l’opera alla morte di Hamilton nel 1649 ‒ ossia la versione del Prado3 ‒ e venne avallata da Berenson, che entro la Venetian School del 1957 giustappose il dettaglio di Teniers alla riproduzione dell’opera nel formato attuale4.

*



1

2

Fig. 1: Giorgione, Ritratto di giovane donna, recto. 1506. Tela incollata su tavola. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Gemäldegalerie, inv. 31. (©: KHM-Museumsverband.)

3 4

45

In questa ricerca sono debitore nei confronti, in particolare, di Paul Holberton, che mi ha fornito l’immagine dell’iscrizione a tergo del dipinto, invitandomi a un tentativo di lettura, e di Massimiliano Bassetti, mio collega all’Università di Verona, cui spetta una parte fondamentale in questo scritto. Desidero inoltre ringraziare Francesca Del Torre Scheuch, Giuseppe Gullino, Gianmaria Varanini e Alessandra Zamperini, per alcuni suggerimenti specifici, nonché Sylvia Ferino-Pagden e Gabriele Helke, per la disponibilità a pubblicarlo in questa prestigiosa sede, senza dubbio la più “familiare” al dipinto. L’inventario in inglese è edito da Ellis Kirkham Waterhouse, Paintings from Venice for seventeenth century England: some records of a forgotten transaction, in: Italian Studies 7, 1952, 1‒23; quello in italiano è stato reso noto più recentemente da Rosella Lauber, Artifices celebratos nominare. Riflessioni sulle opere di Tiziano nel collezionismo veneziano, in: Venezia Cinquecento XVIII, 2008, n. 36, 231–292, 280 n. 57. La precisazione dell’adozione del palmo romano è di A. Ballarin, nella scheda del dipinto nel catalogo della mostra Le siècle de Titien: L’âge d’or de la peinture à Venise, 2nda edizione Parigi 1993, 332‒337, cat. n. 27. Come cortesemente mi informa Francesca del Torre (con mail del primo settembre 2015), a seguito di una serie di verifiche condotte anche con la collaborazione di Jeremy Wood, si è giunti alla conclusione che l’unità di misura adottata nella lista Hamilton si aggiri intorno ai 22 cm. In ogni modo le misure corrispondono in proporzione rispetto a quelle di altri pezzi segnalati nell’inventario: ad esempio il Ritratto di Tiziano del cosiddetto “medico Parma” (Gian Giacomo Bartolotti da Parma) è indicato come “alto palmi 4 e largo 3”, quindi esattamente il doppio, e in effetti misura 88 x 75 cm, rispetto ai 41 x 33,6 cm del dipinto giorgionesco. Il lieve scarto in grandezza si spiega con la consuetudine di misurare le opere comprensive della cornice. Si veda in Annalisa Scarpa Sonino, Cabinet d’amateur. Le grandi collezioni d’arte nei dipinti dal XVII al XIX secolo, Milano 1992, 88‒90. Bernard Berenson, Pitture italiane del Rinascimento. La scuola veneta, London ‒ Firenze 1958, II, figg. 645 e 646. Sull’opportunità di riconsiderare l’ipotesi di una manomissione torna ora anche Pier-

Fig. 2: Giorgione, Ritratto di giovane donna, verso.

Tuttavia in altre sue Gallerie Teniers presentò il quadro come appare come oggi e quindi s’è pure ritenuto che potesse trattarsi di una delle non rare manipolazioni “virtuali” dell’artista anversese all’interno di tali composizioni5. Fin dal 1659 era già ricordata come una tela incollata su tavola (“Un petit portrait à l’huilr sur toile, marouflé sur bois”)6, mentre sappiamo che all’inizio del ‘700 fu trasformata in ovale, per essere poi riportata al formato rettangolare nei primi anni trenta del ‘9007. Il supporto risulta rinforzato sul retro da un telaio ligneo sbilenco, che lascia una finestra centrale nella cui parte superiore, su due righe, corre un’iscrizione ormai sbiaditissima (fig. 2). Il primo a soffermarsi su di essa e a tentare di decifrarla fu un funzionario della Pinacoteca Imperiale, Hermann Dollmayr, nei primi anni ottanta dell’‘800, ma per una trascrizione a stampa si dovette attendere la monografia giorgionesca di Ludwig Justi del 1908, che la riportò con vari dubbi e lacune: “1506 a primo Zugno fo fatto questo digno da maistro Zorzi (?) Boteg (?) d […] ò Zorzi ad instanzie de mia (?) gia

5 6 7

46

mario Vescovo, La Virtù e il Tempo. Giorgione: allegorie morali, allegorie civili, Venezia 2011, 135‒151. Nel formato attuale è descritta da Teniers in primo piano a destra nella Galleria di Monaco: Scarpa Sonino 1992 (cit. nota 3), 96‒97. Johannes Wilde, Ein unbeachtetes Werk Giorgiones, in: Jahrbuch der Preußischen Kunstsammlungen LII, 1931, 91‒100. Cfr. le tavole in Federico Hermanin, Il mito di Giorgione, Spoleto 1933, 70, e Giuseppe Fiocco, Giorgione, Bergamo – Milano ‒ Roma 1941, 44‒45.

(??) maestra (??)”. Per Justi l’ultima parola faceva riferimento a una donna (la “maes­­ tra”), interpretata nei termini di una poetessa, forse l’amante del commit­tente8. Tale lettura, palesemente approssimativa, nel 1931 fu emendata da Johannes Wilde, che confermò che l’iscrizione era certamente antica, sia per ragioni paleografiche sia per l’adozione della denominazione “Zorzi” testimoniata dalle più antiche fonti sul pittore (i documenti in vita e Michiel)9. L’enigmatico “Boteg (?) d […]” fu facilmente risolto in “da Chastel fr[anco]”, mentre le parole successive vennero interpretate come “cholega de maistro Vincenzo Chaena”, in riferimento alla figura di quel Vincenzo Catena che in una tavola giovanile – la Madonna col Bambino e santi allora nella collezione Mond di Londra (oggi dispersa), risalente al primo lustro del ‘500 ‒ si firmò per l’appunto “Chaena”10. La parte finale del testo fu sciolta con un “ad instanzia de misser giacomo […]” e nel suo insieme la scritta reciterebbe dunque così: “1506 a di primo zugno fo fatto questo de man de maistro zorzi da chastel fr[anco] cholega de maistro vicenzo chaena ad instanzia de misser (z) giacomo”. Pur riconoscendo che l’iscrizione era cinquecentesca, obiezioni furono sollevate da Ferriguto (1933), “sopra tutto per il fatto che la parola ‘cholega’ […] non è parola del tempo (i veneziani dicevano allora ‘compagno’ o ‘socio’: non altro)”11, mentre la lettura di Wilde venne subito adottata nel 1933 da Hermanin12 e nel 1937 da Georg Martin Richter, che illustrò l’iscrizione riportandone il testo con poche differenze rispetto a Wilde (“1506 a di primo zugno fo fatto questo de man de maistro zorzi de chastel fr[anco] cholega de maistro vizenzo chaena ad instanzia de misse [z]giacomo […])”13. L’originalità della scritta dipendeva ovviamente dal presupposto che la tela fosse stata fissata alla tavola fin dall’origine, ipotesi difesa e argomentata da Wilde, Hermanin e Morassi (1942), ma contestata, ad esempio, da Baldass (1955), che ritenne più probabile che la tela fosse stata saldata alla tavola solo più tardi, con la conseguenza che la scritta (confermata comunque al XVI secolo) costituirebbe la ritrascrizione di quella originale coperta14. Di diversa opinione, invece, Mauro Lucco, per il quale la tela sarebbe stata “incollata ab origine su tavola”, ed Elke Oberthaler, che in un circostanziato intervento entro il catalogo della mostra giorgionesca del 2004 ha dimostrato che ci si trova innanzi a “an original marouflage”15. A parte pochissimi casi, si può ben dire che la lettura di Wilde sia rimasta canonica e differisce pochissimo da quella “ufficiale” riportata nel catalogo generale del Kunst­ historisches Museum del 1991 ‒ “1506. adj. primo zugno fo fatto questo de mā de maistro zorzi da chastel fra(nco) cholega de maistro vinzenzo chaena ad istanzia de mis giacmo […]”16 – e da quella adottata nella scheda congiuntamente redatta da Sylvia Ferino-Pagden e Giovanna Nepi Scirè entro i due cataloghi della mostra ­veneziana e viennese su Giorgione del 2003–04: “1506 adj primo zugno fo fatto

8 Ludwig Justi, Giorgione, Berlino 1908, I, 262. 9 Wilde 1931 (cit. nota 6), 93. 10 Poi presso l’antiquario veneziano Francesco Pospisil. Su di essa cfr. Giles Robertson, Vincenzo Catena, Edimburgo 1954, 42, cat. n. 3; Enrico Maria Dal Pozzolo, Appunti su Catena, in: Venezia Cinquecento XVI, 2006, n. 31, 5‒104, 16. 11 Arnaldo Ferriguto, Attraverso i “misteri” di Giorgione, Castelfranco Veneto 1933, 368. 12 Hermanin 1933 (cit. nota 7), 75. 13 Georg Martin Richter, Giorgio da Castelfranco called Giorgione, Chicago 1937, 251‒252. 14 Ludwig Baldass, Die Tat des Giorgione, in: Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien LI, 1955, 103‒144, 109‒110; inoltre Ludwig Baldass ‒ Günther Heinz, Giorgione, Vienna 1964, 120. Secondo Antonio Morassi, Giorgione, Milano 1942, 96, l’autore dell’iscrizione fu probabilmente il committente del ritratto, il quale forse aveva “particolari ragioni, che a noi sfuggono, di ricordare il Catena”. 15 Mauro Lucco, Giorgione, Milano 1995, 116; Elke Oberthaler, Zu Technik, Zustand und Interpretation von fünf Gemälden Giorgiones und seines Umkreises, in: catalogo della mostra Sylvia Ferino-Pagden ‒ Giovanna Nepi Scirè (ed.), Giorgione. Myth and Enigma, Vienna (Kunsthistorisches Museum) 2004, 267‒276, 268. 16 Die Gemäldegalerie des Kunsthistorischen Museums in Wien. Verzeichnis der Gemälde, Vienna 1991, 62‒63.

47

questo de mano de maistro Zorzi da chastel fr(anco) cholega de maistro vizenzo chaena ad instanzia de mis giacmo”17. Chi potesse essere il messer “Giacomo” della scritta rimaneva però un mistero e solo di recente sono state avanzate tre proposte di riconoscimento. La prime due si presentano in termini, per così dire, incidentali, ossia risultano inserite all’interno di ragionamenti non specificamente focalizzati sul dipinto. Ci si riferisce alle ipotesi, che non sembrano fondarsi su alcun tipo di riscontro storico o paleografico, di Enrico Guidoni – che suggerisce la possibilità che si tratti di Giacomo di Giorgio Cornaro, fondatore della compagnia dei Fausti nel 150318 – e di Renata Segre, che si dichiara dell’avviso “di identificarlo con Giacomo di Francesco Soranzo dal banco […] un grande proprietario, che a Venezia possedeva Ca’ Soranzo in campo San Polo affrescata da Giorgione […] e a Castelfranco e dintorni aveva altri beni, tra cui una casa in borgo della Pieve, nella quale soggiornò a lungo assieme al fratello Alvise, nel decennio a cavallo del secolo (documentati gli anni 1497‒1509)”19. Ben più ampia e argomentata è invece la ricostruzione proposta ora da Rudolf Schier, secondo il quale il capolavoro viennese effigerebbe Laura Donà, nel 1506 andata in moglie a Nicolò Contarini20. L’ipotesi si fonda sul convincimento che la presenza di una pianta di alloro alle spalle della donna indichi il nome Laura, nei termini in cui – ad esempio – quello di Ginevra de Benci è richiamato dal ginepro dietro di lei nel capolavoro di Leonardo a Washington. Di lì la ricerca di notizie in merito a donne di nome Laura maritate in laguna nel 1506 e il riscontro che – nei registri ottocenteschi conservati all’Archivio di Stato di Venezia – per quell’anno si segnala, appunto, solo la Laura Donà sposa di Nicolò Contarini. Poiché ella ebbe un fratello di nome Giacomo, Schier immagina che fu costui a richiedere a Giorgione “to portray his sister so as to provide a wedding present for his future brother-in-law”21. In tale occasione Giacomo – che sarebbe entrato in contatto con il maestro di Castelfranco dopo aver consultato il membro di un altro ramo dei Contarini, il ben più noto Taddeo – avrebbe apposto sul retro del quadro l’iscrizione. Ma non solo: accettando l’ipotesi prevalente che la lacunosa data a tergo del Ritratto Terris di San Diego possa leggersi come un 1506, e considerando “the similarity of the two inscriptions on their backs”, Schier chiudeva il suo contributo interrogandosi se in tale occasione Giacomo non abbia commissionato a Zorzi pure la sua stessa effigie, appunto il Ritratto Terris22. Simili ricostruzioni lasciano alquanto perplessi per la catena, per così dire sillogistica, di argomentazioni su cui si appoggiano, in cui troppi passaggi appaiono sprovvisti di qualsiasi tipo controprova. A partire dal fatto che la presenza dell’alloro alle spalle della donna debba necessariamente risultare un richiamo semantico al nome di Laura: è cosa possibile, ma non certa, e forse addirittura neppure probabile. Infatti nei coevi ritratti della celeberrima Laura di Petrarca, siano essi pittorici o incisi, la pianta non compare quasi mai, lasciando ad altri elementi iconografici il compito di qualificare l’identità della donna23. Considerando poi il fatto che in numerosi ritratti maschili veneti dell’epoca l’effigiato ha alle spalle una pianta di alloro o ne regge in mano un ramo24, dovremmo dedurne che costoro si chiamassero

17 Catalogo della mostra Giovanna Nepi Scirè ‒ Sandra Rossi (ed.), Giorgione. “Le maraviglie dell’arte”, Venezia (Gallerie dell’Accademia) 2003‒2004, 144 (Giovanna Nepi Scirè, Sylvia Ferino-Pagden); cat. Vienna 2004 (cit. nota 15), 197. 18 Enrico Guidoni, Giorgione. Opere e significati, Roma 1999, 260. 19 Renata Segre, Una rilettura della vita di Giorgione. Nuovi documenti d’archivio, in: Atti dell’Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti. Classe di Scienze morali, lettere ed arti, vol. CLXXI, 2012‒2013, 69‒114, 90 nota 49. 20 Rudolf Schier, Identifying Giorgione’s Laura, in: Italian Studies 69, 2014, n. 1, 24‒40. 21 Schier 2014 (cit. nota 20), 40. 22 Ivi. 23 Enrico Maria Dal Pozzolo, Il lauro di Laura e delle “maritate venetiane”, in: Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz XXXVII, 1993, n. 2‒3, 257‒292, 260‒264. 24 Dal Pozzolo 1993 (cit. nota 23), 268‒269; altri casi li riproduco in Idem, Colori d’amore. Parole, gesti e carezze nella pittura veneziana del Cinquecento, Treviso 2008, 40‒41.

48

Fig. 3: L’iscrizione sul verso all’infrarosso.

tutti Lauro? Sul piano puramente paleografico, inoltre, è palese che le iscrizioni a tergo della Laura e del Ritratto Terris siano non solo di mani differenti, ma addirittura di epoche diverse, essendo quest’ultima più tarda e corsiva. Il punto cruciale è però che queste e simili congetture esulano da un passaggio imprescindibile su un piano metodologico: ossia la necessità di una revisione della scritta, soprattutto nella sua parte finale. A quel che mi risulta, in tal senso, l’unico moderno tentativo di integrazione di essa, rispetto alla canonica versione di Wilde, si deve a Paul Holberton, che in una nota entro un suo saggio del 2003 faceva presente come “instead of transliterating the last word, Giacomo’s surname, Wilde put an ellipsis, implying, as appears to be generally believed, that the last word is lost. It is not, as can be seen from Wilde’s photograph; but it is very difficult to read. At the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Sylvia Ferino kindly had the back re-examinated, whereupon the inscription was discover­ ed to have faded; but it reappeared upon infra-red light. The lettering readily corresponds with no known Venetian family name”. Proponeva dunque, per quanto dubitativamente, di leggere in ultimo la parola “veniziano”25. Nel 2010 lo stesso Holberton mi ha sollecitato a un tentativo di approfondimento, mettendomi a disposizione l’ottima riproduzione della scritta all’infrarosso fornitagli dal Museo, che a mia volta ho sottoposto a Massimiliano Bassetti, professore di paleografia all’Università di Verona, al quale ho chiesto una lettura ‒ non solo paleografica, ma anche tecnica e “culturale” ‒ della stessa (fig. 3). Quel che segue è il responso di Bassetti. “Il testo è tracciato a penna (o altro strumento a punta elastica) e con inchiostro direttamente su legno. L’esecuzione, pertanto, patisce di una superficie di scrittura assai irregolare: se la metà sinistra del campo di scrittura appare relativamente ­liscia e ben regolata, la porzione di destra è caratterizzata da una fitta trama di venature rilevate che hanno rappresentato un intralcio al fluire dello strumento scrittorio, con conseguente degradazione dell’esito finale del gesto grafico in tale sezione. Questa, peraltro, è intaccata in modo irrimediabile dall’adesione, sull’estremo margine

25 Paul Holberton, To loosen the tongue of mute poetry: Giorgione’s Self-Portrait as David as a Paragone Demonstration, in: Thomas Frangenberg (ed.), Poetry as Art. Renaissance to Romanticism, Donington 2003, 29‒48, 33 nota 15.

49

di destra della superficie scrittoria, a mezzo di materiale colloidale, della tela che riveste la facciata opposta di quella interessata dall’intervento di scrittura. Così descritta applicazione ha obliterato le ultime 5/7 lettere di ciascuna delle due linee di cui consta l’annotazione. Il testo è stato realizzato impiegando una scrittura assai qualificante sul piano sociale. Vi si riconosce una corsiva mercantesca eseguita con alta padronanza del modello grafico, con spinta sicurezza di tracciato e di ductus, con ottime qualità di allineamento e di conservazione di modulo e calibro delle lettere e con una intenzionale ricercatezza verso soluzioni calligrafiche e solennizzanti. Quanto di provvisorio, altalenante ed estemporaneo manifestano le esecuzioni in mercantesca materializzate dai legittimi titolari di quel modello grafico (non già una vera “tipizzazione”, va ribadito), i mercanti e il ceto produttivo borghese in genere, è qui obliterato in favore di una spigliatezza esecutiva irregimentata da una norma digerita e metabolizzata. Mette conto rilevare, come caratteristici di questo scrivente, alcuni decisi stilemi: – il signum crucis, invocazione simbolica letteralmente inevitabile come incipit in qualsivoglia scrittura di tipo mercantile, sia essa di natura professionale o meno; – il legamento ch-, usuale nel modello della mercantesca (così in Chaste[l]) (fig. 4), eseguito, tuttavia, con almeno una variatio che testimonia la scioltezza e la libertà interpretativa dello scrivente (così in Chaena) (fig. 5); – l’impiego di una z ricca di svolazzi e di volute, condotta profondamente al di sotto del rigo di scrittura, nell’intento di ostentare una cifra di assoluta distinzione grafica (fig. 6), resa ancora più significativa dal ricorrere di una forma “povera” e usuale di z in Zorzi (fig. 7); – l’uso consapevole e maturo (che origina dall’universo librario) di soluzioni abbreviative desunte da quelle invalse per i testi latini; così, almeno, in ma(n) (fig. 8) con a sormontata da un esteso titulus abbreviativo in forma di tilde ritorta ‘a fiocco’ e in mis(er) (fig. 9) con asta ascendente di s, nel caso specifico condotta appositamente al di sotto del rigo di base di scrittura, intercettata da un frego di penna diagonale originante dal tratto arcuato che corona in alto la lettera. Caratteri così sommariamente rilevati (e i numerosi altri, qui non addotti, che si dispongono univocamente in questa direzione) contrassegnano uno scrivente di livello alto, con consuetudine non soltanto usuale e professionale della scrittura, ma sviluppata nella frequentazione dei libri e della cultura sostenuta che essi veicolano. In tal senso, appare poco plausibile assegnarne l’esecuzione a una maestranza operante presso o per l’artista di cui è rammentato il nome, e sarà da preferirsi l’ipotesi che assegna l’esecuzione in forme tanto accurate di quel testo alla mano di persona coltivata vicina a (se non identificabile con) il committente o il donatore dell’opera.” Bassetti conclude la sua analisi quindi con la seguente lettura: “✠ 1506 a[d]j [pr]imo zugno fo fatto questo de ma[n] de maistro Zorzi da Chaste[l] Fr[ancho] | [c]holega de [mai]stro Vizenzi Chaena ad instanzia de mis[er] Gia[co]mo Ansé [∙] Stazi […]”. Si tratta di un referto che se da un lato conferma in sostanza le soluzioni adottate sulla base di Wilde, dall’altro propone precisazioni ed elementi finora mai segnalati, e però culturalmente significanti ‒ come l’apertura tramite il signum crucis ‒ o integrazioni che si presentano in termini clamorosi, come quanto letto a seguito di “mis[er] Gia[co]mo”. Ma procediamo con ordine: Il primo dato fondamentale confermato dall’analisi è l’assoluta congruità cronologica dell’iscrizione rispetto all’esecuzione pittorica, come ricordato talvolta messa in dubbio. Si tratta di una “corsiva mercantesca” di primissimo ‘500, che palesa una notevole dimestichezza con la scrittura e che è caratterizzata da “una intenzionale ricercatezza verso soluzioni calligrafiche e solennizzanti”. E’ chiaro che tale riscontro tenderebbe a escludere la possibilità che spetti al pittore, che nulla lascia intendere provvisto di una simile formazione culturale. In ogni modo, l’assenza anche di una sola sua iscrizione autografa impedisce ogni eventuale tentativo di comparazione calligrafica. Si può aggiungere che l’estrazione mer50

Fig. 4: Prima riga: il legamento ch in Chaste[l]. Fig. 5: Seconda riga: il legamento ch in Chaena. Fig. 6: Prima riga: la lettera z in zugno. Fig. 7: Prima riga: la lettera z in Zorzi. Fig. 8: Prima riga: la soluzione abbreviativa in ma(n).

cantile dell’estensore della scritta si combina a una consapevolezza semantica per certi versi sofisticata, come documenta l’adozione delle parole “cholega” e “instanzia”. Infatti, al contrario di quanto dichiarato da Ferriguto, la prima era d’uso letterario in età medievale e umanistica e venne adottata, per indicare un pari in grado, perfino da Dante nel Paradiso (II, 119)26. La seconda è sostantivo derivato dal verbo “instàr”, che si ritrova più volte nei Diarii di Sanudo, con il significato di “premere, insistere, sollecitare” (ad esempio, “l’orator francese […] ha molto instato Sua Santità a voler aspettar li do reverendissimi cardinali”)27. Si tratta di una formula comune all’epoca in riferimento ad allogazioni artistiche importanti: a puro titolo esemplificativo, si possono ricordare i casi della missiva inviata da Alfonso d’Aragona nel 1452 all’ambasciatore veneziano Zaccaria Vallaresso in merito al Gattamelata di Donatello (che specificava essere stato eseguito “ad instantia de quella illustrissima Signoria”), oppure il brano in cui Antonio de Beatis nel 1516 attestava che Leonardo da Vinci mostrò al Cardinale d’Aragona il quadro di “una certa donna fiorentina facto di naturale ad instantia del quondam Mag.co Juliano de Medici”28. Tali aspetti coincidono con i caratteri “socioculturali” di alcuni committenti e possessori di o ­ pere

Fig. 9: Seconda riga: la soluzione abbreviativa in mis(er).

26 “Pensa oramai qual fu colui, che degno / collega fu a mantener la barca / di Pietro in alto mar per dritto segno”. Si veda inoltre collega, voce in Salvatore Battaglia (ed.), Grande Dizionario della Lingua Italiana, III, Torino 1964, 284‒285. 27 Manlio Cortellazzo, Dizionario Veneto della lingua e della cultura popolare nel XVI secolo, Padova 2007, 668. 28 Desumo le citazioni da Giovanna Baldissin Molli, Erasmo da Narni Gattamelata e Donatello. Storia di una statua equestre. Con l’edizione dell’inventario dei beni di Giovanni Antonio Gattamelata (1467), a cura di Giulia Foladore, Padova 2011, 104, e da Pietro C. Marani, Leonardo, una carriera di pittore, apparati a cura di Pietro C. Marani ed Edoardo Villata, Milano 1999, 365.

51

Fig. 10: Prima e seconda riga: parte marginale destra dell’iscrizione.

del maestro ben noti, come Taddeo Contarini e Gabriele Vendramin, patrizi dediti alla mercatura ma con attestati interessi umanistici. E fin qui, come suol dirsi, nulla di inaspettato. Laddove si concentrano le croci interpretative è nella parte finale della seconda riga, in cui l’ultima parola, abbastanza lunga, risulta del tutto illeggibile (fig. 10). La grande novità è costituita però dalla decifrazione delle sillabe “Ansé Stazi”, prima di essa e dopo “Gia[co]mo”. Dal punto di vista paleografico, secondo Bassetti esse sono leggibili molto chiaramente: le prime due vengono separate dalle seconde da una piccola spaziatura, ma non è detto che compongano due parole differenti. L’area intermedia è assai ristretta e la grafia complicata dalle venature della tavola. Come aveva lamentato Holberton quando gli sottoposi il referto, in area veneta (ma direi anche altrove) non si riscontra un cognome composto dalle sillabe contigue “Anse Stazi”, mentre un’eventuale pista alla ricerca di una doppia forma cognominale appare ancor più impervia. E’ necessario quindi procedere per ipotesi, avvertendo che al momento ognuna presenta delle difficoltà non irrilevanti e nessuna appare in toto risolutiva. La prima è che “Anse” sia patronimico abbreviato per Anselmo, al genitivo. Si tratterebbe pertanto di un caso paragonabile a quello in cui è incappata Renata Segre in un suo importantissimo contributo su Giorgione sul Burlington Magazine argomentato più ampiamente in seguito negli Atti dell’Istituto Veneto29. Com’è noto, in

29

52

Renata Segre, A rare document on Giorgione, in: The Burlington Magazine 153, 2011, n. 1299, 383‒386; Segre 2012‒2013 (cit. nota 19), 90.

esso la studiosa rendeva noto un documento del 14 marzo 1511 relativo alle poche cose che il funzionario ducale “Zaninus Ioannis, preco et minister palatii” ‒ che altri non era che il padre di Giovanni Cariani30 – verificava costituire quel che restava dell’eredità del defunto Giorgione (“quondam magister Georgius pictor”), che si specificava essere figlio di “sier Iohannis Gasparini”. Come prontamente rilevato da Francesca Cortesi Bosco (con una comunicazione orale allo scrivente), e poi da Lionello Puppi e Giacinto Cecchetto31, però, qui “Gasparini” non può essere inteso nei termini di un cognome, bensì quale patronimico, in considerazione del fatto che Giovanni era figlio “del fu sier Gasparino” Barbarella segnalato in vari documenti castellani ragionati da Giacinto Cecchetto e dallo stesso Puppi nel catalogo della mostra sul maestro tenutasi a Castelfranco Veneto nel 2009‒10 che si agganciano perfettamente all’atto reso noto dalla Segre: il quale risulta quindi di eccezionale importanza, in quanto dimostra che l’artista appartenne davvero alla famiglia Barbarella, come voleva la tradizione seicentesca32. Qualora si trattasse di un patronimico, il cognome vero e proprio sarebbe dunque costituito almeno in parte dalla doppia sillaba “Stazi”. Si dà il caso che una famiglia Stazio di origine luganese è documentata in laguna, ma non prima del XVII secolo e con il conferimento del titolo patrizio solo nel 165333. Ne consegue che, volendo considerare “Ansé” quale patronimico, per il primissimo ‘500 dovremmo reputare “Stazi”, più che un cognome, eventualmente quel che resta della specificazione “Stazio(ner)”, ossia negoziante: come quel “Giacomo Stazioner del fu Simone” che testò nel 1530 e nel 1544, un normale mercante apparentemente senza storia34. Che un personaggio di tale livello possa essere stato un committente di Giorgione nel 1506, in linea teorica, non è affatto impossibile, ma nel caso specifico della “Laura” ci si scontra in qualche modo con il grado di consapevolezza culturale espressa dalla scritta. Si deve inoltre tener conto che il termine “misser” indica un personaggio di un certo rilievo sociale: secondo alcuni di tale appellativo non potevano fregiarsi i cittadini35, secondo altri ‒ obbligatorio per i procuratori e il cancellier grando ‒ poteva esser dato a chiunque rivestisse un ruolo di prestigio anche nel mondo della mercatura (se ricco e stimato) o di istituzioni civiche, quali un guardian grande di scuole oppure, perfino, ad artigiani e artisti di alto livello (come Palladio)36. La seconda ipotesi è che “Ansé” sia cognome a sé stante. Pure in questo caso si ripresenta però la difficoltà, per me insormontabile, di riconoscere anche la minima traccia di tale famiglia nel Veneto. Magari è la via giusta, ma al momento pare indimostrabile. 30

31

32

33 34 35 36

53

Cariani era figlio di un funzionario ducale dal quale prese il soprannome di “Zuane del Comandador”, con cui lo segnala più volte Michiel. La definizione di “Zaninus Ioannis, preco et minister palatii” coincide con quella che si legge in un documento del 1510 edito da Ludwig, in cui il padre è menzionato come “Ser Joanninus q.m ser Ioannis de Busi spreco et ministerialis curiae palatii”: Gustav Ludwig, Archivalische Beiträge zur Geschichte der venezianischen Malerei, in: Jahrbuch der Preußischen Kunstsammlungen 24, 1903, Beiheft, 1‒109, 34; cfr. inoltre i Regesti a cura di Enrico De Pascale, in: Rodolfo Pallucchini ‒ Francesco Rossi, Cariani, Cinisello Balsamo 1983, 93. Lionello Puppi, Il cognome di Giorgione, in: Il Giornale dell’Arte 312, settembre 2011, 32; Idem, A proposito di un “raro documento” su Giorgione, in: Studi Veneziani, N. S. 62‒64, 2011 (2012), 419‒426. Giacinto Cecchetto, Giuseppe Mazzotti: una “casa per Giorgione”, in: catalogo della mostra Luca Baldin ‒ Giacinto Cecchetto ‒ Alberto Prandi (ed.), L’immagine eloquente. Giuseppe Mazzotti e la scoperta della fotografia come media, Castelfranco Veneto 2012‒2013, 16‒21, 21. Vedo ora che Francesca Cortesi Bosco torna sulla questione anche nel suo recentissimo volume, Viaggio nell’ermetismo del Rinascimento. Lotto Dürer Giorgione, Padova 2016, 503–504, n. 71. Giacinto Cecchetto, Castelfranco tra la fine del XV secolo e i primi decenni del XVI: “mappe urbane” e paesaggi del contado, in: catalogo della mostra Enrico Maria Dal Pozzolo ‒ Lionello Puppi (ed.), Giorgione, Castelfranco Veneto 2009–2010, 51–70, in part. 63–67; Lionello Puppi, Tracce e scommesse per una biografia impossibile, in: ibidem, 21–36; Enrico Maria Dal Pozzolo, La barba di Giorgione, in: ibidem, 207–224, 212. Giuseppe Tassini, Cittadini veneziani, manoscritto presso la Biblioteca del Museo Correr di Venezia, ms. P.D.C. 4/5, p. 5. Archivio di Stato di Venezia, Notarile, Atti G. Marc. Cavanis, 217.6; 194.528. Dorit Raines, Lʼinvention du mythe aristocratique: lʼimage de soi du patriciat vénitien au temps de la Sérénissime, Venezia 2006, 569 nota 59, ripresa da Segre 2012‒2013 (cit. nota 19), 90–91, nota 49. Come cortesemente comunicatomi dal prof. Giuseppe Gullino, con mail del 13 aprile 2012.

Diverso sarebbe il caso qualora si considerasse – e siamo entro la terza congettura – “Ansé” diminutivo per Anselmo o Anselmi in termine cognominali. Perché un Giacomo Anselmo è effettivamente riconoscibile nella Venezia giorgionesca e qualche informazione su di lui è possibile fornirla. Ma prima va ammesso che tale soluzione non è priva di problemi, per due ragioni che esporrò in chiusura. Si tratta in ogni caso di un personaggio di un certo interesse, su cui non mi risulta che sia mai stato scritto nulla e per il quale il mazzetto di notizie messe assieme nel corso di questa verifica può quindi risultare comunque utile. Gli Anselmi non si ritrovano nelle Genealogie del Barbaro, ma in altri blasonari meno noti. In uno di metà ‘500 non da molto pubblicato da Niccolò Orsini De Marzo, accanto allo stemma – costituito da un leone rampante diviso da una fascia tras­ versale che regge una bandiera con una specie di falce di luna – si precisa che gli “Anselmi, questi sonno fatti dell mazor conseio, cioè uno che haveva nome S. Bortholamio Anselmo, che era pelizer; perché lui acuso S. Francesco Balduin, che volse far tradimento, et farsi Signor de Venetia dell’anno 1415 mancho poi questa Casada in S. Jacomo Anselmo dell 1519 alli 24 de novembrio, essendo tra pregadi, el qual stava a S. Vidal”37. In effetti in un riscontro sui Diarii di Marin Sanudo alla data 24 novembre 1519 si annota: “In questa note passata a hore 8 morite sier Jacomo d’Anselmo qu. Sier Bortolo, fo di Pregadi, stato assa’ amalato, et è l’ultimo di prole e di sua caxada; siché la è extinta, et fo sepolto a […] Suo avo fo fato dil Consejo dil 1412, a dì 5 Marzo, per certo trata scoperse”. Il riferimento è a un episodio storico avvenuto appunto nel 1412, raccolto pure da certa storiografia ottocentesca38. Era relativo al tentato colpo di stato da parte di un certo Francesco Balduin al tempo del dogado di Michele Steno. In una cronaca coeva si narra che il cospiratore “fo prexo e tromentado plu’ volte”, impiccato tra le due colonne sul molo marciano e per tre giorni lasciato appeso come monito per la cittadinanza. “E lo achuxiador del dito Franzescho fo sier Bortolamio d’Inselmo, homo bon e fedelissimo de la Dogal Signoria, el qual, molto amando chostu’ la patria soa, chorse al palazo de misier lo doxe, trasfigurado de pani per non neser chognosudo, de note, revelando al dito misier lo doxe el pechado del dito tradimento plubicha mente, da che in merito so, di tanto somo beneficio, fo prexo perpetual fama soa de remunerarlo al beneficio lu’ per raxion, con meso i suo eriedi insirà de lui, de farlo del Conseio Mazior de Veniexia, e chusì lui domandase, e fose fato de prexente a dì XIIII de’ marzo de l’ano de M IIII cento XII in dì de zuoba, e prexa la parte prima mentre per lo Chonseio d’i Diexe e può fose prexa per lo Mazior Chonserio”39. Di Giacomo Anselmo nei Diarii si recuperano altri accenni, a partire dal 16 gen­naio del 1504, quando si nomina “Sier Jacomo d’Anselmo el 40 criminal, qu. Sier Bortolo”. Sanudo lo conosceva personalmente: il 26 gennaio del 1507 annota che “In questo giorno fui con alcuni patricij, videlicet sier Santo Moro, dotor, sier Antonio Surian, dotor, sier Jacomo d’Anselmo, sier Andrea Marzelo, da San Pantalon, et jo, Marin Sanudo, fossemo mandati, di hordine di la Signoria, a Margera contra uno orator dil re di Hongaria, vien in questa terra […]”. In seguito lo si ritrova nelle vesti di “Savio sora i conti”, nell’ottobre del 1515 e nel gennaio del 1517, e appunto tra i senatori, tra i quali viene ammesso l’11 luglio del 1518: “Fo fatto dil Consejo di Pregadi sier Jacomo d’Anselmo, ch’è ai X Savii, qu. Sier Bortolo, che mai niun Anselmo fo di Pregadi”40. Si noti l’adozione costante per lui della qualifica “sier”, abbreviativa per “miser”. Ulteriori informazioni sulla sua casata si recuperano dal manoscritto sui Cittadini ­Veneziani del Tassini alla Biblioteca del Museo Correr. Alcuni suoi membri fin dal ‘300

37 Niccolò Orsini De Marzo (ed.), Stemmario Veneziano Orsini De Marzo, Milano 2007, fig. a p. 14. 38 Samuel Romanin, Storia documentata di Venezia, IV, Venezia 1855, 60–61. 39 Il codice Morosini. Il mondo visto da Venezia (1094–1433), edizione critica, introduzione, indice e altri apparati di Andrea Nanetti, Spoleto 2010, I, 448. 40 I Diarii di Marin Sanudo, in ordine di citazione: XXVIII, 1890, col. 93; V, 1881, coll. 715–717; VI, 1881, col. 537; XXI, 1887, col. 229; XXII, 1888, col. 457; XXV, 1889, col. 533.

54

ebbero cariche di rilievo nelle Scuole Grandi lagunari: nel 1376 Andrea da Sant’­Agnese era Guardiano della Scuola della Misericordia, nel 1445 Pagano Anselmo Priore dell’Ospedale dei San Marco e nel 1449 Guardiano della Scuola della Trinità, nel 1476 Polo (morto nel 1487) Guardiano della Scuola di San Giovanni Evangelista41. L’albero genealogico di Giacomo si desume per via archivistica. Il Bartolomeo dell’affaire del 1412 era padre di Giovanni, a sua volta genitore di quel Bartolomeo che nel 1442 era presentato in Balla d’Oro. Suo figlio, il nostro Giacomo, veniva iscritto in Balla d’Oro nel 1471, dal che desumiamo che dovrebbe essere nato nel 1453. Nel 1479 si sposava con Franceschina di Baldissera de’ Colti (“Giac.o Anselmo q. ser Bart[olome]o q. q. ser Zuanne in la fia del q. ser Baldissera di Colti”)42: era quella Franceschina Anselmi che il 6 novembre 1496 testava dal notaio Pietro Bon, pievano di San Benedetto, al quale aveva dettato le sue volontà anche il fratello di Giacomo, Andrea, il 30 giugno 149443. Dal testamento della moglie si apprende che i due non avevano ancora figli, che alla morte intendeva essere seppellita nella tomba di Ca’ Colti ai Frari (capitava di norma quando la donna era sterile) e che nominava erede la nipote Marietta di Alvise Badoer, che – lo si capisce da altri atti – era figlia di una sorella del marito: commissari erano Giacomo e i fratelli, di lei, Prosdocimo e Lorenzo44. All’Archivio di Stato di Venezia, nel fondo della Misericordia (Santa Maria della Valverde), si conserva un ricco incartamento relativo alla Commissaria di Giacomo Anselmo, compreso il suo ultimo testamento del 1518, da cui si apprende che, in assenza di figli, lasciò 240 ducati alla Valverde, dove vi era l’arca di famiglia (si ricordi che nel 1376 un suo antenato ne era stato era Guardian Grando) e il resto alle nipoti Contessa e Marietta Badoer, a patto che quest’ultima si sposasse (e lo farà nel 1520, con Aurelio Michiel, un omonimo del figlio del Marc’Antonio, l’autore della Notizia d’opere del disegno), ed eventualmente a suo fratello Marc’Antonio. A Marietta, che viveva con loro, affidava la vecchia moglie Franceschina, che era presente al testamento in qualità di commissaria, assieme alla stessa Marietta e a Pietro Alvise Barbaro di Giovanni. Dalla condizione di decima sappiamo inoltre che essi risiedevano in San Vidal, in “Una corte de case n. 6 tre per banda su la fondamenta del Rio” (immagino sull’attuale fianco sinistro della chiesa: fig. 11)45. Fig. 11: Jacopo de’ Barbari, Veduta di Venezia, particolare dell’area di San Vidal. 1500. Xilografia.

41 Giuseppe Tassini, Cittadini veneziani, Venezia, Biblioteca del Museo Correr, Provenienze diverse,­ ms. PD c. 4, 1, c. 60. 42 Avogaria di Comun, 106/2, c. 6r. 43 Archivio di Stato di Venezia, Notarile, Atti Pietro Bon, 131, 1. 44 Sui Colti, di origine pisana, si trova qualcosa in Tassini (cit. nota 41), 4, 2, cc. 93–94. 45 Archivio di Stato di Venezia, Scuola di Santa Maria della Misericordia, busta 22: Commissaria Giacomo Anselmo.

55

Giacomo Anselmo presenta dunque varie caratteristiche che lo rendono un plausibile candidato al ruolo di committente della “Laura”, se non fosse che due ragioni sembrano ostacolare tale ipotesi. La prima ‒ ai miei occhi la più grave ‒ è che considerando lo scioglimento di altre parole meno significative, l’abbreviazione “Ansé”

Fig. 12: Jacopo de Barbari, Ritratto di uomo. 1500‒02 c. Tavola. Collezione privata.

risulterebbe molto sorprendente nell’economia complessiva della scritta. Perché mai contrarre proprio il cognome del personaggio a seguito della cui “instanza” fu realizzata l’opera? Si potrebbero congetturare molte soluzioni, ma oggettivamente il problema resta. La seconda difficoltà, più facilmente superabile, è che la storia di questo Giacomo ‒ che la mancata paternità condannò a vivere con la consapevolezza che il suo casato moriva con lui ‒ si scontra con la lettura in chiave nuziale suggerita da Noe (1960) e Verheyen (1968), sulla quale io stesso mi sono più volte soffermato46. Certo, si può ammettere che fosse un’interpretazione sbagliata, oppure che si trattasse di un suo dono fatto ad altri: il tono e la formula dell’iscrizione in effetti non lo escludono, e in quest’ultima prospettiva, l’opzione in favore delle tanto agognate nozze di Marietta potrebbe avere anche un senso. D’altra parte nel dipinto c’è un elemento che potrebbe offrire un appiglio per un’interpretazione iconologica molto suggestiva in tale direzione: la fanciulla sul corpo nudo indossa una pelliccia. Tale dato è stato interpretato in modi molto diversi tra di loro. Secondo alcuni (Pedrocco, Anderson)47, sarebbe un capo di vestiario tipico dell’abbigliamento invernale delle cortigiane; giustamente, però, Junkerman – confermata da Helke48 ‒ ha rilevato che non si tratta di un abito femminile, bensì maschile, e in effetti basta il confronto con il cosiddetto Omaggio a un poeta attribuito a Giorgione alla National Gallery di Londra o ancora con questo più o meno coevo Ritratto di uomo di Jacopo de Barbari per attestarlo con assoluta evidenza (fig. 12)49. Sempre Junkerman riteneva comunque l’opera il ritratto di una cortigiana, anche tenendo conto del fatto che costoro, per adescare i clienti, talvolta si travestivano da uomo50. Per molte ragioni esposte in più occasioni da vari studiosi sembra tuttavia a dir poco improbabile che qui si rappresenti una meretrice, a partire dal fatto che la pianta di alloro che si dirama vistosamente alle spalle della donna replica un’iconografia, adottata in vari dipinti veneti del primissimo ‘500, che rimarca la virtuosa verginità di Maria51. Pare dunque più opportuno tentare di individuare n ­ ella 46 Helen A. Noe, Messer Giacomo en zijn “Laura” (een dubbelportret van Giorgione?), in: Nederlands kunsthistorisch jaarboek 11, 1960, 1–35; Egon Verheyen, Der Sinngehalt von Giorgiones “Laura”, in: Pantheon 26, 1968, n. 2, 220–227; Dal Pozzolo 1993 (cit. nota 23); Idem 2008 (cit. nota 24), 30–53, 190–199; Idem, Giorgione, Milano 2009, 291–300. Si veda infra la nota 51. 47 Filippo Pedrocco, Iconografia delle cortigiane di Venezia, in: catalogo della mostra Il gioco dell’amore. Le cortigiane di Venezia dal Trecento al Settecento, Venezia 1990, 81–93, 93 nota 12; Jaynie Anderson, Giorgione, peintre de la “brièveté poétique”. Catalogue raisonné, Parigi 1996, 115–116. 48 Gabriele Helke, Giorgione als Maler des Paragone, in: Jahrbuch des Kunsthistorischen Museums ­Wien 1, 1999, 11–79, 17–19. 49 Sull’attribuzione a Giorgione della tavola londinese, nonché per la querelle sull’iconografia, cfr. la mia scheda in cat. Castelfranco Veneto 2009‒2010 (cit. nota 32), 413‒415; Elena Greer ‒ Nicholas Penny, Giorgione and the National Gallery, in: The Burlington Magazine 152, 2010, n. 1287, 364‒375; Paul Joannides, Giorgione’s “The Madness of Nebuchadnezzar”, in: Paragone LXII, n. s. 2011, n. 100 (741), 3‒12; Peter Lüdemann, Sed tu sapientius opta: un dipinto “giorgionesco” reinterpretato, in: Venezia Cinquecento XXIII, 2013, n. 45, 5–39. Il ritratto di Jacopo de Barbari lo ho illustrato nella mia recensione a Simone Ferrari, Jacopo de’ Barbari. Un protagonista del Rinascimento tra Venezia e Dürer, in: Studi Tizianeschi V, 2007, 192‒194; cfr. inoltre Dal Pozzolo 2008 (cit. nota 24), 50‒51. Lo ripropongo in questa sede perché mi pare che tale integrazione al catalogo pittorico del maestro sia sfuggita al lavoro monografico di Beate Böckem, Jacopo de’ Barbari: Künstlerschaft und Hochkultur um 1500, Köln – Weimar – Wien 2016. 50 Anne Christine Junkerman, The Lady and the Laurel. Gender and the Meaning in Giorgione, in: Oxford Art Journal XVI, 1993, 49‒58. 51 Per altre conferme in tal senso, tra gli altri, Augusto Gentili, Amore e amorose persone: tra miti ovidiani, allegorie musicali, celebrazioni matrimoniali, in: catalogo della mostra Maria Grazia Bernardini (ed.), Tiziano Vecellio. Amor Sacro e Amor Profano, Roma 1995, 82‒105; Sergio Bertelli, Cortigiane sfacciate e sposi voyeurs, in: Paragone XLVIII, 1997, n. 567, 3‒33 (riedito in Idem, Il re, la vergine e la sposa. Eros, maternità e potere nella cultura figurativa europea, Roma 2002, 65‒112). Inoltre su questa linea si è posto anche Peter Lüdemann, Virtus und voluptas: Beobachtungen zur Ikonographie weiblicher Aktfiguren in der venezianischen Malerei des frühen Cinquecento, Berlino 2008, 250. In generale sui molti problemi di metodo connessi alla difficoltà di riconoscere dei ritratti di prostitute nell’iconografia coeva, cfr. Carol M. Schuler, The Courtesan in Art: Historial Fact or Modern Fantasy?, in: Women’s Studies XIX, 1991, 209‒222.

56

pelliccia un’allusione metaforica in chiave positiva. Guidoni, riconoscendovi una pelle di martora, “dei cui peli si fanno i più sottili pennelli”, immaginò che potesse trattarsi di un richiamo all’arte della pittura52. Diversamente, chi scrive si chiedeva

Fig. 13: Stemma della famiglia Anselmo. Da: Stemmario Veneziano Orsini De Marzo, a cura di Niccolò Orsini De Marzo, Milano 2007, fig. a p. 14.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG

se la pelliccia maschile non fosse “forse un modo per alludere a una sorta di abbraccio metaforico, a un’intimità ancor più stretta con Giacomo”53. Ma dopo la lettura di Bassetti e l’apertura di credito in favore di Giacomo Anselmo, non si può non tener conto del fatto che il capostipite della casata, “Bortholamio Anselmo”, era appunto un “pelizer”, ossia un pellicciaio, ed è stato pure suggerito che la falce di lune retta dal leone nello stemma alluda proprio a un divaricatore da “pelizer” (fig. 13)54. Certamente Giacomo portò avanti la professione di famiglia, e la qualifica “stazioner” non risulterebbe incompatibile con il suo status nobiliare: allo stesso modo in cui Taddeo Contarini vendeva carni e Gabriele Vendramin saponi. E’ una suggestione che s’innesta su un quadro indiziario lacunoso e il problema resta ai miei occhi comunque aperto. Quel che mi premeva in questa occasione era dare conto dell’autorevole verifica paleografica sull’iscrizione effettuata da Bassetti, evidenziare quanto è oggettivamente desumibile dall’analisi dei caratteri paleografici in merito all’estrazione socio-culturale dell’estensore della scritta, motivare alcune delle scelte semantiche adottate, nonché presentare un ventaglio di ipotesi che abbiano qualche grado di plausibilità, senza nascondere i punti di criticità di ognuna.

Giorgiones Bildnis einer jungen Frau im Kunsthistorischen Museum Wien trägt bekanntlich auf der Rückseite eine Inschrift, die für original gehalten und bis heute generell mehr oder weniger folgendermaßen transkribiert wird: „1506 adj primo zugno fo fatto questo de mano de maistro Zorzi da chastel fr[anco] cholega de maistro vizenzo chaena ad instanzia de mis giacmo“ (am 1. Juni 1506 wurde dies von der Hand des Meisters Giorgio aus Castelfranco gemacht, des Kollegen von Meister ­Vincenzo Catena, auf Bitten von Herrn Giacomo). Die Lücke dort, wo der Nachname stehen sollte, hat die versuchsweise Identifizierung jenes Mannes verhindert, den die Formulierung „ad instanzia“ als Auftraggeber des Werkes kennzeichnet. In letzter Zeit wurden einige Hypothesen dazu aufgestellt. Die vorliegende Studie konzentriert sich auf die Revision der Inschrift, die – gemäß einer neuerlichen Untersuchung durch den Paläographen Massimiliano Bassetti, auch auf der Basis dessen, was die Reflektographie erkennbar macht – sicherlich als original anzuerkennen ist und folgendermaßen ergänzt werden kann: „✠ 1506 a[d]j [pr]imo zugno fo fatto questo de ma[n] de maistro Zorzi da Chaste[l] Fr[ancho] | [c]holega de [mai]stro Vizenzi Chaena ad instanzia de mis[er] Gia[co]mo Ansé [∙] Stazi […]“. Die paläographische Analyse konnte einige Elemente an den Tag bringen, die das kulturelle Niveau des Schreibers einzuschätzen sowie einige Indizien kontextueller Natur festzumachen erlauben. Die Lesung des lückenhaften Schluss­ teils nach dem Namen Giacomo („Ansé [∙] Stazi […]“) enthält nicht wenige Schwierigkeiten, aber auf hypothetischer Basis ist die Möglichkeit nicht ausgeschlossen, dass es sich bei dieser Person um den Patrizier Giacomo Anselmo handelt, den letzten Vertreter einer Familie von Kürschnern, der verschiedene öffentliche Ämter in der venezianischen Republik bekleidete und 1518 verstarb.

52 Guidoni 1999 (cit. nota 18), 260. 53 Dal Pozzolo 2009 (cit. nota 46), 297‒300. 54 “Il dato che il primo cittadino del casato a scritto al Maggior Consiglio sia stato un pelizer ci può far sospettare che la falce (a forma crescente, quindi, ma anche di ansa allitterante col gentilizio) impugnata dal leone potesse esser stata in origine un divaricatore da pellicciaio […]”: Orsini De Marzo 2007 (cit. nota 37), p. XXXIV.

57

58

Mark Evans

“Conterfettlein klein […] von miniature, von dem vleissigen Engellender”: British Renaissance Portraits in the Münzkabinett* In 1500 Maximilian I engaged the Venetian Jacopo de’ Barbari as “unsern contra­ feter und illuministen” ‒ our portraitist and miniaturist; but when in the 1570s the emperor’s great grandson Maximilian II employed the Milanese Giuseppe Arcimboldo it was as “Conterfeter vnd Maler” ‒ portraitist and painter.1 These differing job descriptions are symptomatic of the progressively marginal place in Renaissance court culture of illumination, which increasingly became the preserve of specialists such as the Fleming Joris Hoefnagel (1542‒1601), who was patronised by Albert IV of Bavaria, Ferdinand II of the Tirol (1529‒1595) and the Emperor Rudolph II. However, in England around 1600 portrait and miniature painting remained virtually synonymous as “the Arte of Limning,” which its leading practitioner Nicholas Hilliard considered to be fit “for gentelmen alone […] a kind of gentill painting […] a thing apart”.2 The thousand or so small pictures of monarchs, nobles and other notables now in the Münzkabinett of the Kunsthistorisches Museum included miniatures on vellum as well as numerous oil paintings on panel from the remarkable collection of naturalia and artefacta of Ferdinand II at Ambras Castle.3 The Archduke began to ­assemble *



1

2

Fig. 1: Giulio Clovio, Self-portrait, aged 30. 1528. Watercolour on vellum. Vienna, Kunst­ historisches Museum, Kunstkammer, inv. no. KK 4202. (©: KHM-Museumsverband.)

3

59

This research began in September 2012 while I was Victoria and Albert Museum exchange curator at the Kunsthistorisches Museum. I am indebted to my friends at Vienna who facilitated this project, especially Andreas Fingernagel, Gerlinde Gruber, Guido Messling, Franz Pichorner, Paulus Rainer and Veronika Sandbichler. Work continued with the resources of the National Portrait Gallery, the Warburg Institute and the National Art Library at the Victoria and Albert Museum and I am much obliged to my colleagues Clare Browne, Louise Cooling, Katherine Coombs, Ana Debenedetti, Richard Edgcumbe, Mary McMahon, Tessa Murdoch, Susan North and Joanna Whalley for their generous assistance and good advice. Heinrich Zimerman ‒ Franz Kregczi, “Urkunden und Regesten aus dem k.u.k. Reichs-Finanz Archiv,” in Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses, vol. 3, 1885, p. vii, no. 2280. Jacopo’s annual salary of 100 rhenish guilders was the same as the pension awarded to Albrecht Dürer in 1515; William Martin Conway, The Literary Remains of Albrecht Dürer, Cambridge, 1889, p. 83; Hans Rupprich (ed.), Dürer. Schriftlicher Nachlass, vol. 1, Berlin, 1956, pp. 79‒80; exhibition catalogue Sylvia Ferino-Pagden (ed.), Arcimboldo, Paris (Musée du Luxembourg) ‒ Vienna (Kunst­historisches Museum), 2007, pp. 81‒84, 303‒309. Arcimboldo is documented at Vienna in the service of Ferdinand I or Maximilian II from 1563, and that of Rudolph II from 1576‒1587. The terms “contrefais au vif,” “enlumineur” and “alluminare” had been current since the thirteenth century; Andrew Martindale, “Heroes, Ancestors, Relatives and the Birth of the Portrait,” in idem, Painting the Palace. Studies in the History of Medieval Secular Painting, London, 1995, p. 90, and Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy, vol. 2, Purgatorio, trans. Charles S. Singelton, Princeton, 1973, canto XI, pp. 114‒115. I am obliged to Katherine Coombs for the latter reference. Nicholas Hilliard, Nicholas Hilliard’s Art of Limning, ed. by Arthur F. Kinney and Linda B. Salamon, Boston, 1983, p. 16. Elisabeth Scheicher, “The Collection of Archduke Ferdinand II at Schloss Ambras: Its purpose, composition and evolution,” in Oliver Impey ‒ Arthur MacGregor (eds.), The Origin of Museums. The Cabinet of Curiosities in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Europe, Oxford, 1987, pp. 29‒38. The Ambras portraits are mostly in oils on paper laid down on wooden panels measuring about 13.5 x

Fig. 2: Anonymous, Portrait identified as Henry VIII, King of England, detail. From Gerardus de Roo, Annales oder Historische Chronick der Erczhertzogen zu Oesterreich, Augsburg, 1621, p. 459. Woodcut. Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Sign. 12735821 2 Austr. 132a.

Fig. 3: Anonymous, Portrait identified as James IV, King of Scotland, detail. From Gerardus de Roo, Annales oder Historische Chronick der Erczhertzogen zu Oesterreich, Augsburg, 1621, p. 459. Woodcut. Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Sign. 12735821 2 Austr. 132a.

the latter around 1578, and after his death they were recorded in his Kunstkammer in 1596 as occupying eight chests covered with red leather and set with brass: “So ist auch in der kunstcamer […] acht mit rot leder ubserzogen und mit messing beschlagen truhl, darein sollen conterfee ligen”.4 Woodcut copies of 182 of these portraits were published in Gerardus de Roo’s Annales oder Historische Chronick der Erczhertzogen zu Oesterreich in 1621 (Figs. 2 and 3).5 An inventory of that year reveals that the chests then contained 954 likenesses, and a later one shows that by 1666 this had increased to 957 plus “zwei illuminierte,” which were evidently miniatures.6 They were displayed at Ambras around 1807, and then transferred to the Lower Belvedere in Vienna and from there to the recently-built Kunsthistorisches Museum.7 The principal account of these works

4

5 6

7

60

10.5  cm. Friedrich Kenner, Kunsthistorische Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses. Führer durch die Porträtsammlung des Erzherzogs Ferdinand von Tirol, Vienna, 1892; idem, “Die Porträtsammlung des Erzherzogs Ferdinand von Tirol,” in Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses, vol. 14, 1893, pp. 37‒186 [Babenberger & Habsburg sitters]; vol. 15, 1894, pp. 147‒259 [German sitters]; vol. 17, 1896, pp. 101‒274 [Italian sitters]; vol. 19, 1898, pp. 6‒146 [Spanish, Portuguese, French, English, Scottish and Oriental sitters]; Gerhart Ladner, Kunsthistorisches Museum. Die Porträtsammlung des Erzherzogs Ferdinand von Tirol, Vienna, 1932. As exposure of the miniatures to daylight has caused fading, they are now in storage and have been replaced in the display with colour reproductions. Anonymous, no. 5556, “Inventari weilend der fürstlich durchlaucht erzherzog Ferdinanden zu Österreich,” fol. 481, in Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses, vol. 7, 1888, p. CCCXII. Kenner 1893 (cited note 3), p. 59. When re-inventoried by the antiquarian and curator Johann Baptist Primisser (1739‒1815) in 1788 thirty-one had been removed from the collection but a further 106 had arrived, bringing the total to 1034; Kenner 1893 (cited note 3), p. 59. By 1892 the collection had grown to 1080 items; Kenner 1892 (cited note 3), pp. 1‒10; Ladner 1932 (cited note 3), pp. 3‒4.

r­ emains that by the curator of numismatics Friedrich von Kenner (1834‒1922), published in 1893‒98. The Ambras portraits include two oil roundels of an English couple dated 1534 by Hans Holbein the Younger (Figs. 9 and 10), and seven small oils on panel of wellknown English and Scottish personalities (Figs. 12‒17 and 19) painted by anonymous artists for Ferdinand II. Roo’s Annales reproduce two further portraits identified as those of Henry VIII and James IV of Scotland which are no longer in the collection (Figs. 2 and 3).8 A miniature of an English lady after a Holbein drawing, documented at Ambras by 1821, is now in the Kunstkammer (Fig. 11) and a further four miniatures by Hilliard (Figs. 18 and 20‒22), which probably arrived in the Habs­burg domains between 1581 and 1619, were apparently transferred later from the Vienna Schatzkammer to Ambras.9 An examination of these small-scale likenesses of British people sheds light on Renaissance portraiture and collecting, as well as cultural exchange between the Elizabethan, Jacobean and Habsburg courts.

THE PORTRAIT MINIATURE

The origins of the portrait miniature and of portrait collecting are both associated with the Tuscan poet Francesco Petrarch (1304‒1374), who owned a celebrated lost likeness of his late beloved Laura drawn by the Sienese artist Simone Martini, and another of her “by […] a famous artist” which he always carried on his person.10 A century later, in a dialogue by Angelo Decembrio set at the court of Leonello d’Este in Ferrara, an interlocutor remarks: “what I keep, framed in this small pyxis, is the countenance of a golden-haired maiden,” and “he opened a pyxis that held the image of a maiden, a sight sweet to all”.11 Like Petrarch’s Laura, this “proof of sweet and everlasting remembrance” commemorated “one of the modern glories of our […] girls,” whose death elicited “a tearful elegy”. Decembrio’s “golden-haired” beauty was kept in a small round box, anticipating the portrait miniatures of Giulio Clovio, as described by Giorgio Vasari: “some private persons have in little cases most beautiful portraits by his hand, of various lords, their friends, or ladies loved by them. But, however that may be, it is certain that the works of men such as Don Giulio are not public, nor in places where they can be seen by everyone […].”12

Gerardus de Roo, Annales oder Historische Chronick der Erczhertzogen zu Oesterreich […], Augsburg, 1621, pp. 459 and 460. I am grateful to Guido Messling for this information; personal communication, 2 May 2014. The likeness of Henry VIII in profile as a beardless man was ultimately derived, in reverse, from a woodcut by Tobias Stimmer in Paolo Giovio’s Elogia Virorum bellica virtute illustrium, Basel, 1575, p. 338. This was also the source for the related portraits of the king at the Walker Art Gallery in Liverpool (inv. no. 3292) and in the portrait book of Hieronymus Beck von Leopoldsdorf; Edward Morris ‒ Martin Hopkinson, The Walker Art Gallery Liverpool. Foreign Catalogue, Liverpool, 1977, text vol., p. 158 & plates vol., p. 201 (where the portrait is identified as of Cardinal Wolsey), and Günther Heinz, “Das Porträtbuch des Hieronymus Beck von Leopoldsdorf,” in Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien, vol. 71 (NF. XXXV), 1975, pp. 227, 234, 235. In 1893 Kenner (cited note 3) mistook Roo’s portrait of James IV (1473‒1513) for one of James VI (1566‒1625). In fact, it is an acceptable likeness of James V (1512‒1542), also a reversed version of a woodcut by Stimmer in Giovio’s Elogia, p. 327, where its subject is correctly identified. See also Linda Susan Klinger, The portrait collection of Paolo Giovio, PhD thesis, Princeton University, 1991, vol. 2, pp. 102‒103, 105‒106; Dieter Beaujean ‒ Paul Tanner, Holstein’s German Engravings, Etchings and Woodcuts 1400‒1700, vol. 80, Tobias Stimmer (continued), Ouderkerk aan den Ijssel, 2014, pp. 169, 204, 205, nos. 616, 620. 9 According to Kenner (1896, cited note 3, p. 90), the transfer probably occurred in the eighteenth century, but at least one (that of Francis Drake; Gemäldegalerie, inv. no. 5489) was copied for Ferdinand by 1595 and the inventory of 1666 indicates the presence of “zwei illuminierte” among the portraits. 10 One of the portraits of Laura is described as being drawn in stylus on paper. They are mentioned in two of Petrarch’s sonnets and his moral treatise De Contemptu Mundi; Martindale 1995 (cited note 1), pp. 9, 101‒103, 105‒107, 115‒116; idem, Simone Martini, Oxford, 1988, pp. 5, 7, 50, 183‒184; Mark Evans, “The Pedigree of the Portrait Miniature. European sources of an English genre,” in Bodo Brinkmann ‒ Wolfgang Schmid (eds.), Hans Holbein und der Wandel in der Kunst des frühen 16. Jahrhunderts, Turnhout, 2003, pp. 229‒230. 11 Cited in Michael Baxandall, “A Dialogue on Art from the Court of Leonello d’Este,” in Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, vol. xxvi, 1963, p. 326. Decembrio’s dialogue dates from the 1450s. 12 Evans 2003 (cited note 10), p. 238, citing Giorgio Vasari, Lives of the Painters, Sculptors and Architects, trans. Gaston du C. de Vere, London, 1996, vol. 2, p. 856. 8

61

The earliest life-like portraits were typically small and portable, meant to be held in the hand for scrutiny and packed away after use, like the pair of roundels of Martin Luther and his wife painted in oils on panel in 1525 by Lucas Cranach, which fit together like halves of a compact.13 Holbein produced similar small likenesses in oils on turned wooden panels between 1532 and 1535, before taking up portrait miniature painting, which the testimony of Petrarch and Decembrio suggests was practiced in Italy long before it became common in northern Europe.14 In England “limnings” were often housed in individual turned boxes, analogous to the “small pyxis” mentioned by Decembrio or the “little cases” noted by Vasari. The inventory of Henry VIII mentions that eleven “rounde boxes with phiseonemies” were kept in 1547 at “The Kynge’s Secreete Studdie” at Westminster, while “boxes with the picture of the frenche king and the Frenche Quene” were stored in Greenwich and a further “lytle boxe wherin is our ladie and her Sonne” at the jewel house at Hampton Court.15 An early miniature retaining its original setting is Holbein’s Anne of Cleves, whose turned ivory box is similar to those made later for Elizabeth­an and Jacobean miniatures, with a lid decorated with a finely carved Tudor rose.16 Small portraits like that owned by Petrarch could also be mounted in lockets for wear. For example, in 1547 a coffer housing “The Quenes Jewelles” in “The Secrete Juelhous in the Tower of London” held “a Tablet of golde hauing on thone side the kinges Picture peynted and on the same side is a roose of Dyamountes and Rubies” while another in “The Kinges Secrete Juelhous” at Westminster contained a “Picture of the Frenche King set in a rounde Tablet of golde enamelede”.17 The earliest known description of such portrait jewels appears in a letter of 1526 by Gasparo Spinelli, secretary to the Venetian ambassador in England, which mentions two recently sent by Madame d’Alençon, the sister of Francis I, to Henry VIII: “Picture to yourself, then, a round and plain form, slightly larger than that of the ‘spechi da fuoco’ [burning glasses] which are sold on St. Mark’s Place [in Venice] but […] which opens […] the cover is of a very finely worked gold; when it is open it contains on one side the portrait of the very Christian King [Francis I], very naturally painted on paper, and on the other side of this portrait are sculptured double F’s […]. The other gift was quite a similar object. […] Opening it then, on one side one could see the portraits of the Dauphin with the two H’s and the Duke of Orleans with H.G. […].”18 These works were perhaps by the French court artist Jean Clouet whose surviving miniature of the Dauphin Francis was painted around 1525‒8.19 The earliest portrait miniatures made in England are attributed to Lucas Horenbout, son of the Ghent illuminator Gerard Horenbout, who had been “varlet de chamber et painctre” of the Regent of the Netherlands, Margaret of Austria.20 His sister Susanna was also an artist, and in 1521 at Antwerp she met Albrecht Dürer, who purchased an illuminated Salvator from her and remarked “it is very wonderful that a woman can do so much”.21 This family of artists moved during the 1520s to London, where Lucas served Henry VIII as a “pictor maker” and in 1534 received English denizenship and the post of the King’s Painter, with an emolument of £33.6s.

13 Martindale 1995 (cited note 1), pp. 100, 103; Evans 2003 (cited note 10), pp. 231‒232; Angelica Dülberg, Privatporträts: Geschichte und Ikonologie einer Gattung im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert, Berlin, 1990, p. 274. 14 Evans 2003 (cited note 10), pp. 244‒245; Dülberg 1990 (cited note 13), pp. 276‒277. 15 Evans 2003 (cited note 10), pp. 246‒247, citing David Starkey (ed.), The Inventory of Henry VIII, London, 1998, pp. 204, 235, 290, 397‒8, 414‒5. 16 Victoria and Albert Museum, 153-1910, diameter 4.45 cm. Evans 2003 (cited note 10), pp. 245‒246. 17 Evans 2003 (cited note 10), p. 247, citing Starkey 1998 (cited note 15), pp. 78, 83. 18 Evans 2003 (cited note 10), p. 240, citing Gustave Lebel, “British-French Artistic Relations in the XVI Century,” in Gazette des Beaux-Arts, vol. XXXIII, 1948, pp. 274‒6. 19 Royal Collection, RCIN 420070, diam. 6.2 cm. Graham Reynolds, The Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Miniatures in the Collection of Her Majesty The Queen, London, 1999, pp. 43‒4. 20 Evans 2003 (cited note 10), p. 241‒242; Lorne Campbell ‒ Susan Foister, “Gerard, Lucas and Susanna Horenbout,” in The Burlington Magazine, October 1986, vol. 128, no. 1003, pp. 719‒727. 21 Cited in Conway 1889 (cited note 1), p. 120; Rupprich 1956 (cited note 1), p. 172.

62

­ ccording to Karel van Mander, it was he who introduced Holbein to miniature A painting, and in 1536 the German artist was also appointed as “the King’s Painter,” but at the rather smaller salary of £30.22 While no securely attributed English portrait miniatures are known between the death of Lucas Horenbout in 1544 and the earliest dated work of Nicholas Hilliard in 1571, during these years two female miniaturists were closely associated with the court. Susanna Horenbout was described as a “gentlewoman” when she and her husband, also a royal servant, received a gilt cup from Henry VIII in 1532. She served Anne of Cleves, the king’s last wife Katherine Parr and his daughter Mary. Levina Teerlinc was similarly the daughter of a leading Flemish illuminator, Simon Bening (1483?‒1561), and the wife of a “gentleman pensioner” of Henry VIII.23 In 1546 the king granted her a regular annuity of £40 and in 1551 she was sent to the princess Elizabeth “to drawe owt her picture” and gave Mary I “a smale picture of the Trynite” in 1553. Following the accession of Elizabeth I she regularly presented the queen with a miniature as a new year’s gift, evidently in earnest of her annual pension. Susanna Horenbout and Teerlinc were both mentioned by Vasari in 1568 as “excellent miniaturists” with honourable status at the English court.24 Teerlinc’s apparent connection with the most celebrated Italian miniaturist of the sixteenth century, Giulio Clovio (1498‒1578), was pointed out by Julius Schlosser in 1922, but has been overlooked by writers on English miniature painting.25 Clovio’s inventory of 1578 included a portrait in a round box of Teerlinc, styled as “miniaturist to the Queen of England,” which was presumably a miniature: “Un scattolino tondo con il ritratto di Livinia meniatrice della Regina d’Inghilterra”.26 Schlosser associated this with an undated letter by Clovio to an unidentified female miniaturist who was evidently not Italian, published in 1793 by the Franciscan friar and art historian Guglielmo della Valle (ca. 1745‒1805) as a footnote to the life of Clovio in his edition of Vasari’s Lives.27 The whereabouts of the letter are not known, but della Valle believed it had been written on behalf of Clovio by the poet Anni-

22 Evans 2003 (cited note 10), p. 242‒247. 23 Roy Strong, “Teerlinc, Levina (d. 1576),” in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, online edition, 2004‒2014 (hereafter referred to as ODNB); http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/38054 (accessed 21 July 2014). 24 Vasari 1996 (cited note 12), vol. 2, p. 865. 25 Julius Schlosser, “Two Portrait Miniatures from Castle Ambras,” in The Burlington Magazine, October 1922, vol. 41, no. 235, pp. 194‒198. For example, it is not mentioned by Simone Bergmans, “The Miniatures of Levina Teerling,” in The Burlington Magazine, May 1934, vol. 64, no. 374, pp. 232‒236. 26 Antonino Bertoletti, “Don Giulio Clovio. Principe dei miniatori. Notizie e documenti inediti,” in Atti e memorie delle RR. Deputazioni di storia patria per la provincia dell’Emilia, MS. vol. VII, pt. 1, Modena, 1881, p. 274; cited by Schlosser 1922 (cited note 25), p. 197. 27 Giorgio Vasari, Vite de’ Piu’ Eccellenti Pittori Scultori e Architetti, ed. Guglielmo della Valle, Siena, 1793, vol. 10, pp. 354‒355: “Io havea sentito molti giorni innanti celebrare la virtù et bellezza vostra, et de l’ una et de l’ altra per fama era molto affettionato, quando da M […] mi è stata mostra la vostra effigie da voi medesima dipinta, et di tal sorte, che in un medesimo tempo ho scorto in voi la gratia del vostro volto, la vivezza del vostro spirito, et l’eccellenza di quell’ arte, de la quale io fo professione. Hor pensate, se prima v’amava per avervi udita commendare, quanto io v’ami et vi honori dipoi che v’ho, si può dir, veduta et conosciuta, et per donna tale, che oltre a l’ esser sì bella et sì giovine, sete ancora sì eccellente in un’ arte tanto rara ne gli uomini, non che ne le donne. L’amore et la maraviglia insieme hanno fatto che io ritenghi il vostro ritratto appresso di me, et lo vagheggio a tutte­ l’hore per la più cara cosa che io habbia et per la più mirabile che si vegga: et per ricompensa m’è parso di mandarvi il mio pur di mia propria mano, più perchè ancor voi conosciate l’ effigie di chi v’ama, che ’l valor di chi ve’l manda, perchè non essendo de le miglior cose che io faccia, non lo giudico degno di voi. Pure perchè gli artefici sogliono haver caro veder diverse maniere di quelli che operano, ho giudicato che non sia per dispiacervi di poter considerare quella di noi altri d’ Italia: et vi harei mandato un saggio d’istorie o di qualche figuretta ben finita, perchè ne poteste far meglio giudicio, ma per brevità di tempo mi riserbo a farlo un’ altra volta, et voglio che questo vi serva solamente, come ho detto, per darvi conoscenza di me et per un segno che io vi dono di me stesso. So che sete così cortese, come vi mostrate ne l’aspetto, et per questo non dubito, che non siate per accettarmi per vostro. Hora vi prego che mi facciate favor di farmi intendere che mi abbiate per tale, et di comandarmi come a vostra cosa, facendomi gratia di qualche altra cosa di vostra mano, ch’ io farò il medesimo con voi. Et del resto rimettendomi a la relatione del Gentil’huomo apportator di questa, mi vi offero et mi vi dono per sempre, et vi bacio le delicate et artificiose mani. State sana. F.G.D.” I am obliged to Ana Debenedetti and Louise Cooling for assistance with this text.

63

bale Caro (1507‒1566).28 It begins by courteously and extravagantly praising a lifelike self-portrait which Clovio has received from his correspondent. He apologizes that the self-portrait which he will send in return is not better, suggests she may like to see this example of Italian artistry, and closes with the hope they will exchange more work in future. Clovio’s ownership of a miniature portrait of Teerlinc indicates that she was almost certainly the intended recipient of the letter. They were perhaps introduced by Pieter Bruegel the Elder.29 Schlosser shrewdly connected this exchange with two round portrait miniatures with matching elaborate carved frames in a northern mannerist style (Figs. 1 and 11), which were in the Ambras collection by 1821.30 One is of Margaret Wotton, Marchioness of Dorset, dated 1576 on the frame, but based on a drawing by Hans Holbein of around 1532‒35.31 The other is a slightly larger miniature of a man with a dog, with a Latin inscription identifying it as a self-portrait by Clovio at the age of 30 in 1528.32 While rejecting the miniature of Margaret Wotton as an autograph work by Holbein, Schlosser nevertheless considered it superior in quality to that of Clovio, which some later writers have thought to be a copy of a lost original, perhaps by a northern painter.33 The most celebrated Elizabethan miniaturist was Nicholas Hilliard.34 The son of an Exeter goldsmith, he was apprenticed in 1562 for the customary seven years to Elizabeth I’s goldsmith, Robert Brandon, and became a Freeman of the Goldsmith Company. He designed jewellery, medals and seal matrices, including the Great Seal of England, and his earliest miniature dates from 1571. He accompanied the embassy of Sir Amyas Paulet to France in 1576, and the following year is recorded as a servant of François duc d’Alençon. The thrifty Elizabeth I employed Hilliard frequently from 1572, but only made him a member of her household in 1599, with a regular annuity of £40. Encouraged by Dr Richard Haydocke of New College Oxford, the translator of Paolo Lomazzo’s book on the arts, around 1600 Hilliard wrote the first Renaissance treatise on painting by an English artist, The Arte of Limning. Hilliard maintained his monopoly as royal limner under James I, but was gradually surpassed by his “well profitting scholar,” Isaac Oliver.35 The latter was born at Rouen, the son of a protestant goldsmith who came to London around 1568. His earliest 28 Della Valle mentions the letter was in a volume associated with the Spanish Cardinal and bibliophile Francesco Saverio de Zelada (1717‒1801), who bequeathed his printed books to the Vatican Library and his manuscripts to the library of Toledo Cathedral. It was reprinted in a later edition of Vasari’s Vite, published at Milan in 1811, vol. 14, pp. 133‒134, and translated in part in Catherine King, “Look­ ing a sight: Sixteenth-Century Portraits of woman Artists,” in Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte, 1995, vol. 58, part 3, pp. 395‒397. 29 Bruegel’s style of landscape painting was indebted to Teerlinc’s father Simon Bening; exhibition catalogue Thomas Kren ‒ Scot McKendrick (eds.), Illuminating the Renaissance. The Triumph of Flemish Manuscript Painting in Europe, Los Angeles (J. Paul Getty Museum) ‒ London (Royal Academy of Arts), 2003, pp. 448, 494. At Rome in 1553 Bruegel and Clovio each painted half of a single miniature: “Un quadretto di miniatura la metà fatto per mano sua l’altra di M.o Pietro Brugole”; Bertoletti 1881 (cited note 26), p. 267; Fritz Grossmann, Pieter Bruegel: complete edition of the paintings, London, 1973, pp. 16, 25. 30 By 1821 the Ambras collection had been transferred to Vienna. Schlosser stated that these miniatures were listed at Ambras in a late eighteenth century inventory, but this cannot now be confirmed; personal communication from Paulus Rainer, 26 June 2014. 31 Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Kunstkammer, inv. no. KK 4203; Royal Collection Trust, RCIN 912209, black and coloured chalks, pen and ink, and metalpoint on pale pink prepared paper, 332 x 236 mm. K.T. Parker, The Drawings of Hans Holbein in the Collection of His Majesty The King at Windsor Castle, Oxford ‒ London, 1945, p. 43, pl. 28. 32 Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Kunstkammer, inv. no. KK 4202. Schlosser 1922 (cited note 25), pp. 194‒198; exhibition catalogue Wilfried Seipel (ed.), Kaiser Ferdinand I 1503‒1564. Das Werden der Habsburgermonarchie, Vienna (Kunsthistorisches Museum), 2003, pp. 548‒549 (entry by Sabine Haag). 33 Schlosser 1922 (cited note 25), pp. 194, 197; Maria Giononi-Visani ‒ Grgo Gamulin, Giorgio Giulio Clovio. Miniaturist of the Renaissance, London, 1993, p. 13; exhibition catalogue Miguel Falomir (ed.), El retrato del Renacimiento, Madrid (Museu Nacional del Prado), 2008, pp. 296‒297, 490 (entry by Leticia Ruiz Gómez). 34 Mary Edmond, “Hilliard, Nicholas (1547?‒1619),” in ODNB (cited note 23); http://www.oxforddnb. com/view/article/13320 (accessed 24 June 2014). 35 Mary Edmond, “Oliver, Isaac (ca. 1565‒1617),” in ODNB (cited note 23); http://www.oxforddnb.com/ view/article/20723 (accessed 23 July 2014).

64

Fig. 4: François Dujardin, Miniature locket. 1571/72. Enamelled gold (cover closed). Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Kunstkammer, inv. no. KK 1601. (©: KHM-Museumsverband.) Fig. 5: François Clouet the Younger, Portrait of Charles IX, King of France. 1571/72. Water­ colour on vellum in enamelled gold locket ­(cover open). Vienna, Kunsthistorisches ­Museum, Kunstkammer, inv. no. KK 1601. (©: KHM-Museumsverband.)

surviving miniatures of 1587 are already independent of Hilliard’s style, showing instead a knowledge of the engravings of Hendrik Goltzius. Oliver was employed by James I, and favoured by his son Henry, Prince of Wales, and his queen, Anne of Denmark, who in 1605 appointed him as her limner, also at £40 per annum. Gasparo Spinelli’s testimony demonstrates how the portability, fidelity and often opulent settings of portrait miniatures made them eminently acceptable royal gifts. In the 1570s the French court jeweller François Dujardin (1543‒1587) supplied Catherine de’ Medici with miniatures which the dowager queen dispensed in support of marriage alliances.36 She probably gave Maximilian II the superb locket with François Clouet’s portraits of her and her son Charles IX when the French king married the emperor’s daughter Elizabeth in 1570 (Figs. 4 and 5). Still at Vienna, this was first mentioned in 1619 in the inventory of the Emperor Matthias: “Ain conterfethpixl, gahr sauber geschmelzt, ist könig Carl in Franckreich und seiner frau mutter conterfeth darinnen.”37 Such portraits provided a surrogate for absent friends, as is shown by the account of Sir James Melville, ambassador of Mary queen of Scots, of an occasion in 1564

36 37

65

Diana Scarisbrick, Portrait Jewels. Opulence and Intimacy from the Medici to the Romanovs, London, 2011, pp. 54‒55, 57. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Kunstkammer, inv. no. KK 1601. Étienne Jollet, Jean and François Clouet, Paris, 1997, pp. 247‒249; Hans von Voltelini, “Urkunden und Regesten aus dem K. u. K. Haus-, Hof- und Staats-Archiv in Wien,” in Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses, vol. 20, 1899, part II, p. CIV, no. 2907. The suggestion that this double miniature and locket was sent by Charles IX to his sister-in-law Anna, Queen of Spain (Fernand Mazerolle, “Miniatures de François Clouet au Trésor Impéríal de Víenne,” in Revue de l’Art chrétienne, 3rd ser., vol. VII, October 1889, pp. 416‒419) would not explain its subsequent ownership by Matthias. I am grateful to Paulus Rainer for this reference; personal communication, 26 June 2014.

when Elizabeth I showed him her portrait miniatures and jewels: “She took me to her bed-chamber, and opened a little cabinet, wherein were divers little pictures wrapt within paper, and their names written with her own hand upon the papers. Upon the first that she took up was written, ‘My Lord’s picture’. I held the candle, and pressed to see that picture so named. She appeared loath to let me see it; yet my importunity prevailed for a sight thereof, and found it to be the earl of Leicester’s picture. […] Then she took out the Queen’s picture [of Mary, queen of Scots], and kissed it. […] She shewed me also a fair ruby, as great as a tennis-ball.”38 Holbein worked from life drawings, which could be enlarged for an oil painting or reduced for a miniature, but Hilliard and his successors painted directly from their sitters; a way of working that captured likenesses of outstanding vivacity, which enthralled foreign observers.39 In 1577 Don John of Austria expressed himself “moche pleased” with a miniature of Elizabeth I when shown it by her agent in the Low Countries, and in 1596 her ambassador to Henri IV produced a limning of his “farr more excellent Mistress” while “yet did her Picture come farr short of the Perfection of her Beauty”.40 An English visitor to Venice in 1609 showed the Doge a “beautiful portrait” of Henry, Prince of Wales, averring that he “was fairer within than without”.41 In 1616 the British ambassador to India, Sir Thomas Roe, took a miniature of a lady by Oliver and a portrait of James I to the Emperor Jahangir’s court, where the king’s image was copied by a Mughal painter in a large miniature of Jahangir preferring a Sufi Shaikh to kings.42 It was perhaps to emphasise his own distinguished Augsburg medical family that the royal apothecary Johann Wolfgang Rumler gave Charles I a miniature of Rudolph II by the emperor’s miniaturist Daniel Fröschl (1563‒1613), who also hailed from that imperial city.43 Limning was widely considered a gentlemanly pursuit, and the ambassador Sir Henry Wotton recommended Mark Belford, his secretary at Venice in 1608‒11, as the peer of Isaac Oliver to Henry Prince of Wales, who engaged him as his limner.44

38 39 40 41 42

43

44

66

George Scott (ed.), The Memoirs of Sir James Melville, London, 1752, pp. 96‒97, cited by John Murdoch et al., The English miniature, New Haven ‒ London, 1981, p. 73. Evans 2003 (cited note 10), p. 247; Graham Reynolds, English Portrait Miniatures, Cambridge, 1988, pp. 53‒54, 56, 60. Cited in Roy Strong, Portraits of Queen Elizabeth I, Oxford, 1963, pp. 20, 28. Cited in Edward Chaney ‒ Timothy Wilks, The Jacobean Grand Tour. Early Stuart Travellers in Eur­ope, London ‒ New York, 2014, pp. 172‒175. Washington, D.C., Freer Gallery of Art, inv. no. 42.15; exhibition catalogue Milo Cleveland Beach (ed.), The Imperial Image: Paintings for the Mughal Court, Washington, D.C. (Freer Gallery of Art), 1981, pp. 29‒31, 79, 168‒169; Michael Strachan, “Roe, Sir Thomas (1581‒1644),” in ODNB (cited note 23); http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/23943 (accessed 8 August 2014). Private collection, watercolour on vellum, 13 x 10.2 cm. Jane Roberts, “The Limnings, Drawings and Prints in Charles I’s Collection,” in Arthur MacGregor (ed.), The Late King’s Goods. Collections, Possessions and Patronage of Charles I in the Light of the Commonwealth Sale Inventories, London ‒ Oxford, 1989, p. 116‒117, 124. The miniature is mentioned in the inventory of the art collection of Charles I, fol. 53: “Done by Mr ffreshley. The Emperor Rodolphs limner. Item. another lim’d Picture done upon the right. light of the Emperor Radolphus the second painted upon Parchment […] Given to your Majestie by your Majesties Apothecarie Mr John Wolfe Rumlor”; Oliver Millar‚ “Abraham van der Doort’s Catalogue of the Collections of Charles I,” in Walpole Society, 1958‒1960, xxxvii, 1960, p. 108. J.W. Rumler was probably the grandson of the physician and astrologer Achilles Gasser (1505‒1577), a correspondent of the great anatomist and Imperial physician Andreas Vesalius (1514‒1564), and the brother of Johann Udalric Rumler, for over 33 years physician in the city hospital at Augsburg, and also a medical consultant to Anne of Denmark; J.O. Leibowitz, “Johann Udalric Rumler and a letter of Vesalius,” in Medical History, vol. 8 (4), October 1964, pp. 377‒378. In 1604 J.W. Rumler became apothecary for life to Anne and her children, and he held the same office to James I from 1607, and Charles I from 1627. He was also Master of the recently-founded Apothecaries Company of London in 1622‒23 and 1636‒37. In addition to supplying the court with such commodities as medicines, perfumes and Rhenish wines, Rumler sought in 1620 to secure a patent for the skinbleaching agent mercury sublimate, and in 1625 oversaw the embalming of the body of James I. He died around 1650. See: Leslie G. Matthews, The Royal Apothecaries, London, 1967, pp. 88‒98, 101, 177; Andrea R. Stevens, “‘Assisted by a Barber’: The Court Apothecary, Special Effects, and the Gypsies Metamorphosed,” in Theatre Notebook, vol. 61, no. 1, 2007, pp. 2‒11. Chaney ‒ Wilks 2014 (cited note 41), pp. 193‒194.

Between 1585 and 1596 Hilliard’s customary rate for a miniature was around £3, and in 1608 he was paid £4 “for his Majesties picture,” and £5 each “for the Kinge and Princes pictures given to the Launcegrave of Hessen and one other of his Majesties,” the latter furnished “with cristall glasses that covered them”.45 These prices were comparable with the £5.10s. received in 1609 by Oliver for a limning of the Prince of Wales.46 At the time the Spanish court painter Juan Pantoja de la Cruz (ca. 1553‒1608) charged the equivalent of between £2.15s. and £3.15s for a small portrait from life.47 A goldsmith as well as the king’s “picture drawer,” Hilliard received £35 in 1615 for “woorke done by him aboute a table of his Majesties picture garnished with diamonds,” which probably included making the locket as well as the portrait.48 The remuneration for portraiture received by Hilliard, Oliver and Pantoja much exceeded the average valuation for portraits listed in Dutch inventories of the period, less than 12s.49 That the cost of miniatures remained modest in comparison with their precious settings is apparent from the payment of £1,000 “To John Spillman, one of his Majesty’s jewellers […] for one jewel, that is to say, a tablet of diamonds with a great pendant pearl hanging at it, having in it the pictures of the King and Queen’s Majesties,” which Anne of Denmark gave in 1604 to the Constable of Castile, Juan Fernandez de Velasco, a signatory to the Treaty of London.50 These and other presents were quite separate from the £2,000 worth of silver plate “his Majesty hath commanded to be taken out of his Highness’s store to be bestowed on the Constable of Castile,” the value of silver considered a fitting gift for an important ambassador taking his leave.51 When Baron Howard of Effingham, Earl of Nottingham, attended the ratification of the peace at Valladolid in 1605, the Spanish queen entrusted him, as a gift for Anne of Denmark, with Pantoja’s miniatures of herself and King Philip III, in a case set with diamonds and valued at 6,000 ducats, or about £1,566: “vna cajita del tamano de vn vaipe con los retrados de sus Magestades, llena de diamantes, tasada en 6000 ducados”.52 Similarly, at the end of his state visit to England in 1606 Christian IV of Denmark gave his sister Queen Anne “his picture, richly set with jewels”.53 Portrait miniatures remained welcome diplomatic gifts, and in 1630 Charles I’s master of ceremonies Sir John Finet (1571‒1641) received “a chayne and his picture worth 24 £” from the departing ambassador of the Duke of Saxe-Lauenburg.54 The following year Finet noted how the Duke of Savoy’s “ambassadour extraordinary” declined the customary but cumbersome farewell present of “fifteen hundred onces of gylt plate,” approved by “ancient custom” and worth about £375, in favour of a 45 Mary Edmond, Hilliard and Oliver: The lives and works of two great miniaturists, London, 1983, p. 46; account dated Michaelmas 1608 cited in Noel Blakiston‚ “Nicholas Hilliard: some unpublished documents,” in The Burlington Magazine, vol. 89, no. 532, July 1947, p. 189. 46 Edmond 1983 (cited note 45), p. 152. 47 Pantoja’s fee of 110‒150 reales for small portraits in oils on copper is given in Gustav Ungerer, “Juan Pantoja de la Cruz and the circulation of gifts between the English and Spanish courts in 1604/5,” in Shakespeare Studies, 1 January 1998, vol. 26, pp. 4‒5, 7. 48 Account dated Michaelmas 1616 cited in Blakiston 1947 (cited note 45), p. 189. 49 An average valuation for portraits of just under 6 guilders in 1600‒1625 is cited by Michael North, Art and Commerce in the Dutch Golden Age, New Haven ‒ London, 1997, p. 99. For the exchange rate of around 1 : 10 for the pound sterling relative to the Flemish guilder between 1590 and 1610 see Markus A. Denzel, Handbook of World Exchange Rates, 1590‒1914, Farnham, 2010, pp. 15, 64. 50 Frederick Devon, Issues of the Exchequer; being payments made out of his majesty’s revenue during the reign of King James I, London, 1836, p. 16; Ungerer 1998 (cited note 47), pp. 5, 23‒24. 51 8,000 troy ounces of silver; Devon 1836 (cited note 50), p. 17; Maija Jansson, “Measured Reciprocity: English Ambassadorial Gift Exchange in the 17th and 18th Centuries,” in Journal of Early Modern History, 2005, vol. 9, nos. 2‒4, pp. 364‒365. 52 Ungerer 1998 (cited note 47), p. 7. For the exchange rate of around 1 : 3.83 for the pound sterling relative to the Spanish ducat around 1604 see S. Parnell Kerr, “The Constable kept an account,” in ­Notes and Queries, April 1957, vol. 4, no. 4, p. 167. 53 Letter of John Pory to Sir Robert Cotton, 12 August 1606, cited in Thomas Birch, The Court and Times of James I, London, 1848, vol. 1, p. 67. 54 Albert J. Loomie (ed.), Ceremonies of Charles I. The Note Books of John Finet 1628‒1641, New York, 1987, pp. 81‒82.

67

more convenient and valuable “jewel sett with diamond of 500 £ price, having under it the Kyngs and Queens pictures lively limmed”.55

RENAISSANCE PORTRAIT COLLECTIONS

The adroit display of a tiny portrait to beguile a foreign prince was a rhetorical gambit which had been employed by Petrarch in 1354 when he presented “a most lifelike head of Caesar Augustus” and other gold and silver Roman coins to the emperor Charles IV, exclaiming: “Behold, Caesar, these whom you have succeeded, you should seek to imitate.”56 The poet prized these numismatic portraits as illustrations of Suetonius’s lives of the Caesars, and their gift may have influenced Charles’s decision to commission for his castle at Karlstein a cycle of wall paintings, now lost, depicting his descent “from the progeny of the Trojans, and more specifically from the emperor Saint Charles the Great,” which his son Wenzel proudly showed in 1414 to a visiting Burgundian diplomat.57 Piero de’Medici (1416‒1469) delighted in “effigies and images of all the emperors and worthies of the past, some made of gold, some of silver, some of bronze, some of precious stone or of marble,” as did the Moravian humanist Augustin Kesenbrot (1467‒1513) who in 1508 presented a gold cup decorated with Roman gold coins to the Sodalitas Litterarum Danubiae in Vienna.58 In a letter of 1587 to Christian I of Saxony advising on how to form a Kunstkammer, Gabriel Kaltemarckt acknowledged the importance “of coins and medals made of copper, brass, silver, gold and other ores, portraying Roman emperors, kings, potentates, their wives and children, also eminent military men, learned men and other famous persons,” but warned against excessive expenditure in a market tainted by “much deceitful dealing”.59 In 1524 a great aunt of Archduke Ferdinand II, Margaret of Austria (1480‒1530), exhibited in her palace at Mechelen fifty-three portraits of the Habsburgs, their English allies and French adversaries.60 At this time, the bishop and historian Paolo Giovio (1483‒1552) was assembling his collection of eventually 484 likenesses of his contemporaries, portrayed from life where possible, in separate categories of living and dead writers, artists and rulers and other dignitaries, which he installed at his musaeum in Como, with brief and pithy biographical texts.61 In 1552 Duke Cosimo I de Medici engaged Cristofano dell’Altissimo to copy over 270 of Giovio’s portraits.62 Another thirty-nine small copies of these belonged to the Community of the Rosary at the Church of S.S. Filippo and Giacomo in Venice, and later passed to the antiquarian and trustee of the British Museum, Gustavus Brander (1719/20‒1787) and the Liverpool art collector and historian of the Medici, William 55 Ibid., pp. 102‒104; cited in Jansson 2005 (cited note 51), p. 365. 56 Francesco Petrarch, Petrarch, the First Modern Scholar and Man of Letters; A Selection from His Correspondence with Boccaccio and Other Friends, Designed to Illustrate the Beginnings of the Renaissance, trans. James Harvey Robinson, New York, 1970, pp. 371‒372; Roberto Weiss, The Renaissance Discovery of Classical Antiquity, Oxford, 1988, pp. 37‒38. 57 Martindale 1995 (cited note 1), pp. 75‒79. 58 As noted by the architect Filarete; cited in Martha McCrory, “Immutable Images: Glyptic Portraits at the Medici Court in Sixteenth-Century Florence,” in Nicholas Mann ‒ Luke Syson (eds.), The Image of the Individual. Portraits in the Renaissance, London, 1998, pp. 41, 42; Kesenbrot’s gold cup is now in the Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden, Grünes Gewölbe, inv. no. IV 40; exh. cat. Vienna 2003 (cited note 32), pp. 267, 488‒489 (entry by Ulrike Weinhold). 59 Barbara Gutfleisch ‒ Joachim Menzhausen, “How a Kunstkammer should be formed”: Gabriel Kaltemarckt’s advice to Christian I of Saxony on the formation of an art collection, 1587,” in Journal of the History of Collections, 1989, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 11‒12. 60 Dagmar Eichberger ‒ Lisa Beaven, “Family Members and Political allies: The Portrait Collection of Margaret of Austria,” in Art Bulletin, June 1995, vol. LXXVII, no. 2, pp. 225‒248. 61 Klinger 1991 (cited note 8), and idem, “Images of Identity. Italian Portrait Collections of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries,” in Mann ‒ Syson 1998 (cited note 58), pp. 67‒79; Francis Haskell, History and its Images. Art and the Interpretation of the Past, New Haven ‒ London, 1993, pp. 43‒51; T.C. Price Zimmermann, Paolo Giovio. The Historian and the Crisis of Sixteenth-Century Italy, Princeton, 1995, pp. 34, 159‒162, 187‒189, 206‒208, 259, 262. 62 The copies are now in the corridor of the Uffizi; Silvia Meloni Trkulja, “Cristofano Di Papi Dell’altissimo (ca. 1530 ‒ 1605),” in Treccani.it. L’Enciclopedia degli Italiani, online edition; http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/cristofano-di-papi-dell-altissimo-(Dizionario-Biografico) (accessed 14 July 2014).

68

Roscoe (1753‒1831).63 Before Giovio’s collection was dispersed, many of its images were broadcast by the Basel printer Pietro Perna, who commissioned Tobias Stimmer to copy 190 of his portraits as woodcuts, published in 1575 and 1577.64 Much the largest portrait collection in Elizabethan England was that of over 200 full-length and half-length paintings owned by the Catholic John, Baron Lumley (ca. 1533 ‒ 1609), at Lumley Castle, near Chester-le-Street. Now scattered, in 1590 this was carefully itemised in the baron’s inventory.65 James I was conducted by the Bishop of Durham around Lumley’s collection in 1603 and, amused to see that it included images of Adam and Eve as well as an exhaustive display of likenesses of its owner, his ancestors and family, quipped that he “didna ken Adam’s ither nam[e] was Lumley”.66 The big collection of little portraits owned by Ferdinand II mainly comprised dynastic series, such as were commissioned throughout Europe; German examples of the 1590s include forty-nine miniatures in watercolour on vellum of the House of Brunswick-Lüneburg, and sixty-one likenesses of the House of Brandenburg, in oils on vellum, formerly at the Herzogliches Museum, Gotha.67 Typically, such sets were bound in volumes; as were the 240 portraits in watercolour on paper collected by the widely-travelled Austrian scholar Hieronymus Beck von Leopoldsdorf (1525‒1596), about the same time as those of Ferdinand II.68 Portrait miniatures could also be displayed as groups, like the double portrait of Henri II and Catherine de Medici surrounded by likenesses of kings, queens and dukes of France, painted around 1560 after François Clouet and set in a gilded mount spangled with the entwined royal monogrammes H/C.69 Nicholas Hilliard painted four miniatures of the first three generations of the Tudor dynasty, set in a box enamelled with a representation of the Battle of Bosworth Field (1485) and Tudor roses.70 Later given by the artist’s son to Charles I, this joined his “Meddalies and Limbed peeces and all other rarrities” in the “new erected Cabbonett roome” at Whitehall Palace under the care of Abraham van der Doort.71 Prominent exhibits there included two ebony frames, one containing eight miniatures of Tudor monarchs and their consorts by Holbein, Hilliard and other limners, and the other descendants of Mary queen of Scots, some by Hilliard and Oliver.72 The former group survives intact, its original frame marked with the king’s “CR” brand.73 While the latter is lost, its influence is apparent from a similarly-framed set of six miniatures from the studios of Hilliard and Oliver depicting James I, his wife and children.74 The display of miniatures at Whitehall reflected the fashion, following the Stuart accession, for illustrated genealogies with bust-length oval portraits tracing James I’s

63 In oils on panel, 22.8 x 16.8 cm and now at the Walker Art Gallery in Liverpool; Morris ‒ Hopkinson 1977 (cited note 8), text volume, pp. 150‒166; plates volume, pp. 197‒206. 64 Haskell 1993 (cited note 61), pp. 48‒50. 65 Mark Evans (ed.), Art Collecting and Lineage in the Elizabethan Age. The Lumley Inventory and Pedigree, The Roxburghe Club, 2010, pp. 13‒19, 59‒70. 66 Ann Payne, “Heraldry and Genealogies,” in Evans 2010 (cited note 65), p. 21. 67 The former set of ancestors of the House of Hanover had entered the English royal collection by 1743. Royal Collection Trust, RCIN 420431-445, 420447-57, 420459-60, 420471-78, 420482, 420551-52, 420554, 420458, 420670-72, 420675-79, watercolour on vellum, each ca. 7 x 5.7 cm. Reynolds 1999 (cited note 19), pp. 177‒207. 68 Heinz 1975 (cited note 8), pp. 165‒310. 69 Now in the Uffizi; Jollet 1997 (cited note 37), p. 220. 70 These have since been separated and framed individually; Royal Collection Trust, RCIN 420012-15, watercolour on vellum, each ca. 3.3 cm diam. Reynolds 1999 (cited note 19), pp. 73‒76. 71 Millar 1958‒1960 (cited note 43), pp. xii‒xvii; Christopher Marsden, “van der Doort, Abraham­ (ca. 1565/85‒1640),” in ODNB (cited note 23); http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/28069 (accessed 25 July 2014). 72 Jane Roberts, in MacGregor 1989 (cited note 43), p. 115. 73 In the collection of the Duke of Buccleuch. Exhibition catalogue Christopher Lloyd ‒ Vanessa Remington, Masterpieces in Little. Portrait Miniatures from the Collection of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, London, 1996, pp. 14‒15. 74 Victoria and Albert Museum, P.147/152-1910. Murdoch et al. 1981 (cited note 38), pp. 80‒81. Its early provenance is unknown.

69

ancestry, of which no less than three engraved versions were published in 1603, while more ambitious examples were painted on canvas, including that at Parham Park.75 The Cabinet Room in Whitehall was imitated by courtiers, such as William Murray, 1st Earl of Dysart (d. 1655), whose closet built in 1637‒39 at Ham House in Richmond-upon-Thames survives to the present.76

ENGLAND, SCOTLAND AND THE EMPIRE 1558–1603

When Mary I sought to re-establish the traditional alliance with the Habsburgs espoused by her father Henry VIII, she quite misjudged the extent of the opposition which her marriage to Philip II of Spain would arouse in Protestant England. It was left to her sister and successor Elizabeth I to heal the internal divisions caused by the Reformation, while trying to maintain cordial relations with the Empire. The young queen was courted by Archduke Ferdinand II and entered marriage negotiations with his younger brother Charles II of Austria (1540‒1590). In 1559, the Imperial ambassador Count von Helfenstein visited England, and it was optimistically reported that: “the Queen shows herself more than ever inclined towards Prince Charles, and […] at the head of her bed she kept his portrait, from which at times she seemed unable to separate herself”.77 Negotiations continued until 1567, when the Earl of Sussex was sent to Vienna to bestow the order of the Garter on the Emperor Maximilian II.78 In his diplomatic baggage was a portrait of the English queen, which the emperor’s aunt Margaret of Parma requested to see when the embassy halted at Brussels on its way to Austria. Sussex reported to Elizabeth that her likeness was much admired, and one of those present “affirmed it to be so like unto you as ther lacked but speche,” and: “The Regent with the rest affirmed they sawe thereby as moche as they had harde of your person […], affirminge ther was onely one fault in you, which was with all these great giftes of God to live sole without a husbande.”79 In 1577 Elizabeth dispatched Sir Philip Sidney to offer Rudolph II her condolences on the death of his father Maximilian. The celebrated poet had previously visited Prague and Vienna and was acquainted with the imperial physician Johannes Crato (1519‒1585) as well as the prefect of the imperial medical garden Charles de l’Écluse (1526‒1609), but he found the new emperor “few of words, sullein of disposition, very secrete and resolute […] extremely Spaniolated”.80 The following year, John Lesley, the Scottish bishop of Ross, established a better rapport with the melancholic emperor. A privy counsellor of the captive Mary queen of Scots, in 1575 he had been sent as her ambassador to Pope Gregory XIII, to whom he dedicated his Latin history of Scotland De origine moribus, et rebus gestis Scotorum libri decem in 1578 (Fig. 6).81 Lesley was well received at Innsbruck by Ferdinand and in Prague convinced Rudolph II that early Scottish monks had 75 Exhibition catalogue Catharine MacLeod et al. (eds.), The Lost Prince. The Life & Death of Henry Stuart, London (National Portrait Gallery), 2012, pp. 48‒49; Christiane Klapisch-Zuber, Stammbäume. Eine illustrierte Geschichte der Ahnenkunde, Munich, 2004, pp. 112‒113. 76 This display is first recorded in an inventory of 1677, and was reinstated in 1995‒1996; Christopher Rowell, “The Green Closet at Ham House: A Charles I Cabinet Room and its Contents,” in idem (ed.), Ham House. 400 Years of Collecting and Patronage, New Haven ‒ London, 2013, pp. 14‒31. 77 Paolo Tiepolo, Venetian ambassador to Phillip II, 30 January 1560; cited in Rawdon Brown ‒ George Cavendish Bentinck (eds.), Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts relating to English Affairs existing in the Archives and Collections of Venice, and other Libraries of Northern Italy, vol. VII, 1558‒1580, London, 1890, pp. 149 (no. 127). 78 Susan Doran, “Religion and Politics at the Court of Elizabeth I: The Habsburg Marriage Negotiations of 1559‒1567,” in The English Historical Review, vol. 104, no. 413, October 1989, pp. 908‒926; Wallace T. Maccaffrey, “Radcliffe, Thomas, third earl of Sussex (1526/7‒1583),” in ODNB (cited note 23); http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/22993 (accessed 14 May 2014). 79 Cited in Strong 1963 (cited note 40), p. 25. 80 H.R. Woudhuysen, “Sidney, Sir Philip (1554‒1586),” in ODNB (cited note 23); http://www.oxforddnb. com/view/article/25522 (accessed 16 July 2014); letter to Francis Walsingham of 3 May 1577, cited in R.J.W. Evans, Rudolph II and his World, Oxford, 1973, pp. 121‒122. 81 Rosalind K. Marshall, “Lesley, John (1527‒1596),” in ODNB (cited note 23); http://www.oxforddnb. com/view/article/16492 (accessed 15 May 2014).

70

introduced Christianity to Germany, causing him to issue a document calling for the so-called Schottenklöster in Imperial territories to be returned to the Scots.82 A

Fig. 6: Anonymous, Portraits of Mary Stuart and James VI aged 12. From John Lesley, De origine moribus, et rebus gestis Scotorum libri decem, Rome, 1578, p. 462. Engraving. London, Victoria and Albert Museum, National Art Library, CLE TT16.

decade later Mary Stewart’s trial and execution was assiduously reported by the correspondents of the Fugger bank.83 The Augsburg banking house was more preoccupied with the exploits of Francis Drake. Its correspondents complained in 1569 that English privateers were equipped with the “aid and secret consent” of Elizabeth I who “pretends that all has been done without her knowledge and desire,” and in 1580 reported that Drake, “the English pirate” had “stolen two millions in cash” during his circumnavigation and “presented the Queen with several horses laden with silver and gold from the booty”.84 A Fugger news-letter smugly announced in 1596 that “His Sacred Majesty [Philip II] was extremely delighted” by the news of Drake’s death.85 Elizabeth I was generally recognised as the international champion of Protestantism, and portraits of her were prized by princes such as King Frederick II of Denmark, the Elector Palatine Frederick IV (1574‒1610), and Frederick, Count of Hohenlohe-Langenburg (1553‒1590).86 The person reckoned by the Spanish ambassador to have most influence over the queen was her most enduring favourite, the Earl of Leicester, whose campaigns in the Netherlands were reported in the Fugger newsletters, one of which announced in 1588 that “The Queen of England is greatly distressed at his death”.87 Elizabeth’s generosity to her most recent favourite, Walter Raleigh, had already been noticed at Christmas 1584 by the Pomeranian traveler Leopold von Wedel (1544‒1615), who wrote: “[…] she loved this gentleman now in preference to all others […] two years ago he was scarcely able to keep a single servant, and now she has bestowed so much upon him, that he is able to keep five hundred […].”88 Elizabeth’s astrologer, the mathematician and antiquary Dr. John Dee attended the coronation of Maximilian II as king of Hungary at Bratislava in 1563, and the following year dedicated to him the treatise Monas Hieroglyphica.89 This exposition of the unity of all creation may have brought Dee to the attention of Rudolph II, and in 1584 the sage accompanied Edward Kelley to Bohemia, where they practiced alchemy and he told the emperor he could make the philosopher’s stone. In 1588 they were joined by a protégé of the Earl of Leicester and friend of Sidney, Sir Edward Dyer, who was received by William of Rosenberg (1535‒1592), the greatest magnate in Bohemia and second only to his master Rudolph II as a patron of alchemy.90 At Prague Dyer studied with Sir Edward Kelley, who had been knighted by the emperor in the belief that he could turn base metal into gold.91 In 1588‒89 and 1593 Dee’s rival Sir Christopher Perkins, an agent of Elizabeth’s chief of espionage Francis Walsingham, visited the Imperial court.92 Stephen Lesieur, Sidney’s former servant, was also in Prague on diplomatic business during the late

82 Mark Dilworth, The Scots in Franconia, Edinburgh ‒ London, 1974, pp. 25‒26, 213‒214. 83 Victor von Klarwill (ed.), The Fugger News-Letters, London, 1924, pp. 96‒105, and idem, The Fugger News-Letters, second series, London, 1926, pp. 119, 122‒125, 129. 84 Reports of 7 December 1569 from Seville, 20 October from Cologne and 3 December from Antwerp, cited in Klarwill 1926 (cited note 83), pp. 7‒8, 44 and 46. 85 Report of 22 June 1596 from Rome cited in Klarwill 1926 (cited note 83), p. 276. 86 Strong 1963 (cited note 40), pp. 27, 28. 87 Klarwill 1926 (cited note 83), pp. 26, 93, 95, 179. 88 Cited in Gottfried von Bülow, “Journey through England and Scotland made by Lupold von Wedel in the years 1584 and 1585,” in Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, vol. IX, 1895, p. 265. 89 R. Julian Roberts, “Dee, John (1527‒1609),” in ODNB (cited note 23); http://www.oxforddnb.com/ view/article/7418 (accessed 15 May 2014). 90 Stephen W. May, “Dyer, Sir Edward (1543‒1607),” in ODNB (cited note 23); http://www.oxforddnb. com/view/article/8346 (accessed 16 July 2014); Evans 1973 (cited note 80), pp. 64‒68, 122, 212‒216. 91 Louise Schleiner, “Kelley, Sir Edward (1555‒1597/8),” in ODNB (cited note 23); http://www.oxforddnb. com/view/article/15289 (accessed 16 July 2014); Evans 1973 (cited note 80), p. 228. 92 Thomas M. McCoog, “Perkins, Sir Christopher (1542/3‒1622),” in ODNB (cited note 23); http://www. oxforddnb.com/view/article/21968 (accessed 15 May 2014).

71

1590s.93 Elizabeth commended to the emperor the Catholic soldier Thomas Arundell, whose bravery at the siege of Esztergom in 1595 earned him the title of Imperial count, but his act of lèse majesté in accepting this honour caused the queen to commit him to prison with the remark: “I would not have a sheep branded with another man’s mark.”94 One of the later Elizabethan envoys probably brought to Vienna the onyx cameo of the queen in an enamelled gold mount decorated with a pearl and diamonds, probably made after 1575 by a French goldsmith and first recorded around 1619 in the inventory of the Emperor Matthias: “In ainem weiss geschmelztet kranz geziert 8 diemant, ain anichel, ist der königinne in Engellandt conterfeth, der grond schwarz, obenhero lederfarb, in ainem rott sammeten fueterall”.95 Other English visitors to the Habsburg domains included the future diplomat Henry Wotton, who arrived in 1590 with a recommendation from the botanist Charles de l’Écluse and was a guest of the imperial librarian Hugo Blotius (1534‒1608), as well as the Cambridge fellow Fynes Moryson, who from his “tender youth […] had a great desire to see foreign countries”.96 At Prague in 1591 Moryson noted down the Latin verses on the gate of “The House of Kelley a famous English Alcumist,” and at the Imperial menagerie saw: “12 Cammels, an Indian Oxe […] and an Indian Calfe, and two leopards which were said to be tame”.97 In “Wien the metropolitan City of Austria […] a famous Fort against the Turkes,” he noticed that the Archdukes Ernst and Matthias “did eat at one table, and in the time of their meales, it was free for strangers and others to come into the roome”.98 On his way to Venice in 1595, the inveterate traveler passed a night in “Inspruck, the chiefe Citie of Tyrall, subject to the Familie of Austria” where he noticed: “in the Cathedrall Church thereof […] the Sepulcher of Philippina, a Citizens Daughter of Augsburg, whom the Arch-Duke Ferdinand (lately buried, and lying in a Chappell without any sepulcher as then erected to him) tooke for his Wife, but with a covenant (as they say) that her children should not inherit as Arch-dukes of Austria.”99 In 1611 another English visitor also noticed the marble tomb of Philippine, by then united with that of her husband.100

GREAT BRITAIN AND THE EMPIRE 1603–1625

R.J.W. Evans astutely observed of Rudolph II and James I: “It is remarkable how much of what in isolation was merely perverse falls into place when these two sovereigns are considered together.”101 Already in 1605, in his popular Satyricon, John Barclay eulogised the first Stuart monarch at the expense of the emperor, whom he satirized as the eccentric alchemist Aquilus: “I saw a man already beyond middle age, hurrying on towards senility. He was of medium height, his face was quite comely, and it was a shame that he had condemned it to voluntary solitude. But his slip-

93 B.C. Pursell, “Lesieur, Sir Stephen (d. 1630x38),” in ODNB (cited note 23); http://www.oxforddnb. com/view/article/16479 (accessed 15 May 2014). 94 Andrew J. Hopper, “Arundell, Thomas, baron Arundell of Wardour (c. 1560 ‒ 1639),” in ODNB (cited note 23); http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/726 (accessed 29 July 2014). 95 Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Kunstkammer, inv. no. ANSA xii 116; Voltelini 1899 (cited note 37), part II, p. XCII, no. 22383 (as part of no. 17408); Fritz Eichler ‒ Ernst Kris, Die Kameen im Kunsthistorischen Museum, Vienna, 1927, no. 409, p. 175; Strong 1963 (cited note 40), p. 128. I am grateful to Paulus Rainer for this information; personal communication, 5 May 2014. 96 Evans 1973 (cited note 80), p. 123; Edward H. Thompson, “Morison, Fynes (1565/6‒1630),” in ODNB (cited note 23); http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/19385 (accessed 10 July 2014). 97 Fynes Moryson, An Itinerary Containing His Ten Yeeres Travell through the Twelve Dominions of Germany, etc., Glasgow, 1907, vol. I, pp. 30, 32. 98 Ibid., pp. 141‒142. 99 Ibid., p. 441. Moryson correctly reported that Ferdinand II’s first, morganatic marriage to the commoner Philippine Welser (1527‒1580) prevented their offspring from inheriting his territories. 100 Chaney ‒ Wilks 2014 (cited note 41), pp. 208‒209. In 1582, Ferdinand married as his second wife Anna Gonzaga, and their daughter Anna married his nephew Matthias (1557‒1619), who in 1612 succeeded Rudolph II as emperor. 101 Evans 1973 (cited note 80), p. 80.

72

pery and tottering gait ruined the majesty of his presence. […] I turned my attention to his elegant dwelling. On one wall hung some pictures, not the kind that would disturb the delights of his privacy […] they represented pretty faces of girls, depicted more beautifully than in life. […] In another corner two globes stood upon a table. One of them represented the lands and seas of the earth; on the other the motions of the stars and the universal laws of the heavens […] they represent the Aquilan power and the industry of his daily labour, by which he penetrates into the hidden places of nature and triumphs over the envious Gods, who willed to hide the most beautiful things from mortal men.”102 This Franco-Scottish author was involved in James’s own literary projects by October 1607, when the Earl of Salisbury received £100 for “money by him disbursed, by his Majesty’s commandment […] [to] […] Monsieur Barkley, a French gentleman”.103 Shakespeare’s The Tempest, first performed in 1611, may also include a topical allusion to the Archduke Matthias’s seizure of power from Rudolph.104 Immediately on his accession in 1603 James sought to enhance his diplomatic provision, and appointed Sir Lewes Lewknor to the new post of master of the ceremonies, with responsibility for important foreign visitors.105 The following year the Treaty of London ended the war between Britain and Spain; an event confirmed by the exchange of illuminated copies of the treaty and commemorated by large paintings of the participants at the conference in Somerset House where the peace had been signed.106 In June 1603 James sent the diplomat Stephen Lesieur, formerly a servant of Elizabeth I, “to the Emperor and other Princes of Germany, on his Highness’s special affairs” for almost eight months.107 At Gravesend in July 1605 “Three Earls, four Barons and many gentlemen” greeted the embassy of Georg Ludwig, Pfalzgraf of Leuchtenberg and President of the Reichshofrat, with an entourage of about 100 persons.108 According to the Venetian ambassador, the pfalzgraf was conducted to an unfurnished house and left to bargain over the rent, preferring to lodge instead at a tavern. When his request for 6,000 troops to serve in Hungary was declined, he departed, reputedly “very ill content with his reception, but highly satisfied with the noble present of eight-thousand crowns worth of silver”.109 James I dedicated to Rudolph II and his brother Matthias in 1609 a revised edition of his Apologie for the Oath of Allegiance, and had “many copies bound in velvet with arms and corner-pieces of solid gold stamped with the rose, the thistle, the lion and the lilies” as gifts for foreign rulers.110 John Barclay had helped with trans­lations, 102 John Barclay, Euphormionis Lusinini Satyricon (Euphormio’s Satyricon) 1605‒1607, trans., with introduction and notes by David A. Fleming, Nireuwkoop, 1973, pp. 323, 325; Nicola Royon, “Barclay, John (1582‒1621), in ODNB (cited note 23); http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/1342 (accessed 1 August 2014). 103 Devon 1836 (cited note 50), p. 73. 104 E.H. Gombrich, “‘My library was dukedom large enough’. Shakespeare’s Prospero and Prospero Visconti of Milan,” in Edward Chaney ‒ Peter Mack (eds.), England and the Continental Renaissance. Essays in Honour of J.B. Trapp, Woodbridge, 1990, pp. 185‒190. 105 Roderick Clayton, “Lewknor, Sir Lewes (ca. 1560 ‒ 1627),” in ODNB (cited note 23); http://www. oxforddnb.com/view/article/46411 (accessed 2 August 2014). 106 Exhibition catalogue Jonathan Brown ‒ John Elliott (eds.),The Sale of the Century: Artistic Relations between Spain and Great Britain, 1604‒1655, Madrid (Museo Nacional del Prado), 2002, pp. 144‒155. 107 Devon 1836 (cited note 50), p. 9. 108 Nicoló Molin, Venetian ambassador in England, 27 July 1605; cited in Horatio F. Brown (ed.), Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts relating to English Affairs existing in the Archives and Collections of Venice, and other Libraries of Northern Italy, vol. X, 1603‒1607, London, 1900, p. 263 (no. 404); Evans 1973 (cited note 80), p. 72, no. 3; Barclay 1973 (cited note 102), p. 375. 109 Molin, 10 August 1605; cited in Brown 1900 (cited note 108), p. 265 (no. 408). This gift of 8,000 troy ounces of silver worth £2,000 would have been equal to that given to the departing Spanish ambassador in 1604, but no corresponding payment appears in the extracts from the Order and Issue books of James I, published in Devon 1836 (cited note 50). I am grateful to Guido Messling for clarification on Leuchtenberg, who was elected president of the Reichshofrat (one of the highest courts of the Empire) in 1594. 110 Marcantonio Correr, Venetian ambassador in England, 10 June 1609; cited in Brown (cited note 108), vol. XI, 1607‒1610, London, 1904, p. 282 (no. 527).

73

and was given £366.13s.4d. “to go to the Emperor about his Majesty’s special affairs”.111 The king was mistaken to commit Rudolph and Matthias’s copies of his book to Barclay, who had satirized the emperor so memorably in his Satyricon only four earlier. Unsurprisingly, “his Caesarean majesty […] refused audience to Barclay, who was charged to present him with the King’s book,” while Matthias received the envoy hospitably but also declined his copy.112 To show he meant no offence, the emperor sent “Their Majesties and the Princes […] ten horses, some clocks and other presents” including a celestial globe which, as the Venetian ambassador in London remarked, “however, do not render them better disposed”.113 A remarkable personality linking Jacobean London with Rudolphine Prague was the Dutch Anabaptist Cornelis Drebbel, a pupil and brother-in-law of Hendrik Gol­ tzius.114 He designed machinery for theatrical performances at the Stuart court and in 1607 a Bohemian visitor described his demonstration to James I of two “perpetuum mobile” machines. At Rudolph’s invitation, Drebbel moved to Prague where he constructed pumps for mining and practiced alchemy.115 Following the seizure of power by Matthias in 1612, he was imprisoned along with other favourites of the deposed emperor including his miniaturist and antiquary Daniel Fröschl. Allowed to return to London, Drebbel devised numerous inventions, from telescopes and microscopes to thermostats and, most remarkably, an oar-driven submarine, in which he reputedly travelled from Westminster to Greenwich beneath the Thames. During the Jülich-Cleves crisis in 1610 Stephen Lesieur returned to Prague, but was nearly stoned during an affray between rival supporters of Rudolph and Matthias.116 On the latter’s accession James sent him letters of congratulation carried by the youthful but reputedly “very light brained” William Cecil, Baron Ros.117 Lesieur resumed his imperial posting until 1614, incurring the enmity of Matthias as well as expenses totaling £2,058 for “rewards given to sundry officers in the Emperor’s court […] and other disbursements for necessary occasions”.118 In 1619 the affable but ineffective James Hay, Viscount Doncaster, sought to mediate between the Habsburgs and the German protestant princes, an initiative obviated by the bid of Frederick, Elector Palatine (1596‒1633), to obtain the crown of Bohemia.119 Seeking to extricate his son-in-law from this disastrous adventure, in 1620 James sent Sir Henry Wotton as his “ambassador extraordinary” to the Emperor Ferdinand II, but by the time the diplomat reached Vienna, the elector had already been forced to flee Bohemia.120 There followed in 1621 Sir John Digby, “a wise man, yet […] passionate and supercilious,” and when an Imperial army occupied the Upper Palatinate, he broke off peace talks and returned to London, where he urged parliament to military intervention.121

111 Devon 1836 (cited note 50), p. 92. 112 Marcantonio Correr, 19 November 1609; cited in Brown 1904 (cited note 110), p. 386 (no. 714). Correr explained on 10 June that it was James’s original intention to have his book delivered by the Bohemian knight and Gentleman of his Privy Chamber Sir Henry de Gunderrot. Notwithstanding this faux pas, in 1615 shortly before Barclay left the royal service for the papal court, James gave him his miniature portrait “garnished with diamonds” for which Hilliard received £35; Blakiston 1947 (cited note 45), p. 189. 113 Evans 1973 (cited note 80), p. 81; Devon 1836 (cited note 50), p. 99. 114 Roy Strong, Henry Prince of Wales, and England’s Lost Renaissance, New York, 1986, pp. 216‒217; H.A.M. Snelders, “Drebble, Cornelis (1572‒1633),” in ODNB (cited note 23); http://www.oxforddnb. com/view/article/8044 (accessed 30 July 2014). 115 Evans 1973 (cited note 80), p. 81; Devon 1836 (cited note 50), p. 99. 116 Devon 1836 (cited note 50), p. 137; Pursell accessed 15 May 2014 (cited note 93). 117 Alastair Bellany, “Cecil, William, Baron Ros (1590‒1618),” in ODNB (cited note 23); http://www. oxforddnb.com/view/article/70619 (accessed 29 July 2014). 118 Devon 1836 (cited note 50), p. 137; Pursell accessed 15 May 2014 (cited note 93). 119 Roy E. Schreiber, “Hay, James, Earl of Carlisle (ca. 1580 ‒ 1636),” in ODNB (cited note 23); http:// www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/12723 (accessed 29 July 2014). 120 A.J. Loomie, “Wotton, Sir Henry (1568‒1639),” in ODNB (cited note 23); http://www.oxforddnb.com/ view/article/30001 (accessed 29 July 2014); Devon 1836 (cited note 50), pp. 252‒253. 121 David L. Smith, “Digby, John, earl of Bristol (1580‒1653),” in ODNB (cited note 23); http://www. oxforddnb.com/view/article/7628 (accessed 29 July 2014).

74

As British volunteers rallied to the elector’s cause, James’s final “ambassador extraordinary with the Emperor and Princes of Germany” was Arthur, Baron Chichester. In 1622 he tried to parley with Count Tilly before the besieged city of Mannheim, receiving the tart reply that the Imperial commander “did not think the King of Great Britain would wish to meddle in the affairs of rebels against the empire”.122 James’s conciliatory policy in Germany reduced to tatters, he died in 1625 as the conflict he had sought to avert escalated into a general war which lasted two decades. Abraham van der Doort had served Rudolph II before becoming keeper of the collections of the Prince of Wales around 1610 at a salary of £50 per annum. With the aid of a reference from Landgrave Maurice of Hessen-Kassel he obtained a similar post with the prince’s brother Charles, confirmed when the latter became king. Van der Doort’s painstaking inventory of his collection sadly failed to prevent his suicide in 1640, reputedly in despair for mislaying a miniature: a curatorial tragedy commemorated in a callous epigram by the king’s “secretary interpreter for the German tongue,” Georg Rudolph Weckherlin (1584‒1653): “Hat also er Dort gleiches glick // Als die Gemählde hie empfangen. // Dan Dort sah man manch schönes stuck, // Hie aber Dort selbs schändlich hangen.”123 The inventory shows that Fröschl’s “Picture of the Emperor Rodolphus” occupied the same “shutting Case with Locks and Keyes” as “A halfe figure of Prince Henry in Armour. […] By old Isaack Oliver, being the largest Peece in limmning of his Majestie’s”.124 This large rectangular miniature of the prince before an encampment was painted around 1610‒12.125 It corresponds in size and character to Fröschl’s portrait of Rudolph II, owned by Oliver’s colleague J.W. Rumler. Such a derivation would accord with other likenesses of Prince Henry, by Oliver and James’s serjeantpainter, Robert Peake, which borrow figures from engravings by Jacques de Gheyn II, Albrecht Dürer and Goltzius.126

THE ENGLISH PORTRAIT MINIATURES OF RUDOLPH II AND MATTHIAS

Fröschl’s inventory of the collection of Rudolph II shows that around 1607‒11 the emperor kept five English portrait miniatures, with two small portraits in oils, in the drawer of a large writing desk decorated with ebony: “Ein grosser von ebin holtz gezierter schreibtisch […] in einer schubladen liegen 7e conterfettlein klein, zwey von ölfarben und 5 von miniatur, von dem vleissigen Engellender.”127 A decade later, in 1619, the inventory of the Emperor Matthias also mentions three miniatures of English royalty, the first described as: “in ainer ganz guldener conterfethpix, so mit 5 robin und 4 diemant versetzt, Franzosische arbeith, ansehnlich ­geschmeltzt, befindet sich des königs aus Engellandt bildnuss oder contrefet von miniatura, auswendig des gehens aber ains heidnischen kaisers bildnuss, in agata geschnitten, das lobercranz sowoll zierath von preinleter farb, in ainem schwarz sammeten fueterall […]”.128 This “image or portrait miniature of the King of England” was evidently also a limning, in a solid gold portrait locket of French workmanship with an agate carved with 122 John McCavitt, “Arthur, Baron Chichester (1563‒1639),” in ODNB (cited note 23); http://www. oxforddnb.com/view/article/5274 (accessed 29 July 2014); Devon 1836 (cited note 50), pp. 263‒264. Reported by Christofforo Surian, Venetian Secretary in The Hague, 10 October 1622; cited in Allen B. Hinds (ed.), Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts relating to English Affairs existing in the Archives and Collections of Venice, and other Libraries of Northern Italy, vol. XVII, 1621‒1623, London, 1911, p. 472 (no. 620). 123 Cited in Millar 1958‒1960 (cited note 43), pp. xi, xvi‒xvii. 124 Millar 1958‒1960 (cited note 43), pp. xxiii, 215. 125 Royal Collection, RCIN 420058, 13.2 x 10 cm. Reynolds 1999 (cited note 19), pp. 91‒92. 126 Timothy Wilks, “The Pike Charged: Henry as Militant Prince,” and Gail Capitol Weigl, “‘And when slow Time hath made you fit for warre’: The Equestrian Portrait of Prince Henry,” in Timothy Wilks (ed.), Prince Henry Revived. Image and Exemplarity in Early modern England, Southampton ‒ London, 2007, pp. 146‒172, 180‒211; Strong 1986 (cited note 114), p. 114. 127 Rotraud Bauer ‒ Herbert Haupt (eds.), “Das Kunstkammerinventar Kaiser Rudolfs II., 1607‒1611,” in Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien, vol. 72 (N. F. XXXVI), 1976, p. 119. 128 Voltelini 1899 (cited note 37), part II, p. XCI, no. 2193 (as part of no. 17408).

75

Fig. 7: Anonymous, Portrait cameo of the Emperor Titus. Ca. 1575‒90 (?). Carved agate on enamelled gold locket (cover closed). Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Kunstkammer, inv. no. ANSA lXa 98. (©: KHM-Museumsverband.) Fig. 8: Attributed to Richard Toutain the Younger, Miniature locket. Ca. 1575‒90 (?). Enamelled gold (cover open). Vienna, Kunst­ historisches Museum, Kunstkammer, inv. no. ANSA lXa 98. (©: KHM-Museumsverband.)

the image of a pagan emperor. Its miniature of James I was probably already lost by 1750, but the locket bearing a cameo of Titus remains at Vienna (Figs. 7 and 8), attributed to the Parisian goldsmith Richard Toutain the younger (1558‒1579).129 The other two miniature portraits owned by Matthias were a pair, described as: “Ain weiss helfenbeinpixel, ist das contrerfeth des königs in Engellanndt” and “Ain dito ist der königinne, seiner frau gemahlinne, conterfeth”.130 These small white ivory boxes typically housed English miniatures and evidently contained portraits of the ruling sovereign and his consort, James I and Anne of Denmark.

CATALOGUE OF WORKS

1 Hans Holbein (1497–1543), Portrait of a man aged 30 Inscribed: “AETATIS SVAE 30. ANNO. 1534” Oil on limewood panel, diam. 11.8 cm Gemäldegalerie, inv. no. 5432131 This portrait and its pendant of a woman (Figs. 9 and 10) were both documented at Ambras Castle in 1806, when they were transferred to the Imperial Gallery in ­Vienna. Their integral frames have been heavily trimmed, but it is likely that they originally fitted together, face to face, as do Cranach’s earlier round portraits of Luther and his wife. The man wears a red coat embroidered with the initials “H R” for “Henricus Rex,” a garment of the sort described in the Wardrobe accounts as: “oon Cooate of brood cloth colored Redd […] lined with black Cotton and enbraudered with our letters of H. and R/like as other servaunts have”. This royal livery was worn by servants

129 Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Antikensammlung, inv. no. IXa 98; Eichler ‒ Kris 1927 (cited ­note 95), no. 21, pp. 63‒64; Erika Zwierlein-Diehl, Magie der Steine. Die antiken Prunkkameen im Kunsthistorischen Museum, Vienna, 2008, pp. 174‒177, 322‒325; Scarisbrick 2011 (cited note 36), pp. 7, 66‒67; exhibition catalogue Sabine Haag (ed.), Face to Face. Die Kunst des Porträts, Innsbruck (Schloss Ambras), 2014, p. 121 (entry by Annette Kranz). 130 Voltelini 1899 (cited note 37), part II, p. CIV, no. 2921 (as part of no. 17408). 131 Susan Foister, Holbein and England, London ‒ New Haven, 2004, pp. 15, 16, 34; exhibition catalogue Susan Foister (ed.), Holbein in England, London (Tate Britain), 2006, p. 47; exhibition catalogue Sabine Haag et al. (eds.), Dürer, Cranach, Holbein, Vienna (Kunsthistorisches Museum) ‒ Munich (Kunsthalle der Hypo-Kulturstiftung), 2011, pp. 157‒158 (entry by Jochen Sander).

76

Fig. 9: Hans Holbein the Younger, Portrait of a man aged 30. 1534. Oil on limewood panel. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Gemäldegalerie, inv. no. 5432. (©: KHM-Museumsverband.) Fig. 10: Hans Holbein the Younger, Portrait of a woman aged 28. 1534. Oil on limewood panel, 1534. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Gemäldegalerie, inv. no. 6272. (©: KHM-Museumsverband.)

including grooms, yeomen, craftsmen and artists. Holbein painted another oil portrait, of similar size and format, of a beardless man wearing similar livery.132

2 Hans Holbein (1497–1543), Portrait of a woman aged 28 Inscribed: “AETATIS SVAE 28. ANNO. 1534” Oil on limewood panel, diam. 11.8 cm Gemäldegalerie, inv. no. 6272 133 The woman portrayed is evidently the wife of the 30 year old royal servant in the pendant portrait (Figs. 9 and 10). She wears a costume like those of two other un­ identified women drawn by Holbein around 1526/28 and 1535; a wide-brimmed bonnet, perhaps of felt or wool over a cap stiffened to cover both cheeks, a shawl and a dress with a horizontal neck and translucent cambric over the décolleté.134 It has been suggested that the sitter may be Susanna Horenbout, whose husband John Parker was Yeoman of Henry VIII’s Wardrobe of Robes and Keeper of the Palace of Westminster, and thus entitled to wear royal livery, and whose brother Lucas taught Holbein the technique of limning.135 Dürer guessed the female miniaturist to be “about 18” when they met in 1521, but could have misjudged her age by 2‒3 years, leaving open the possibility that this pair of portraits depicts Susanna and her husband.136

132 New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Bequest of Mary Stillman Harkness 1950 (50.145.24), oil on wood, 12.7 cm diameter. Exh. cat. London 2006 (cited note 131), p. 50. 133 Foister 2004 (cited note 131), pp. 15, 16, 34; exh. cat. London 2006 (cited note 131), p. 47; exh. cat. Vienna ‒ Munich 2011 (cited note 131), pp. 157‒158 (entry by J. Sander). 134 Royal Collection Trust, RCIN 12217. Exhibition catalogue Stephanie Buck ‒ Jochen Sander (eds.), Hans Holbein the Younger 1497/98‒1543. Portraitist of the Renaissance, The Hague (Mauritshuis), 2003, pp. 62‒63; and British Museum 1910-2-12-105. 135 A.B. Chamberlain, Hans Holbein the Younger, London, 1913, vol. 2, pp. 70‒71. 136 Conway 1889 (cited note 1), p. 120; Rupprich 1956 (cited note 1), p. 172.

77

3 After Hans Holbein (1497‒1543), perhaps by Levina Teerlinc (d. 1576), Margaret, Marchioness of Dorset (1487‒1541) Inscribed: “QVIA NESCITIS / DIE[M] NEQ[VIE]S HORA[M] and 1576 / MEMORES ESTO / TE VXORIS LOT” Watercolour on vellum, diam. 5.5 cm; in carved wooden frame, 10.7 x 9.7 cm Kunstkammer, inv. no. KK 4203137

Fig. 11: After Hans Holbein the Younger, perhaps by Levina Teerlinc, Margaret, Marchioness of Dorset. Frame dated 1576. Watercolour on vellum. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Kunstkammer, inv. no. KK 4203. (©: KHMMuseumsverband.)

This miniature (Fig. 11) is one of two based on a drawing of Margaret Wotton made by Hans Holbein around 1532‒35; the other is in the collection of the Duke of Buccleuch. The sitter was the second wife of the 2nd Marquess of Dorset, mother of the 1st Duke of Suffolk, and a godmother of Elizabeth I. She is depicted in characteristic Henrician court dress, wearing a gabled headdress with a hood, and ermine sleeves to show her noble status. In her right hand she holds a posy of flowers and the handle of a cane. Four early oil copies of Holbein’s portrait also survive, one previously owned by Lord Lumley and described in his inventory as “the olde Marquesse of Dorcett syster to Sir Edw: Wootton”.138 The miniature’s elaborate carved frame is northern, probably of South German manufacture, with the date 1576 and decorated with strapwork, a skull, lions’ masks and putti and inscribed with moralising biblical inscriptions in Latin alluding to the inevitability of death and judgement.139 It has long been associated with the early self-portrait miniature of Giulio Clovio (Fig. 1), which may have been given to Elizabeth I’s miniaturist, Levina Teerlinc. No documented works by Teerlinc survive, but her style was probably based on that of her father Simon Bening, whose portraiture may be assessed from his own self portrait of 1558 and other miniatures.140 These robust likenesses are more like the present work than the weak female portraits with tiny arms sometimes attributed to her, which could scarcely have elicited the approval Clovio lavished on her lost self-portrait.141 The Vienna miniature was re-framed in the year of Teerlinc’s death, and may provide a touchstone for her style.

4 After Antonius Mor (ca. 1516/20–?1576), Mary I (1516‒1558), queen of England and Ireland Inscribed: “MARIA . REGINA . ANGLIAE . PHIL . REX . HISPA . VXOR” Oil on paper on wooden panel, 13.4 x 10.3 cm Gemäldegalerie, inv. no. 4678142 The only child of Henry VIII and his first wife, Katherine of Aragon, Mary came to the throne in 1553 and tried but failed to re-establish Catholicism in England.143 Her appearance was described in 1554: “She is of low stature, with a red and white complexion, and very thin; her eyes are white and large, and her hair reddish; her

Fig. 12: After Antonius Mor, Mary I, Queen of England and Ireland. Oil on paper on wood panel. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Gemäldegalerie, inv. no. 4678. (©: KHMMuseumsverband.)

137 Kenner (cited note 3), vol. 14, 1893, p. 149, no. 164; Ladner 1932 (cited note 3), no. H165. 138 London, The Weiss Gallery, oil on oak panel, 73.7 x 63.5 cm. Catharine MacLeod ‒ Tarnya Cooper ‒ Margaret Zoller, “The Portraits,” in Evans 2010 (cited note 65), pp. 67, 152. 139 They are first mentioned, identified as portraits of a man and his wife, in the inventory of the Ambras collection compiled by J.P. Primisser in 1788; Schlosser 1922 (cited note 25), p. 198; exh. cat. Vienna 2003 (cited note 32), pp. 548‒549. 140 Reynolds 1999 (cited note 19), pp. 63‒65; exh. cat. Los Angeles ‒ London 2003 (cited note 29), pp. 465‒466, 472‒473, 485‒486. The most notable is Bening’s signed self-portrait of 1558 in the Victoria and Albert Museum, P.159-1910. 141 Exhibition catalogue Roy Strong with contributions from V.J. Murrell, Artists of the Tudor Court. The Portrait Miniature Rediscovered 1520‒1620, London (Victoria and Albert Museum), 1983, pp. 52‒57. 142 Kenner (cited note 3), vol. 14, 1893, p. 149, no. 164; Ladner 1932 (cited note 3), no. H165. 143 Ann Weikel, “Mary I (1516‒1558),” in ODNB (cited note 23); http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/18245 (accessed 13 May 2014).

78

face is round, with a nose rather low and wide; and were not her age on the decline she might be called handsome rather than the contrary.”144 This work (Fig. 12) is derived from the three-quarter length portrait by the Dutch painter Antonis Mor, which Karel van Mander believed was commissioned by Charles V, who reputedly gave the artist a golden chain, £100 and an annual pension of that sum.145 The primary version of Mary’s portrait, now in the Museo del Prado in Madrid, was ready by December 1554, when Mor was appointed Philip II’s painter in London, with an annual retainer of 300 scudi.146 Van Mander mentions that Mor “copied the face of this Queen, who was a very distinguished woman, several times onto face-panels which he presented to great lords some of whom were of the Order [of the Golden Fleece], and to [Cardinal Antoine de] Granvelle and also to the Emperor who gave him two hundred guilders”.147 A copy at Antwerp in 1682 apparently came from the collection of Rudolph II, and a round version attributed to Gerlach Flicke belonged in 1590 to Lord Lumley, and is now at Durham Cathedral.148 A smaller circular copy is also at Vienna, and a fourth in the Museum of Fine Arts in Budapest.149 Yet another version of Mor’s ­portrait, also in Vienna, was perhaps the source of the three-quarter length miniature on p. 547 of the portrait book of Hieronymus Beck von Leopoldsdorf, where the queen is located among the Habsburg portraits because of her marriage to Philip II.150

5 Anonymous, Elizabeth I (1533‒1603), Queen of England and Ireland Inscribed: “ELISABL REGI ANGLIA” Oil on paper on wooden panel, 13.7 x 10.1 cm Gemäldegalerie, inv. no. 4754151 The only child of Henry VIII and his second wife, Anne Boleyn, Elizabeth, came to the throne in 1558 and is popularly remembered as the glorious “Virgin Queen”. 152 Few first-hand accounts of her appearance survive, but an ambassador remarked in 1557: “her face is comely rather than handsome, but she is tall and well formed, with a good skin, although swarthy; she has fine eyes.”153 This work (Fig. 13) is a version of the second official likeness of Elizabeth as queen, which was perhaps by a French artist, and is known from its primary surviving version as the ‘Barrington Park’ pattern.154 A draft proclamation of 1563 announced that “some speciall person […] shall be by hir [Elizabeth] allowed […] a portraicture

Fig. 13: Anonymous, Elizabeth I, Queen of England and Ireland. Oil on paper on wood panel. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Gemäldegalerie, inv. no. 4754. (©: KHMMuseumsverband.)

144 Giacomo Soranzo, on 18 August 1554, cited in Roy Strong, National Portrait Gallery, vol. 1, Tudor & Jacobean Portraits, London, 1969, p. 211. 145 Karel van Mander, The Lives of the Illustrious Netherlandish and German Painters, ed. by Hessel Miedema, Doornspijk, 1994, vol. I, p. 182. 146 Joanna Woodall, “Antonis Mor (1516/17‒?1576),” in Grove Art Online. http://www.oxfordartonline. com/subscriber/article/grove/art/T059446 (accessed 14 May 2014). 147 Van Mander 1994 (cited note 145), vol. I, p. 182. 148 The former is recorded in the inventory of the dealer Diego Duarte; Philip Hendy, Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum. Catalogue of the Exhibited Paintings and Drawings, Boston, 1931, p. 247. The latter is 43.8 cm in diameter; MacLeod ‒ Cooper ‒ Zoller 2010 (cited note 138), pp. 61, 65, 159. 149 The former (inv. no. 853) is 16 cm in diameter and the latter (inv. no. 375) measures 36 x 25.2 cm. Günther Heinz ‒ Karl Schütz, Porträtgalerie zur Geschichte Österreichs von 1400 bis 1800, Vienna, 1976, pp. 196‒197; Hendy 1931 (cited note 148), p. 247. 150 Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Gemäldegalerie, inv. no. 3323; Heinz 1975 (cited note 8), pp. 175, 236, 309. 151 Kenner (cited note 3), vol. 19, 1898, pp. 91‒92, no. 212; Ladner 1932 (cited note 3), no. D212. 152 Patrick Collinson, “Elizabeth I (1533‒1603),” in ODNB (cited note 23); http://www.oxforddnb.com/ view/article/8636 (accessed 13 May 2014). 153 Giovanni Michiel, on 13 May 1557, cited in Strong 1963 (cited note 40), p. 18. 154 Strong 1963 (cited note 40), pp. 8, 9, 13‒14, 57‒59, 107, 108; idem 1969 (cited note 144), p. 110; exhibition catalogue Karen Hearn (ed.), Dynasties. Painting in Tudor and Jacobean England 1530‒1630, London (Tate Gallery), 1995, p. 79. The “Barrington Park” pattern provided the model for Remigius Hogenberg’s portrait engraving of around 1570.

79

thereof, after which finished, hir Majesty will be content that all other payntors […] shall and maye at ther plesures follow the sayd […] portraicture”.155 The “Barrington Park” pattern was probably the official likeness this envisaged. The portrait of Elizabeth taken by the Earl of Sussex to Vienna in 1567 most likely followed the “Barrington Park” pattern. The size of the ruff in this copy suggests a rather later date than 1563.156

6 Anonymous, Elizabeth I (1533‒1603), Queen of England and Ireland Inscribed: “ELISABETA REGINA ANGLIAE” (top) Oil on paper on wooden panel, 13.4 x 10.1 cm Gemäldegalerie, inv. no. 4755157 The elderly Elizabeth I was described in 1598 as: “her face oblong, fair but wrinkled; her eyes small, yet black and pleasant; her nose a little hooked, her lips narrow […] her hair […] an auburn colour, but false”.158 Lumley owned two pictures of the queen in 1590: “as she was coming first to the Crowne” (1558), and “as she was the xxxth yeare of her Reigne” (1588).159 Around 1588 was created a new official likeness known as the “Armada” pattern, from which the fuller features in this portrait (Fig. 14) probably derive.160 The attitude of the sitter’s left hand resembles other pictures showing her fingering a pendant jewel. The crimson velvet and ermine trim may suggest Parliamentary Robes, but the unusual sleeves have horizontal gathers, and the shoulder wings do not correspond with the fashion of the 1590s.161 Fig. 14: Anonymous, Elizabeth I, Queen of England and Ireland. Oil on paper on wood panel. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Gemäldegalerie, inv. no. 4755. (©: KHM-Museumsverband.)

7 Anonymous, Mary Stewart (1542‒1587), Queen of Scots Inscribed: “MARIA REGINA / SCOTIAE” (upper left) and “FRANCISCI II REGI / GALLIAE VXOR” (upper right) Oil on paper on wooden panel, 13.4 x 10.2 cm Gemäldegalerie, inv. no. 4745162 The daughter of James V (1512‒1542) of Scotland, Mary succeeded while an infant. She married the Dauphin, who ascended the French throne as Francis II, but died in 1560. Returning to Scotland, Mary was forced to abdicate and fled to England, where she was imprisoned and later executed for plotting against Elizabeth I.163 Mary was celebrated for her beauty, but in 1586 was described as “of Stature high, bigg made and somewhat round shouldered. Her face full and flat, double chinned, and hazel eyed”.164 She was painted in France by François Clouet, exchanged portraits with her cousin Elizabeth I, and in captivity sat to Hilliard around 1578/9.165

155 Cited in Strong 1963 (cited note 40), p. 5. 156 I am obliged to Susan North and Clare Browne for this information; personal communication, 24 June 2014. 157 Kenner (cited note 3), vol. 19, 1898, pp. 92‒93, no. 213; Ladner 1932 (cited note 3), no. D213. 158 Giovanni Michiel, on 13 May 1557, cited in Strong 1963 (cited note 40), p. 18. 159 Cited in Evans 2010 (cited note 65), p. 148. 160 Strong 1963 (cited note 40), pp. 72, 81‒82. 161 I am obliged to Susan North and Clare Browne for this information; personal communication, 24 June 2014. 162 Kenner (cited note 3), vol. 19, 1898, pp. 93‒94, no. 214; Ladner 1932 (cited note 3), no. D214. 163 Julian Goodare, “Mary (1542‒1587), queen of Scots,” in ODNB (cited note 23); http://www.oxforddnb. com/view/article/18248 (accessed 13 May 2014). 164 Strong 1969 (cited note 144), p. 219. 165 Two versions survive, one in the Royal Collection and another at the Victoria and Albert Museum; Strong 1969 (cited note 144), pp. 219‒221; Reynolds 1999 (cited note 19), pp. 68‒69.

80

Lumley owned a portrait “Of Mary Quene of Scottes, executed in Englande” and his widow sent the Earl of Salisbury another, full-length likeness of her in 1609.166 This portrait (Fig. 15) was copied from the etching on p. 462 of John Lesley’s De origine moribus, et rebus gestis Scotorum libri decem, published in 1578 (Fig. 6).167 This depicts Mary at bust-length within a roundel inscribed “MARIA REGINA ­ORDINE REGVM CVII” as part of a family tree linked laterally to roundels with the names of her first and second husbands and vertically to a smaller portrait of her son James, within a roundel inscribed: “IACOBVS MARIAE R. F. SCOT PRINCEPS AN. AET. XII”. The closed crown and veil in the etching indicate Mary’s status as a queen and widow. Lesley doubtless presented further copies of his book to influential figures, including Mary’s nephew and godson, Lord Francis Stewart, Earl of Bothwell (1562‒1612).168 At Innsbruck in 1578 the author evidently gave Ferdinand II the copy of his newly published book from which this likeness was copied.

Fig. 15: Anonymous, Mary Stewart, Queen of Scots. Oil on paper on wood panel. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Gemäldegalerie, inv. no. 4745. (©: KHM-Museumsverband.)

8 After Nicolas Hilliard (?), Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester (1532/3‒1588) Inscribed at top: “Le Sr Robert Doudelay conte de Leceister chevalier / de l’ordre D’Angleterre […]” Oil on paper on wooden panel, 13.3 x 10 cm Gemäldegalerie, inv. no. 5363169 The French inscription on the present work (Fig. 16) is like that on the Ambras portrait of Walter Raleigh (Fig. 17), which is probably by the same hand. Dudley was created Baron Denbigh and Earl of Leicester in 1564.170 A contemporary described him as: “a very goodly person, and singular well-featured, and all his youth well favoured, and of a sweet aspect, but high foreheaded […] but, towards his latter end […] he grew high coloured and red-faced […]”.171 Elizabeth I characterised their intimate relationship as fraternal, and in 1563 suggested him as a potential husband for Mary Stewart. Leicester was an influential privy councillor and attained the climax of his career in 1586‒1587 as governor-general of the Netherlands. His celebrity is suggested by Lumley’s ownership in 1590 of two portraits; an early likeness from 1558‒1564 when he was Elizabeth’s Master of the Horse, and a three-quarter length “after he was the Earle of Leicester Lo:Steward” painted by Sir William Segar in 1582 or 1587.172 A leading art collector, Leicester was an early patron of Hilliard, who in 1571 prepared for him a “booke of portraitures”. The painter’s son owned a miniature described in 1640 as “the Earl of Lestars picture in a jet box draune in his Cloake with a Cap and Fethar”.173 This corresponds with two autograph circular bust-length miniatures of the earl with greying hair and dressed in black; one dated and inscribed: “Ano. Dni. 1576 / Aetatis Suae 44”.174 The present work was probably copied from one of these.

Fig. 16: After Nicolas Hilliard (?), Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester. Oil on paper on wood panel. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Gemäldegalerie, inv. no. 5363. (©: KHM-Museumsverband.)

166 MacLeod ‒ Cooper ‒ Zoller 2010 (cited note 138), p. 163. 167 The suggestion that the engraving published at Rome in 1578 derived from Hilliard’s miniature of 1578/79 (Reynolds 1999, cited note 19, pp. 68‒69) is barely possible; it was more probably based on an unidentified portrait Leslie took with him to Rome in 1575. 168 Bothwell’s copy is in the Victoria and Albert Museum, National Art Library, CLE TT16. 169 Kenner (cited note 3), vol. 19, 1898, pp. 96‒97, no. 218; Ladner 1932 (cited note 3), no. D216. 170 Simon Adams, “Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester (1532/3‒1588),” in ODNB (cited note 23); http:// www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/8160 (accessed 4 June 2014). 171 Sir Robert Naunton, cited in Strong 1969 (cited note 144), p. 195. 172 MacLeod ‒ Cooper ‒ Zoller 2010 (cited note 138), pp. 6, 68, 160. 173 Cited in Erna Auerbach, Nicholas Hilliard, London, 1961, p. 227. 174 National Portrait Gallery 4197; Victoria and Albert Museum E.1174-1988. A further oval version meas­ uring only 1.8 x 1.5 cm and paired with a similar miniature of Elizabeth I was sold at Bonhams, London, 25 November 2009, lot 3; Strong 1969 (cited note 144), p. 194; exh. cat. London 1983 (cited note 141), pp. 67, 118.

81

9 After Nicolas Hilliard, Sir Walter Raleigh (1554–1618) Inscribed at top: “Le Sr. Gauichier Raulle. Chevallier Premier Mignon / de la Reine D’Angleterre” Oil on paper on wooden panel, 13.9 x 10 cm Gemäldegalerie, inv. no. 5364175

Fig. 17: After Nicolas Hilliard, Sir Walter Raleigh. Oil on paper on wood panel. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Gemäldegalerie, inv. no. 5364. (©: KHM-Museumsverband.)

The inscription on this copy (Fig. 17) permitted the correct identification of its apparent source, a formerly misidentified oval miniature by Hilliard, painted around 1585‒1588.176 The present work is probably by the same hand as the Ambras portrait of Lord Leicester (Fig. 16), also derived from a Hilliard miniature. Its French inscription calling Raleigh “the first favourite of the Queen of England” suggests it was copied no later than 1592, when he was sent to the Tower as punishment for his secret marriage to one of Elizabeth’s maids of honour. Raleigh served as a soldier in France and Ireland, and in 1578 voyaged to discover “remote, heathen and barbarous lands”.177 He attracted the queen’s notice in 1581, was knighted, made an esquire of the body, and given many financial grants. Raleigh’s adventures in the New World caused him to be associated with the introduction of the potato and tobacco to England. He was committed in 1604 to the Tower of London, where he wrote The History of the World. On his release, Raleigh made a disastrous voyage in search of El Dorado, was disgraced and executed for treason, but his memory endures as an Elizabethan “Universal Man”.

10 Nicolas Hilliard, Sir Francis Drake (1545‒1596) Inscribed in the field: “Aetatis Suae. 42. Anno Dni. 1581”, and around the rim: “D. FRAN . DRAK . EQVES . OCEANI . INDICI .VTRISQVE . EXPLORAT . MAGNUS.” Watercolour on vellum, 5.8 x 4.9 cm (oval) Gemäldegalerie, inv. no. 5489178

Fig. 18: Nicolas Hilliard, Sir Francis Drake. Watercolour on vellum. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Gemäldegalerie, inv. no. 5489. (©: KHM-Museumsverband.)

This is the larger and finer of two similar miniatures by Hilliard (Fig. 18), both inscribed with the sitter’s age as 42 in 1581.179 They correspond to the description of Drake by the antiquarian John Stow (1525?‒1605): “lowe of stature, of strong limbe, broad-breasted, round-headed, brown hayre, full-bearded, his eyes round, large and clear, well-favoured fayce, and of a cheerful countenance”.180 Drake combined trading and slaving with raiding Spanish possessions, was second in command of the English fleet during the Armada campaign, and died of fever in the West Indies.181 He is portrayed here wearing an elegant doublet of white silk, probably a satin weave, pinked and slashed to reveal an underlayer with embroidered black decoration, and trimmed with black and white woven silk braid, which would then have been called “lace”. His ruff is of linen edged with cutwork and needle lace.182 175 Kenner (cited note 3), vol. 19, 1898, pp. 97‒98, no. 220; Ladner 1932 (cited note 3), no. D220. 176 NPG 4106; Auerbach 1961 (cited note 173), pp. 95‒96; Strong 1969 (cited note 144), pp. 255‒256; exh. cat. London 1983 (cited note 141), p. 74. 177 Mark Nicholls ‒ Penry Williams, “Sir Walter Raleigh (1554‒1618),” in ODNB (cited note 23); http:// www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/23039 (accessed 2 June 2014). 178 Kenner (cited note 3), vol. 19, 1898, pp. 95‒96, no. 216; Ladner 1932 (cited note 3), no. D216. 179 The other is a round image 2.8 cm in diameter, National Portrait Gallery 4851; Auerbach 1961 (cited note 173), pp. 84‒86, 294‒295; Strong 1969 (cited note 144), pp. 70‒71. 180 Cited in Strong 1969 (cited note 144), p. 70. 181 Harry Kelsey, “Sir Francis Drake (1540‒1596),” in ODNB (cited note 23); http://www.oxforddnb.com/ view/article/8022 (accessed 13 May 2014). 182 I am obliged to Susan North and Clare Browne for this description; personal communication, 24 June 2014.

82

Drake evidently sat to Hilliard on his knighthood in 1581, but it is unclear if either of his surviving portrait miniatures is the original, painted from life. The present work’s higher quality, larger size, and extra inscription celebrating its sitter’s maritime prowess, may reflect the status of its recipient, rather than an earlier date.

11 After Nicolas Hilliard, Sir Francis Drake (1545‒1596) Inscribed at sides and top: “D.FRAN: DRAKVS [EQ]VES’ / OCEANI.INDICI. VTRISQVAE / EXPLORAT.MAGNVS” Oil on paper on wooden panel, 13.5 x 9.3 cm Gemäldegalerie, inv. no. 5046183

Fig. 19: Nicolas Hilliard, Sir Francis Drake. Oil on paper on wood panel. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Gemäldegalerie, inv. no. 5046. (©: KHM-Museumsverband.)

This copy (Fig. 19) of Hilliard’s oval miniature in Vienna (Fig. 18) repeats the inscription around its rim. Lumley’s larger painting of Drake was attributed to Sir William Segar and his inventory styled the seafarer as “the Great Navigator […] who sayled round about the worlde,” listing his portrait with those of other notable English soldiers and sailors.184 Drake’s likeness at Ambras was grouped with other famous mariners, including Amerigo Vespucci, Christopher Columbus and Magellan (Gemäldegalerie, inv. nos. 5044, 5045 and 5047).

12 Nicolas Hilliard, François duc d’Anjou & d’Alençon (1555‒1584) Watercolour on vellum, 5.8 x 4.9 cm (oval) Gemäldegalerie, inv. no. 5480185

Fig. 20: Nicolas Hilliard, François duc d’Anjou & d’Alençon. Watercolour on vellum. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Gemäldegalerie, inv. no. 5480. (©: KHM-Museumsverband.)

Hilliard went to France in 1576, and the following year was a member of the household of François duc d’Alençon.186 At that time he painted another miniature of the duke, now at Chantilly, probably the source for the small oil portrait from Ambras.187 The youngest son of Henri II and Catherine de’ Medici, Alençon was from 1574 the heir to the French throne. A supporter of the Huguenots, he was invited to rule the United Provinces, but his army was destroyed at Antwerp in 1583, he returned to Paris and died of fever. The present likeness (Fig. 20) was probably painted from life during Alençon’s visit to England between November 1581 and February 1582.188 He is portrayed wearing a linen ruff trimmed with cutwork and needle lace and a grey or silver-tissue silk doublet with a woven pattern, with a matching cloak edged with silver-gilt lace over his left shoulder turned back to reveal a patterned silk lining.189 His face and ruff, but not the costume, were repeated in Hilliard’s miniature of Alençon on the frontispiece of the tiny prayer book of Elizabeth I, at the end of which appeared the queen’s own miniature.190 The duke’s portrait in the prayer book permitted the cor183 Kenner (cited note 3), vol. 19, 1898, pp. 95‒96, no. 217; Ladner 1932 (cited note 3), no. D217. 184 MacLeod ‒ Cooper ‒ Zoller 2010 (cited note 138), pp. 150, 162. 185 Kenner (cited note 3), vol. 19, 1898, p. 98, no. 219 (misidentified as a portrait of Walter Raleigh); Ladner 1932 (cited note 3), no. D219. 186 Edmond 1983 (cited note 45), p. 62. 187 Auerbach 1961 (cited note 173), pp. 75‒76; Anonymous, François Duc d’ Anjou & Alençon, Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Gemäldegalerie, inv. no. 4749, inscribed: “DVX ALENCONII,” oil on paper on wooden panel, 13.4 x 9.9 cm. Ladner 1932 (cited note 3), D174. 188 Exh. cat. London 1983 (cited note 141), p. 69. 189 I am obliged to Susan North and Clare Browne for this description; personal communication, 24 June 2014. 190 The whereabouts of the prayer book are no longer known, but a black and white facsimile, made in 1893, is in the British Library (Facsimile 218); Auerbach 1961 (cited note 173), pp. 77‒79.

83

rect identification of the present work, formerly misidentified as a likeness of Walter Raleigh. The Spanish ambassador observed in 1579 that “The Queen [Elizabeth] is delighted with Alençon […] saying that she was […] much pleased with his good parts, and admired him more than any man”.191 Agents of the Fugger bank speculated on whether their marriage was “certain to take place” or was simply a diversion “because of the war in the Netherlands”.192 After Alençon’s death, Elizabeth wept openly and went into mourning, but her ambassador was prevented from attending his funeral by the Scottish envoys in Paris, who disputed his claim to precedence over theirs in the cortege.193

13 Nicolas Hilliard, James I, King of Scotland & England (1566‒1625) Watercolour on vellum, 4.3 x 2.3 cm (oval) Gemäldegalerie, inv. no. 5476194

Fig. 21: Nicolas Hilliard, James I, King of Scotland & England. Watercolour on vellum. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Gemäldegalerie, inv. no. 5476. (©: KHM-Museumsverband.)

James sat to Hilliard soon after his accession for this likeness (Fig. 21), repeated in several miniatures. One has an inscription styling James as “King of Great Britain,” a title he adopted in November 1604, while another, bust-length version is inscribed with the king’s age of 42 and the corresponding year 1608.195 The Venetian ambassador described James in 1607: “He is sufficiently tall, of a noble presence, his physical constitution robust, and he is at pains to preserve it by taking much exercise at the chase.”196 This miniature is badly faded. The king is wearing a white silk doublet, probably a satin weave, elaborately slashed and pinked, with the informal style of linen collar known as a falling band edged with cutwork and needle lace. This also appears in his full-size portraits, and may have been a personal preference. He wears a beaverfelt hat, dyed grey, with a jewelled hat pin. Its brim obscures a decorative hat band with an ostrich feather.197 Round his neck hangs an enamelled Great St. George, the insginia of the Order of the Garter, suspended from a blue ribbon. The creased crimson velvet curtain, painted in a wet-in-wet technique, is a standard background ­device, used by Hilliard from the mid-1590s. James was well educated by the humanist George Buchanan, but his rule in Scotland between 1584 and 1603 was blighted by a turbulent nobility, and his elevated notions of royal status later caused conflict with the English Parliament. James made peace with Spain, married his daughter Elizabeth to the leader of the German protestants and sought to marry his heir Charles to the Infanta of Spain.198 Although he was formerly dismissed as “the wisest fool in Christendom,” his foreign policy has recently been positively reappraised. This likeness remained current until James’s second sitting to Hilliard around 1609, and examples of it were probably among the “certayne pictures of his Majesty […]

191 Anniina Jokinen, “François, Duke of Alençon and Anjou,” in Luminarium Encyclopedia; http://www. luminarium.org/encyclopedia/alencon/htm (accessed 18 June 2014). 192 Reports of 29 September 1579 from Antwerp and 19 March 1580 from London cited in von Klarwill 1926 (cited note 83), pp. 34 and 39. 193 Jokinen, accessed June 2014 (cited note 191); report of 30 June 1584 cited in von Klarwill 1926 (cited note 83), pp. 83‒84. 194 Kenner (cited note 3), vol. 19, 1898, pp. 94‒95, no. 215; Ladner 1932 (cited note 3), no. D215. 195 Graham Reynolds, “Portraits by Nicholas Hilliard and his assistants of King James I and his family,” in Walpole Society, 1952‒1954, xxxiv, 1959, pp. 14‒26; Auerbach 1961 (cited note 173), pp. 147‒151, 310‒311; exh. cat. London 1983 (cited note 141), pp. 144‒145. 196 Nicoló Molin, cited in exh. cat. London 1983 (cited note 141), p. 144. 197 I am obliged to Susan North and Clare Browne for this information; personal communication, 24 June 2014. 198 Jenny Wormald, “James VI and I (1566‒1625),” in ODNB (cited note 23); http://www.oxforddnb.com/ view/article/14592 (accessed 13 May 2014).

84

gyven unto the duke of Denmark’s ambassador” for which Hilliard received £19 10s. in 1604.199

14 Nicolas Hilliard, Anne of Denmark, Queen of Scotland & England (1574‒1619) Watercolour on vellum, 4.3 x 2.3 cm (oval) Gemäldegalerie, inv. no. 5477200

Fig. 22: Nicolas Hilliard, Anne of Denmark, Queen of Scotland & England. Watercolour on vellum. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Gemäldegalerie, inv. no. 5477. (©: KHM-Museumsverband.)

“CONTERFEE” AND “LIMBED PEECES”

Anne sat only once to Hilliard, soon after her arrival in London in 1603, and about eight miniatures of this likeness (Fig. 22) survive. In some she holds her right hand to her breast, and the details of her costume vary.201 Thereafter, the queen preferred her own limner Isaac Oliver, who created a more up-to-date image. This miniature is badly faded. The sitter’s white gown has a low-cut decolleté, and is embroidered or woven with black and trimmed with rosettes of white and carnation ribbon, with in the centre of each a jewel, painted in silver which has oxidised. She wears a band of cutwork and needle lace over a plain, sheer linen band, and has an elaborate headdress or “tire” of diamonds, carnation ribbon and possibly black and white ribbons with a cropped feather plume.202 Anne was brought up at the wealthy and cultured court of her father, Frederick II of Denmark and Norway, and married James VI in 1589.203 Considered a beauty, multi-lingual, and nominally Lutheran, she had marked Catholic leanings. In audience with the Venetian ambassador in 1611, Anne “talked mostly about her mother, her brother, the greatness of her house, her debt to God for so many favours”.204 Hugely fond of jewels, she assembled an important art collection, spent lavishly on building, and performed herself in the Stuart court masques of Ben Jonson and Inigo Jones.

Most of the “conterfee” in the eight chests in Ferdinand’s Kunstkammer portrayed kings and queens in dynastic series, the staple fare of Renaissance portrait ­collections. Those of Henry VIII and James IV of Scotland (Figs. 2 and 3) reproduced in Roo’s Annales (1621; pp. 459, 460) were copied from Stimmer’s woodcuts in ­Giovio’s Elogia Virorum bellica virtute illustrium (1575; pp. 327, 338), and later re­moved from the collection, probably when they were recognised not to be true like­nesses.205 Mary I had married into the Spanish Habsburgs and her portrait (Fig. 12) was derived from Antonis Mor’s well-known likeness, several versions of which were owned by the Austrian branch of the dynasty. Ferdinand II had himself been suggested as a plausible suitor for Elizabeth I, and her earlier portrait from Ambras (Fig. 13) follows the so-called “Barrington Park” pattern, an example of which probably arrived at Vienna with the English embassy of 1567. Mary Stewart’s likeness (Fig. 15) was copied from the illustration (Fig. 6) in John Lesley’s Latin history De origine moribus, et rebus gestis Scotorum libri decem (1578), which the author almost certainly gave in person to Ferdinand II. The archduke’s later portrait of Elizabeth I probably

199 Reynolds 1959 (cited note 195), pp. 19‒20; Blakiston 1947 (cited note 45), pp. 188‒189 (account dat­ ed Michaelmas 1604). 200 Kenner (cited note 3), vol. 19, 1898, pp. 94‒95, no. 215 A; Ladner 1932 (cited note 3), no. D215 A. 201 Reynolds 1959 (cited note 195), pp. 22‒23; Auerbach 1961 (cited note 173), pp. 149‒150, 163; exh. cat. London 1983 (cited note 141), pp. 147‒149. 202 I am obliged to Susan North and Clare Browne for this description; personal communication, 24 June 2014. 203 Maureen M. Meikle ‒ Helen Payne, “Anne of Denmark (1574‒1618),” in ODNB (cited note 23); http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/559 (accessed 24 July 2014). 204 Antonio Foscarini, cited in exh. cat. London 1995 (cited note 154), p. 192. 205 Holstein (cited note 8), pp. 169, 204, 205, nos. 616, 620.

85

derived from a version of the “Armada” pattern created around 1588, and provided a more up-to-date image of the then ageing monarch. Hilliard’s large and fine miniature of Francis Drake, and its copy in oils (Figs. 18 and 19), both painted between 1581 and 1595, suggest that Ferdinand went to considerable trouble to acquire the best available likenesses. The seafarer’s adventures were then better known by his adversaries, and in 1598 the Spanish dramatist Lope de Vega wrote an epic poem titled La Dragotea, likening him to the classical dragon Python, slain by Apollo.206 However, it was not the privateer who so exasperated his cousin Phillip II that the archduke commemorated, but rather “the Great Navigator […] who sayled round about the worlde”. Leicester and Raleigh were, respectively, the oldest and most recent favourites of Queen Elizabeth and their portraits, seemingly a pair (Figs. 16 and 17), also derive from miniatures by Hilliard. 1585 is the earliest plausible date of his original limning of Raleigh and the portrait of Leicester is unlikely to have been copied long after the earl’s death in 1588. He was a famous grandee, while Raleigh’s rapid preferment was considered remarkable by Leopold von Wedel in 1584. The courtier’s representation at Ambras soon after that date suggests a well-informed source of court gossip. Ferdinand owned a small portrait of François duc d’Alençon, based on Hilliard’s miniature of around 1577, as well as a full-length likeness of about 1580, perhaps by a French artist.207 Hilliard’s limning of the prince (Fig. 20), painted from life in 1581‒1582, was perhaps intended to supplement Clouet’s miniatures of his mother Catherine de’ Medici and brother Charles IX (Fig. 5), probably received a decade earlier by Maximilian II. The matching frames of Giulio Clovio’s self-portrait (Fig. 1) and the Marchioness of Dorset after Holbein (Fig. 11) indicate that by 1576 these miniatures were regarded as a pair, probably in Austria. Their pairing can have little to do with the identity of the Marchioness, and evokes Clovio’s remark to Teerlinc: “As indeed artists are accustomed to enjoy seeing diverse styles […] it would not displease you to consider the style of those of us working in Italy,” suggesting a “paragone” between exemplary northern and Italian miniaturists.208 Holbein’s oil roundels of a liveried servant of Henry VIII and his wife (Figs. 9 and 10) were among the finest portraits at Ambras and perhaps the artist’s first to pass from England to Austria. One may speculate if they came with the miniatures of Clovio and the Marchioness of Dorset, and whether Holbein’s female portrait was then believed to depict Susanna Horenbout. Artists recommended in 1587 by Gabriel Kaltemarckt for inclusion in a Kunstkammer included Holbein among “Painters who were famous and acclaimed in high Germany” as well as “Susanna, Lucas Horenbout’s sister” and Levina [Teerlinc] “sent to the English court on account of her art,” both considered exemplary “Women from the Netherlands who excelled in painting and the art of illumination”.209 Ferdinand II filled chest after chest with little oil portraits of historic and contemporary personalities, most of quite modest aesthetic quality, in the same encyclopaedic spirit as he amassed hardstones or coral and commissioned miniatures of Adriatic fish from the Udinese Giorgio Liberale (ca. 1527‒1579/80).210 Rudolph II was also interested in naturalia and artefacta, but it was his lavish patronage of such

206 A.K. Jameson, “Lope de Vega’s La Dragontea: historical and literary sources,” in Hispanic Review, vol. 6, no. 2, April 1938, pp. 104‒119. 207 For the latter, an oil painting on canvas measuring 197.5 x 105 cm (inv. no. 8185) see Heinz ‒ Schütz 1976 (cited note 149), p. 189 and Fig. 105. 208 For the citation see King 1995 (cited note 28), pp. 395‒396. 209 Gutfleisch ‒ Menzhausen 1989 (cited note 58), pp. 25, 26. Kaltemarckt had visited Italy in 1586 and his letter shows his familiarity with Vasari’s Lives, but he omitted Clovio from his lists of eminent Italian artists. 210 Scheicher 1987 (cited note 3), pp. 29‒38. For Liberale’s natural history studies see exhibition cata­logue Alfred Auer ‒ Eva Irblich (eds.), Natur und Kunst. Handschriften und Alben aus der Ambraser Sammlung Erzherzog Ferdinands II. (1529‒1595), Innsbruck (Schloss Ambras), 1995, pp. 64‒76.

86

artists as Arcimboldo, Hans von Aachen and Adriaen de Vries that caused Karel van Mander to praise him as “the greatest art patron in the world at the present time”.211 One might liken these great Habsburg collectors, respectively, to two English near-contemporaries, also an uncle and nephew. Lord Lumley was a bibliophile fascinated by genealogy and portraiture while Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel (1585‒1646) had a connoisseur’s eye for antique sculpture and gems, Holbein and Dürer, Parmigianino and Titian, which would earn him the epithet: “the father of vertu in England”.212 Arundel was a pioneer of the Grand Tour, who visited Italy, Flanders and Germany, but Rudolph’s aversion to travel and limited diplomatic representation abroad required Elizabeth I to send envoys to him; a policy pursued with more enthusiasm but less success by James I.213 Portrait miniatures were routine tools of diplomacy and when housed in gold lockets set with precious stones also served as precious gifts. The five limnings Abraham Fröschl found in Rudolph II’s desk drawer recall how Elizabeth I kept similar works in her bed-chamber, and his attribution of them to “an industrious Englishman” reveals the admiration of a fellow-practitioner for their painstaking technique. Fröschl’s systematic inventory of the imperial Kunstkammer may itself have inspired his sometime colleague van den Doort to undertake his own catalogue of the collections of Charles I, later described as “perhaps the finest inventory of its kind ever compiled in England”.214 The Emperor Matthias maintained intact the Kunstkammer of his father-in-law Ferdinand at Ambras and that of his brother Rudolph at Prague, transferring only a few select works to a central Habsburg Schatzkammer in Vienna.215 His pair of miniatures in ivory boxes of the king and queen of England may have been among the five English limnings formerly owned by Rudolph II, and are plausibly identical with those of James I and Anne of Denmark by Hilliard which remain at Vienna, now bereft of their protective containers and sadly faded.216 The Stuart monarch may have sent Matthias the enamelled gold locket set with diamonds, rubies and an antique imperial cameo, which formerly also held his portrait miniature, when he dispatched Baron Ros to congratulate the emperor on his accession in 1612.217 The preoccupation with hardstones, precious metals and alchemy of the Archduke Ferdinand, the Emperor Rudolph, and the expatriate English savants, Dee, Kelley and Dyer, was shared by the goldsmith and limner Nicholas Hilliard. Two of his first apprentices, engaged in 1571 and 1574, were Germans, and around that time he entered a partnership to mine gold and silver in Scotland with the Dutchman Cornelis De Vos, described as “most cunning […] and excellent in art for trial of minerals and mineral stones” and his agent, Arnold Bronckhorst (fl. 1565‒1583), later court painter to James VI of Scotland.218 The venture failed, but Hilliard spoke of it to the prospector and refiner Stephen Atkinson, who in 1619 sought to persuade King James that “the opening of the secrets of the earth ‒ the gold mines of Scotland” would make “his majesty the richest monarch in Europe, yea in all the world”.219 211 Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann, Court, Cloister & City. The Art and Culture of Central Europe 1450‒1800, London, 1995, pp. 185‒203. 212 Evans 2010 (cited note 65), pp. 13‒74; David Howarth, “The Arundel Collection: Collecting and Patronage in England in the Reigns of Philip III and Philip IV,” in exh. cat. Madrid 2002 (cited note 106), pp. 69‒86. 213 Evans 1973 (cited note 80), p. 75. 214 Exhibition catalogue Prag um 1600: Kunst und Kultur am Hofe Kaiser Rudolfs II, Vienna (Kunsthistorisches Museum), 1988, vol. 1, p. 524; Millar 1958‒1960 (cited note 43), pp. xi. 215 Rudolph Distelberger, “The Habsburg Collections in Vienna during the Seventeenth Century,” in Impey ‒ MacGregor 1985 (cited note 3), pp. 39‒40. 216 Gemäldegalerie, inv. nos. 5476 and 5477. 217 Antikensammlung, inv. no. IXa 98; Eichler ‒ Kris 1927 (cited note 95), no. 21, pp. 63‒64; Zwierlein-Diehl 2008 (cited note 129), pp. 174‒177, 322‒325; Scarisbrick 2011 (cited note 36), pp. 7, 66‒67. 218 Auerbach 1961 (cited note 173), pp. 17‒18; Edmond 1983 (cited note 45), pp. 54‒58. 219 Leslie Owen Tyson, “Atkinson, Stephen (fl. 1586‒1619),” in ODNB (cited note 23); http://www. oxforddnb.com/view/article/855 (accessed 20 August 2014). Atkinson wrote in 1619 The Discoverie and Historie of the Gold Mynes in Scotland, published in 1825.

87

At the household of François duc d’Alençon, Hilliard is likely to have encountered that prince’s physician Joseph Duchesne (ca. 1544 ‒ 1609), celebrated for his alchemical theories, and from the 1580s one of the artist’s patrons was Henry Percy, the 9th Earl of Northumberland, called “the wizard earl” for his pursuit of the occult.220 Much of the Arte of Limning was devoted to gemstones, a section of his treatise Hilliard thought “meet for gentlemen to understand and some gouldsmithes wilbe glad to see”.221 While the Florentine goldsmith Benvenuto Cellini had in 1568 likened the four precious stones, ruby, sapphire, emerald and diamond, to the four Elements, Hilliard’s “fyve principal precious stones” excluded diamond but included amethyst and topaz, and matched “the fyve perfect cullors in the world,” purple, red, blue, green and yellow.222 This tally of five colours corresponded to that proposed by Aristotle rather than the customary four, derived from Pliny, and also likened to the Elements.223 For mixed colours, Hilliard advised his readers to “behold the Rainbowe, and therin you shall find an excellent mixture of all the transparent cullors”.224 That the limner practiced alchemy is apparent from the metal image of Elizabeth I he had cast from “mercury congeled with vinygir, and verdygresse,” which in 1601 reacted with “aqua fortis” to produce the “very strong poison” mercury sublimate.225 Its toxic fumes so alarmed the government “intelligencer” William Waad that he summoned the queen’s physician-in-ordinary Lancelot Browne to help investigate what was feared to be an attempt to endanger “Her Majesty’s sacred person”.226 An interest in alchemy and limning was common to medical men at the Jacobean court. The royal apothecary J.W. Rumler, the incomer from Augsburg who gave Fröschl’s miniature of the Emperor Rudolph to Charles I, also sought in 1620 to secure a patent to manufacture the volatile compound mercury sublimate. His longserving colleague from Geneva, the royal physician Sir Theodore Turquet de Mayerne, advocated chemical remedies and had worked closely with the Paracelsian and Hermetic physician Joseph Duchesne.227 De Mayerne’s fascination with chemistry extended to the assiduous collecting of information on painter’s materials, and around 1625 “that learned Phisitian” requested the herald and artist Edward Norgate to write the treatise Miniatura, which provides the fullest account of Tudor and Stuart limning.228

220 Duchesne, Joseph; http://galileo.rice.edu/Catalog/NewFiles/duchesne.html (accessed 20 August 2014); Mark Nicholls, “Percy, Henry, ninth earl of Northumberland (1564‒1632),” in ODNB (cited note 23); http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/21939 (accessed 20 August 2014); Auerbach 1961 (cited­ note 173), p. 122. 221 Hilliard 1983 (cited note 2), p. 37. 222 Benvenuto Cellini, The Treatises of Benvenuto Cellini on Goldsmithing and Sculpture, trans. C.R. Ash­bee, New York, 1967, p. 22 (I am obliged to Joanna Whalley for this reference); Hilliard 1983 (cited note 2), pp. 37‒38. 223 Charles Parkhurst, “Leon Battista Alberti’s Place in the History of Color Theories,” in Marcia B. Hall (ed.), Color and Technique in Renaissance Painting. Italy and the North, New York, 1987, pp. 161‒204. 224 Hilliard 1983 (cited note 2), p. 38. While the rainbow was generally thought to comprise three or four colours, Bartholomaus Anglicus observed that Aristotle “saith that no peyntour may peynte neither feynen alle the colours of the raynebowe”; cited by Charles Parkhurst in Hall 1987 (cited note 223), pp. 177‒178. 225 Cited in Auerbach 1961 (cited note 173), pp. 32‒33, and Edmond 1983 (cited note 45), pp. 121‒122. The experiment was related to Hilliard’s work on the Great Seal. 226 See also Gary M. Bell, “Waad, Sir William (1546‒1623),” in ODNB (cited note 23); http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/28364 (accessed 20 August 2014); John Bennell, “Browne, Lancelot (d. 1605),” in ODNB (cited note 23); http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/3686 (accessed 20 August 2014). 227 Rumler, his brother-in-law and fellow apothecary Paul de Lobell and de Mayerne were all involved in the inquest into the suspected poisoning at the Tower of London of Sir Thomas Overbury in 1613, when Lobell expressed the opinion that de Mayerne was “the only physician in England worth anything”; Matthews 1967 (cited note 43), pp. 93‒94; Hugh Trevor-Roper, “Mayerne, Sir Theodore Turquet de (1573‒1655),” in ODNB (cited note 23); http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/18430 (accessed 12 August 2014). 228 Murdoch et al. 1981 (cited note 38), pp. 7, 93, 107‒109; David Howarth, “Norgate, Edward (1581‒1650),” in ODNB (cited note 23); http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/20252 (accessed 12 August 2014); Edward Norgate, Miniatura or the Art of Limning, ed. by Jeffrey M. Muller and Jim Murrell, New Haven ‒ London, 1997, pp. 12, 19, 25, 26, 58, 114.

88

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG

Die meisten der rund tausend kleinen Porträts von Herrschern und hohen Würdenträgern, die sich heute im Münzkabinett befinden, wurden zwischen 1578 und 1596 von Erzherzog Ferdinand II. auf Schloss Ambras in Tirol zusammengetragen. Zu dieser Sammlung gehören auch zwei kleine runde Ölbilder von Hans Holbein d. J. sowie sieben kleine Ölbilder, die bekannte englische und schottische Persönlichkeiten zeigen. Zudem besitzt das Kunsthistorische Museum heute fünf weitere Miniaturen, darunter eine Kopie nach Holbein und vier Werke von Nicolas Hilliard, dem Hofmaler von Königin Elisabeth I. von England. Letztere sind als Aquarelle auf Vellum ausgeführt, eine typisch englische Technik, und dürften zwischen 1576 und 1619 in das Habsburgerreich gelangt sein. Dieser weit ausholende Aufsatz ist die erste ausführliche Untersuchung dieser Porträts seit den 1890er Jahren. Evans befasst sich mit der Rolle von Miniaturen als eines eigenen Genres der höfischen Kunst – Hilliard nannte sie „a thing apart from all other painting“ („etwas ganz anderes als alle sonstige Malerei“) – ebenso wie mit dem Sammeln von Porträts in der Renaissance und widmet sich dem bisher wenig beachteten Thema des kulturellen Austausches zwischen den Habsburgern und dem englischen Hof unter Elisabeth I. und Jakob I. in der Zeit von 1558 bis 1625. Außerdem behandelt er eine Reihe von so unterschiedlichen Themen wie Schmuck und Mode, Alchemie und die englisch-deutschen diplomatischen Beziehungen am Vorabend des Dreißigjährigen Krieges.

89

MISZELLEN

92

Norbert Heger

Die römische Bronze­ statuette des Heerführers im Kunsthistorischen Museum in Wien und ihr Fundort im Land Salzburg Die Antikensammlung des Kunsthistorischen Museums verwahrt seit gut zwei Jahrhunderten die Bronzestatuette des Heerführers (Abb. 1 und 2)1. Ihr ältester Nachweis als Eigentum des Museums findet sich in einer Handschrift aus dem Jahr 1812 aus der Feder des Direktors der Münzsammlungen und des Antikenkabinetts Franz de Paula Neumann2. Er, der 1811 die erste Aufstellung der Bronzen vorgenommen hatte, erwähnt die Statuette mit den kurzen Worten „Ein nackter gehelmter Heros schreitend gleichsam im Angriff, vielleicht Ulysses“3. Die Nachfolger Neumanns sahen in dem Heros nicht Odysseus, sondern „den guten Rufer Menelaos“4. Eduard von Sackens ausführliche Beschreibung beginnt mit den Worten „Die Perle der Sammlung, in künstlerischer Beziehung das bedeutendste Werk ist die Statuette ­eines Heros […] zugleich nebst dem Hermes Logios [= der Jüngling vom Magdalensberg] die grösste unserer Bronzen, da sie die schon nicht gewöhnliche Höhe von 43  Centim. hat“5. Als Entstehungszeit schlug von Sacken die Periode „bald nach ­Alexander dem Grossen vor“. Dass das Werk kein griechisches Original, sondern eine Nachbildung sei, zog Robert von Schneider 1895 in Betracht6. Erkinger Schwarzenberg, der sich am ausführlichsten mit unserem Heerführer befasst hat, möchte diesen der hadrianischen Zeit zuweisen7. Nikolaus Himmelmann stufte die Bronzestatuette als eklektische Schöpfung in der Art weiterer nackter Figuren mit korinthischen Helmen ein, bei denen es sich „nicht um Nachklänge klassischer Werke, sondern um Rückstilisierung späthellenistischer Vorbilder in die Sprache der Hochklassik handelt“8. Von Sacken hatte die Schilderung des Heerführers mit dem lapidaren Satz abgeschlossen: „Die Provenienz der Statuette ist leider unbekannt.“9 Dabei ist es bis heute geblieben, obwohl des Rätsels Lösung nicht schwierig gewesen wäre, hätte sich nur irgendjemand in der Literatur des späteren 18. Jahrhunderts umgesehen

1 2 3 4

Abb. 1: Bronzestatuette eines Heerführers. Römisch, 2. Jahrhundert n. Chr., nach griechischem Original des 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Wien, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Antikensammlung, Inv.-Nr.VI 321. (©: KHMMuseumsverband.)

5 6 7 8 9

93

Wien, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Antikensammlung, Inv.-Nr.VI 321. Handschrift Neumann Nr. 12, S. 11. Erkinger Schwarzenberg, Chalkous Strategos, in: Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in ­Wien 68 (N. F. 32), 1972, 7. Inventar des Jahres 1821, Nr. 262; Eduard von Sacken – Friedrich Kenner, Die Sammlungen des K. K. Münz- und Antiken-Cabinetes in Wien, Wien 1866, 294, Nr. 1107; Eduard von Sacken, Die antiken Bronzen des K. K. Münz- und Antiken-Cabinetes in Wien, Wien 1871, 104‒106. Von Sacken 1871 (zit. Anm. 4). Robert von Schneider, Album auserlesener Gegenstände des allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses, Wien 1895, 31. Erkinger Schwarzenberg 1972 (zit. Anm. 3), 20. Nikolaus Himmelmann, Ideale Nacktheit in der griechischen Kunst, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Ergänzungs-Heft 26, Berlin ‒ New York 1990, 93. Von Sacken 1871 (zit. Anm. 4), 106.

und zum Beispiel das Hauptwerk des Salzburger Spitzenbeamten am fürsterzbischöflichen Hof in Salzburg Johann Franz Thaddäus von Kleimayrn (1733‒1805) aufgeschlagen. Dieses über 900 Seiten starke Buch trägt den etwas langatmigen Titel Nachrichten vom Zustande der Gegenden und Stadt Juvavia vor, während und nach der Beherrschung der Römer bis zur Ankunft des heiligen Ruperts und dessen Verwandlung in das heutige Salzburg und wurde 1784 in Salzburg gedruckt. Kleimayrn baute die etwa hundert Druckseiten starke Darstellung der Römerzeit Salzburgs auf den damals bekannten Inschriften auf; archäologische Funde anderer Art werden darin nicht besprochen, mit einer einzigen Ausnahme: eine römische Bronzestatuette. Auf Seite 61 § 70 liest man Folgendes: „Ferners ist im Jahre 1772 von einem Bauern in der Berghamer Pfarr [= in der Pfarre Bergheim] unweit der Baron Rehlingischen Hofmark Ursprung in dem Felde des sogenannten Moßhamer Guts eine ertzene Bildniß, oder Hausgötze ausgegraben worden. Er ist bey 16 Zoll hoh: stellt eine blosse etwas vorwärts schreitende Mannsfigur, das Haupt mit einem Bart, dann den einen Arm ausgestreckt, und mit flacher Hand soweit geschlossen vor, daß man wohl abnehmen kann, daß er in seiner Faust etwas gehalten habe. Nun fragt sich, wessen Abbildung diese Statue sey? Man trifft den Jupiter, Hercules, Neptunus und Mars nackend, und mit bartigtem Kopfe an; was sie unterscheidet, sind meistens ihre Stellung, und die Zeichen des Adlers und Donnerkeils bey dem Jupiter, beym Herkules der Kolben in der Hand, beym Neptunus der Dreyzack oder der Delphin unter oder neben dem Fuße, bey dem Mars das Schwert, oder eine Stange, oder der Helm auf dem Kopfe. Siehet man nun die Stellung unserer Statue genauers an, so ist die Faust um einen Kolben zu halten, all zu enge geschlossen, zu einem Donnerkeil der Arm allzu in gerader und ruhiger Stellung, mithin muß es entweders Neptunus oder Mars seyn, und ich wurde ihn fast für Neptunus halten, wenn nicht neben der Statue auch ein kleiner Helm, wie man sonst bey Minerva oder Mars antrifft, vom nämlichen Erze sich vorgefunden hätte, der so ziemlich auf das Haupt der Statue paßt [Abb. 2], sohin fast außer allen Anstand setzet, daß sie ein Bild des Kriegsgott Mars sey. Nebst dieser Bildniß und Helm fand sich zugleich eine schmale Leiste vom gleichen Ertze, so mit silbernen Blechblättlein auf die Art, was man insgemein a la greque heißt, faconirt, und eingelegt ist. Aller Muthmassung nach ist es ein Theil von Gesimse desjenigen Gestells, oder arae, auf welchem diese Statue gestanden ist, denn die Römer hatten in ihren Häusern ihre eigene Deos penates, und Hausschutzgötter und Altäre.“ Soweit der bemerkenswert genaue Bericht. Zum besseren Verständnis des Textes seien ein paar klärende Feststellungen angefügt. Die Beschreibung der Statuette setzt offenbar die Kenntnis des Originals voraus und die Fundgeschichte wohl eine Zeugenaussage. Der Weiler Moosham, in dem die Figur auf einem Feld des Hansenbauern gefunden wurde, liegt südlich des Schlosses Ursprung (Gemeinde Elixhausen, Bezirk Salzburg-Umgebung), wenige Kilometer nördlich der Stadt Salzburg. Moosham gehörte damals zur Hofmark Ursprung. (Der Begriff Hofmark bezeichnete das abgegrenzte Gebiet einer Grundherrschaft mit niederer Gerichtsbarkeit durch den Grundherren). Seit 1725 saß Johann Josef Reichsfreiherr von Rehlingen als Inhaber der Hofmark auf seinem Schloss Ursprung10. Kleimayrn war am 20. Dezember 1767 zum Testamentsvollstrecker des Freiherren ernannt worden, der zu Kleimayrn „ein einziges Vertrauen“ hatte, wie es in dem Testament wörtlich heißt11. Nach dem Ableben des Barons – am Neujahrstag des Jahres 1773 ‒ verfasste Kleimayrn den Erbvergleich unter den streitenden Nachkommen12. Zum Fundort wäre zu sagen, dass dort ein römischer Gutshof lag: Es wurden außer Mauerresten Tubuli, Eisengeräte (angeblich auch Lanzenspitzen), einige Münzen, Keramik nebst TierknoFriederike Zaisberger – Walter Schlegel, Burgen und Schlösser in Salzburg. 2. Flachgau und Tennengau, Wien 1992, 34. 11 Salzburger Landesarchiv, musakt 249: Testament des Johann Joseph von Rehlingen vom 18. Juli 1768, Nr. 11. 12 Salzburger Landesarchiv, Geheimes Archiv XXV/R 10/2. 10

94

Abb. 2: Kopf der Statuette. (©: KHM-Museumsverband.)

chen13 sowie das Bruchstück einer Ara mit wenigen Buchstaben gefunden14. Was aber geschah mit der Statuette? In dem im Februar 1773 aufgenommenen, 92 Seiten starken Inventar über das Vermögen des Johann Josef von Rehlingen sind auch seine Kunstschätze aufgelistet, vor allem Gemälde, unter anderem von Johann ­Michael Rottmayr, dem bedeutendsten Salzburger Maler des Barock, nicht jedoch der Heerführer. Der nächste ‒ entscheidende ‒ Nachweis findet sich in einem Inventar der fürsterzbischöflichen Residenz vom 1. Juli 1776 mit folgendem Eintrag: „1 Römische Statue von Bronso, so ao 1772 bey ursprung ausgegraben worden, mit einer Lanzen“15. Der Heerführer steht also spätestens im Sommer 1776 in der Residenz, und zwar im Hochfürstlichen Retirat-Zimmer. Die „Retirade“ ist jener von Erzbischof Franz Anton von Harrach um 1710 neu gestaltete Raum zwischen Audienzsaal und Schlafzimmer im 2. Obergeschoss der Residenz, der gewissermaßen den Übergang von seinem öffentlichen zu seinem privaten Leben bilden sollte. Hier wollte der Erz­ bischof ganz Mensch sein und frei von den Zwängen der Etikette und des Hofzeremoniells leben16. Es ist möglich, dass Freiherr von Rehlingen die Statuette dem

13 Bibliothek der Erzabtei St. Peter, HS b XXXIV 23: P. Anselm Ebner, Wegweiser zu den Kunst- und Alterthums-Denkmalen des Landes Salzburg und seiner Nachbarschaft (1890–1896), 207, 209. 14 CIL 5557 = 11757. 15 Salzburger Landesarchiv, Residenzschlossverwaltung I 9 p. 38 und Geheimes Archiv XXXIII 96 fol. 18r. 16 Christoph Brandhuber, „Recreatio Principis“. Fürsterzbischof Franz Anton Fürst von Harrach und seine Retirade, in: Österreichische Zeitschrift für Kunst und Denkmalpflege 63, 2009, 118.

95

Fürsterzbischof Graf Hieronymus Colloredo 1772 zum Geschenk gemacht hatte, der am 14. März 1772 zum Erzbischof gewählt worden war und am 29. April 1772 die althergebrachte Zeremonie des Einrittes von Schloss Freisaal aus zum Dom vollzog. In den Residenz-Inventaren aus den Jahren 1803 und 1805 ist jeweils eine Bronzestatuette des Mars, eineinhalb Schuh hoch, verzeichnet17. Hier wurde die Benennung Kleimayrns übernommen (auf ihn geht auch die oben erwähnte Ausstattung der Statuette „mit einer Lanzen“ zurück). Im Oktober 1806 gelangte der Mars mit vielen Kunstwerken, Handschriften und wertvollen Büchern nach Wien18. Die Frage der Provenienz des Heerführers und seiner Aufbewahrung ist damit geklärt. Es geht abschließend nur noch darum, einen erst vor nicht langer Zeit veröffentlichten Irrtum auszuräumen. In einem 2011 erschienenen zweibändigen Sammelwerk über die Salzburger Residenz und die Kunstsammlungen der Fürsterz­ bischöfe19 findet sich auch ein Beitrag von Johannes Ramharter über die Kunstkammer der Fürsterzbischöfe von Salzburg20. Dieser enthält eine Abbildung des Heerführers, allerdings mit einer unzutreffenden Beschreibung21. Der Text ist einem Inventar der Residenz entnommen, in welchem es heißt: „1 statue, alte, römische, von 6 schuch höhe, vermuthlich ein Feldherr. Anmerkung: diese statue befand sich bei gegenwärtiger inventur in der kleinen bilder gallerie, ober den kamin, in der residenz aufgestellt“22. Damit ist allerdings nicht unser Heerführer gemeint, sondern: der Jüngling vom Magdalensberg23! Der ist wirklich „6 schuch“ (= 1,83 m) hoch, im Gegensatz zum Heerführer mit 43 cm Höhe, und stand wirklich in der sogenannten „Schönen Galerie“ oberhalb des marmornen Kamins, also an demselben Platz, den heute der vor der Verbringung des Jünglings nach Wien angefertigte Gipsabguss einnimmt. Die Bezeichnung des Jünglings als Heerführer wurde übrigens schon früher verwendet, vor allem vom Hofmaler und Galerie-Inspektor Andreas Nesselthaler (1748– 1821), der mehrfach mit der Abfassung der Inventare betraut war24. Er schreibt im Vorwort des Inventars vom 8. März 180325: „Auch einige Statuen von Bronzo sind zu bemercken, besonders die welche im ersten Stock in der Bildergalerie aufgestelt ist. Sie ist 6 schuch in der Höhe, einige Auctoren haben etwas davon geschrieben und die Statua für einen Antinous gehalten, er ist zwar nackend aber seine Stellung ist mehr die eines Feldhern […]“. Die Beförderung des Jünglings vom Magdalensberg zum Feldherrn hat allerdings nicht Nesselthaler selbst erfunden, die verdankt er vielmehr seinem Freund Franz Michael Vierthaler (1758‒1827), dem fürsterzbischöflichen Hofbibliothekar und bedeutenden Pädagogen (der übrigens auch Schwiegersohn Kleimayerns war). Er schrieb 1799 über den Jüngling vom Magdalensberg: Die Statue „ist im schönsten Styl gearbeitet, wie wenn sie aus dem goldnen Zeitalter der Griechischen Kunst wäre. Der Mann, den wir in ihr sehen, ist kein schmachtender Antinous, sondern ein ernster Krieger. Er hält die linke Hand gesenkt, und die Rechte ausgestreckt. Es scheint, als ertheilte er Befehle.“26 17 Salzburger Landesarchiv, Geheime Hofkanzlei XLI 7 Nr. 317 bzw. XXVII 7 b Nr. 228. 18 Friedrich Pirckmayer, Salzburg’s Kunstschätze und Alterthümer, in: Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Salzburger Landeskunde 12, 1872, 353‒359; Friederike Zaisberger, Salzburg in napoleonischer Zeit und die Verschleppung seiner Kunstschätze, in: Arge Alp, Informationsblatt 11, 1985, 82‒121 (mit einer Objektliste von Johann Ostermann im Anhang). 19 Roswitha Juffinger (Hg.), Zentrum der Macht, 2 Bde., Salzburg 2011. 20 Johannes Ramharter, Die Kunstkammer der Fürsterzbischöfe von Salzburg, in: Juffinger 2011 (zit. Anm. 19), Bd. 2, 322‒380. 21 Ramharter 2011 (zit. Anm. 20), 362 (Abb. 25), 364. 22 Salzburger Landesarchiv, Geheimes Archiv XXVI 7 b, 28. 23 Wien, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Antikensammlung, Inv.-Nr. VI 1; Ramharter 2011 (zit. Anm. 20), 326 f., Abb. 2. 24 Bettina Rossbacher, Andreas Nesselthaler (1748‒1821). Hofmaler im klassizistischen Salzburg, un­ publ. phil. Dipl.-Arbeit Univ. Salzburg 1998; Nikolaus Schaffer, Nesselthaler, Andreas, in: Salzburger Kulturlexikon, Salzburg 2001, 322. 25 Salzburger Landesarchiv, Geheime Hofkanzlei XLI 7. 26 Franz Michael Vierthaler, Reisen durch Salzburg, Salzburg 1799 (Nachdruck Salzburg 1983), 71 f.

96

Von diesem Exkurs zum Thema der Abhandlung zurückzukehren, bleibt als deren Ergebnis in Kurzform festzuhalten: In der Bronzestatuette des Heerführers aus Moosham in der Gemeinde Elixhausen haben wir ein ‒ nicht unbedeutendes ‒ Kunstwerk der Austria Romana vor uns, oder genauer gesagt: ein Stück Kulturerbe des Landes Salzburg.

SUMMARY

The general, known as the “Wiener Stratege/Vienna Strategist”, is a Roman bronze statuette informed by a Greek model first recorded in the imperial Collection of Antiquities (kaiserliches Antikenkabinett) in Vienna in 1811. Its provenance, however, remained unknown. A synopsis of all extant written sources (many not previously consulted), among them J.F.T. von Kleimayrn’s book Nachricht vom Zustande der […] Stadt Salzburg Juvavia […] (1784), and the hand-written inventories of the ­Residenz, the palace of the Prince Archbishop of Salzburg, shows that the general was discovered in 1772 at Moosham near Elixhausen (province of Salzburg) in the remains of a Roman villa; the statuette may have been displayed soon after its discovery, but was certainly on show in Residenz Palace of the Prince Archbishop of Salzburg from 1776 onwards; in 1806, i.e. three years after the archbishopric of Salzburg was secularized, its removal to the imperial Collection of Coins and Antiquities (Münz- und Antikenkabinett) in Vienna was ordered.

97

98

Stefano Pierguidi

Il Giovane di Magdalensberg tra Salisburgo e Binche

Nel 1986 il cosiddetto Giovane di Magdalensberg (Jüngling vom Magdalensberg) del Kunsthistorisches Museum di Vienna (fig. 1), a lungo giudicato il più importante e celebre bronzo antico ritrovato a Nord delle Alpi, è stato riconosciuto come una replica rinascimentale dell’originale (oggi perduto) ritrovato in Carinzia, presso Klagenfurt, nel 15021. Già protagonista di un’importante mostra del Museo del Prado del 19922, e più volte oggetto delle attenzioni della critica3, il bronzo di Vienna è stato recentemente datato con un buon margine di sicurezza al 1551, grazie al reperimento di una lettera di Maria d’Ungheria, che l’anno seguente sarebbe entrata in possesso dell’originale, inviato da Salisburgo a Bruxelles, e di lì a Binche, nei Pae­ si Bassi meridionali (l’odierno Belgio), dove la sorella di Carlo V aveva stabilito la propria residenza4. Per mettere le mani su quel bronzo antico Maria d’Ungheria aveva dovuto ricorrere a tutta la sua influenza e astuzia: la critica non ha infatti sottolineato come il Giovane di Magdalensberg abbia lasciato Salisburgo in modo ben poco ortodosso, e la replica che ne venne tratta, ancora oggi a Vienna, fu forse realizzata proprio allo scopo di dissimulare il dono di un oggetto così prezioso; la stessa Maria nutriva il sospetto di aver ricevuto la copia, non l’originale5. Si ritiene inoltre che l’originale, giunto a Binche, venisse collocato sulla sommità di una delle

1 2 3

4

5

Fig. 1: Giovane di Magdalensberg. XVI secolo da un’originale romano. Fusione in bronzo. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Collezione di arte antica, inv. VI 1. (©: KHMMuseumsverband.)

99

Catalogo della mostra Kurt Gschwantler, Guss und Form. Bronzen aus der Antikensammlung, Vienna 1986, 51–60, cat. 51. Catalogo della mostra Adán y Eva en Aranjuez. Investigaciones sobre la escultura en la Casa de Austria, Madrid 1992. Per la bibliografia ante 1992, cfr. Kurt Gschwantler, El “Joven del Magdalensberg”, in: Cat. Madrid 1992 (cit. nota 2), 49–69; per quella ante 2005, cfr. Walter Cupperi, Arredi statuari italiani nelle regge dei Paesi Bassi asburgici meridionali (1549–56), II: Un nuovo “Laocoonte” in gesso, i calchi dall’antico di Maria d’Ungheria e quelli della “Casa degli Omenoni” a Milano, in: Prospettiva 115/116, 2004, 170, nota 1; per un elenco delle fonti scritte antiche relative al bronzo cfr. Kurt Gschwantler, Der Jüngling vom Magdalensberg in Aranjuez. Die Suche nach dem verschollenen Original, in: Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien 89/90, 1993/1994, 335–339. Cfr. anche Kurt Gschwantler, scheda in: Mark Jones – Mario Spagnol (ed.), Sembrare e non essere. I falsi nell’arte e nella civiltà, con la collaborazione di Paul Craddock, edizione italiana a cura di Nicolas Barker e Andrea Bacchi, Milano 1993, 25–26, n. 23. Walter Cupperi, “Giving away the moulds will cause no damage to his Majesty’s casts”. New documents on the Vienna “Jüngling” and the sixteenth-century dissemination of casts after the antique in the Holy Roman Empire, in: Rune Frederiksen – Eckart Marchand (ed.), Plaster casts. Making, collecting and displaying from classical antiquity to the present, Berlino 2010, 88–90. Recentemente la vicenda del Giovane di Magdalensberg è stata indicata come esempio dell’interscambiabilità, per gli uomini del Cinquecento, di originali e copie, cfr. Cristopher Wood, Forgery, Replica, Fiction. Temporalities of German Renaissance, New York 2008, 309–310; Alexander Nagel – Cristopher Wood, Anachronic Renaissance, New York 2010, 279–280; su questo punto cfr. le puntuali precisazioni di Walter Cupperi, Introduction: Never Identical. Multiples in Pre-Modern Art?, in: Walter Cupperi (ed.), Multiples in Pre-Modern Art, Zurigo – Berlino 2014, 19–20.

torri del castello6, ma è al contrario più probabile che quel capolavoro, certamente il pezzo più prestigioso della collezione di Maria d’Ungheria, fosse sistemato in un giardino, o meglio ancora all’interno della residenza principesca. Poiché l’imperatore Massimiliano d’Asburgo non si era mostrato interessato ad acquistare il Giovane di Magdalensberg, questo nel 1519 era finito nelle mani dell’allora vescovo di Gurk, Matthäus Lang, che alla sua morte, nel 1540, l’avrebbe lasciato in eredità al vescovato di Salisburgo. In quegli anni il collezionismo antiquario era un fenomeno in continua crescita soprattutto a Roma, e comunque in Italia7; con le celebri campagne di Primaticcio a Roma del 1540 e 1545, volute da Francesco I, per il reperimento di calchi da fondere in bronzo con l’obiettivo di ornare il Castello di Fontainebleau, quel fenomeno avrebbe attraversato le Alpi8. Intanto, nel 1534, il Giovane di Magdalensberg era stato riprodotto in un’incisione delle Inscriptiones sacrosanctae vetustatis di Petrus Apianus, attirando l’attenzione di Ferdinando d’Asburgo, re di Boemia e d’Ungheria, che si rivolse al nuovo vescovo di Salisburgo, Ernesto di Baviera, per ottenere dal Capitolo della Cattedrale la donazione dell’importante bronzo. Con un atto datato 24 gennaio del 1551 il Giovane di Magdalensberg venne concesso a Ferdinando, ma solo alla condizione che l’opera non fosse poi ceduta ad altri dall’arciduca9: il bronzo, cioè, sarebbe sempre rimasto entro i confini del Sacro Romano Impero (Ferdinando, non ancora imperatore a quel tempo, risiedeva a Praga). È possibile che il Capitolo della Cattedrale di Salisburgo volesse fin da allora scongiurare la possibilità che il Giovane di Magda­ lensberg potesse finire nelle mani di un altro componente della famiglia degli Asburgo, arrivando magari fino in Spagna (come, infatti, sarebbe infine avvenuto). A questo punto intervenne Maria d’Ungheria, che nel corso della Dieta di Augusta dell’estate-autunno 1551 incontrò il fratello Ferdinando, e ottenne in dono da lui il bronzo. Bisognava però aggirare il vincolo imposto dal Capitolo della Cattedrale, e proprio alla luce di quel vincolo deve essere letta e interpretata la lettera scritta nel novembre del 1551 da Maria d’Ungheria a Ernesto di Baviera. La reggente dei Paesi Bassi faceva riferimento a un precedente accordo stipulato dal vescovo con il sovrano, secondo il quale dal Giovane di Magdalensberg sarebbe stato tratto un calco da fondere in bronzo e tenere a Salisburgo, mentre l’originale sarebbe stato inviato alla stessa Maria d’Ungheria10. Della necessità di realizzare quella replica non si era ancora parlato nel gennaio del 1551: è possibile, quindi, che il vincolo allora stabilito dal Capitolo, la non alienabilità del Giovane di Magdalensberg da parte di Ferdinando I, fosse aggirato con l’inganno, ovvero con la sostituzione dell’originale con una copia, quella che molto più tardi, nell’Ottocento, sarebbe infine giunta al Kunsthistorisches Museum di Vienna, sostituita a sua volta da un’altra copia11. A confermare questa ipotesi sarebbero due notizie documentarie di grande interesse. 6 7

Cupperi 2004 (cit. nota 3), 159. La bibliografia sul tema è naturalmente vastissima; su Roma cfr. almeno Kathleen Wren Christian, Empire without end. Antiquities collections in Renaissance Rome, c. 1350–1527, New Haven 2010. Su Firenze, cfr. Luigi Beschi, Le antichità di Lorenzo il Magnifico. Caratteri e vicende, in: Paola Barocchi – Giovanna Ragionieri (ed.), Gli Uffizi. Quattro secoli di una Galleria, atti del convegno internazionale di studi (Firenze, 20–24 settembre 1982), 2 voll., Firenze 1983, I, 161–176; Luigi Beschi, Le sculture antiche di Lorenzo il Magnifico, in: Gian Carlo Garfagnini (ed.), Lorenzo il Magnifico e il suo mondo, convegno internazionale di studi (Firenze, 9–13 giugno 1992), Firenze 1994, 291–317; Francesco Caglioti, Due “restauratori” per le antichità dei primi Medici. Mino da Fiesole, Andrea del Verrocchio e il “Marsia rosso” degli Uffizi, in: Prospettiva 72, 1993, 17–42; e Prospettiva 73/74, 1994, 74–96. Su Mantova cfr. Clifford M. Brown – Anna Maria Lorenzoni – Sally Hickson, Per dare qualche splendore a la gloriosa cità di Mantua. Documents for the Antiquarian Collection of Isabelle d’Este, Roma 2001. Sul Veneto, e in particolare Padova, cfr. Giulio Bodon, Veneranda antiquitas. Studi sull’eredità dell’antico nella rinascenza veneta, Bern 2005. 8 Francis Haskell – Nicholas Penny, Taste and the Antique. The Lure of Classical Sculpture 1500–1900, New Haven 1981, 1–6; Janet Cox-Rearick, The Collection of Francis I. Royal Treasures, Anversa 1995, 325–335, in particolare 335 e 360–361, cat. X-12. 9 Su tutta questa vicenda cfr. Cupperi 2010 (cit. nota 4), 87–88, con bibliografia precedente. 10 Cupperi 2010 (cit. nota 4), 89 e 96. 11 Cupperi 2010 (cit. nota 4), 92, nota 28.

100

Prima ancora di essere trasferito nel castello di Binche, il bronzo inviato da Salis­ burgo venne esaminato, a Bruxelles, dallo scultore Jacques Dubrœucq per conto di Maria d’Ungheria, determinata a stabilirne con certezza l’autenticità, ovvero la sua antichità12. La notizia trova un’interessante precedente nella verifica, fatta effettua-

Fig. 2: Baccio Bandinelli (?), Venere del Belvedere. 1558/59 da un’originale antico. Fusione in bronzo. Madrid, Museo del Prado, inv. E00171. (©: Madrid, Museo del Prado.)

re da un’altra committente rinascimentale d’eccezione, ovvero Isabella d’Este, appassionata come Maria di antichità, su alcuni pezzi che gli erano stati da poco venduti. La marchesa di Mantova, in una lettera del 31 maggio 1529, reclamava indietro i soldi e si dichiarava pronta a restituire i pezzi, poiché due scultori e un antiquario di sua fiducia avevano dichiarato che si trattava di opere moderne13. Evidenetemente la reggente dei Paesi Bassi temeva che Ernesto di Baviera, magari in accordo col Capitolo, potesse averle spedito la replica contemporanea, tenendo per sé l’originale: in fondo era stata proprio Maria, con ogni probabilità, a suggerire al fratello quello stratagemma. Fin dal 1549 Maria, attarverso Leone Leoni, si era adoperata per ottenere, dalla Francia, i calchi che Primaticcio aveva tratto dagli orignali antichi, calchi dai quali Luca Lancia, ‘creato’ dello stesso Primaticcio, avrebbe iniziato a realizzare delle fusioni in bronzo a partire dal 155114: la reggente, cioè, sapeva forse meglio del vescovo di Salisburgo e del fratello Ferdinando quanto fedeli agli originali potessero essere delle repliche tratte da calchi modellati sugli esemplari antichi. È possibile che Dubrœucq, al pari degli esperti interpellati a Mantova da Isabella d’Este venti anni prima, avesse dato parere negativo sull’autenticità del bronzo, poiché nell’inventario post mortem dei beni di Maria d’Ungheria, stilato a partire dal 19 ottobre 1558, l’opera è citata come “Una estatua de bronze vaziada de Aulo Publiçio”15. La statua di bronzo era quindi definita ‘vaziada’, ovvero ‘fusa’, e identificata con una raffigurazione di “Aulo Publiçio” in ragione della lunga iscrizione che recava sulla coscia, riportata da Cassiano dal Pozzo nel 1625 (quando la scultura si trovava ormai da tempo in Spagna): “una figura d’un giovane similmente, e senza adornamento alcuno in testa, e ha nella coscia dritta la seguente inscrittione, che scorre per essa in due righe per la lunghezza della coscia: A. POBLICIUS. D. L. ANTIOC. / TI BARBIUSO. P. L. TIBER”16. Al contrario, nel medesimo inventario del 1558, l’opera a cui era accostato il Giovane di Magdalensberg veniva indicata come ‘antica’: “Otra estatua de bronze, antigua, de una muger”17. Questo secondo bronzo è identificabile con la Venere oggi al Prado (fig. 2), fusa a partire da un calco da un’originale di marmo antico noto come la Venere del Belvedere18: paradossalmente, quindi, l’originale del Giovane di Magdalensberg veniva indicato semplicemente come una “estatua de bronze vaziada”, mentre la replica rinascimentale della Venere del Belvedere era detta “antigua”. In merito a tutta questa vicenda è poi altrettanto significativo che Johann Stainhauser (1570–1625), nella sua Salzburger Kirchenbeschreibung del 1594, descrivendo la copia del Giovane di Magdalensberg, allora collocata su una fontana di un giardino di Salisburgo, riferisse la voce secondo cui quella non sarebbe stata l’originale, inviato magari a Vienna o a Praga anni prima, bensì una replica19: se si trattava solo di un sospetto, forse era perché a Salisburgo si era cercato di nascondere l’invio 12 Su questo punto, cfr. infra. 13 Giovanni Gaye, Carteggio inedito d’artisti dei secoli XIV, XV, XVI, 3 voll., Firenze 1839–1840, II, 192–193; Nagel – Wood 2010 (cit. nota 5), 296. 14 Cupperi 2004 (cit. nota 3), 160. 15 Per l’inventario in questione, cfr. Fernando Checa Cremades (ed.), Los inventarios de Carlos V y la familia imperial / The inventories of Charles V and the imperial family, 3 voll., Madrid 2010, III, 2947. 16 Alessandra Anselmi, Il diario del viaggio in Spagna del cardinale Francesco Barberini scritto da Cassiano dal Pozzo, Madrid 2004, 75. 17 Cupperi 2004 (cit. nota 3), 160. 18 Su questo bronzo, in passato attribuito ad Ammannati, cfr. Stefano Pierguidi, Baccio Bandinelli, Carlo V e una nuova ipotesi sulla Venere bronzea del Prado, in: Boletìn del Museo del Prado XXX/48, 2012, 34–49 (con bibliografia precedente). 19 Gschwantler 1992 (cit. nota 3), 53–54.

101

dell’originale a Maria d’Ungheria. Dell’autentico Giovane di Magdalensberg, ad ogno modo, nell’Impero si erano ormai perse le tracce. Come già anticipato, si ritiene generalmente che al suo arrivo nei Paesi Bassi meridionali il Giovane di Magdalensberg venisse collocato sopra una delle due torri del castello di Binche, a pendant con un bronzo moderno, oggi perduto, realizzato da Jacques Dubrœucq; quest’ultimo, secondo la critica, avrebbe raffigurato o un Eolo o un Mercurio20. Rileggendo con attenzione i documenti relativi a questa vicenda, però, sembrerebbe dedursi che fossero due i bronzi fusi dallo scultore fiammingo, un Eolo e un Mercurio, appunto, e che il bronzo antico non venisse mai collocato su una delle torri del castello. Tra il 1 maggio 1548 e il 30 aprile 1550 Dubrœucq venne pagato “pour la fachon du modelle de terre qu’il a fait pur contrefaire le grand Eolus de cuyvre, qui servira sur la grande thour de lad. Maison”21. Poi, circa due anni dopo, nel corso del 1552, lo scultore venne pagato per recarsi a Bruxelles con l’obiettivo di verificare “si la figure de cuyvre venue de nouveau d’Allemaigne [il Giovane di Magdalensberg] estoit anticque ou non. […] Et pou avoir esté quérir le xiie jour d’avril enssuivant, en lad. ville de Bruxelles, avec le cherriot de Maryemont la dicte figure ensemble le mercure de cuyvre servant à mectre sur la thour de Binch.”22 Quindi, nel 1552, Dubrœucq portò a Binche le due statue, quella di cui avrebbe dovuto accertare l’antichità, e l’altra, il Mercurio moderno, verosimilmente realizzato da lui stesso, che sarebbe stato collocato sull’altra torre del castello, a pendant con l’Eolo già fuso alcuni anni prima. A Dubrœucq erano state quindi commissionate due statue raffiguranti il dio dei venti, Eolo, e il messaggero degli dèi, il velocissimo Mercurio, che un’antica tradizione associava ai venti primaverili, come attestano figurativamente la Primavera di Botticelli (1478 circa; Firenze, Uffizi), un rilievo di Agostino di Duccio del Tempio Malatestiano di Rimini (1449–1457 circa) e, soprattutto, sempre in area fiamminga, un’incisione di Jacob Matham da Bartholomeus Spranger (1611–1614 circa)23: due figure, quindi, perfettamente adatte ad essere collocate in cima a delle torri. È peraltro plausibile ipotizzare che il secondo bronzo fuso da Dubrœucq fosse in qualche modo esemplato sul Giovane di Magdalensberg, fornito di attributi che ne potessero agevolare l’identificazione con il dio greco: anche la replica rimasta a Salisburgo, infatti, veniva indicata come un Mercurio da Stainhauser nel 159424. In fondo non era troppo credibile l’ipotesi che Maria d’Ungheria collocasse quel prestigioso bronzo ritenuto antico, pur con qualche dubbio, in cima ad una delle torri di Binche, in una condizione di limitata visibilità, né la sua iconografia estremamente generica (nei documenti, come si è visto, era indicato come una “figure de cuyvre”) avrebbe potuto suggerire quella sistemazione. Più naturale sarebbe stato utilizzare il Giovane di Magdalensberg per ornare una fontana dei giardini di Binche: i bronzi che Luca Lancia aveva fuso dai calchi della Cleopratra e del Nilo erano stati infatti collocati nel ‘Giardino Nuovo’ del castello25. Anche in seguito, quando nel 1586 Federico Zuccari vide quel bronzo in Spagna, ad Aranjuez, il Giovane di Magdalensberg era collocato, insieme alla Venere oggi al Prado, all’ingresso del ‘Jardín de la Isla’26. Sembra però anche più probabile che Maria d’Ungheria avesse deciso di riservare un trattamento davvero speciale a quel bronzo e alla Venere, giudicata genuinamente antica, su cui era riuscita a mettere le mani. Al tempo dell’in-

20 Cupperi 2004 (cit. nota 3), 159 e 170, nota 1; Cupperi 2010 (cit. nota 4), 90, nota 24. 21 Robert Hedicke, Jacques Dubroeucq von Mons. Ein niederländischer Meister aus der Frühzeit des italienischen Einflusses, Strasburgo 1904, 263, doc. 32. 22 Hedicke 1904 (cit. nota 21), 267, doc. 55. 23 Charles Dempsey, The Portrayal of Love. Botticelli’s Primavera and Humanist Culture at the Time of Lorenzo the Magnificent, Princeton 1992, 38–42. 24 Gschwantler 1992 (cit. nota 3), 54. 25 Cupperi 2004 (cit. nota 3), 160–161. 26 Il pittore indicò le opere come “due statue di bronzo antiche molto bone”, cfr. Jesus Domínguez Bordona, Federico Zúccaro en España, in: Archivo español de arte y arqueología 3, 1927, 84.

102

vasione Francese dei Paesi Bassi, nel 1554, il castello di Binche venne praticamente raso al suolo, ed è ragionevole credere che in quell’anno andarono perduti sia il Mercurio e l’Eolo di Dubrœucq posti sulle torri, sia il Nilo e la Cleopratra di Lancia collocati nel giardino. Nel già citato inventario del 1558, infatti, si rintracciano facilmente il Giovane di Magdalensberg e la Venere oggi al Prado, mentre sono assenti gli altri bronzi di Dubrœucq e Lancia. Sembra allora verosimile che quei due bronzi, ritenuti del tutto eccezionali, non facessero parte dell’arredo permanente del castello e dei suoi giardini, ma fossero piuttosto collocati all’interno, come veri e propri oggetti da collezione, e come tali fossero portati via da Binche da Maria d’Ungheria al momento di abbandonare i Paesi Bassi meridionali invasi dai Francesi.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG

1986 wurde der sogenannte Jüngling vom Magdalensberg des Kunsthistorischen Museums in Wien, der lange Zeit als wichtigste und berühmteste antike und nördlich der Alpen gefundene Bronzestatue gegolten hatte, als Renaissance-Replik des 1502 in Kärnten gefundenen Originals erkannt. Die Bronze wird heute mit einiger Sicherheit ins Jahr 1551 datiert, da man einen Brief Marias von Ungarn fand, die im darauffolgenden Jahr in den Besitz des Originals kam, das von Salzburg nach Brüssel und von da nach Binche geschickt worden war, einer Residenz der Königin. Um diese antike Bronze in ihre Hände zu bekommen, nutzte Maria von Ungarn all ihren Einfluss und all ihre List. Die Fachwelt hat tatsächlich nicht darauf hingewiesen, wie der Jüngling vom Magdalensberg auf wenig orthodoxe Weise aus Salzburg abreiste, und die Replik, die sich noch heute in Wien befindet, wurde vielleicht gerade zu dem Zweck angefertigt, um die Schenkung eines so kostbaren Objekts zu verschleiern. Maria selbst hegte den Verdacht, eine Replik und nicht das Original erhalten zu haben. Man ist überdies der Ansicht, dass das Original nach seiner Ankunft in Binche oben auf einem der Türme des Schlosses aufgestellt wurde; hingegen ist es wesentlich wahrscheinlicher, dass dieses Meisterwerk, sicherlich das prestigeträchtigste Stück der Sammlung Marias von Ungarn, in einem Garten landete oder eher noch im Inneren der Residenz.

103

Gianluca Tormen

Appunti sulle terrecotte invetriate nella collezione (e nelle memorie di viaggio) di Tommaso degli Obizzi*

Il 29 novembre 1797 il marchese Tommaso degli Obizzi (1750‒1803) lasciava il castello del Catajo – cinquecentesco edificio che si erge con la sua mole ai piedi dei Colli Euganei, non distante da Padova – in compagnia dei due servitori, Giacomo Finco e Roberto Coletti, per mettersi in viaggio alla volta di Bologna. La città felsinea costituiva la prima tappa di un itinerario ben più articolato che lo avrebbe condotto in Toscana, Umbria e Marche, per fare ritorno a Padova a fine gennaio 1798. Un interessante tour che conosciamo nei quotidiani dettagli grazie alle memorie di un inedito taccuino nel quale il nobiluomo ha registrato – non sempre però con il medesimo scrupolo – le sensazioni, gli avvenimenti, le visite compiute, le persone incontrate nonché gli acquisti di oggetti d’antichità e arte effettuati al fine di arricchire le personali raccolte1: anche (o soprattutto forse) in virtù del soddisfacimento dei desiderata collezionistici, infatti, l’itinerario sembra fosse stato da lui pianificato. Nel corso dei suoi ripetuti spostamenti in centro Italia, il marchese fece due distinte soste a Firenze, di diversa durata: la capitale del Granducato costituì il nodo nevralgico di quell’articolato itinerario, città ove risiedevano numerosi conoscenti e amici tra i quali Gaetano Cristofano Galeazzi, per decenni fidato e solerte amministratore dei suoi beni e possedimenti in terra toscana, al servizio degli Obizzi già ai tempi del padre di Tommaso, il marchese Ferdinando (1701‒1768). Lungi dal voler riassumere ogni singola tappa di quell’esperienza odeporica (prassi non inconsueta, stando alle fonti, nella generale biografia dell’Obizzi), mi preme piuttosto soffermare l’attenzione su di un particolare aspetto culturale che ebbe significativi risvolti a livello di scelte collezionistiche da parte del nobiluomo: intendo la “scoperta” ed il conseguente acquisto di un ristretto, ma non per questo trascurabile, nucleo di terrecotte invetriate (fra cui alcune autentiche robbiane) che contribuirono a conferire alle collezioni del Catajo una particolare fisionomia, tanto più se rapportata con le molte altre raccolte d’arte presenti al tempo nei territori soggetti al dominio della Serenissima. Incrociando le memorie di viaggio del marchese con alcune lettere e ricevute di acquisti a lui indirizzate, è possibile fare maggiore chiarezza su alcuni *

Fig. 1: Scultore robbiano d’inizio Cinquecento (Andrea della Robbia?), Scipione l’Africano. Terracotta invetriata. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Kunstkammer, inv. KK 7491. (©: KHM-Museumsverband.)



1

105

Desidero esprimere il mio più sincero ringraziamento a Giancarlo Gentilini, Enrica Neri Lusanna, Simona Pasquinucci e Linda Pisani per avermi gentilmente fornito preziosi consigli e suggerimenti. A Chiara Ceschi e Ilenia Maschietto la mia gratitudine per il supporto e l’aiuto nel corso delle ricerche. Il taccuino di viaggio del marchese degli Obizzi si conserva presso la Biblioteca Civica di Padova [da ora BCPd], C.M. 488: “Obizzi (degli). Itinerario da Finale a Roma. Altro dal Catajo a Venezia. 1797‒98”. Nonostante la segnatura con cui il documento è registrato, al suo interno non si fa alcuna menzione alla città di Roma, o ad un soggiorno da parte di Tommaso degli Obizzi nell’Urbe. L’edizione critica del taccuino è in corso di pubblicazione a cura dello scrivente.

aspetti del suo gusto e della sua attività di collezionista, senza dubbio uno dei più singolari e importanti nel Veneto della fine del XVIII secolo. Il giorno successivo al suo arrivo a Firenze, uscito in compagnia del Galeazzi, Tommaso registrò gli eventi nel personale diario con le seguenti parole: “[6 dicembre 1797] me ne andiedi fuor di casa e acquistai dal Commissario di un morto Pittore, li seguenti generi: una testa di Bacco a lume di giallo antico; No 6 pezzi di terra della rubia; moltissime frecce, un arco, e 2 turcassi; 2 Quadri antichi a trittico della maniera di Giotto, e due superbissimi modelli d’armatura. Ma prima avevo acquistato un zecchino antico Papale dal signor Ferdinando Cordelies”2, personaggio, quest’ultimo, non meglio identificato ma che da diversi documenti conservati nel fondo di manoscritti obizziani sappiamo aveva svolto commercio di antichità e opere d’arte, forse soltanto in qualità di mediatore. È interessante notare, pur nel ristretto quanto generico elenco di oggetti menzionati, la varietà delle tipologie di appartenenza: plastica fittile invetriata, frammenti antichi, tavole di Primitivi, una moneta e diverse armi. Giova ricordare che la circolarità degli interessi del marchese spaziava in tutti i possibili campi di applicazione del collezionismo3 e che al Catajo, oltre alla grandiosa sala delle antichità, vera spina dorsale del suo complesso sistema museale, l’altro ambiente di vaste dimensioni era proprio la sala delle armi che Tommaso curò sempre con profondo zelo, in ossequiosa memoria degli illustri e valorosi antenati che seppero distinguersi sui campi di battaglia nella plurisecolare storia dinastica4. Come già ho avuto modo di precisare in altra sede5, sulla base della documentazione archivistica presa in esame è stato possibile risalire a quale collezione fossero appartenute tutte le opere menzionate. Nell’Archivio di Stato di Padova, che conserva il maggior numero di documenti relativi agli Obizzi, è presente un fascicolo che contiene diverse ricevute relative ad acquisti di antichità e oggetti d’arte effettuati da Tommaso, in particolare fra il 1798 e il 1803, anno della morte. Ricevute utili per poter risalire, in taluni casi, al riconoscimento dei pezzi stessi (soprattutto dipinti di Primitivi) oggi conservati al Kunsthistorisches Museum di Vienna, alla Národní Galerie di Praga e nel vicino castello di Konopiště, oltre che alla Galleria Estense di Modena. Tra quelle carte vi è una minuta, datata 29 gennaio 1798 (sottoscritta in occasione della spedizione dei pezzi al Catajo acquistati dal marchese il 6 dicembre precedente), in grado di svelare l’identità del “morto pittore” così come quella dell’agente incaricato di sovrintendere alla liquidazione dei suoi beni pur in presenza, a quanto sembra, di un legittimo erede. Tale documento riporta infatti la “Nota dell’appresso 2

3

4

5

106

BCPd, C.M. 488: “Obizzi (degli). Itinerario” (cit. nota 1), cc. 6v‒7r. Si veda al riguardo Gianluca Tormen, “Una picciola Atene sempre crescente”: aspetti e problemi della collezione Obizzi, in: Elena Corradini (ed.), Gli Estensi e il Cataio. Aspetti del collezionismo tra Sette e Ottocento, Milano 2007, 87‒99, in particolare 92. Il testo obizziano è stato normalizzato nell’uso della punteggiatura, delle doppie e delle lettere maiuscole/minuscole per una più agevole comprensione. Sulla collezione Obizzi, si vedano i contributi di Pier Luigi e Paola Fantelli, L’inventario della colle­ zione Obizzi al Catajo, in: Bollettino del Museo Civico di Padova, a. LXXII, 1982, 101‒115 (in particolare l’Introduzione); Pier Luigi Fantelli, La collezione di Tommaso degli Obizzi al Catajo, in: Venezia e l’Archeologia. Un importante capitolo nella storia del gusto dell’antico nella cultura artistica veneziana, Congresso internazionale (Venezia, 25‒29 maggio 1988), Roma 1990, 95‒99; Irene Favaretto, Arte antica e cultura antiquaria nelle collezioni venete al tempo della Serenissima, Roma 1990, 243‒247; Gianluca Tormen, Le “lettere numismatiche” di Enrico Sanclemente a Tommaso degli Obizzi, in: Bollettino del Museo Civico di Padova, a. LXXXVII, 1998 (2000), 183‒221; Idem, Filippo Aurelio Visconti al Catajo e l’inventario del “Gabinetto di Storia Naturale” del Museo Obizzi, in: Patavium. Rivista veneta di Scienze dell’Antichità e dell’Alto Medioevo 19, 2000, 85‒120; Idem, La collezione di disegni e incisioni di Tommaso degli Obizzi, in: Arte Veneta 58, 2003, 237‒252, e, da ultimo, Idem, Ritratti dei Medici dal Catajo: per la storia dei rapporti tra i Granduchi di Toscana e gli Obizzi, in: Saggi e Memorie di storia dell’arte 36, 2012, 115‒136. Per una sintesi dei principali esponenti della famiglia vissuti fra il Quattro e il Settecento, vedi ancora Gianluca Tormen, Obizzi, voce in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, 79, 2013, 59‒63. L’armeria è ricordata già dal Padre Paolino da San Bartolomeo, carmelitano scalzo, che la visitò a fine Settecento al seguito del cardinale Stefano Borgia: cfr. Paulino a S. Bartholomaeo, Mumiographia Musei Obi­ ciani, Patavii 1799, 9. Cfr. Tormen 2007 (cit. nota 2).

robe vendute dall’Eredità del Sig. Tommaso Gherardini a Sua Eccellenza Marchese Brigadiere Tommaso degl’Obizzi per la somma d’accordo di scudi Trentasei fiorentini”: nell’elenco sono segnati, in modo dettagliato, “Un dittico o sia Tabernacolo con fondo dorato rappresentante la Madonna, e Santi, con suoi sportellini / Un quadro in legno fondo come sopra rappresentante l’incoronazione della SS. Vergine con molti Angeli e figure / Una Madonna della Robbia ovata con il Bambino Gesù, in colori, contorno di frutta, e cornice di legno / Altro ovato simile colla Madonna, e Bambin Gesù, non coloriti, e ornamento di frutta / Altro quadretto di Robb[i]a rappresentante una Pietà, e alcuni Santi / Tre Putti di detta terra / Due Modellini d’Armature di Ferro / Cinque Mazzi di frecce e una Custodia per dette / Un Calcesso con alcune Freccie / Una piccola Testa di Marmo antico rappresentante Sileno”. Tale minuta venne siglata da Antonio Frangioni che si firmava in qualità di “uno degli Esecutori Testamentari della Suddetta Eredità Gherardini”6. Appena giunto a Firenze, l’Obizzi riuscì dunque ad aggiudicarsi un cospicuo gruppo di preziosi oggetti per le collezioni del Catajo provenienti tutti dalla raccolta di Tommaso Gherardini (1715‒1797), pittore di impronta classicista, molto apprezzato anche dal Granduca di Toscana Pietro Leopoldo d’Asburgo-Lorena. Allievo di Vincenzo Meucci (1694‒1766), da lui Gherardini aveva appreso l’arte di dipingere a monocromo finti bassorilievi ed eleganti cammei all’antica, di cui divenne presto indiscusso mae­ stro7, collaborando a diverse imprese decorative nelle residenze granducali suburbane, la più importante e prestigiosa delle quali rimane il ciclo di affreschi – celebrativi della politica virtuosa e illuminata del Granduca – nella villa medicea del Poggio Imperiale, eseguiti a fianco del collega Giuliano Traballesi (1727‒1812)8. Gherardini realizzò altresì ventiquattro cammei a monocromo nella neoclassica Sala della Niobe, ambiente appositamente allestito agli Uffizi per accogliere le quattordici statue antiche rappresentati il noto gruppo mitologico, approdato a Firenze nel 1770 dopo essere stato prelevato dalla residenza romana di Villa Medici9. La rigorosa formazione e il gusto inclini al classicismo, uniti alla seduzione e al fascino dell’antico imperanti alla fine del XVIII secolo, non gli impedirono in ogni caso di orientare le proprie scelte collezionistiche anche in favore di inusuali, quanto elitarie, testimonianze dei primordi dell’arte. Non deve sorprendere allora, nella sua personale raccolta, la presenza di tavole e fondi oro dei maestri cosiddetti Primitivi, gli artisti attivi in modo particolare fra il XIII e la fine del XV secolo: nel 1782 il Gherardini, che solo pochi anni prima era subentrato al Trabellesi in qualità di consulente e artista di fiducia del direttore della Galleria degli Uffizi, Giuseppe Pelli Bencivenni (1729‒1808), venne incaricato da quest’ultimo di periziare i dipinti di proprietà della Camera di commercio che il direttore volle destinare alla Galleria nell’occasione del suo radicale e innovativo riassetto museografico10. Fra i 6

Archivio di Stato di Padova [da ora ASPd], Archivi Privati. Archivio Obizzi – Casa d’Austria d’Este, busta 478: “Ricevute n. 76 da 3 Gennaio 1798 a 3 Dicembre 1801 che giustificano le compere d’articoli d’Antiquaria, e spese per le spedizioni a Sua Eccellenza il N.U. Marchese Tommaso delli Obizzi, in £. 543.1.1 posti a uscita ne 21 Dicembre 1801”; quella qui menzionata è la ricevuta n. 5 del 29 gennaio 1798. 7 Tommaso Gherardini era ritenuto infatti il migliore “nell’arte di dipingere i bassorilievi i quali appariscono o di marmo o di stucco”, secondo l’opinione espressa da Orazio Marrini nella sua Serie di ritratti di celebri pittori dipinti di propria mano in seguito a quelli pubblicati nel Museo Fiorentino esistente appresso l’abate Antonio Pazzi con brevi notizie intorno ai medesimi, vol. II, parte II, Firenze 1776, pp. XXVII–XXVIII. Sull’attività dell’artista fiorentino, in generale, vedi Stefano Coltellacci, Gherardini, Tommaso, voce in: Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, 53, Roma 2000. 8 Per l’attività di frescante del Gherardini nella villa del Poggio Imperiale, si veda Ornella Panichi, III.2. Le decorazioni murali del “Quartiere nobile” al piano terreno, in: Roberta Roani (ed.), Fasto di Corte. La decorazione murale nelle residenze dei Medici e dei Lorena, vol. IV: L’età lorenese – La Reggenza e Pietro Leopoldo, Firenze 2009, 63–78. 9 Per la serie dei “cammei”, cfr. Licia Pellegrini Boni, La Galleria degli Uffizi in età neoclassica: alcuni documenti inediti nell’Archivio di Stato di Firenze, in: Paragone Arte 387, 1982, 81–96. Sulla realizzazione e decorazione della Sala della Niobe, invece, vedi Antonio Natali ‒ Antonella Romualdi (ed.), Il Teatro di Niobe. La rinascita agli Uffizi d’una sala regia, Firenze 2009. 10 Ricavo questa informazione dal profilo biografico del Gherardini a cura di Stefano Coltellacci 2000 (cit. nota 7).

107

­ ipinti esaminati figuravano senza dubbio tavole e polittici di Primitivi nonché i d fondi oro, opere di cui il pittore poté agevolmente entrare in possesso anche in virtù del fatto che la moderna politica di riorganizzazione del Granducato voluta da Pietro Leopoldo d’Asburgo aveva decretato, in quegli anni, la soppressione di monasteri, conventi e corporazioni religiose con la conseguente confisca, incameramento o dispersione all’incanto dei loro rispettivi patrimoni, riversando così sul mercato antiquario una notevole disponibilità di siffatte pitture, appetibili a una ristretta cerchia di estimatori per il loro ancora scarso valore commerciale11. Poco sappiamo, purtroppo, circa la consistenza della collezione Gherardini nonché le modalità della sua formazione12, tuttavia gli oggetti menzionati nel taccuino obizziano ce ne restituiscono una parziale, ma al tempo stesso ben chiara, fisionomia tale da documentare, seppure indirettamente, il suo gusto. Sulla base della ricordata ricevuta delle opere vendute al marchese degli Obizzi, possiamo allora avanzare l’ipotesi che quel “quadro in legno fondo come sopra [ossia d’oro] rappresentante l’incoronazione della SS. Vergine con molti Angeli e figure” sia da identificare con l’Incoronazione della Vergine di Niccolò di Tommaso, tavola cuspidata oggi conservata alla Národní Galerie di Praga13. Furono però le terrecotte invetriate a rivestire il ruolo principe in quella transazione: ben sei stando all’elenco più sopra ricordato (cui se ne aggiunse presto una settima, come si vedrà), di cui tre raffiguranti Putti reggi festone, due stanti in precario equilibrio nelle loro pose ancheggianti su piccoli peducci ornati al centro con un fiore, e uno seduto (figg. 2‒4). Rivestiti di candido smalto, i puttini portano sulle spalle piccole porzioni di festone con foglie, fiori e frutti14 e appaiono molto simili, a titolo d’esempio, a quelli conservati presso la Pinacoteca Comunale di Città di Castello (provenienti dalla locale Chiesa di San Giovanni15) come pure a quello conservato al Musée des Beaux-Arts di Amiens16: esemplari tutti di una fortunata produzione di siffatte creazioni più volte replicate, con piccole varianti, da Andrea della Robbia e che saranno poi riprese (talvolta con esiti meno felici) anche dal figlio Giovanni, come i due Putti reggi festone del Museo Bandini di Fiesole, risalenti forse alla sua produzione giovanile17. Anche per i tre esemplari viennesi, forse, è da 11

12

13

14

15

16

17

108

Si veda, in particolare, quanto scrive Ludovica Sebregondi, La soppressione delle confraternite fiorentine: la dispersione di un patrimonio, le possibilità residue della sua salvaguardia, in: Liana Bertoldi Lenoci (ed.), Confraternite, chiese e società. Aspetti e problemi dell’associazionismo laicale europeo in età moderna e contemporanea, in: Biblioteca della Ricerca X, 1994, 457‒501. Nel 1797, poco dopo la morte del pittore, vennero intraprese dai funzionari della Galleria degli Uffizi alcune trattative finalizzate all’acquisto di una nutrita serie di disegni e incisioni della sua collezione, trattativa destinata però a cadere nel vuoto per le richieste di denaro ritenute eccessive. Cfr. Ettore Spalletti, Tommaso Puccini e il “nuovo ordine, e risalto maggiore” dato alla Galleria, in: Miriam Fileti Mazza ‒ Ettore Spalletti ‒ Bruna M. Tomasello, La Galleria rinnovata e accresciuta. Gli Uffizi nella prima età lorenese, Firenze 2008, 73‒134, in particolare 102. Vedi Olga Pujmanová ‒ Petr Přibyl, National Gallery in Prague. Italian Painting c. 1330‒1550, Praga 2008, 158‒159. L’opera, alla luce di un cartellino incollato al tempo sul retro, venne venduta all’Obizzi con una attribuzione a Cimabue. I tre Putti si conservano oggi nella Kunstkammer del Kunsthistorisches Museum di Vienna (Kunstkammer, invv. KK 7487‒7489). Vedi al riguardo Leo Planiscig, Die Estensische Kunstsammlung, Band I: Skulpturen und Plastiken des Mittelalters und der Renaissance, Vienna 1919, 74. Nel volume essi vennero pubblicati tramite fotografie d’epoca ove compaiono ancora in possesso di festoni più grandi, frutto di integrazioni successive, oggi rimosse. Nell’inventario di trasferimento della collezione Obizzi dal Catajo a Vienna (spedizione seconda del 17 agosto 1896), i due Putti stanti vengono così ricordati: “Cassa N. 504. Due Putti in Majolica in figura intiera ritti sulla persona con festoni di fiori e frutti in parte risarciti in calce a colori” (cfr. Gianluca Tormen, Ad ornamentum Imperii: il trasferimento della collezione Obizzi a Vienna a fine Ottocento, in: Saggi e Memorie di storia dell’arte 34, 2010, 173‒254, 234 per la citazione. Il puttino seduto si trovava invece “infisso nel muro in latteria (prima serviva come cucina sotto il portico rustico)”, idem, 225 (cassa N. 401 della medesima spedizione). Si veda la scheda II.21 di Francesca Petrucci in: catalogo della mostra Giancarlo Gentilini (ed.), I Della Robbia e l’“arte nuova” della scultura invetriata, Fiesole (Basilica di Sant’Alessandro) ‒ Firenze 1998, 212‒214. Per l’esemplare del museo di Amiens, vedi catalogo della mostra Jean-René Gaborit ‒ Marc Bormand (ed.), Les Della Robbia. Sculptures en terre cuite émaillée de la Renaissance italienne, Nizza (Musée national Message Biblique Marc Chagall) 2002 ‒ Sèvres (Musée national de Céramique) 2002–2003, 90. Cfr. Cristina Gnoni Mavarelli (ed.), Museo Bandini di Fiesole. Guida alla visita del museo e alla scoperta del territorio, Livorno 2011, 91–92.

Fig. 2: Giovanni della Robbia (?), Putto reggi festone. Inizi del XVI secolo. Terracotta invetriata. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Kunstkammer, inv. KK 7487. (©: KHM-Museumsverband.) Fig. 3: Giovanni della Robbia (?), Putto reggi festone. Inizi del XVI secolo. Terracotta invetriata. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Kunstkammer, inv. KK 7489. (©: KHM-Museumsverband.) Fig. 4: Giovanni della Robbia (?), Putto reggi festone. Inizi del XVI secolo. Terracotta invetriata. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Kunstkammer, inv. KK 7488. (©: KHM-Museumsverband.)

Fig. 5: Francesco della Robbia (Fra’ Ambrogio), Madonna con il Bambino. Prima metà del XVI secolo. Terracotta invetriata. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Kunstkammer, inv. KK 7492. (©: KHM-Museumsverband.)

109

restituire la paternità a Giovanni della Robbia (1469–1529/30), più che non al padre: un putto molto simile a quello seduto di Vienna, infatti, si conserva presso il Museo Statale Ermitage di San Pietroburgo, proveniente dalla raccolta Stroganov, tale da costituirne un vero e proprio pendant18. La postura di quest’ultimo è pressoché identica, seppure in controparte, alla figurina un tempo nella collezione Obizzi, e anche l’angioletto dell’Ermitage tiene in mano un piccolo frutto. Ad un confronto sul piano stilistico, inoltre, pare vi si riscontrino in entrambi i medesimi caratteri anatomici oltre che fisiognomici – per non parlare della stessa ‘esuberanza’ dei festoni vegetali e la preziosità cromatica – che li rendono particolarmente affini ai loro omologhi posti sul coronamento del lavabo della fiorentina sagrestia di Santa Maria Novella, opera questa ben documentata degli esordi di Giovanni databile al 1498‒149919. Si è fatto riferimento poco sopra alla raccolta del Museo Bandini: la collezione di robbiane e terrecotte invetriate che l’abate Angelo Maria Bandini (1726‒1803) aveva radunato e suggestivamente allestito nell’Oratorio di Sant’Ansano a Fiesole a partire dal 1795 (assieme a un consistente nucleo di tavole e fondi oro dei pittori toscani dei primi secoli della rinascita delle arti) vantava ben ventidue pezzi, la più ricca che si potesse allora conoscere e ammirare, un vero unicum nel panorama toscano20. Sappiamo dagli studi di Magnolia Scudieri che il 7 settembre 1797 l’abate aveva acquistato con un esborso di “lire sessantatré […] una lunetta di terra della Robbia rappresentante il Battesimo di S. Gio. Battista”: si tratta della lunetta con L’incontro di Gesù e il Battista fanciulli (opera la cui paternità è stata restituita a Benedetto Buglioni), ceduta all’abate da Antonio Frangioni. Tale nome ci riporta con la memoria alla vendita fatta dallo stesso mediatore a Tommaso degli Obizzi e sembra dunque legittimo, a questo punto, il sospetto che anche la lunetta del Buglioni possa provenire dalla medesima eredità Gherardini, alla luce altresì dello scarto cronologico di soli pochi mesi che separa le due vendite ai rispettivi collezionisti21. Sempre dal Frangioni il marchese padovano, oltre ai Putti reggi festone, aveva acquistato due rilievi tondi in terracotta invetriata, oggi anch’essi nella Kunstkammer del Kunsthistorisches Museum: il primo dei quali rappresenta, stando alla ricevuta di acquisto, “Una Madonna della Robbia ovata con il Bambino Gesù, in colori, contorno di frutta”, da identificare senza dubbio nel rilievo raffigurante la Madonna con il Bambino (fig. 5) circondato da una rigogliosa ghirlanda di fiori e frutti fra cui spiccano pere, limoni, cetrioli, grappoli d’uva e pigne22. Sotto il mantello di un luminoso azzurro foderato di verde, la Vergine indossa una veste color vinaccia (tonalità, come noto, che negli smalti di produzione robbiana suppliva la mancanza del rosso; lo stesso colore compare anche nella croce dell’aureola del Figlio) ed è intenta a stringere, alla sua destra, il bambinello accarezzandogli un piede con fare amorevole. Gesù si tiene aggrappato, con la mano sinistra, al lembo del velo della

18 19 20

21 22

110

Vedi al riguardo Sergej Olegovič Androsov (ed.), Museo Statale Ermitage. La scultura italiana dal XIV al XVI secolo, Milano 2008, 48–49, n. 32. Ringrazio Giancarlo Gentilini per aver discusso generosamente con me la possibile autografia dei tre Putti viennesi. Sulla collezione Bandini, cfr. Magnolia Scudieri (ed.), Il museo Bandini a Fiesole, Firenze 1993; Ettore Spalletti, Erudizione, collezionismo e mercato artistico tra Roma e Firenze nelle lettere di Stefano Borgia ad Angelo Maria Bandini, in: Valerio Terraroli ‒ Franca Varallo ‒ Laura De Fanti (ed.), L’arte nella storia. Contributi di critica e storia dell’arte per Gianni Carlo Sciolla, Milano 2000, 115‒129; Magnolia Scudieri, La collezione d’arte di Angelo Maria Bandini: specchio di un nascente gusto dei primitivi, in: Rosario Pintaudi (ed.), Un erudito del Settecento: Angelo Maria Bandini. Atti della ­g iornata di studi (Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, 22 ottobre 1990), Messina 2002, 179‒189; Luca Scarlini, Le opere e i giorni. Angelo Maria Bandini collezionista e studioso, Livorno 2003, e, da ultimo, Lia Brunori, Angelo Maria Bandini (Fiesole, 1726‒1803), in: catalogo della mostra Angelo Tartuferi ‒ Gianluca Tormen (ed.), La fortuna dei Primitivi. Tesori d’arte dalle collezioni italiane fra Sette e Ottocento, Firenze (Galleria dell’Accademia) 2014, 273‒275. Scudieri 1993 (cit. nota 20), 23 e 50, nota 14. Il tondo (del diametro di cm 55,5) si conserva nella Kunstkammer del Kunsthistorisches Museum di Vienna (inv. KK 7492).

Fig. 6: Benedetto Buglioni, Madonna con il Bambino fra san Giovannino e tre angeli cantori. Fine del XV secolo. Terracotta invetriata. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Kunstkammer, inv. KK 7490. (©: KHMMuseumsverband.)

madre, mentre con l’altra trattiene un uccellino, forse un pettirosso o un cardellino. Il volto di entrambi si direbbe velato di malinconica e quasi grave espressione, volgendo lo sguardo in basso, come a rimarcare una possibile posizione elevata del rilievo, ab origine, rispetto al riguardante. Allan Marquand, nel suo importante lavoro dedicato alla collaterale produzione plastica invetriata dei fratelli di Giovanni della Robbia, attribuiva l’opera a Francesco (1477‒1527/28), settimo figlio di Andrea, che nel 1495 nel convento fiorentino di San Marco aveva preso l’abito domenicano assumendo il nome di Fra’ Ambrogio23: attribuzione che veniva sostanzialmente confermata, a distanza di anni, anche dall’autorevole opinione di Giancarlo Gentilini il quale la giudicava più che plausibile, allora come oggi24. Nella Madonna in adorazione del Bambino fra san Giovannino e tre angeli cantori (fig. 6), incorniciata da una ghirlanda con foglie, fiori e frutti25, vi è da riconoscere invece l’altro “ovato simile colla Madonna, e Bambin Gesù, non coloriti, e ornamento di frutta”, ricordato anch’esso nella ricevuta che accompagnava i pezzi della raccolta Gherardini venduti all’Obizzi. Sullo sfondo azzurro – ove una palma e 23 Allan Marquand, The brothers of Giovanni Della Robbia: fra Mattia, Luca, Girolamo, fra Ambrogio, with an appendix Additions and corrections for all the Della Robbia catalogues, London – Oxford 1928, 51–52. Cfr. anche il medaglione biografico di Alfredo Bellandi, Francesco della Robbia (Fra Ambrogio), in: cat. Fiesole ‒ Firenze 1998 (cit. nota 15), 326–327. 24 Cfr. Giancarlo Gentilini, I Della Robbia. La scultura invetriata nel Rinascimento, vol. 2, Firenze 1992, 385. Desidero ringraziare il Prof. Gentilini per avermi riconfermato la sua attribuzione dell’opera a Fra’ Ambrogio. 25 Il tondo (cm 78 di diametro), in uno stato conservativo purtroppo non ottimale, si trova oggi nella Kunstkammer del Kunsthistorisches Museum di Vienna (inv. KK 7490) ed è stato reso noto da Otto Egger ‒ Hermann Julius Hermann, Aus den Kunstsammlungen des Hauses Este in Wien, in: Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst, n. s. XVII, 1906, 84‒105, in particolare 92. Si vedano le successive notazioni di Planiscig 1919 (cit. nota 14), 73.

111

­ lcuni bianchi gigli su alti e fogliati steli verdi occupano quasi l’intero campo rimaa nente – si staglia la figura della Vergine in adorazione del Bambino, la cui iconografia ricalca fedelmente (come sottolineato in modo corretto da Leo Planiscig già nel 1919) il bellissimo rilievo tondo di Antonio Rossellino, opera del 1475 circa conservata al Museo Nazionale del Bargello26. Il gradevole soggetto mariano della terracotta viennese è da ricondurre in questo caso alla mano di Benedetto Buglioni (1459–1521) o alla sua prolifica bottega: l’iconografia è pressoché identica, infatti, a una dozzina circa di altri esemplari (pur con varianti), privi o meno della cornice inghirlandata, conservati ad esempio presso il Museo Nazionale di Castel Sant’Angelo a Roma, nella fiorentina Accademia delle Arti del Disegno (proveniente da Sant’Onofrio delle Cappuccine), alla Rocca San Casciano (Santa Maria delle Lacrime, già in San Donnino in Soglio) o ancora alla Galleria Nazionale dell’Umbria di Perugia (un tempo presso la Congregazione della Carità). L’opera in esame, destinata alla devozione domestica, è databile con buona approssimazione tra la fine del XV secolo e l’inizio del successivo ed appartiene alla produzione giovanile del Buglioni cui sono da ascrivere anche gli esemplari testé menzionati (al pari di altri, di formato rettangolare o centinato, riprodotti forse con la tecnica a calco) con il medesimo tema iconografico, come ricordato da Giancarlo Gentilini cui spetta il merito di aver restituito al Buglioni l’identità di quel plasticatore anonimo a lungo noto con lo pseudonimo di “Maestro della Madonna dei gigli”, così ribattezzato da Allan Marquand (1912) il quale, per primo, aveva raggruppato sotto quel name-piece la serie di opere dell’ignoto seguace del Rossellino27. È dunque nella circostanza del viaggio in centro Italia, compiuto alla fine del XVIII secolo, che il marchese degli Obizzi ebbe modo di maturare maggiore consapevolezza circa il valore artistico delle terrecotte invetriate rinascimentali, tanto da appuntare in conclusione alle memorie del personale taccuino, quasi a voler fissare una notazione di valore storico, che “li principali Autori che lavorarono nella Terra della Robbia volgarmente detta della Rubia in Firenze furono Luca della Robbia ed Andrea della Robbia suo Figlio”28, ignorando che Andrea non fosse stato il figlio di Luca, bensì il nipote. È così che Tommaso, in occasione degli spostamenti tra Firenze e le altre vicine città della Toscana, da lui visitate, prestò particolare attenzione a manufatti e decorazioni in plastica fittile invetriata ovunque ne avesse riscontrato la presenza; opere da lui sempre ricondotte in ogni caso, e in modo indistinto, alla sola produzione dei della Robbia. Il 12 gennaio 1798, ad esempio, il marchese in compagnia del Galeazzi si portò di buon mattino a visitare gli appartamenti e le collezioni granducali di Palazzo Pitti, mentre nel pomeriggio sempre “col detto Galeazzi me ne andiedi a S. Pancrazio monaci Volambrosiani […] V’è in questa chiesa un superbo altare di terra della Rob[b]ia peccato, che in parte sia stato ridipinto a olio”: l’Obizzi menziona qui il sepolcro del vescovo Benozzo Federighi di Fiesole, ultima opera in marmo eseguita da Luca della Robbia. Il monumento venne ordinato dal nipote del vescovo, nel 1454, per la cappella di famiglia in San Pancrazio posta nel transetto settentrionale, per essere poi traslato nella chiesa di San Francesco di Paola e, dal 1896, venir collocato nella attuale cappella Scali in Santa Trinita. I ripetuti spostamenti hanno snaturato la struttura originaria del monumento, che infatti si mostra oggi come un altorilievo in marmo quadrato, circondato sui quattro lati da una vistosa cornice in maiolica dipinta con variegati mazzetti di frutta e fiori su fondo aureo, composto secondo l’antichissimo lavoro romano dell’opus sectile, raffinata tecnica assai affine al mosaico e alla tarsia.

26 Il tondo di Antonio Rossellino (inv. Sculture Bargello 109), in marmo e foglia d’oro, misura cm 115 di diametro. 27 La vicenda è ben riassunta in Gentilini 1992 (cit. nota 24), 434. Per i diversi esemplari del soggetto (cui appartiene anche quello viennese), si veda la scheda di Jean-René Gaborit, La Vierge et l’Enfant (“la Madone des lys”), in: cat. Nizza 2002 ‒ Sèvres 2002–2003 (cit. nota 16), 103. 28 BCPd, C.M. 488: “Obizzi (degli). Itinerario” (cit. nota 1), c. non numerata.

112

Durante la sosta a Lucca, il 24 dicembre 1797, il marchese aveva visitato il duomo di San Martino osservando come al suo interno la piccola cupola a coronamento del tempietto (opera di Matteo Civitali), che conserva il celebre crocifisso detto del “Volto Santo”, fosse tutta rivestita con piccole piastrelle embricate di ceramica policroma29, non riconducibili in ogni caso alla bottega dei celebri plasticatori fiorentini. È curioso sottolineare come Tommaso, sempre a Lucca, ispezionando l’antica chiesa di San Frediano fece esplicita menzione del grande mosaico nella facciata, rappresentante il Salvatore, e al suo interno del fonte battesimale risalente al XII secolo, ma non compare nel taccuino un solo cenno alla pur visibile lunetta (proveniente da San Romano) che raffigura l’Annunciazione, con il fregio al di sotto decorato con testine di cherubini e un rigoglioso festone di foglie e frutti, opera del 1510‒1515 circa di Marco della Robbia (1468 ‒ post 1532?), noto anche come Fra’ Mattia30. Più attento, invece, l’Obizzi si dimostra a Pistoia ove, esaminata la Cattedrale di San Zeno, poté annotare nel taccuino che “il Duomo è bello fuori e dentro, ma non mai come quello di Lucca, ma peraltro è di marmi esternamente, e nel atrio sopra la porta Maggiore è tutto di Terra di Rubia come la Madonna ed altre figure sopra l’arcata della porta”31: opera, questa sì, di Andrea della Robbia dell’inizio del XVI secolo. Il 15 gennaio 1798 Tommaso si fermò ad Arezzo dove ebbe modo di osservare che “La fabbrica per il Regio vicario è passabile, adorna di molti stemmi, e anco di terra di Robbia. Il Palazzo della Magistratura non è gran cosa, vari stemmi e alcuni di terra di Robbia”32, alludendo verosimilmente agli stemmi di gusto robbiano posti sulla facciata dell’odierno Palazzo Pretorio. E alcuni giorni prima, rientrando a Firenze (3 gennaio 1798), dopo aver soggiornato per breve tempo a Pisa e Pistoia, il marchese fece una breve sosta per ammirare da vicino la villa medicea di Poggio a Caiano, storica residenza commissionata verso il 1480 da Lorenzo il Magnifico all’architetto Giuliano da Sangallo. La villa è nota per essere uno dei primi esempi di architettura che attua un recupero consapevole di elementi e moduli architettonici classici: non a caso l’Obizzi sottolinea nelle sue memorie di viaggio come “si ascende per magnifica bipartita scala ad un portico con arazzi di antiche pitture. Nel frontispizio esterno di detto portico v’è un fregio un po’ ruvinato, rappresentante cose varie, di terra della Rubia molto elegante, e sul gusto Romano antico”33. Tommaso si riferisce al celebre fregio in cinque pannelli – eni­ gmatico nel significato iconografico, discusso quanto a datazione esecutiva nonché problematico circa la paternità che oscilla, tuttora, fra Andrea Sansovino, Giovan Francesco Rustici e collaboratori, Giuliano da Sangallo e Bertoldo di Giovanni34 – raffigurante forse una complessa allegoria neoplatonica incentrata sulla “coscienza della profonda, manichea, inconciliabile duplicità della scelta umana”35 tra il Bene e il Male, e i rispettivi effetti sulla vita di ciascuno con il conseguente

29 Ivi, c. 29r: “coperta tut[t]a di Tera della Rubia [a] scaglioni”, scrive l’Obizzi. 30 Vedi Alfredo Bellandi, Marco della Robbia (Fra Mattia), in: cat. Fiesole ‒ Firenze 1998 (cit. nota 15), 522‒525. 31 BCPd, C.M. 488: “Obizzi (degli). Itinerario” (cit. nota 1), c. 48r. 32 Idem, c. 67v. 33 Idem, c. 50r. 34 Cristina Acidini conferma la propria opinione circa l’attribuzione del fregio a Bertoldo di Giovanni e collaboratori, mentre Litta Medri propende piuttosto per Andrea Sansovino e aiuti. Cfr., rispettivamente, le pagg. 14 e 370‒372, in: cat. Fiesole ‒ Firenze 1998 (cit. nota 15). 35 Cfr. Cristina Acidini Luchinat, Del blu in città, in: cat. Fiesole ‒ Firenze 1998 (cit. nota 15), 9‒16, in particolare p. 14 per la citazione. Il fregio in terracotta invetriata in tricromia (bianco, blu e verde) che si vede oggi sull’architrave della facciata della Villa è una copia eseguita nel 1986 dalla rinomata manifattura Richard-Ginori, mentre l’originale, per evidenti ragioni conservative, si trova all’interno dell’edificio stesso. Il fregio è lungo cm 1422 e alto cm 85. Vedi anche quanto scrive Litta Medri, nel medesimo catalogo, alle pp. 370‒372, a proposito delle numerose criticità del manufatto, e il più recente contributo di Maria Matilde Simari (ed.), La Sala del Fregio / The Room of the Frieze, Livorno 2012 (edizione bilingue). Della stessa studiosa si veda la scheda relativa all’opera in: catalogo della mostra Chiara Rabbi Bernard ‒ Alessandro Cecchi ‒ Yves Hersant (ed.), Il Sogno nel Rinascimento, Firenze (Palazzo Pitti) 2013, 72‒73.

113

destino che sembra escludere dall’orizzonte esistenziale la speranza, tutta cristiana, del perdono divino. La bellezza del fregio (un caso di assoluta eccezionalità nella tipologia della decorazione di esterni in terracotta policroma), con i suoi espliciti riferimenti all’antico, dovette suggestionare molto l’Obizzi il quale, pochi giorni dopo, entrò in possesso del rilievo ceramico con la testa allegorica in profilo di Scipione l’Africano (fig. 1) a lui ceduta da Giuseppe Gherardini36, forse un figlio (o un nipote) del pittore cui erano appartenute le altre sei opere oggetto della prima transazione di terrecotte invetriate, cedute all’Obizzi grazie alla mediazione del ricordato Frangioni. Alla bella testa allegorica, opera di uno scultore robbiano del primo Cinquecento, forse Andrea della Robbia, è verosimile possa riferirsi la laconica citazione di Tommaso nel suo taccuino allorquando, l’8 gennaio 1798, così annotava: “Andiedi col Galeazzi in una casa ove acquistai un basso rilievo di terra di Rubia, molto bello”37: oltre ai pezzi già comperati dal Frangioni, è questa infatti l’ulteriore terracotta invetriata che il marchese riuscì ad aggiudicarsi per le proprie collezioni nella circostanza del viaggio. Di sicuro al ritratto ideale del celebre condottiero romano, dalla elaborata e antichizzante armatura in candido smalto bianco su fondo blu, si riferisce l’altro appunto posto in fondo al taccuino ove il collezionista padovano – riassumendo, a conclusione del viaggio, un sintetico elenco degli acquisti effettuati (e di quanto avrebbe potuto ancora sperare di ottenere grazie al suo agente) – ebbe a scrivere che, a Firenze, “presi […] 3 put[t]i di Terra di Robbia, un Tabernacolo consimile, una Testa in Profilo, 2 Madonne una delle quali a colori, ogni cosa della stesa terra”38. Sull’onda dell’entusiasmo per le sette maioliche fittili, rivestite di brillante smalto ceramico, Tommaso cercò presto di acquistarne delle altre, senza tuttavia riuscirvi. L’11 gennaio 1798 egli annotò nel taccuino di essersi recato la mattina “a vedere il bel altare di Ter[r]a di Rob[b]ia dalle Monache dette le Poverine d’ordine Gesuatico che spero d’avere”39: si tratta della grande ancona realizzata da Giovanni della Robbia per la chiesa fiorentina di San Girolamo delle Poverine, rappresentante la Natività (fig. 7), ora conservata al Museo Nazionale del Bargello. L’opera era stata commissionata, e pagata, da Filippo Panichi come ben documentato dagli stemmi presenti sulla predella, accompagnati da due piccole tabelle ove compaiono, rispet36 ASPd, Archivi Privati. Archivio Obizzi – Casa d’Austria d’Este, 478 (cit. nota 6); ricevuta datata [Firenze] 3 febbraio 1798: “Io Giuseppe Gherardini ho ricevuto da S. Ecc.za Sig. Marchese Tommaso degli Obizzi Lire ventotto per valuta di un basso rilievo tondo di terra della Robbia rappresentante una figura vendutali per detto prezzo d’accordo, e consegnata al Sig. Gaet.[ano] Cristofano Galeazzi suo Procuratore, dal quale contr., ed in fede mano propria dico £. 28”. Sulla testa allegorica del cosiddetto “Scipione”, a lungo creduto anche Alessandro Magno, vedi ora le chiarificatrici e direi risolutive considerazioni di Francesco Caglioti, Andrea del Verrocchio e i profili di condottieri antichi per Mattia Corvino, in: Péter Farbaky ‒ Louis A. Waldam (ed.), Italy & Hungary. Humanism and Art in the Renaissance, Milano 2011, 505‒551, riassuntivo della nutrita bibliografia precedente. 37 BCPd, C.M. 488: “Obizzi (degli). Itinerario” (cit. nota 1), c. 57r. Il medaglione con il ritratto in profilo era stato collocato all’ingresso del museo del Catajo, come si evince dalla descrizione di un inventario inedito delle collezioni del castello, datato 1872 (documento conservato nell’Archivio della Kunstkammer del Kunsthistorisches Museum). Alla c. 37r, infatti, si legge che “Sopra la porta che mette al Museo” si trova un “Sopraporta di maiolica, composto di un medaglione pure di maiolica, rappresentante una testa al[l]egorica, e ai lati due putti in Figura intera, ritti sulla persona, il tutto infisso nel muro”, riconoscendo nei due putti quelli più sopra descritti (KK 7487 e 7488). Accanto alla citazione, in matita rossa, è scritto “Robbia”. Sappiamo poi da un altro inedito documento (ASPd, Archivi Privati. Archivio Obizzi – Casa d’Austria d’Este, 1524: Inventario degli Oggetti del Museo del Catajo fatto il 6 aprile 1880 – ma datato all’interno Catajo, 26 Giugno 1886) che il tondo con il ritratto in questione (segnato con il nr. 1436/504) era “A Vienna, e sostituitovi altro medaglione di majolica rappresentante Madonna con Bambino. 1890. Gio: Maletti”. Nel 1890 pare dunque che l’agente generale del Catajo, Giovanni Maletti, lo avesse inviato a Vienna per aggiungersi ai molti pezzi già prelevati e spediti nella capitale dell’Impero negli anni 1859–1861 per volontà dell’ultimo Duca di Modena Francesco V, passati poi in possesso dell’Arciduca Francesco Ferdinando d’Asburgo-Este, erede universale del Catajo e delle sue raccolte di arte e antichità. Al posto del ritratto allegorico, venne pertanto inserita una terracotta invetriata rappresentante la Vergine con il Bambino, da identificare verosimilmente con la menzionata opera di Francesco della Robbia (KK 7492). In ogni caso, due soli anni dopo pure questa raggiunse la precedente, poiché nel citato inventario sempre il Maletti deve avere vergato le seguenti parole: “A Vienna anche il Medaglione di Majolica oggi lì 6 febbraio 1892”. 38 Idem, c. non numerata. 39 Idem, c. 60r.

114

Fig. 7: Giovanni della Robbia, Natività. 1521. Terracotta invetriata e dipinta. Firenze, Museo Nazionale del Bargello, inv. Sculture Robbiane 25. (©: Firenze, Museo Nazionale del Bargello.)

tivamente, il nome del committente e quello dell’artista (con la data del 1521). Acquisto mancato, con sommo dispiacere dell’Obizzi è facile credere, che se fosse invece giunto al Catajo con le altre terrecotte è molto probabile ne avrebbe poi condiviso il destino collezionistico, giungendo a fine Ottocento a Vienna. Resta da considerare, a conclusione di questo excursus, un ulteriore aspetto della vicenda legato all’acquisto fiorentino delle terrecotte da parte di Tommaso: nell’elenco più volte ricordato si menziona anche una “Pietà con santi”. Un piccolo tabernacolo con identico soggetto si conserva tuttora a Battaglia Terme (Padova), nell’Oratorio di San Michele al castello del Catajo (fig. 8): si tratta di una piccola edicola centinata (cm 53 x 44) ove, sullo sfondo di un intenso e uniforme blu, solcato da sottili striature nere che evocano piccoli addensamenti di nubi, campeggia al centro una grande croce gialla ai cui piedi è seduta la Vergine che, con braccia aperte, sorregge sulle gambe il corpo oramai privo di vita del Salvatore. Più sotto, vista di spalle con i lunghi capelli sciolti sulla schiena, è distesa la Maddalena, prossima quasi allo svenimento in una posa “contorta” capace di riassumerne tutto il tragico e sconsolato dolore. Ai lati di Maria vi sono poi due coppie di santi in piedi: a sinistra si possono riconoscere il Battista e un santo Vescovo (per la mitra sul capo, ma senza ulteriori attributi qualificativi) il quale si porta una mano al volto, in segno di disperazione osservando la pietosa scena. Sulla destra, invece, vestito con il lungo saio stretto in vita da una semplice corda, è da riconoscere forse san Francesco (o san Bernardino?) che preme una mano sulla bocca quasi volesse soffocare un grido di dolore, mentre al suo fianco, con le braccia aperte e abbassate a manifestare tutta la propria impotenza e sconforto, sta il vecchio san Girolamo, 115

Fig. 8: Benedetto Buglioni (attr.), Pietà con santi. Ultimi decenni del XV secolo. Terracotta invetriata. Battaglia Terme (Padova), Castello del Catajo.

r­ iconoscibile per l’ossuta magrezza delle sue membra a stento nascoste dalla corta veste lacera40. Colpisce, in particolare, la figura rigida del Cristo in braccio alla madre la cui iconografia ricalca in maniera fedele un rilievo simile conservato nel chiostro delle medicherie presso Santa Maria Nuova a Firenze: si tratta di una lunetta rappresentante la Pietà fra i santi Giovanni e Maria Maddalena. Il rilievo fiorentino (datato 1494 come si evince dall’iscrizione posta alla sua base) è stato restituito dalla critica a Benedetto Buglioni per quella sua esecuzione più sommaria rispetto alle coeve terrecotte prodotte dalla bottega robbiana, per i panneggi eseguiti con pieghe monotone, appiattite e caratterizzate da un marcato grafismo, oltre che per lo smalto che spesso nelle creazioni di quel plasticatore risulta essere “difettoso e irregolare, meno coprente, più lucido e diluito […] nella liquida definizione pittorica degli sfondi paesaggistici, dove la tecnica sommaria e sprecisa si traduce in una gustosa maniera compendiaria”41, proprio come nell’esemplare padovano che, del pari, si pro-

40 Su alcune aureole dei santi sono ancora ben visibili tracce di doratura, presumibilmente originaria. 41 Cfr. Gentilini 1992 (cit. nota 24), vol. 2, 392‒393, ove si riproduce anche la lunetta nel chiostro delle medicherie.

116

pone pertanto di restituire al Buglioni quanto a paternità. Anche il tabernacolo, già in collezione Obizzi, potrebbe dunque risalire alla fine del XV secolo, proponendosi pertanto una datazione attorno al decennio 1480‒1490 circa. La sommarietà nella resa dei particolari è dovuta peraltro alle ridotte dimensioni del rilievo che, rispetto alla lunetta fiorentina, non hanno consentito all’arista di poter trattare con accuratezza i più minuti dettagli: la Pietà obizziana fu senza dubbio realizzata per la devozione privata e forse doveva essere assai vicina, dal punto di vista iconografico, ad una perduta Pietà che lo stesso Benedetto modellò nell’ottobre del 1488, come documentato dalle fonti, per un tabernacolo che si trovava nella camera del Capuffizio in Palazzo dei Priori a Perugia42. Il ritrovamento di questa inedita terracotta smaltata ci consente di ricomporre in questa sede, benché solo idealmente, la totalità delle sette opere invetriate acquistate a Firenze dall’Obizzi in occasione del suo viaggio nel 1797‒‘98, aggiungendo così una significativa tessera alla storia della fortuna collezionistica delle robbiane tra fine Sette e primo Ottocento, e al tempo stesso ci permette di far rivivere le impressioni e le suggestioni da lui provate al cospetto di quelle opere oggetto di vera riscoperta, facendo del marchese Tommaso un pioniere in questo ambito, per lo meno in area veneta.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG

Anlässlich einer Reise in die Toskana, nach Umbrien und in die Marken gegen ­Ende des 18. Jahrhunderts erwarb Markgraf Tommaso degli Obizzi (1750–1803) verschiedene Antiquitäten und Kunstwerke, um seine Sammlungen, die er im Familienschloss Il Catajo (Padua) zusammentrug, zu erweitern. Unter diesen Werken befanden sich auch sieben glasierte Terrakotten, von denen sechs heute in der Kunstkammer des Kunsthistorischen Museums aufbewahrt werden. Einige davon sind Werke der ­Della Robbia. Das siebente, lang verschollen geglaubte Exemplar wurde jüngst im Oratorio di San Michele auf Schloss Catajo wiederentdeckt: Das unpublizierte Relief, eine kleine Ädikula, die eine Pietà mit Heiligen darstellt, wird hier mit einer Zuschreibung an Benedetto Buglioni präsentiert. Um die Leidenschaft und das Interesse des Markgrafen speziell für diese Werke des Quattrocento besser zu verstehen, erweisen sich auch die gewissenhaften Aufzeichnungen als nützlich, die er in sein Reisetagebuch eintrug.

42 Idem, 393.

117

Björn Blauensteiner

Marten van Cleve (1526/27–1581) Prolegomena zu einer Neubewertung*

Abb. 1a: Marten van Cleve, Ausgeweideter Ochse, Detail des Monogramms.

I Wie seine gesicherten Werke verdeutlichen, handelt es sich bei Marten van Cleve um einen der qualitätsvollsten niederländischen Genremaler aus der Zeit von Pieter Bruegel d. Ä. Sieht man von bloßen Erwähnungen und Kurzdarstellungen ab, so ist die Beschäftigung der modernen Kunstgeschichtsschreibung mit van Cleve jedoch äußerst überschaubar1; mittlerweile dient sein Name überhaupt als Sammelbecken für in vielen Fällen wenig qualitätsvolle Genredarstellungen, insbesondere solche der Bruegel-Nachfolge2. Dabei war van Cleve zu Lebzeiten ein durchaus geschätzter Maler. Bei seinem Geburtsjahr muss es sich um 1526 oder 1527 handeln, da er am 2. April 1567 erklärt, vierzig Jahre alt zu sein3; er tritt wie Bruegel 1551 der Antwerpener Malergilde bei4, heiratet am 7. Jänner 1556 Maria de Greve und stirbt schließlich 1581 in Antwerpen, wo seine Verlassenschaft am 24. November desselben Jahres auf seine Söhne

*



1

2

3

Abb. 1: Marten van Cleve, Ausgeweideter Ochse. 1566 datiert. Wien, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Gemäldegalerie, Inv.-Nr. 1970. (©: KHM-Museumsverband.)

4

119

Ich danke Claire Baisier, Holm Bevers, Gerlinde Gruber, Gabriele Helke, Friso Lammertse, Elke Oberthaler, Almut Pollmer-Schmidt, Annette Schäfer, Manfred Sellink, Ina Slama, Gudrun Swoboda, ­Alexander Wied, Elisabeth Wolfik und Andreas Uldrich für wertvolle Anregungen, spannende Diskussionen und sonstige Hilfestellungen beim Verfassen des vorliegenden Aufsatzes. Vgl. René van Bastelaer – Georges Hulin de Loo, Peter Bruegel l’ancien. Son œuvre et son temps. ­Étude historique suivie des catalogues raisonnés de son œuvre dessiné et gravé, Brüssel 1907, 374– 380; Ludwig Baldass, Unbekannte niederländische Bilder in Wien und Budapest, in: Jahrbuch des Kunsthistorischen Institutes der k.k. Zentralkommission für Denkmalpflege 11, 1917, 1–15, hier: 9–15, „Neues Material zu Marten van Cleve“; Ludwig Baldass, Sittenbild und Stilleben im Rahmen des niederländischen Romanismus, in: Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien 36, 1923–1925, 15–46, hier: 41–46; Giorgio T. Faggin, De genre-schilder Marten van Cleef, in: Oud Holland 80, 1965, 34–46; Georges Marlier, Pierre Brueghel le Jeune, Brüssel 1969, 333–364; Hans-Joachim Raupp, Bauernsatiren. Entstehung und Entwicklung des bäuerlichen Genres in der deutschen und niederländischen Kunst ca. 1470–1570, Niederzier 1986, 258–264; Klaus Ertz, Pieter Brueghel der Jüngere (1564– 1637/38). Die Gemälde mit kritischem Oeuvrekatalog, Lingen 2000, bes. 337–348, 477–481, 523–533, 631–643, 659–664, 694–698, 775–786; Ausstellungskatalog Eric De Bruyn – Jan Op de Beeck (Hgg.), De zotte schilders. Moraalridders van het penseel rond Bosch, Bruegel en Brouwer, Gent (Centrum voor Oude Kunst, t’Vliegend Peert, Mecheln) 2003, 124–131; Klaus Ertz – Christa Nitze-Ertz, Marten van Cleve (1524–1581). Kritischer Katalog der Gemälde und Zeichnungen, Lingen 2014; Ausstellungskatalog Peter van der Coelen – Friso Lammertse (Hgg.), De ontdekking van het dagelijks leven. Van Bosch tot Bruegel, Rotterdam (Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen) 2015–2016, 241–245. Vgl. dazu etwa die van Cleve zugeschriebenen Gemälde in Paul Vandenbroeck, The Peasant Wedding. A complete series of 6 paintings by Marten van Cleve (1527–1581), Antwerpen 2007, sowie Ausstellungskatalog Sergio Gaddi – Doron J. Lurie (Hgg.), Brueghel. Meraviglie dell’arte fiamminga, Rom (Chiostro del Bramante) 2012–2013, Kat.-Nrn. 67 und 68a–f. Vgl. Fr. Jos. Peter van den Branden, Geschiedenis der Antwerpsche Schilderschool, Antwerpen 1883, 294. Der Eintrag lautet „Merten van Cleve, schilder“ (vgl. Philippe Rombouts – Theodore van Lerius [Hgg.], De Liggeren en andere historische archieven der Antwerpsche sint Lucasgilde, Bd. 1, Antwerpen 1872, 176).

Gillis, Marten, Joris und Nicolaas sowie seine Witwe verteilt wird5. Karel van Mander vermerkt in seinem Schilder-boeck von 1604, dass Marten van Cleve ein Schüler des Antwerpener Romanisten Frans Floris gewesen sei und „viele hübsche Bilder“ („veelaerdighe stucken“) geschaffen habe, die „man noch oft bei den Kunstfreunden“ („veel noch by den liefhebbers“) sehe6. Offenbar handelt es sich hierbei nicht nur um eine leere Phrase, zählt Marten van Cleve im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert doch zu den in Sammlungsinventaren am häufigsten namentlich genannten niederländischen Künstlern7. Die folgenden Ausführungen sollen der Abwertung entgegenwirken, die sein Schaffen aufgrund einer Vielzahl zweifelhafter Zuschreibungen erfahren hat. Zu der angestrebten Neubewertung mag die Entdeckung beitragen, dass es sich bei einem Gemälde im Kunsthistorischen Museum in Wien keineswegs um ein signiertes Werk van Cleves handelt, wie bisher in der Literatur angenommen worden ist. II Den Kern von Marten van Cleves gesichertem malerischen Œuvre bilden zwei in Ligatur „M(v)C“ monogrammierte und datierte Gemälde: Der 1566 datierte Ausgeweidete Ochse in Wien (Kunsthistorisches Museum)8 (Abb. 1 und 1a) sowie die 1579 datierte Dörfliche Karnevalsfeier in St. Petersburg (Eremitage)9 (Abb. 2). Die in beiden Bildern zur Anwendung gebrachte lasierende Malweise und freie Pinselführung – mit Karel van Mander könnte man sie als „rouwe manier“ bezeichnen, die dieser am Beispiel des späteren Tizian beschreibt und der von ihm bevorzugten glatten Malweise („netticheyt“) gegenüberstellt10 – lassen die von van Mander kolportierte Ausbildung van Cleves bei Floris plausibel erscheinen. Zwar kennzeichnet die Werke von Floris zumeist ein Pinselduktus, der im Vergleich zu jenem van Cleves, welcher einen nahezu flimmernden Eindruck vermittelt, präziser ausfällt, doch verdeutlichen die als Werke Floris’ geltenden Gemälde Bildnis eines Gildenknappen (Wien, Kunsthistorisches Museum) (Abb. 3), Christus am Kreuz (ebenda), Mann mit geschultertem Schwert (Kassel, Schloss Wilhelmshöhe) und Kopf einer alten Frau (Prag, Burggalerie), dass sich auch Floris mitunter einer vergleichbar freien Pinselführung bediente. Ein Naheverhältnis zwischen van Cleve und Floris belegt auch die ebenfalls mit „M(v)C“ in Ligatur monogrammierte Zeichnung Spinn- und Webstube11 von van Cleve (Abb. 4): Die offensichtlich als Vorzeichnung angefertigte Komposition wurde 1574 – unter Hinzufügung der Beschriftung „ARACHNE“ und Auslassung des Monogramms – von Philips Galle als Teil einer Serie menschlicher Tätigkeiten nachgestochen, deren erstes Blatt (Landwirtschaft) mit „F. FLORIS

5 6

Vgl. van den Branden 1883 (zit. Anm. 3), 297. Zit. nach Carel van Mander, Das Leben der niederländischen und deutschen Maler, Wiesbaden 1991, 140, bzw. Karel van Mander, Het schilder-boeck, Utrecht 1969, fol. 230v. 7 Vgl. Jean Denucé, Inventare von Kunstsammlungen zu Antwerpen im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert, Antwerpen 1932, wonach van Cleves Name zwischen 1574 und 1692 über zwanzig Mal in Antwerpener Inventaren genannt wird. 8 Eichenholz, 68 x 53,5 cm. Zu dem Bild vgl. Ausstellungskatalog Till-Holger Borchert – Sylvia Ferino-Pagden – Manfred Sellink (Hgg.), Fürstlich gesammelt. Van Eyck–Gossaert–Bruegel. Meisterwerke des Kunsthistorischen Museums Wien, Brügge (Groeningemuseum) 2011–2012, Kat.-Nr. 43 (Manfred Sellink); Ertz – Nitze-Ertz 2014 (zit. Anm. 1), Kat.-Nr. 95, sowie van der Coelen – Lammertse 2015– 2016 (zit. Anm. 1), Kat.-Nr. 74. 9 Eichenholz, 75,5 x 106 cm. Zu dem Bild vgl. Nikolai N. Nikulin, The Hermitage Catalogue of Western European Painting. Netherlandish Painting Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, Florenz 1989, 65 f. Die Komposition kehrt mit einigen Variationen in einer blau lavierten Federzeichnung (Wien, Albertina, Inv.-Nr. 13282) wieder, bei der es sich um eine eigenhändige Kompositionsstudie handeln dürfte (vgl. auch Ertz – Nitze-Ertz 2014, zit. Anm. 1, 31). Die detailgetreu einen Teil des Bildes wiedergebende Zeichnung in München (Graphische Sammlung, Inv.-Nr. 995 Z) scheint dagegen nicht von der Hand van Cleves zu stammen. 10 Vgl. van Mander 1969 (zit. Anm. 6), fol. 48r–v. 11 Feder in Braun, blau laviert, 191 x 251 mm. Zu dem Blatt vgl. Hans Mielke, Antwerpener Graphik in der 2. Hälfte des 16. Jahrhunderts. Der Thesaurus veteris et novi Testamenti des Gerard de Jode (1585) und seine Künstler, in: Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 38, 1975, 29–83, hier: 58 f., sowie Ertz – Nitze-Ertz 2014 (zit. Anm. 1), Kat.-Nr. Z 10.

120

Abb. 2: Marten van Cleve, Dörfliche Karnevalsfeier. 1579 datiert. St. Petersburg, Eremitage, Inv.-Nr. 6809. (©: St. Petersburg, Eremitage.)

INV.“ bezeichnet ist12. Dieser Umstand scheint im Übrigen van Manders Bemerkung zu bestätigen, wonach Floris-Schüler Zeichnungen nach Gemälden des Meisters anfertigten, welche sodann nachgestochen wurden13. Das (früher auch unter dem Titel Flämische Haushaltung bekannte) Gemälde Bauernstube mit vornehmen Besuchern14 (Abb. 5) ist nicht bezeichnet, kann jedoch aufgrund der – insbesondere im Vergleich zu dem heute ebenfalls im Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien befindlichen Ausgeweideten Ochsen – äußerst ähnlichen Malweise und Farbigkeit ebenfalls van Cleve zugeschrieben werden15. Als dessen Werk wird es auch bereits im 1659 erstellten Inventar der Gemälde von Erzherzog Leopold Wilhelm16 sowie in Christian von Mechels Verzeichnis der Belvedere-Bildergalerie von 178317 geführt. Auch Thematik und Motivik der Bauernstube lassen eine Autorschaft van Cleves plausibel erscheinen – und dies nicht nur, weil rechts im Hintergrund ebenfalls ein ausgeweideter Ochse zu sehen ist. Sowohl der Ausgeweidete Ochse als auch die Dörfliche Karnevalsfeier weist zahlreiche Bezüge zu Genredarstellungen von zeitgleich in Antwerpen tätigen Künstlern auf: Mit dem zentralen Motiv des Ausgeweideten Ochsen knüpft van Cleve an Bilder Pieter Aertsens18, ­Pieter

Abb. 3: Frans Floris, Bildnis eines Gilden­ knappen. Um 1565. Wien, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Gemäldegalerie, Inv.-Nr. 7707. (©: KHM-Museumsverband.)

12 Vgl. dazu Carl van de Velde, Frans Floris (1519/20–1570). Leven en werken, Brüssel 1975, 428 f., sowie Edward H. Wouk – Ger Luijten (Hgg.), Frans Floris (The New Hollstein Dutch & Flemish Etchings, Engravings and Woodcuts, 1450–1700, Bd. 22), Ouderkerk aan den IJssel 2011, lxix f. (Kat.-Nr. 150). 13 Vgl. van Mander 1991 (zit. Anm. 6), 175. 14 Eichenholz, 123 x 144 cm. 15 Vgl. auch van Bastelaer – Hulin de Loo 1907 (zit. Anm. 1), 376; Baldass 1917 (zit. Anm. 1), 9; Faggin 1965 (zit. Anm. 1), 35; Klaus Demus – Friederike Klauner – Karl Schütz, Katalog der Gemäldegalerie. Flämische Malerei von Jan van Eyck bis Pieter Bruegel d. Ä., Wien 1981, 153; Arnout Balis et al. (Hgg.), Flämische Malerei im Kunsthistorischen Museum Wien, Zürich 1989, 228; Borchert – Ferino-Pagden – Sellink 2011 (zit. Anm. 8), 168 (Manfred Sellink), sowie Ertz – Nitze-Ertz 2014 (zit. Anm. 1), 14 und Kat.-Nr. 107. 16 „266. Ein Stuckh von Öhlfarb auff Holcz, warin ein Bauerngasterey, auf der rechten Seithen hangt ein geschlachter Ox, stehet ein Khindtswiegen, warin ein Katz, und undenahnettliche Ruben. […] Original von Martino von Cleef, niderlandischen Mahler.“ Zit. nach Adolf Berger, Inventar der Kunstsammlung des Erzherzogs Leopold Wilhelm von Österreich, in: Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses 1, 1883, LXXIX–CLXXVII, hier: CXXIX. 17 „Von Martin van Cleef. I. Eine flammaendische Bauern=Haushaltung, aus vielen Personen bestehend, deren einige an einem Tische sitzen, andere mit haeuslichen Verrichtungen, und die Weibsleute mit Kindern beschaeftigt sind. Zur Linken haengt ein geschlachteter ausgespannter Ochs an der Wand; Durch die geoeffnete Thuere sieht man ins freye Feld.“ Zitiert nach Christian von Mechel, Verzeichniß der Gemaelde der kaiserlich koeniglichen Bilder Gallerie in Wien, Wien 1783, 173, Nr. 1. 18 Vgl. Aertsens Fleischerladen-Komposition, von der mehrere Versionen bekannt sind (u. a. in Raleigh, North Carolina Museum of Art, Uppsala, Museum Gustavianum, und Maastricht, Bonne­f antenmuseum).

121

Abb. 4: Marten van Cleve, Spinn- und Web­ stube. Um 1574. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett, Inv.-Nr. KdZ 12443. (©: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett.)

Abb. 5: Marten van Cleve, Bauernstube mit vornehmen Besuchern. Um 1565/70. Wien, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Gemäldegalerie, Inv.-Nr. 969. (©: KHM-Museumsverband.)

Bruegels d. Ä.19 sowie insbesondere Joachim Beuckelaers an, dessen 1563 datiertes Gemälde Geschlachtetes Schwein (Köln, Wallraf-Richartz Museum) van Cleves Darstellung auch kompositionell nahesteht. Bei der St. Petersburger Karnevalsfeier handelt es sich gleichsam um ein Pasticcio mehrerer Bruegel-Motive, die verschiedene mit dem „Koppermaandag“, dem ersten Montag nach dem Dreikönigstag, verbundene Bräuche zeigen20. Die drei mit Fuchsschwänzen behangenen Leprosen und die

19 Vgl. Bruegels Prudentia-Kupferstich, dessen 1559 datierte Vorzeichnung in Brüssel (Musées royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, Cabinet de dessins) erhalten ist. 20 Inventare des 17. Jahrhundert legen nahe, dass van Cleve zudem eine Komposition schuf, die Szenen der Feierlichkeiten anlässlich des Martinstages am 11. November zeigte (vgl. Faggin 1965, zit. Anm. 1, 45). Bei der Version in Dunkerque (Musée des Beaux-Arts) handelt es sich aufgrund der glatten und präzisen Malweise wohl ebenso um eine Kopie wie bei der vermutlich von Rubens überarbeiteten

122

um Geld bettelnde Frau rechts im Vordergrund gehen auf Die Krüppel (Paris, Musée du Louvre) zurück; die Frauen, die auf der linken Seite einen Teufel an ein Kissen binden, sind den Niederländischen Sprichwörtern (Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Gemäldegalerie) entnommen. Daneben stehen mehrere Szenen – etwa die Frau mit dem Waffeleisen, die beiden kostümierten Kinder sowie die Theateraufführung und Prozession im Bildhintergrund – Motiven aus dem Kampf zwischen Karneval und Fasten (Wien, Kunsthistorisches Museum) nahe21. Vergleichbare Bezüge zur Antwerpener Genremalerei lassen sich nun auch in der Wiener Bauernstube feststellen: Die Szene rechts, in der ein adeliges Paar ein von einer Amme gehaltenes Kleinkind mit Essen und Trinken versorgt, ähnelt der in mehreren Versionen bekannten, vermutlich auf Pieter Bruegel d. Ä. zurückgehenden Besuch auf dem Pachthof-Komposition22, während das Geschehen auf der linken Seite – hier macht ein Edelmann in der Gesellschaft von trinkenden und musizierenden Männern einer Magd Avancen – in der Tradition der Genredarstellungen Pieter Aertsens steht23. Italienische bzw. romanistische Einflüsse verrät die Motivik der Bauernstube und der übrigen Bilder van Cleves, der van Mander zufolge nie das Ausland bereiste24, dagegen kaum. Van Cleves Ausbildung beim Romanisten Floris, von dem keinerlei Genreszenen bekannt sind, scheint sich damit also in erster Linie hinsichtlich der Malweise niedergeschlagen zu haben. Eine Komposition, von der unter dem Titel Besuch bei der Amme mehrere van Cleve zugeschriebene Versionen bekannt sind25, erhebt den rechten Teil seiner Wiener Bauernstube zum eigenständigen Bildthema. Am nächsten steht den bisher genannten Gemälden wohl eine Fassung in französischem Privatbesitz, die in der rechten unteren Ecke signiert („MARTEN VAN CLEVE“) und 1573 datiert ist26. Eine weitere Version befindet sich in Frankfurt (Städel Museum)27; dieses Bild weist zwar (neben einer fragmentarischen Datierung „1572“) das gleiche „M(v)C“-Monogramm in Ligatur auf wie der Ausgeweidete Ochse und die Dörfliche Karnevalsfeier, weicht jedoch in seiner vergleichsweise präzisen und deckenden Malweise von den bisher genannten Werken ab. Ob der Frankfurter Besuch bei der Amme tatsächlich von van Cleve stammt, ist daher trotz der Bezeichnung fraglich: Zwar könnten die Abweichungen auch dem schlechten Erhaltungszustand des Gemäldes oder einer Werkstattbeteiligung geschuldet sein; angesichts des Umstandes, dass im 16. Jahrhundert zahlreiche Kunstwerke absichtlich mit falschen Bezeichnungen – etwa Dürer-­

21

22

23 24 25 26

27

123

­ assung im Rubenshuis Antwerpen; vgl. zu dieser Kristin Lohse Belkin, Rubens. Copies and adaptions F from Renaissance and later artists. German and Netherlandish artists. Volume one (Corpus Rubenianum Ludwig Burchard, Bd. 26), Brüssel 2009, 201–204. Aufgrund der nahezu gleichen Maße und kompositionellen Parallelen dürften die Martinsfest-Bilder ursprünglich zusammen mit der Dörflichen Karnevalsfeier eine (möglicherweise jahreszeitliche) Serie gebildet haben. Dieser gehörte wohl auch eine Darstellung von Kinderspielen an, da mehrere Bilder dieses Themas bekannt sind, die ebenfalls nahezu dasselbe Format haben und eine vergleichbare Komposition zeigen (vgl. zu diesen Ertz – Nitze-Ertz 2014, zit. Anm. 1, 42 f., Kat.-Nrn. 74, 75). Eine motivische Nähe zu Bruegel weisen neben der Dörflichen Karnevalsfeier auch die erhaltenen Wiederholungen nach van Cleves Martinsfest- und Kinderspiele-Kompositionen auf, die vermutlich als Teil derselben Serie entstanden (siehe dazu Anm. 20). Vgl. dazu Ertz 2000 (zit. Anm. 1), 482–486. Einzelne Details auf der rechten Seite – insbesondere das Motiv der auf einer strohgeflochtenen „bakermat“ sitzenden Wochenpflegerin – erinnern ferner an Hl. Familie-Darstellungen von Frans Floris in Douai (Musée de la Chartreuse), Brüssel (Musées royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique) sowie Utrecht (Rijksmuseum Het Catharijneconvent). Vgl. etwa Aertsens Bauernfest im Kunsthistorischen Museum in Wien (Inv.-Nr. 2365). Vgl. van Mander 1991 (zit. Anm. 6), 140 ff. Vgl. zu diesen Ertz – Nitze-Ertz 2014 (zit. Anm. 1), Kat.-Nrn. 108–119. Eichenholz, 53,5 x 99,5 cm. Das Bild wurde am 20.12.2004 als La visite à la nourrice bei Drouot, Paris (Lot 112) versteigert. Zu dem Bild vgl. Agnes Tieze, Flämische Gemälde im Städel-Museum 1550– 1800, Bd. 1: Künstler von A–R, Petersberg 2009, 149 f., Abb. 6. Inv.-Nr. 1931, Eichenholz, 50,5 x 100 cm. Vgl. zu dem Bild Tieze 2009 (zit. Anm. 26), 146–152, sowie Ertz – Nitze-Ertz 2014 (zit. Anm. 1), Kat.-Nr. 112. Eine weitere, leicht variierte Version der Komposition, für die eine Autorschaft van Cleves in Frage kommt, wurde am 10.7.2003 bei Sotheby’s London (Lot 114; Eichenholz, 73,5 x 101,8 cm) versteigert.

Monogrammen28 oder Bosch-Signaturen29 – versehen wurden, darf die Monogrammierung des Bildes andererseits nicht überbewertet werden. Im Sinne des Gegensatzes von Bauernfreud’ („Boerenvreugd“) und Bauernleid („Boerenverdriet“)30 ließen sich solche Besuch bei der Amme-Darstellungen dabei als Gegenstücke von Bildern lesen, die plündernde Soldaten in einer Bauernstube zeigen. Mehrere Bilder dieses Themas werden mit van Cleve in Verbindung gebracht; die größte stilistische Ähnlichkeit mit dessen Werk weist darunter ein (stark retuschiertes) Gemälde in St. Petersburg (Eremitage) auf31. III Im Kunsthistorischen Museum in Wien befindet sich ein Bauernmahl32 (Abb. 6), das am unteren Bildrand kaum leserlich mit „Martin Clev“ bezeichnet ist (Abb. 6a). Klaus Demus deutete diese Bezeichnung 1981 als Signatur und schloss sich daher der zuvor von Ludwig Baldass artikulierten van Cleve-Zuschreibung an33. Allerdings dürfte es sich bei der Bezeichnung um keine originale Signatur handeln: Zunächst wurde die Beschriftung entgegen der Praxis des 16. Jahrhunderts nicht mit Ölfarbe, sondern mit einem Graphitstift und über zumindest einer Firnisschicht angebracht. Zudem signierte Marten van Cleve seine Werke wie beschrieben nicht auf diese pseudo-handschriftliche Weise, sondern mit einem ligierten Monogramm bzw. – falls der Besuch bei der Amme in französischem Privatbesitz von seiner Hand stammt – mit „MARTEN VAN CLEVE“ in Blockbuchstaben. Im Übrigen findet van Cleve auch in zu Lebzeiten ausgefertigten Dokumenten nicht als „Martin Clev“, sondern als „Merten van Cleve“ Erwähnung34. All diese Umstände deuten darauf hin, dass die angebliche Signatur in Wahrheit nachträglich angebracht wurde. Ihr Aussehen lässt dabei an die Mitte des 17. Jahrhundert denken, als die meisten niederländischen Künstler kursiv mit ihrem Namen signierten, zumeist gleichfalls ohne Zusätze wie „fecit“ oder „pinxit“35. Jedenfalls muss das Bauernmahl vor der Erstellung des Verzeichnisses der Prager Burg um 1661 bezeichnet worden sein, da dieses für den Schöpfer des als „Bauernmahlzeith“ titulierten Gemäldes die ungewöhnliche Schreibweise „Martin Clev“ übernimmt36 – während das Gemälde Raufhandel zwischen Bauern und Soldaten (heute ebenfalls im Kunsthistorischen Museum in Wien; Näheres zu diesem Bild unten) im selben Inventar „Martin

28

29

30 31

32 33 34 35 36

124

Giorgio Vasari schreibt 1568 in der zweiten Auflage seiner Viten, der Bologneser Kupferstecher Marc­ antonio Raimondi sei von Albrecht Dürers Druckgraphiken dermaßen beeindruckt gewesen, dass er diese unter Hinzufügung von Dürer-Monogrammen zu imitieren begonnen habe. Als Dürer von den Fälschungen Kenntnis erlangt habe, sei er augenblicklich nach Venedig gereist, um Raimondi gerichtlich zu belangen. Vgl. dazu Christopher L. C. E. Witcombe, Copyright in the Renaissance. Prints and the Privilegio in Sixteenth-Century Venice and Rome, Leiden 2004, 81–86. Felipe de Guevara schreibt bereits um 1560, dass unzählige Bilder im Stile Boschs zu finden seien, „die fälschlich mit dem Namen des Hieronymus Bosch signiert sind, Gemälde, an welche Hand anzulegen ihm nie eingefallen ist, sondern nur dem Rauch und den kurzsichtigen Köpfen, indem man sie in Kaminen räucherte, um ihnen Glaubwürdigkeit und altes Ansehen zu verschaffen“. Zit. nach Gerd Unverfehrt, Hieronymus Bosch. Die Rezeption seiner Kunst im frühen 16. Jahrhundert, Berlin 1980, 68. Vgl. zu diesem Themenkomplex Martina Dlugaiczyk, Der Waffenstillstand (1609–1621) als Medien­ ereignis. Politische Bildpropaganda in den Niederlanden, Münster 2005, 258–270. Inv.-Nr. 3376, Leinwand (übertragen von Eichenholz), 68 x 98 cm. Vgl. Nikulin 1989 (zit. Anm. 9), 69. Soldaten in einer Gaststube zeigt auch ein 70 x 92 cm großes Kupferbild, dessen Verbleib gegenwärtig unbekannt ist. Vgl. zu dem Gemälde, das ebenfalls von van Cleve geschaffen worden sein könnte, Nanette Salomon, Jacob Duck and the Gentrification of Dutch Genre Painting, Doornspijk 1998, 56, Abb. 41. Eichenholz, 71 x 108,5 cm. Vgl. Demus – Klauner – Schütz 1981 (zit. Anm. 15), 158, bzw. Baldass 1917 (zit. Anm. 1), 13. Vgl. Rombouts – van Lerius 1872 (zit. Anm. 4), 176, sowie Denucé 1932 (zit. Anm. 7), 6. Tobias Burg, Die Signatur. Formen und Funktionen vom Mittelalter bis zum 17. Jahrhundert, Berlin – Münster 2007, 524 f. Das Verzeichnis ist unpubliziert; der Eintrag dürfte für das Inventar der Prager Schatz- und Kunstkammer vom 8. April 1718 übernommen worden sein, obwohl er dort (vermutlich aufgrund eines Irrtums entweder des Erstellers des Inventars oder Karl Köpls) „Martio Creo sub dubio: Ein bauernmahlzeith“ lautet (Karl Köpl, Urkunden, Acten und Regesten und Inventare aus dem k. k. Statthalterei-Archiv in Prag, in: Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses 10, 1889, LXIII–CC, hier: CXXXVII, Nr. 335).

Abb. 6: Südniederländisch, Bauernmahl. Nach 1566. Wien, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Gemäldegalerie, Inv.-Nr. 3579. (©: KHMMuseumsverband.)

Abb. 6a: Südniederländisch, Bauernmahl. IRR-Detail der vermeintlichen Signatur.

Gleben“ zugeschrieben wird. Bezeichnenderweise ist der Bauernmahl-Eintrag in dem Inventar mit der Anmerkung „sub dubio“ versehen, da offenbar bereits der Verfasser des Verzeichnisses Zweifel an der Autorschaft van Cleves hegte. Diese Zweifel erscheinen mehr als berechtigt: Da die „Signatur“ wie gezeigt als Argument ausscheidet, spricht kaum etwas für eine Zuschreibung des Bildes an van Cleve. Die glatte und präzise Malweise weicht stark von den oben genannten, gesicherten van Cleve-Gemälden ab; dasselbe gilt für die kräftige Farbigkeit sowie die bereits mit freiem Auge unter der Malschicht sichtbare Unterzeichnung. Das Bauernmahl weist damit Bezüge zum Schaffen Pieter Aertsens und Joachim Beuckelaers auf. Diesem steht das Bild aufgrund seiner Großfigurigkeit, des niedrigen Betrachterstandpunktes sowie der Nahsichtigkeit der Darstellung auch in kompositioneller Hinsicht näher als den gesicherten Gemälden van Cleves, die sämtlich eine leichte Aufsicht mit zentralem Fluchtpunkt sowie – mit Ausnahme des 1566 datierten Ausgeweideten Ochsen – ein kleinteiliges Kompositionsschema kennzeichnen. Thematik und Motivik des Bauernmahls verraten daneben auch einen gewissen Einfluss der Bauerndarstellungen von Pieter Bruegel d. Ä. Dessen späte Bilder dieses Sujets, insbesondere der Wiener Bauerntanz, versetzen den Betrachter außerdem auf vergleichbar unmittelbare Weise in das dargestellte Geschehen und stehen dem Bauernmahl damit auch in rezeptionsästhetischer Hinsicht nahe. Die Frage nach der Autorschaft des Bauernmahls lässt sich daher nicht abschließend beantworten, da in dem Gemälde unterschiedliche Strömungen der Antwerpener Genremalerei der zweiten Hälfte des 16. Jahrhunderts zusammenlaufen; aus den genannten Gründen kann ­jedoch – wie Manfred Sellink bereits 2011 bemerkt hat37 – eine Zuschreibung an Marten van Cleve ausgeschlossen werden. Allerdings trug die fälschlich als Signatur publizierte Bezeichnung wohl dazu bei, dass nicht nur das Bauernmahl

37 Borchert – Ferino-Pagden – Sellink 2011 (zit. Anm. 8), 196.

125

Abb. 7: Südniederländisch, Bauernhochzeit im Freien. Um 1570. Antwerpen, Museum Mayer van der Bergh, Inv.-Nr. MMB.0053. (©: Antwerpen, Museum Mayer van der Bergh.)

als ­authentisches Werk van Cleves behandelt wurde38, sondern auch manch weitere Bauerndarstellung, die mit dem Kernbestand des van Cleve-Œuvres ebenso wenig gemein hat. So gilt etwa das Gemälde Bauernhochzeit im Freien im Antwerpener Museum Mayer van der Bergh39 (Abb. 7) gemeinhin als Werk van Cleves40, obwohl es sowohl stilistisch als auch motivisch dem Wiener Bauernmahl näher steht als van Cleves gesichertem Schaffen. Allgemein van Cleve zugeschrieben wird ferner eine Gruppe von Werken, der etwa der bereits erwähnte Raufhandel zwischen Soldaten und Bau-

38 Vgl. etwa Raupp 1986 (zit. Anm. 1), 262; , und Margaret A. Sullivan, Bruegel’s Peasants. Art and Audience in the Northern Renaissance, Cambridge – New York 1994, bes. 90 f., und Ethan Matt Kavaler, Pieter Bruegel. Parables of Order and Enterprise, Cambridge – New York 1999, 182. Auch Ertz rechnet das Bauernmahl aufgrund der angeblichen Signatur zu den (neun) „in der Zuschreibung sicheren“ Gemälden van Cleves und wertet „den schweren, in flüssigen runden Formen weit schwingenden Faltenwurf der Gewänder“ der auf dem Bauernmahl dargestellten Figuren als wichtiges „Erkennungszeichen“ des van Cleve-Œuvres (Ertz – Nitze-Ertz 2014, zit. Anm. 1, 15). 39 Eichenholz, 75,5 x 107,6 cm. 40 Vgl. etwa Marlier 1969 (zit. Anm. 1), 348; Hans M. J. Nieuwdorp, Museum Mayer van den Bergh Antwerpen, Brüssel 1996, 41; Kavaler 1999 (zit. Anm. 38), 156 f., und Ertz – Nitze-Ertz 2014 (zit. Anm. 1), Kat.-Nr. 132. Auch bezüglich der lavierten und weiß gehöhten Federzeichnung derselben Komposition (Wien, Albertina), bei der es sich um eine Vorzeichnung handeln dürfte (Faggin 1965, zit. Anm. 1, 38), gehen mehrere Autoren von einer Urheberschaft van Cleves aus (vgl. etwa Raupp 1986, zit. Anm. 1, 259, sowie Ertz – Nitze-Ertz 2014, zit. Anm. 1, Kat.-Nr. Z 2).

126

Abb. 8: Südniederländisch, Raufhandel zwischen Soldaten und Bauern. Um 1575. Wien, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Gemäldegalerie, Inv.-Nr. 3565. (©: KHM-Museumsverband.)

Abb. 9: Südniederländisch, Blindensturz. Um 1575. Wien, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Gemäldegalerie, Inv.-Nr. 2610. (©: KHM-Museumsverband.)

127

Abb. 10: Südniederländisch, Bethlehemitischer Kindermord. Um 1610. 1998 im Kunsthandel.

ern41 (Abb. 8) und ein ebenfalls in Wien befindlicher Blindensturz42 (Abb. 9) sowie ein Hochzeitstanz im Freien43 und eine Kreuztragung44 im Kunsthandel angehören. Allerdings kennzeichnen diese Bilder eine gegenüber den beschriebenen van Cleve-Gemälden wesentlich präzisere und glattere Malweise sowie charakteristische Figuren mit rundlich-buckeligen, puppenhaften Körpern und Gesichtern mit Knollennase und fliehendem Kinn. Im Übrigen kann eine Autorschaft van Cleves für die genannte Werkgruppe ausgeschlossen werden, da ein dieselben Charakteristika aufweisender Bethlehemitischer Kindermord45 (Abb. 10) auf einer Kupfertafel gemalt wurde, die rückseitig mit der Prägung „ANNO 1605“ versehen ist46 – wogegen van Cleve bereits im Jahr 1581 verstirbt. Von der Hand dieses Malers dürfte auch eine Darstellung von Kinderspielen in St. Petersburg (Eremitage)47 sowie eine Segnung des Hochzeitsbettes im Mu-

41 Eichenholz, 47,3 x 51 cm, auf der linken Seite stark beschnitten (vgl. Borchert – Ferino-Pagden – Sellink 2011, zit. Anm. 8, Kat.-Nr. 44 [Manfred Sellink]). Einen Eindruck von der Gesamtkomposition vermittelt eine Version der Darstellung im Kunsthandel (vgl. zu dieser Ertz – Nitze-Ertz 2014, zit. Anm. 1, Kat.-Nr. 121). 42 Eichenholz, 51 x 65 cm. Vgl. Borchert – Ferino-Pagden – Sellink 2011 (zit. Anm. 8), Kat.-Nr. 45 (Manfred Sellink). 43 Vgl. Ertz – Nitze-Ertz 2014 (zit. Anm. 1), Kat.-Nr. 134. 44 Als Marten van Cleve versteigert am 31.1.2013 bei Sotheby’s New York (Lot 12). Vgl. Ertz – Nitze-Ertz 2014 (zit. Anm. 1), Kat.-Nr. 7. 45 Als Werk von Pieter Brueghel d. J. versteigert am 16. 12. 1998 bei Christie’s London (Lot 27). 46 Vgl. Ertz 2000 (zit. Anm. 1), 338, Abb. 240. Ertz identifiziert die Prägung als die Marke des Kupferplattenherstellers Pieter Stas. 47 Inv.-Nr. 2975, Eichenholz, 107 x 149,4 cm. Ertz bezeichnet van Cleves Autorschaft des Bildes dagegen als „über jeden Zuschreibungszweifel erhaben“ (Ertz – Nitze-Ertz 2014, zit. Anm. 1, 42).

128

seum für Religionsgeschichte in St. Petersburg48 stammen, obwohl das zuletzt genannte Bild in Ligatur „M(v)C“ monogrammiert ist. IV Die obigen Ausführungen sollen als Grundlage für weitere Untersuchungen zu Marten van Cleve dienen, harren doch die ihm zugeschriebenen, auch im Kunsthandel stark vertretenen Werke bis heute einer konzisen Händescheidung49. Eine solche erfolgt leider auch nicht in der van Cleve-Monographie von Klaus Ertz, wenngleich sie aufgrund der Fülle des katalogisierten Materials einen hilfreichen Ausgangspunkt für zukünftige Forschungen darstellt. Zu sehr stellt Ertz für seine Zuschreibungen auf die – von Werkstattmitarbeitern, Nachfolgern und Kopisten gleichermaßen imitierbare – Motivik der Darstellungen ab50. Die charakteristische, von Floris beeinflusste Malweise van Cleves berücksichtigt Ertz dagegen kaum, obwohl gerade diese van Cleves Schaffen von dem der meisten Maler der Bruegel-Nachfolge abhebt, die allgemein eine stärker deckende und glattere Malweise sowie ein präziserer Pinselduktus kennzeichnen. Einer eingehenden Beschäftigung harrt auch van Cleves druckgraphisches Werk51, das im vorliegenden, auf sein malerisches Schaffen konzentrierten Abriss ebenso weitgehend ausgeklammert wurde wie sein zeichnerisches Œuvre52. Weiters wäre 48 Inv.-Nr. A-1002-III, Leinwand auf Holz übertragen, 79 x 112,5 cm, 1580 datiert. Vgl. dazu Ertz – Nitze-Ertz 2014 (zit. Anm. 1), 16, 65, Kat.-Nr. 174, Farbabb. 24. Bei dem Gemälde handelt es sich wohl um das Bild Eine Bauerndirne wird entkleidet und ins Brautbett geführt, das im Katalog der Schleißheimer Galerie von 1810 mit Maßen von etwa 80 x 114 cm aufscheint (vgl. Christian von Mannlich, Fortgesetzte Beschreibung der königlich-baierischen Gemälde-Sammlungen. Bd. 3: Enthaltend die Gemälde zu Schleißheim und Lustheim, München 1810, 190) und im April 1852 in München versteigert wurde, zumal auch dieses als (mit „M[v]C“) monogrammiert und 1580 datiert beschrieben wird (vgl. Alfred von Wurzbach, Niederländisches Künstler-Lexikon, Bd. 1: A–K, Wien 1906, 292). Eine zum Hochzeitsbett geführte Bäuerin zeigt ferner ein angeblich monogrammiertes und 1576 datiertes, 22 x 30 cm großes Tafelbild, das 1934 in belgischem Privatbesitz befindlich war und als Werk van Cleves versteigert wurde; Ausstellungskatalog Kunsthandel P. de Boer (Hg.), De helsche en de fluweelen Brueghel en hun invloed op de kunst in de Nederlanden, Amsterdam 1934, Nr. 107, Abb. 30. Vgl. zu dem Bild, bei dem es sich, soweit sich dies anhand der verfügbaren (Schwarzweiß-)Abbildung beurteilen lässt, durchaus um ein Werk van Cleves handeln könnte, auch Faggin 1965 (zit. Anm. 1), 36; Konrad Renger, Tränen in der Hochzeitsnacht. Das Zubettbringen der Braut, ein vergessenes Thema in der niederländischen Malerei, in: ders., Lehrhafte Laster. Aufsätze zur Ikonographie der niederländischen Kunst des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts, München 2006, 151 f.; De Bruyn – Op de Beeck 2003 (zit. Anm. 1), 129 f.; Ertz – Nitze-Ertz 2014 (zit. Anm. 1), Kat.-Nr. 177. 49 Es ist dabei nicht auszuschließen, dass van Cleves Söhne Gillis, Marten, Joris und Nicolaas – van Mander schreibt in seiner van Cleve-Lebensbeschreibung, dass diese sämtlich „goede Schilders“ gewesen seien (van Mander 1969, zit. Anm. 6, fol. 230v.) – zur Verbreitung seiner Bilderfindungen einen vergleichbaren Beitrag leisteten wie Pieter Brueghel d. J. in Bezug auf seinen Vater und also möglicherweise für zahlreiche der gegenwärtig Marten van Cleve zugeschriebenen Werke verantwortlich zeichneten. 50 So schreibt Ertz etwa: „Das Erkennungszeichen des Malers schlechthin ist der mittelgroße gefleckte Hund, der, wie es scheint, eine stellvertretende Rolle für eine fehlende Signatur einnehmen kann. Man darf vermuten, dass ein ähnlicher Hund zur Familie der van Cleves gehörte“ (Ertz – Nitze-Ertz 2014, zit. Anm. 1, 20). 51 Zahlreiche nicht bezeichnete Stiche werden auf van Cleve-Bilderfindungen zurückgeführt, vgl. etwa Ger Luijten, Teljoren in druk. Een prent reeks naar Maarten van Cleve met mannen en vrouwen in het rond, in: Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 49, 2001, 152–169. An bezeichneten Kupferstichen sind neben den bereits erwähnten zu nennen: Die verkehrte Welt („M•V•CLE•INV“), Die blinden Hirten („M•V•C•IN“, 1579 datiert), Der gute Hirte („M.V.CLE.Invent“), Der schlechte Hirte („M.V.CLE.Inve.“); mit einem – von der Bezeichnung der monogrammierten Gemälde abweichenden – „MVC“-Monogramm in Ligatur versehen sind die Blätter Allegorie des Tages und Allegorie der Nacht, eine Fröhliche Gesellschaft sowie eine Bauernstube. Daneben dürfte eine achtteilige Serie von moralisierenden Darstellungen landwirtschaftlicher Tätigkeiten von van Cleve stammen, nachdem eines der Blätter, die Heuernte, mit „M. van Cleve inventor“ bezeichnet ist. Zeichnungen in Darmstadt (Hessisches Landesmuseum, Inv.-Nr. AE 431) und Stockholm (Nationalmuseum, Inv.-Nr. 1791/1863, 1792/1863) geben drei Kompositionen der Serie (Unkrautjäten, Sähen und Pflügen) wieder. Da sie nicht spiegelverkehrt angelegt sind, dürften die Blätter nicht als Vorzeichnungen für die Kupferstiche fungiert haben; es könnte sich aber um Kompositionsskizzen von der Hand van Cleves handeln. 52 Neben den bereits erwähnten Zeichnungen können van Cleve eine Allegorie des Geschmacksinns (Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Kupferstichkabinett, Inv.-Nr. KdZ 26386; vgl. Mielke 1975, zit. Anm. 11, 58), eine – der Wiener Bauernstube mit vornehmen Besuchern in motivischer wie kompositorischer Hinsicht nicht unähnliche – Bauernstube mit der Herbergssuche (Universiteit Leiden, Prentenkabinet, Inv.-Nr. PK-T-AW-1177; vgl. Ertz – Nitze-Ertz 2014, zit. Anm. 1, Kat.-Nr. Z 8) sowie die „M(v)C“

129

die Frage nach einer möglichen Beteiligung van Cleves an Gemälden zu stellen, die gegenwärtig dem Floris-Kreis zugeordnet werden. Über Frans Floris ist bei van Mander zu lesen, es sei „erstaunlich […], was für eine große Anzahl guter Schüler“ er ausgebildet habe. Der Grund für die laut van Mander mehr als hundertzwanzig in Floris’ Werkstatt tätigen Mitarbeiter seien „die großen Arbeiten, die Floris vielfach unter Händen hatte, und die er von seinen Gesellen untermalen ließ“: „Wenn er [scil. Floris] ihnen [scil. seinen Gesellen] nämlich mit Kreide aufgezeichnet hatte, was ihm vorschwebte, ließ er sie weiter arbeiten, indem er sagte: ‚Bringt da die und die Köpfe an!‘ Er hatte nämlich jederzeit eine ganze Anzahl davon auf Holz gemalt dastehen. Dadurch bekamen sie Sicherheit und Selbständigkeit, so daß sie es auch wagten, selbst Bilder auf Leinwand anzulegen und aus sich selbst etwas zu komponieren und zu malen.“53 Diese van Mander-Passage wirft die Frage auf, ob sämtliche Floris zugeschriebenen Gemälde tatsächlich zur Gänze von ihm selbst stammen oder nicht auch Mitarbeiter wie Marten van Cleve an ihnen zumindest beteiligt gewesen sein könnten. Immerhin wurden einzelne Floris zugeschriebene Gemälde wohl nicht ausschließlich vom Meister selbst ausgeführt: So erscheinen etwa im Parisurteil in Kassel (Schloss Wilhelmshöhe) mehrere Gesichter wie den Figuren aufgesetzte Masken – ein Umstand, der vor dem Hintergrund der zitierten van Mander-Passage die Beteiligung eines Werkstattmitarbeiters nahelegt. Auch die Abgrenzung zwischen van Cleve und Gillis Mostaert, einem weiteren Antwerpener Zeitgenossen, ist mitunter nicht einfach, zumal dieser ebenfalls Genredarstellungen schuf und sich dabei eines vergleichbaren Motivschatzes bediente54. Van Mander erwähnt ferner, dass Gillis van Coninxloo und andere Landschaftsmaler oft auf van Cleve zurückgegriffen hätten, „um sich von ihm Figuren in ihre Landschaften malen zu lassen, wodurch diese einen großen Schmuck erhielten“; auch Martens Bruder Hendrick van Cleve habe laut van Mander in mehreren Gemälden die Landschaften beigesteuert55. Der vorliegende Text soll in Bezug auf diese und weitere Fragen Anhaltspunkte liefern und damit einen Beitrag zur längst überfälligen Neubewertung von Marten van Cleves künstlerischem Schaffen leisten.

­monogrammierten Blätter Triumph des Lebens und Triumph des Todes (beide Paris, École Nationale Supérieure des Beaux-Arts, Inv.-Nr. 402 und 403) zugeschrieben werden. Vgl. zu den zuletzt genannten, mit Monogramm und Datierung (1568) nachgestochenen Kompositionen Emmanuelle Brugerolles (Hg.), Renaissance des Nordens. Meisterzeichnungen aus der École Nationale Supérieure des ­B eaux-Arts in Paris, Paris 1986, Kat.-Nrn. 77–78). 53 Übersetzung zit. nach van Mander 1991 (zit. Anm. 6), 185 f. 54 So wurde etwa eine St. Georg-Kirmes-Darstellung 2003 als Werk Gillis Mostaerts versteigert (Christie’s London, 9.7.2003, Lot 21), zuletzt (Christie’s London, 4.12.2013, Lot 123) jedoch van Cleve zugeschrieben, da eine Reinigung ein „MvC“-Monogramm zum Vorschein gebracht habe (vgl. Ertz – Nitze-Ertz 2014, zit. Anm. 1, Kat.-Nr. 28). Fragen der Abgrenzung zwischen Mostaert und van Cleve stellen sich auch hinsichtlich einer Marktszene in Privatbesitz (vgl. dazu Ertz – Nitze-Ertz 2014, zit. Anm. 1, Kat.Nr. 69). 55 Van Mander 1991 (zit. Anm. 6), 140. Bezüglich einer solchen Zusammenarbeit van Cleves mit einem Landschaftsmaler kommt etwa eine Flusslandschaft mit plündernden Soldaten in Privatbesitz in Frage (vgl. Ertz – Nitze-Ertz 2014, zit. Anm. 1, Kat.-Nr. 86).

130

SUMMARY

Right now countless uninspired genre paintings informed by the work of Pieter Bruegel the Elder are being attributed to Marten van Cleve. One reason for this may be the fact that a Peasants’ Feast now in the Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna was long attributed to van Cleve because of a supposed signature. However, the inscription (“Martin Clev”) differs from the “M(v)C” monograms used by van Cleve to sign all his other paintings; in addition, it is executed with a graphite pen over at least one layer of varnish. Using this as its starting point, the paper discusses van Cleve’s undisputed oeuvre, showing that van Cleve was an extremely skilful as well as a very interesting artist, who combined the free handling of his teacher, Frans Floris, with the wealth of motifs introduced by Bruegel in his genre paintings.

131

Matteo Borchia

Dipinti come doni diplomatici: novità su alcune opere di Guercino inviate a Vienna nel Seicento

Si presentano in questa sede nuovi documenti relativi ad alcuni doni che la famiglia Barberini fece giungere alla corte imperiale durante il pontificato di Urbano VIII: intermediario di tali spedizioni fu Gaspare Mattei (1598–1650), uno dei più importanti prelati che la Curia romana inviò a Vienna nel corso del Seicento per ricoprire la carica di nunzio straordinario presso l’imperatore. Figlio di Mario Mattei, barone di Paganica, e di Prudenzia Cenci, Gaspare fu avviato sin da giovane alla carriera ecclesiastica, iniziando il proprio operato sotto il pontificato di Paolo V Borghese in qualità di referendario del Tribunale della Segnatura Apostolica. Venne successivamente destinato a governatore di varie città dello Stato Pontificio (S. Severino, Forlì, Urbino e Perugia) e nel 1636 Urbano VIII gli affidò il commissariato generale della Romagna. Nominato vescovo titolare di Atene nel settembre del 1639, ricevette la consacrazione a Vienna dalle mani del cardinale Ernst Adalbert von Harrach, iniziando così il proprio operato come nunzio presso Ferdinando III. Nel corso dei quattro anni trascorsi in Austria, si occupò principalmente degli interessi cattolici nell’ultima fase della guerra dei Trent’Anni, partecipando alle frequenti diete imperiali e seguendo la corte nei suoi numerosi spostamenti: il giovane nunzio si batté con vigore per convincere il sovrano asburgico della necessità di un’alleanza con i regni di Francia e di Spagna in chiave antiturca. Il suo attivo operato, particolarmente gradito agli occhi dei Barberini nonostante i pochi risultati che riuscì a ricavare, gli permise di ricevere la porpora cardinalizia nell’estate del 16431. Il ritrovamento di una porzione rilevante della corrispondenza intrattenuta da Mattei con la corte pontificia e del diario redatto nel corso della permanenza a Vienna ha permesso di ricostruire con precisione l’attività di una figura cardine nelle relazioni tra l’impero e il papato nella prima metà del XVII  secolo2. Dalla lettura di questi documenti emerge come preponderante il filo diretto che univa Mattei alla famiglia Barberini: egli si manteneva in costante contatto soprattutto con il cardinal nepote Francesco, cui era solito indirizzare i propri dispacci. Assai variegata è la tipologia di argomenti affrontati in queste lettere, molto vicina a quella della coe­ va corrispondenza degli ambasciatori cesarei Paolo e Federico Savelli: comprensi1

Fig. 1: Guercino, Il ritorno del figliuol prodigo, dettaglio. Olio su tela. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Gemäldegalerie, inv. 251. (©: KHM-Museumsverband.)

2

133

Sul Mattei, cfr. Irene Fosi, All’ombra dei Barberini. Fedeltà e servizio nella Roma barocca, Roma 1997, 124 e 141; Donato Squicciarini, Nunzi apostolici a Vienna, Città del Vaticano 1998, 124–125; Filippo Crucitti, Mattei, Gaspare, voce in: Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, Roma 2009, vol. 72, 153–156; Péter Tusor, Due relazioni di Gaspare Mattei nunzio apostolico a Vienna dello stato “delle cose” e di religione nel regno d’Ungheria (1639), in: Miscellanea Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae XI, 2009, 671–690. Su tale documentazione, cfr. Marina Raffaeli, L’Archivio Santacroce e le carte Mattei, in: Miscellanea in onore di Ruggero Moscati, Napoli 1985, 233–235.

bilmente al nunzio interessavano soprattutto questioni di carattere politico e religioso, ma non mancano importanti episodi di committenza artistica e incarichi a carattere culturale affidatigli dalla Curia romana. L’arrivo a Vienna di monsignor Mattei e la sua presentazione a corte furono accompagnati dal consueto scambio di doni tra il prelato e l’imperatore, del quale si è conservato un elenco sommario: il 15 giugno 1639 il nunzio inviò il fratello Fabio al cospetto del sovrano per presentargli i donativi che aveva condotto con sé da Roma. Si trattava nello specifico di alcune reliquie dei santi Valentino e Ignazio di Loyola, di “un offiziolo della Madonna con l’arme di S. M.”, di “un Cavallo di bronzo preso al simile di quello di Campidoglio et una statua pur di Bronzo rappresentante la fama”3. Un insieme di regali piuttosto eterogeneo che presentava tuttavia una panoramica dei principali elementi che legavano gli Asburgo alla città di Roma: la santità dei martiri dei primi secoli e dei protagonisti della Controriforma, il cui culto era particolarmente sentito dalla famiglia imperiale, e la maestosità dell’antico, esemplificata dalla copia bronzea del Marc’Aurelio capitolino. Doni simili, anche se più contenuti, furono presentati all’imperatrice Maria Anna (1606–1646), la figlia di Filippo III di Spagna (1578–1621) che era andata in moglie a Ferdinando, ai membri più illustri della corte e al conte Johann Maximilian von Trauttmanns­ dorff, primo ministro del sovrano. Il 25 luglio 1639, giorno di S. Giacomo, poco dopo il suo arrivo a Vienna, il nuovo nunzio fu ricevuto dal marchese di Costaguida, ambasciatore di Spagna presso Ferdinando III che offrì in suo onore un ricco pranzo, cui furono invitati il nunzio ordinario, Malatesta Baglioni (1581–1648)4, l’ambasciatore veneto, i confessori dell’imperatore e dell’imperatrice e altri notabili5. Tra le prime preoccupazioni del solerte prelato vi fu la riorganizzazione della sede della nunziatura, che appariva confusa a seguito di un prolungato periodo di scarsa attenzione, e dopo alcuni mesi di lavoro, il 12 novembre 1639, egli poté annotare con orgoglio: “Stò adesso raddrizzando le cose di q.ta Nuntiatura, et spero s’altro non vi si frapone di servire in qualche cosa N. S.e di già ho dato mano à fare un Archivio Ap.co delle scritture di giurisdizioni della Nunziatura, tenuto per lo passato malissimamente.”6 Subito dopo aver avviato la propria legazione presso la corte imperiale, Mattei iniziò a ricevere lettere e richieste da Roma. A rivolgersi a lui era generalmente Antonio Feragalli, segretario della Cifra e segretario personale di Francesco Barberini. Tra le prime indicazioni inviate al nuovo nunzio si incontra quella di spedire a Roma frequenti dispacci e di non dimenticare dettagli ed episodi di contorno, che tanto suscitavano l’interesse del cardinale nepote7. Numerosi furono ovviamente i membri della corte barberiniana a relazionarsi con Gaspare Mattei e tra costoro emerge la figura di Luca Holstenio (1596–1662), il celebre erudito di Amburgo che, dopo la sua conversione al cattolicesimo, era stato prescelto dal cardinale Francesco come bibliotecario dell’imponente libreria che questi stava raccogliendo nel palazzo alle Quattro Fontane8. 3 4

5

6 7 8

134

Archivio di Stato di Roma (d’ora in poi, ASR), Archivio Santacroce, b. 1213, f. s. n. Sul Baglioni, cfr. Alberto Merola, Baglioni, Malatesta, voce in: Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, Roma 1963, vol. 5, 233–234; Rotraud Becker (a cura di), Nuntiaturen des Malatesta Baglioni, des Ciriaco Rocci und des Mario Filonardi. Sendung des P. Alessandro d’Arles (1634–1635), Tübingen 2014, ad vocem. Per un’analisi della sua nunziatura si rimanda anche all’interessante resoconto contenuto in Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (BAV), Barb. Lat. 4735 (Andrea Nicoletti, Della vita di papa Urbano Ottavo […], VI), ff. 342r–390v (Nunziatura di Monsignor Baglioni vescovo di Pesaro). ASR, Archivio Santacroce, b. 1220 (Diario di mons. Mattei nunzio in Germania 1639–1642), f. 7v: “Il giorno di S. Giacomo il Marchese di Castaguida Amb. del Rè Cattco ha fatto banchetto a M.r Mattei Nunzio Straord. nel quale intervennero anche M.r Baglioni Nunzio ord.° l’Amb. Veneto li Confessori dell’Impre et Imp.ce li Camerari di Mr Mattei et altri Cavalieri” (30 luglio 1639). Ibidem, b. 1215, f. 40r. Ibidem, b. 1208, f. s. n. (A. Feragalli a G. Mattei, Roma, 20 agosto 1639): “[…] il quale [Francesco Barberini] gradisce la prolissità quando le materie la richiedono”. Su Holstenio, il cui nome tedesco era Lukas Holste, cfr. Roberto Almagià, L’opera geografica di Luca Holsteno, Città del Vaticano 1942; Alfredo Serrai, La biblioteca di Lucas Holstenius, Udine 2000;

Fig. 2: Guercino, Il ritorno del figliuol prodigo. Olio su tela. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Gemäldegalerie, inv. 251. (©: KHM-Museumsverband.)

Il 26 aprile 1639 il letterato tedesco scrisse a Mattei a proposito di alcuni problemi relativi a un beneficio ecclesiastico da lui acquisito in Germania e minacciato dall’evoluzione degli schieramenti della guerra dei Trent’Anni. Gli era infatti riuscito di ottenere la prepositura di S. Croce a Stoccarda, restituita al culto cattolico per volontà di Ferdinando II e affidatagli da parte di Urbano VIII. Nonostante l’invio delle bolle necessarie, il giovane duca del Württemberg Eberhard III (1614–1674) “comincia mettersi la mano, pigliar l’intrate, et appoggiato et inanimito dalle vicine forze del Weimar e de Francesi minaccia giornalmente di scacciar li Catholici, e rimetter la Chiesa in mano de ministri heretici”9. Holstenio chiese a Mattei di intervenire presso la corte imperiale affinché questo suo diritto gli fosse riconosciuto e le entrate di questo beneficio tornassero ad essergli inviate con regolarità. Nello stesso periodo, tuttavia, dimenticando queste sue preoccupazioni ‘personali’, Holstenio si rivolse al nunzio a Vienna per ottenere alcuni libri richiestigli dal cardinale Barberini, adempiendo così alla propria carica di bibliotecario della famiglia. Sempre nella primavera del 1639 si espresse in questi termini in una lettera al Mattei: “Oltra di questo proporrò a V. S. Illma doe cose desiderate da S. Emin. e che li darebbero gusto particolare. Il primo è di procurare un catalogo o vero indice ­essatto

9

135

­Giovanni Morello, Olstenio, in: Lorenza Mochi Onori – Sebastian Schütze – Francesco Solinas (ed.), I Barberini e la cultura europea del Seicento, atti del convegno internazionale di studi (Roma, 7–11 dicembre 2004), Roma 2007, 173–180; Hans-Walter Stork (ed.), Lucas Holstenius (1596–1661): ein Hamburger Humanist im Rom des Barock. Material zur Geschichte seiner Handschriftenschenkung an die Stadtbibliothek Hamburg, Husum 2008. ASR, Archivio Santacroce, b. 1208, f. s. n. (L. Holstenio a G. Mattei, Roma, 26 aprile 1639).

Fig. 3: Guercino, Il ritorno del figliuol prodigo. Olio su tela. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Gemäldegalerie, inv. 253. (©: KHMMuseumsverband.)

della libraria di S.  Maj.ta che è tutta composta de libri Msti greci e latini, molto squisiti […] Il secondo negocio è questo. Desiderava S. Emin.za gia alcuni anni sono di metter insieme un buon numero de libri hebraici per ornamento e compimento della sua libraria.”10 Era una pratica piuttosto diffusa quella di rivolgersi a corrispondenti esteri per la ricerca di testi a stampa e manoscritti difficilmente reperibili sul mercato librario romano. Mattei, fido servitore della casa Barberini, adempì perfettamente a tale richiesta e il 28 gennaio 1640 lo stesso cardinale Francesco lo ringraziava dell’invio dei volumi richiesti e, nello specifico, di una Bibbia ebraica manoscritta11. L’anno dopo toccò ad Antonio Feragalli spedire a Vienna un’ulteriore richiesta di libri, questa volta a stampa, indicati come “N. Hurtlederus de Caussis belli Germanici quod gessit Carolus V. contra Principes protestantes 2 Tomi in folio lingua Germanica editi Francoforti […] una Biblia in hebreo, e Latino di Sebastiano Munstero, stampata in dua ò trè volumi in foglio in Basilea l’anno 1535.”12 Accanto alla questione di libri e manoscritti, nella corrispondenza tra Gaspare Mattei e la casa Barberini si incontrano anche brillanti casi di committenza artistica. Si è così potuta ricostruire nel dettaglio la provenienza di un dipinto di Guercino ancora oggi conservato a Vienna (Kunsthistorisches Museum, inv. 251), raffigurante il Ritorno del figliuol prodigo (fig. 1 e 2).

10 Ibidem, f. s. n. (L. Holstenio a G. Mattei, Roma, 16 aprile 1639). 11 Ibidem, f. s. n. (F. Barberini a G. Mattei, Roma, 28 gennaio 1640): “Li libri Hebraici, et in particolare la Bibia manuscritta, che alla soprabondante amorevolezza di V. S. ultimam.te è piaciuto inviarmi sono stati ricevuti da me con quella sodisfatione, che à lei puol bastantemente persuadere la medesima qualità di essi, la quale si trascende l’ordinario.” 12 Ibidem, f. s. n. (A. Feragalli a G. Mattei, Roma, 12 gennaio 1641).

136

Il 22 marzo 1642 Antonio Feragalli comunicò a Mattei che il cardinale Francesco si stava interessando per ottenere un dipinto del Guercino da inviare a Vienna13. Nel corso di un’udienza infatti l’imperatore Ferdinando  III aveva manifestato il ­desiderio di possedere almeno un’opera del maestro emiliano per collocarla nella ­propria collezione e il nunzio, presente in tale occasione, non aveva tardato a darne comunicazione alla corte pontificia. Il porporato, a sua volta, si era immediatamente­rivolto al fratello Taddeo (1603–1647) principe di Palestrina che, in qualità di Gonfaloniere di Santa Romana Chiesa, nel 1642 si trovava in Emilia: la possibilità di una guerra con il duca di Parma Odoardo Farnese aveva spinto Urbano VIII a inviare il nipote nelle campagne padane per procedere alla fortificazione di varie città, tra cui Cento, patria del Guercino. Questa fortuita vicinanza con l’artista permise a Taddeo di ottenere in breve tempo non uno, ma due dipinti del maestro che vengono così indicati nella lettera scritta da Bologna a Mattei il 7 agosto del 1642: “uno fatto qualche tempo fà, d’un S. Pietro, quando è richiesto, se sia dei discepoli; e l’altro che esce adesso dall’Autore, che rappresenta il figliuolo prodigo”14. Le due tele vengono quindi descritte con precisione come una Negazione di Pietro e un Ritorno del figliuol prodigo. Per quanto riguarda il primo, negli inventari delle collezioni imperiali non è stato possibile rintracciare un’opera di tale soggetto riferibile alla mano del Guercino e non è improbabile che sia andato disperso in una delle alienazioni di opere che hanno caratterizzato la storia di tali raccolte. Più immediato è stato invece il riconoscimento del secondo quadro, finora scarsamente considerato dagli studiosi15. Nelle collezioni viennesi sono presenti ben due dipinti di Guercino raffiguranti il Ritorno del figliuol prodigo. Una è la nota tela giovanile (inv. 253; fig. 3), realizzata nel 1619 per il cardinale Jacopo Serra (1570– 1623) assieme al S. Sebastiano soccorso da S. Irene (Bologna, Pinacoteca Nazionale) e al Sansone arrestato dai filistei (New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art)16. I tre dipinti sono menzionati già da Cesare Malvasia come un nucleo unitario e l’opera di Vienna, di cui sono note varie repliche di bottega, si trovava nella quadreria degli Asburgo già attorno al 1720, quando è descritto da Ferdinand Storffer17. A causa delle sue misure, tuttavia, essa non può essere identificata con il dipinto citato negli inventari del castello di Praga del 1685, del 1718 e del 173718. Sembra quindi verosimile che questi tre ultimi riferimenti siano relativi a un diverso dipinto, corrispondente a quello acquistato a Cento da Taddeo Barberini nel 1642. Esso è registrato anche sulle pagine del libro mastro di Guercino: “Dal Sig:re D. Tateo

13 Ibidem, f. s. n. (A. Feragalli a G. Mattei, Roma, 22 marzo 1642): “Sé bene S. Em.za non risponde à V. S. Ill.ma mi hà però lasciato di scrivere per haver un Quadro del Quercino [sic] conforme all’avviso di V. S. Illma.” 14 Ibidem, f. s. n. (T. Barberini a G. Mattei, Bologna, 7 agosto 1642): “Sono alcuni mesi, che il s.r Cardinale Barberini, mio sig.re, e fratello, mi scrisse, che in discorso tenuto da V. S. R.ma con S. M.tà C ­ esarea haveva V. S. R.ma conosciuto stimarsi da Sua M.tà, e desiderarsi qualche quadro del Barbieri da Cento, detto il Guercino. Ora me ne sono capitati due, uno fatto qualche tempo fa, d’un S. Pietro, quando è richiesto, se sia dei discepoli; e l’altro che esce adesso dall’Autore, che rappresenta il figliuolo prodigo. In esecutione dunque degli ordini di S. Em.a io invio a V. S. R.ma l’uno, e l’altro per la via di Venezia, inviandoli io colà à Mons.r Nuntio, acioche gl’invij poi à V. S. R.ma, e sarà in due casse quadre ben involtate. Non si è potuto haver cosa migliore, come l’haverei disiderata esquisita, dovendo essere così altam.e collocata, ma è convenuto di pigliar quello, che si è potuto havere. Se V. S. R.ma li presenterà, disidero, che ciò nol sia per mia parte, non havendocene io altra che di haverli procurati, et inviati; mi dispiace bene che venghino cosi nudi, e senza alcuno ornam.to, essendosi lasciati rispetto del peso, e dell’ingombro grande che havevano fatto.” 15 In Frances Vivian, Guercino seen from the Archivio Barberini, in: The Burlington Magazine 113, n. 814, 1971, 23–24, viene riportato lo stralcio del Libro dei conti del pittore, senza però identificare la tela in questione con il dipinto di Vienna. 16 Sulla committenza del cardinale Serra, cfr. Denis Mahon, Guercino and cardinal Serra: a newly discovered Masterpiece, in: Apollo, settembre 1981, 170–175; Shelley Perlove, Power and religious authority in Papal Ferrara: Cardinal Serra and Guercino, in: Konsthistorisk tidskrift 68, 1999, 18–30. 17 Ferdinand Storffer, Gemaltes Inventarium der Aufstellung der Gemäldegalerie in der Stallburg, Vienna 1720, b. I, Nr. 247. 18 Il dipinto è citato con sicurezza per la prima volta nella lista di opere sottoposte a restauro tra il 1780 e il 1781 per l’esposizione al Belvedere come “Ein Stück von Guercino, das ehemals weggeschnitten war, ist wieder angesetzt worden” (ringrazio Gudrun Swoboda della segnalazione).

137

Barberini Prencipe Perfetto [sic], si e riceuto ducat.ni 125. per un Quadro di due Mezze figure, ciouè un figliol Prodico.”19 L’opera, dopo essere approdata nelle collezioni di Ferdinando III, venne trasferita nel castello di Praga dove viene ricordata nel 1685 (n. 308), nel 1718 (n. 308)20 e nel 1737 (n. 374)21. Verosimilmente nel 1781 il quadro

Fig. 4: Guercino, S. Giovanni Battista nel deserto. Olio su tela. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Gemäldegalerie, inv. 240. (©: KHM-Museumsverband.)

si trovava ancora nella galleria della capitale boema, venendo registrato nell’inventario di quell’anno al numero 522; poco dopo la stesura di quest’ultimo documento, esso fu trasferito a Vienna per essere esposto, accanto al Ritorno del figliuol prodigo già Serra, nella Bologneser Saal del Belvedere, come riferito da Christian von Mechel nel 178322. Attualmente è conservato nei depositi del Kunsthistorisches Museum23. Due furono quindi le tele di Guercino che Taddeo Barberini riuscì ad acquistare a Cento nell’estate del 1642, rispondendo alla richiesta del fratello Francesco. Nella già citata lettera al nunzio Mattei, il nipote di Urbano VIII gli consigliò di presentare i dipinti all’imperatore a nome del solo cardinale: “disidero, che ciò nol sia per mia parte, non havendocene io altra che di haverli procurati, et inviati.”24 Si preoccupava anche di scusarsi di averli spediti “cosi nudi, e senza alcuno ornam.to”, cioè senza cornici, a causa dell’eccessivo ingombro che esse avrebbero comportato durante il viaggio. Ben imballati, i quadri furono inizialmente spediti a Venezia e di qui, grazie all’intervento del nunzio Francesco Vitelli (1586–1646), partirono alla volta di Vienna. Il 13 settembre Mattei poteva rassicurare il cardinale Barberini del fatto che “hò havuto per q.to Ord.rio avviso da V. Emza che le dua Casetti de quadri erano stati consegnati, e l’inviavano all’Endelfer mercanti di quà” e che l’avrebbe prontamente informato appena fossero giunti a Vienna25. Bisognò attendere un altro mese perché le due tele giungessero a destinazione e subito Mattei si preoccupò di far “fare, et indorare le cornici alli due quadri del Guercino, acciò comparino tanto meglio”. Vennero quindi presentate a Ferdinando III che fece intendere di averle molto gradite e volle collocarle “nel Tesoro dove tiene quelli del Correggio et d’altri Pittori famosi”26. Si concludeva così la vicenda dell’acquisto e dell’invio a Vienna delle due opere di Guercino comprate da Taddeo Barberini direttamente dal pittore: il ruolo di Gaspare Mattei in quest’operazione fu quella di un sapiente mediatore, a metà tra la sua carica di nunzio apostolico e la sua qualità di fedele servitore della casata barberiniana. Bisogna infine ricordare che l’interesse dell’imperatore per la pittura del Guercino si era già manifestato in un’occasione e poteva quindi essere noto nell’Italia della metà del Seicento. Già un anno prima della vicenda descritta, infatti, l’artista emiliano aveva ricevuto la commissione di un dipinto direttamente da Vienna. Nel Libro dei conti del pittore, in data 16 novembre 1641, è indicato il pagamento ricevuto per “il Quadro del San Giouanni nel deserto, fatto per la Maesta del Imperatore”, valutato la consistente somma di centocinquantasette scudi e mezzo27. Il dipinto (inv. 240; fig. 4), la cui vicenda è conosciuta da tempo, ottenne da subito grande rilievo, come è attestato dalla menzione da parte di Cesare Malvasia che lo ricorda 19 Cfr. Barbara Ghelfi (ed.), Il libro dei conti del Guercino 1629–1666, con la consulenza scientifica di Sir Denis Mahon, Bologna 1997, 113. 20 A questa data l’opera era esposta nella terza galleria del castello e nel documento dell’8 aprile 1718 si legge: “Quirino Dicendo. Der verlohrne sohn”, cfr. Karl Köpl (ed.), Urkunden, Acten, Regesten und Inventare aus dem k. k. Statthalterei-Archiv in Prag, in: Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses X, 1889 (Quellen zur Geschichte der kaiserlichen Haussammlungen und der Kunstbestrebungen des allerdurchlauchtigsten Erzhauses), p. CXXXVI. 21 Nell’inventario del 5 ottobre 1737 è menzionato “Der verlohrene Sohn” di “Qverchin Dacendo”, considerato un originale e inserito in una cornice dorata: cfr. Köpl 1889 (cit. nota 20), p. CLVI. 22 Christian von Mechel, Verzeichnis der Gemälde der Kaiserlich Königlichen Bilder Gallerie in Wien, Vienna 1783, 52, n. 4. 23 Eduard von Engerth, Gemälde. Beschreibendes Verzeichniß, I. Band (Italienische, spanische und französische Schulen), Vienna 1882, n. 253; Katalog der Gemäldegalerie. I. Teil. Italiener, Spanier, Französen, Engländer, Vienna 1965, 68, n. 559; Die Gemäldegalerie des Kunsthistorischen Museums in Wien. Verzeichnis der Gemälde, Vienna 1991, 64, tav. 148 (come prodotto della bottega del maestro emiliano). 24 ASR, Archivio Santacroce, b. 1208, f. s. n. (T. Barberini a G. Mattei, Bologna, 6 agosto 1642). 25 Ibidem, b. 1211, f. s. n. (minuta di G. Mattei a F. Barberini, Vienna, 13 settembre 1642). 26 Ibidem, f. s. n. (minuta di G. Mattei a F. Barberini, Vienna, 25 ottobre 1642). 27 Cfr. Ghelfi 1997 (cit. nota 19), 110–111.

138

come “un quadro grande per la Cesarea Maestà dell’Imperatore con un S. Giovanni nel Deserto, mandato a Vienna”28 e dalle fonti più tarde, come la biografia redatta da Jacopo Alessandro Calvi all’inizio dell’Ottocento29. La grande tela, di cui sono note due copie eseguite dalla bottega del pittore, è menzionata nell’inventario a stampa delle raccolte imperiali, redatto da Ferdinand Storffer tra il 1720 e il 173330, e ottenne sempre un considerevole risalto nelle varie sedi espositive della collezione31. La vicenda delle due tele di Guercino contribuì non solo ad arricchire le raccolte imperiali di Vienna, ma anche ad accrescere il buon nome del nunzio Mattei presso i Barberini. Nel giro di poco tempo egli venne infatti premiato con la porpora cardinalizia. A dargli notizia di questo importante riconoscimento fu il cardinale Francesco con una lettera del 13 luglio 1643, giorno dell’ultimo concistoro di Urbano VIII: “La S.ta di N. S. l’ha questa mattina dichiarata Card.le”32, precisando che assieme a lui erano stati proclamati altri sedici cardinali. Quasi un mese più tardi il Barberini informò il Mattei del prossimo invio della berretta cardinalizia33 e che di lì a poco sarebbe stato richiamato in Italia. Ebbe così termine la nunziatura a Vienna di Gaspare Mattei che, nel corso dei quattro anni trascorsi alla corte di Ferdinando III, si era dimostrato su più fronti un fedele servitore della corte barberiniana e degli interessi della Curia pontificia.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG

Monsignor Gaspare Matteis Ankunft in Wien im Jahre 1639 als Apostolischer Nuntius stärkte die politischen und kulturellen Verbindungen zwischen dem Kaiserhof und der Papststadt. Er machte sich vor allem zum Übermittler der Wünsche von Kardinal Francesco Barberini, dem Neffen Urbans VIII. und Sekretär des Kirchenstaats. Zeichen der freundlichen Beziehungen zwischen den Habsburgern und dem barberinischen Rom sind die zahlreichen Geschenke, die Mattei Ferdinand III. überreichte, darunter einige Reliquien und eine bronzene Reiterstatuette. 1642 berichtete Mattei dem Kardinal vom Wunsch des Kaisers, seine Kunstsammlungen zu erweitern, und zugleich vom speziellen Interesse des Herrschers an der Kunst Guercinos. Kardinal Francesco Barberini suchte den aus Wien gemeldeten Bitten zu entsprechen und schrieb an seinen Bruder Taddeo, der sich zu dieser Zeit in der Nähe von Cento befand, der Heimatstadt des Malers. Im August dieses Jahres wurden zwei Werke Guercinos erworben, die Heimkehr des verlorenen Sohnes und die Verleugnung des Petrus. Beide Gemälde wurden zunächst nach Venedig und von da nach Wien gesandt und gelangten wenige Monate später in die kaiserlichen Sammlungen, wo sie in der Gemäldegalerie des Hofes aufbewahrt und im Laufe der Jahrhunderte zahlreichen Ortswechseln unterworfen wurden. Während die Verleugnung des Petrus verlorenging, befindet sich die Heimkehr des verlorenen Sohnes noch heute in der Gemäldegalerie des Kunsthistorischen Museums.

28 Carlo Cesare Malvasia, Felsina pittrice. Vite de’ pittori bolognesi, Bologna 1841, vol. II, 265. 29 Iacopo Alessandro Calvi, Notizie della vita, e delle opere del Cavaliere Gioan Francesco Barbieri detto il Guercino da Cento, celebre pittore, Bologna 1808, 99. 30 Storffer 1720 (cit. nota 17), b. III, n. 116. Sull’opera di Storffer, cfr. Sabine Haag – Gudrun Swoboda (ed.), Die Galerie Kaiser Karls VI. in Wien: Solimenas Widmungsbild und Storffers Inventar (1720– 1733), Vienna 2010. 31 Engerth 1882 (cit. nota 23), 180–181; Katalog der Gemäldegalerie, Vienna 1928, 95; Katalog der Gemäldegalerie 1965 (cit. nota 23), 68, n. 560; Verzeichnis der Gemälde, Vienna 1973, 81; Die Gemäldegalerie 1991 (cit. nota 23), 64, tav. 149. Per una storia complessiva del dipinto, cfr. Luigi Salerno, I dipinti del Guercino, Roma 1988, 278, n. 197. 32 ASR, Archivio Santacroce, b. 1208, f. s. n. (F. Barberini a G. Mattei, Roma, 13 luglio 1643). 33 Ibidem, f. s. n. (F. Barberini a G. Mattei, Roma, 29 agosto 1643): “Rinnova il godimento, che io hebbi della promotione di V. Em.a al Cardinalato la speditione, che si fà per inviarle la Berretta, la quale di commissione di N. S.re le verrà portata dal sig.e Ippolito Giusti suo Cameriero d’honore.” L’Ippolito Giusti menzionato nella lettera era un notabile di Urbino, cameriere segreto di Urbano VIII e parente del rimatore Battista Ceci.

139

Radim Vondráček

The Provenance of the Thun-Hohenstein Albums: Děčín Castle Library – Its History and Vicissitudes The fate of the two albums, which are referred to in earlier literature as Harnischbücher or Plattnerbücher, and in some cases as Musterbücher eines Augsburger Plattners,1 reflect the convulsions that marked Central Europe in the 20th century and dramatically affected the history of the region’s art collections. The albums preserved over several centuries in the Thun-Hohenstein library at the castle in Děčín/Tetschen in northern Bohemia have been known to specialists since 1888, when the documents were mentioned by Quirin von Leitner.2 Later, the two codices were displayed to the Czech public at the Provincial Jubilee Exhibition held in Prague in 1891, for which occasion the albums were lent by Franz Count ThunHohenstein (1847–1916), the then Governor of Bohemia. The works formed part of the historical section of the exhibition that provided an overview of developments in the arts and crafts.3 The Thun collections were amply represented at the exhibition by examples of historical armor of the 16th–18th centuries.4 In the following decades, the albums were mentioned in numerous studies published in journal and book form.5 Efforts to subject them to more thorough examination and to publish them were interrupted by the death of Hans Stöcklein (1874–1936), Director of the Bayerisches Armee-Museum in Munich, who had devoted his energy to the works over many years, and later by World War II. After the Second World War, only black-and-white photographs of one of the albums remained available. Stöcklein had been able to take these photographs with the owners’ consent. The unique originals escaped the attention of the scholarly community for several decades. The books were thought to be lost or even destroyed. When, in 1960, Alexander von Reitzenstein wrote an article about one of the sketch-

1

2

3

4

Fig. 1: Armorial bookplate of Johann Joseph Thun-Hohenstein on the front pastedown of the sketchbook. Copperplate engraving by an anonymous artist, c. 1740/50. Prague, Uměleckoprůmyslové museum v Praze, inv. no. GK 11.572 B.

5

141

The codices are referred to as Musterbücher eines Augsburger Plattners, for example, in the correspondence of Franz Anton Thun-Hohenstein (1890–1973) concerning the loan of the albums in the first half of the 1930s. See Museum of Decorative Arts in Prague, inv. no. Gk 11 572 B (document append­ ed: letter from Franz Anton Thun dated 24 May 1932 to the Mayor of the City of Augsburg). See Quirin Ritter von Leitner, “Artistisches Quellenmaterial aus der gräfl. Thun-Hohenstein’schen Fideicommiss-Bibliothek in Tetschen,” in Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses, vol. 7, 1888, pt. 2, pp. I–VI, nos. 4578–4583. Exhibition catalogue Katalog retrospektivní výstavy (Skupina XXV). Všeobecná zemská výstava v Praze 1891, Prague, 1891, no. 296 (book with colour plates of armor, weapons, saddles and emblems from the late 16th century; 73 pages) and no. 297 (book with colour plates of armor, weapons, saddles and emblems, 114 pages, c. 1550). Apart from the two albums, Franz Thun-Hohenstein lent the armors and weapons section a total of 33 objects, mainly rifles and pistols. Among the oldest weapons, dating to the 16th century, were two ivory-inlaid crossbows, a howitzer barrel featuring the coat of arms of Sigmund Thun from 1554, and a bronze-barreled blunderbuss with the inscription David and the date 1552. A detailed bibliography is provided by Pierre Terjanian in both parts of his pioneering study in this journal. See especially Pierre Terjanian, “The Art of the Armorer in Late Medieval and Renaissance Augsburg: The Rediscovery of the Thun Sketchbooks,” in Jahrbuch des Kunsthistorischen Museums Wien, vol. 13/14, 2011/2012, pp. 299–395, here pp. 300–301.

Fig. 2: Carl Graff, Castle in Děčín/Tetschen, southern view. 1818. Děčín/Tetschen, Regional Museum, inv. no. O 211.

books he had little hope that the missing albums would ever resurface.6 This skepticism resulted from the information published by Bruno Thomas in 1950, according to which the last owner of the books “Prince Paul Thun, who is now living in exile at Regensburg, states that it [the codex] was probably burned together with the whole library in the castle”.7 At the time no one seemed disconcerted by the discrepancies in this allegedly authentic testimony. It could have been easily ascertained that the last owner was in fact Franz Anton Thun-Hohenstein, and that from the 1930s the library was not located at Děčín Castle, contrary to what Thomas claimed. The unsold part of the library and its owner survived the end of war at the château in Jílové/Eulau. The absence of accurate and verifiable information was chiefly caused by the events of the post-war years, when the German population was expelled from Czechoslovakia and its property nationalized. The tragic disruption of the continuity of the country’s social and cultural development was coupled by extensive – and frequently chaotic – property transfers, and accompanied by disorganized changes of location. Another wave of confiscations followed the establishment of Communist rule in 1948. During the Cold War and the existence of the Iron Curtain, international scholarly contacts were paralyzed. This led to the widening of an information vacuum in both political and academic spheres. The transfers of art objects in the postwar period could be traced only with great difficulty. The National Cultural Committee was entrusted with the protection of the nationalized cultural heritage and its employees gradually drew up inventories of the confiscated artworks. However, detailed registers were compiled only with much delay and accurate record-making was further complicated by frequent relocation of objects and entire collections. Despite innumerable difficulties, most of the collections were documented over the following decades, including castle and château libraries that came under the aegis of an independent department of the library of the National Museum in Prague, set up in 1954.8 Nevertheless, exhaustive research efforts often remained confined to these institutions. The dramatic stories 6 7 8

142

Alexander von Reitzenstein, “Das Thun’sche Plattnerbuch a/2,” in Waffen- und Kostümkunde, ser. 3, vol. 2, no. 2, 1960, pp. 88–95, here p. 88. Bruno Thomas, “Portions of the Rogendorf Armour in the Wallace Collection,” in The Burlington Maga­zine, vol. 92, no. 567, 1950, pp. 173–175, here p. 174. Studies on the holdings of castle and château libraries administered by the National Museum in ­Prague were published as early as the 1950s by Bohumír Lifka, who was an erudite authority on the Thun ­library. See Bohumír Lifka, “Zámecké, hradní a palácové historické knihovny českých zemí ve sféře Národního musea,” in Časopis Národního musea, vol. 124, no. 1, 1955, pp. 77–96.

Fig. 3: Thun Sketchbook – open Codex, with a bookplate and a library stamp on the front fly­ leaf and with a title image of seated Emperor Maximilian I of Austria (folio 1r). Augsburg, c. 1532/50. Prague, Uměleckoprůmyslové museum v Praze, inv. no. GK 11.572 B.

of the art collections during the postwar period began to be discussed more openly only after 1989, with the onset of a new, democratic climate. Some of the property injustice was mitigated with the restitution of property confiscated after 1948 and of the assets of Holocaust victims. Research on the fate of the Děčín Castle library paralled these developments (fig. 2). The initial, detailed studies of the 1970s focused only on the library’s earliest history and made no mention whatsoever of the post-1945 period.9 The provenance investigation started in the 1990s began to reveal the Thun origins of some of the collections, including those confiscated after the war.10 At the same time, partly at the initiative of German scholars, German-language historical book holdings in Czech collections were documented. The Thun book collections from Děčín and Jílové that had been entrusted to the National Museum in Prague and other institutions were thus explored anew.11 In this connection, and perhaps for the first time since World War II, attention was drawn to the unique “sketchbooks” of an Augsburg armorer in the book and print collection of the Museum of Decorative Arts in Prague (Uměleckoprůmyslové museum v Praze) (fig. 3).12 Recent scholarship on the history of collecting in Bohemia has produced valuable evidence that casts light on the provenance of the Thun albums and the broader context of Děčín Castle library. Notably, scholarly attention has focused on members of the Thun-Hohenstein family of the late 17th and early 18th centuries, who stood at the inception of vast art collections in Prague and at Děčín Castle, and who

See Hana Ledinská-Malá, “Zámecká knihovna v Děčíně a její likvidace,” in Knihovna. Vědeckoteoretický sborník, vol. 8, 1971, 57–78, and Hana Ledinská, “Děčínská zámecká knihovna (Příspěvek k dějinám),” in Z minulosti Děčínska, vol. 2, 1974, pp. 194–214. 10 In the case of the Museum of Decorative Arts in Prague, the Thun collections were discussed, for example, in exhibition catalogue Dana Stehlíková (ed.), Cabinets of Arts and Curiosities. Five Centuries of Arts and Crafts Collecting, trans. Stepan Suchochleb, Prague (The Imperial Stable in the Prague), 1995–1996, p. 114 (entries by Dana Stehlíková and Radim Vondráček). 11 Petr Mašek – Karen Kloth, Handbuch deutscher historischer Buchbestände in Europa, vol. 2, Tschechische Republik, Schlossbibliotheken unter der Verwaltung des Nationalmuseums in Prag, ed. by Bernhard Fabian, Hildesheim – Zurich – New York, 1997, pp. 91–92. 12 Radim Vondráček, “Uměleckoprůmyslové muzeum v Praze/Kunstgewerbemuseum in Prag. Sammlung Buchkunst und angewandte Graphik,” in Handbuch deutscher historischer Buchbestände in Europa, vol. 1.2, Tschechische Republik, Prag, pt. 1, ed. by Vlasta Faltysová, Pavel Pohlei and Vincenc Streit, Hildesheim – Zurich – New York, 2000, pp. 148–153, here p. 151. 9

143

had previously been little studied.13 This research shows that Maximilian Thun-Hohenstein (1638–1701), the owner of the estates at Děčín/Tetschen and Klášterec nad Ohří/Klösterle an der Eger, and an eminent patron of the arts, was already an important figure in Baroque art collecting in Bohemia. His collaboration with the most accomplished artists of the day, such as the painter Johann Michael Rottmayr and architect Johann Fischer von Erlach, culminated in commissions during construction of the Thun palace in Prague’s Lesser Town, which was begun in the mid1690s.14 It is especially important that during Maximilian Thun’s lifetime, Děčín Castle already housed an extensive and outstanding library. A library register of 1702, which was compiled after Maximilian’s death as part of the inventory of his estate, gives a detailed idea of the wide-ranging interests of this erudite and art-loving aristocrat.15 Among other volumes the library contained numerous tractates on civil and military architecture (Georg Andrea Böckler, Johann C. Seyler, Joseph Furttenbach, Johann Wilhelm, Antoine de Ville), albums of prints (Jost Amman, Julius Goltzius, Aegidius Sadeler, Justus van den Nypoort), works on Bohemian history (Bohuslav Balbín), medical handbooks, emblem books, works on heraldry and topography, and classics of ancient literature.16 Around 1700, the Děčín library of the Counts Thun-Hohenstein contained no fewer than 800 volumes, if we are to judge from inventory entries.17 The question arises as to whether the two sketchbooks of armorers’ work was already part of the Thun estate at this time. Regrettably, the aforementioned inventory of 1702 records no such title. It contains volumes devoted to military science and horse-breeding (for example, Der Wahrhaftig Vollkommene Stallmeister, a handbook by Jacques de Solleysel and the manuscript of Gestütt Buchl), as well as heraldic books and one painted Turnierbuch. However, even the last named volume cannot be securely identified with the codices. The albums are also not to be found in the brief inventory of the deceased Maximilian Thun’s books which is also dated 1702 and is preserved in the Thun Palace in Prague.18 In all probability, the albums were not yet part of the Thun estate in 1720 when the second, detailed inventory was drawn up. This records the property of Maximilian’s deceased son, Johann Franz Thun-Hohenstein

13

A fundamental contribution to the history of art collecting in the Czech lands, including the Thun-Hohenstein collections, is the work of Lubomír Slavíček, “Sobě, umění, přátelům”. Kapitoly z dějin sběratelství v Čechách a na Moravě 1650–1939, Brno, 2007, pp. 82–94 and 278–282. The Thun picture gallery was also specifically discussed by exhibition catalogue Hana Slavíčková (ed.), Portrétní galerie Thun-Hohensteinů, Děčín (Okresní muzeum), 1998, and František Šuman (ed.), Mistrovská díla thunovské obrazárny na děčínském zámku, Děčín, 2014. 14 Slavíček 2007 (cited note 13), p. 83, and idem, “Der rechte Splendor der Einrichtung. Das Palais Graf Maximilian Thuns auf der Prager Kleinseite und seine Ausstattung zu Beginn des 18. Jahrhunderts,” in Barock in Mitteleuropa. Werke – Phänomene – Analysen. Hellmut Lorenz zum 65. Geburtstag. Wiener Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte, vol. 55–56, 2006–2007 (2007), pp. 193–206, here p. 195. See also Věra Naňková, “Fischer z Erlachu a Martinelli v thunovské korespondenci,” in Umění, vol. 21, 1973, pp. 541–542; eadem, “Fischer z Erlachu v thunovské korespondenci,” in Umění, vol. 31, 1983, pp. 334–339, here pp. 334–335; Hellmut Lorenz, Johann Bernhard Fischer von Erlach, Zurich – Munich – London, 1992, p. 100, and idem, “‘... ich habe 14 Grose Werck undter hondten …’. Der Architekt Johann Bernhard Fischer von Erlach (1656–1723), seine Auftraggeber und seine Reisen,” in Friedrich Polleroß (ed.), Reiselust & Kunstgenuss. Barockes Böhmen, Mähren und Österreich, Petersberg, 2004, pp. 63–74, here pp. 69–70. 15 Státní oblastní archiv (State Regional Archive Litoměřice/Leitmeritz), Děčín/Tetschen Branch, Ústřední správa klášterecké větve Thun-Hohensteinů (holdings of the Central Administration of the Klösterle Line of the Thun-Hohenstein Family), inv. no. 386, SS 2/4, box no. 91: Inventarium wass vor Mobilien undt fahrnussen bey der Hochgraffl. Thunischen Herrschafft Tetschen Im Schloss, Item bey denen Mayerhöfen, Mühlen, und andern örthen Anno 1702 den 17. January Befunden worden. The second library inventory dates from 1720 (see below, note 19). 16 The detailed characteristics of the library based on the period inventory are discussed in Slavíček 2007 (cited note 14), pp. 197–199. 17 Compare the inventories of 1702 and 1720 in the Thun Archive in Děčín (notes 15 and 19). 18 State Regional Archive Litoměřice/Leitmeritz, Děčín/Tetschen Branch, holdings of the Central Administration of the Klösterle Line of the Thun-Hohenstein Family, inv. no. 381, SS 2/1, box no. 90: Inventarium der Verlassenschafft Weylandt dess Hoch und Wohlgebornen Max des Heyl. Rom. Reichs Graffen von Thun in denen Prager Heussern Anno 1702.

144

(1686–1720).19 Most of the books listed in this inventory are found in the records of 1702, whilst more recent acquisitions number some 165 items. This shows that Johann Franz systematically expanded both his library and picture collection. Still, the albums do not figure among the new book acquisitions. The first reliably documented owner of the two albums thus remains Count Johann Joseph Anton Thun-Hohenstein (1711–1788), grandson of Maximilian and son of Johann Franz. Johann Joseph contributed significantly to enhancing the collections inherited from his predecessors. Although inventories of his picture gallery and library have not yet been found, it can be said that Johann Joseph was certainly instrumental in enlarging the family art collections. This is corroborated by a draft inventory of his collection of graphic art, which contains many hundreds of prints by the foremost European printmakers, including bodies of works by Albrecht Dürer, Marcantonio Raimondi, Annibale Carracci, Hendrik Goltzius, Jan Muller, Jacques Callot, and others.20 A new quality of Baroque art collecting is attested by the labelling of the paintings and books acquired with marks of ownership.21 The Thun-Hohenstein albums are proof of this new practice. The engraved heraldic bookplates of Johann Joseph Thun bearing his coat of arms in an ornamental cartouche and a Latin inscription, embellish the smaller of the two albums (inv. no. GK 11.572 B) in two variations that differ only in size and minor details (fig. 1).22 If the two codices were indeed acquired by Johann Joseph Thun-Hohenstein, research should be conducted into how they came to the collection. The Thun Archive in Děčín holds a wealth of documentary sources on the person of Johann Joseph. However, searching for a receipt for one or two books amongst the extensive and hitherto unclassified archival material is looking for the proverbial “needle in a haystack”. It may well be that the books were not purchased, but obtained in another fashion, such as by gift or inheritance. This possibility cannot be negated, especially as both albums are inscribed “Obriststallmeisterey” (the codex Gk 11.572 B) or “Oberststallmaisterey” (the codex Gk 11.571 B) on the front pastedown. Another reason is that from the 16th century, the office of Chief Equerry of the Hereditary Lands at the Imperial Court was held by the Counts Harrach, who were the direct ancestors of Johann Joseph Thun-Hohenstein on his mother’s side. In 1708, Johann Joseph’s father, Johann Franz, married Countess Maria Philippine von Harrach (1693–1763), the daughter of Aloys Thomas Raimund Harrach (1669–1742), Landmarschall of Lower Austria and Viceroy of Naples. Aloys Thomas Harrach, like his forebears, also held the post of Obersterbstallmeister in Lower Austria.23 This however does not necessarily imply that the albums were acquired in the late 16th century in Augsburg by Leonhard IV von Harrach, the first Chief Equerry from the Harrach family, as was proposed by Alexander von Reitzenstein.24 At present, this hypothesis cannot be convincingly substantiated based on the documentary sources about Leonhard IV and his son, Leonhard V. Regrettably, there are no records of these books in the archival holdings from the estate of Leonhard V and his 19 State Regional Archive Litoměřice/Leitmeritz, Děčín/Tetschen Branch, holdings of the Central Administration of the Klösterle Line of the Thun-Hohenstein Family, inv. no. 390, Ss 2/8, box no. 91. 20 State Regional Archive Litoměřice/Leitmeritz, Děčín/Tetschen Branch, holdings of the Central Administration of the Klösterle Line of the Thun-Hohenstein Family, inv. no. 379, Ss 1/7, box no. 90 [draft inventory of the Děčín collection of engravings, c. 1770s]. 21 A reproduction of Johann Joseph Thun’s mark of ownership that was used to label paintings is publish­ ed in Slavíček 2007 (cited note 13), p. 90. 22 The larger-size bookplate measures 9 x 7 cm, the smaller 5.4 x 4.4 cm. Another version of the bookplate is recorded by Friedrich Warnecke, Die deutschen Bücherzeichen (Ex-Libris) von ihrem Ursprunge bis zur Gegenwart, Berlin, 1890, no. 2184 (according to Warnecke, with the date 1732). See also Bohumír Lifka, Exlibris a supralibros v českých korunních zemích v letech 1000 až 1900, Prague, 1980, esp. pp. 115, 126, and 144, and Josef Svátek, “Býv. knihovny thun-hohensteinská a clam-martinická a jejich knižní značky,” in Marginálie, vol. 21, 1948, p. 126. 23 Österreichisches Staatsarchiv, AVA, Familienarchiv Harrach, Fam. in spec.: Kaiser Karl VI. verleiht Aloys Thomas Raimund Graf von Harrach zu Rohrau das Obersterbstallmeisteramt von Österreich ob der Enns (28.4.1719). 24 Reitzenstein 1960 (cited note 6), p. 88.

145

Fig. 4: Interior view of the Thun-Hohenstein Library at the castle in Děčín/Tetschen. Period photograph, E. Rottleuthner, c. 1904. State Regional Archive Litoměřice/Leitmeritz, Děčín/ Tetschen Branch. Fig. 5: Franz Anton Thun-Hohenstein in his ­study at the château in Jílové/Eulau. Period photograph, 1930s. State Regional Archive ­Litoměřice/Leitmeritz, Děčín/Tetschen Branch.

wife Anna, which are preserved in the Österreichisches Staatsarchiv in Vienna.25 However, the Harrach provenance of these invaluable books is nonetheless a tenable hypothesis. There were numerous collectors among the Harrachs in the 17th century. These included Ernst Adalbert von Harrach, Cardinal and Archbishop of Prague, whose testament mentions manuscripts and books,26 and Ferdinand Bonaventura Harrach (1636–1706), a diplomat, politician and distinguished patron of the arts. We also know that Johann Joseph Thun maintained close contacts with various members of the Harrach family, among them his grandfather Aloys Thomas and Friedrich August Harrach, Aloys’s son and heir to the house’s estate.27 The location of the Thun albums in the 18th and 19th centuries is easy to follow. The library was further expanded under Wenzel Joseph Thun-Hohenstein (1737–1796) with the acquisition of a number of Masonic texts. More especially Wenzel’s son Franz Anton Thun-Hohenstein the Elder (1786–1873) enriched the collection with important bodies of works and also had a new library constructed at Děčín Castle. The acquisitions made by Franz Anton included books obtained in 1814 from the holdings of František Martin Pelcl, a Czech scholar and patriot, and first professor of the Czech language at Prague University, as well as V. Engelshofen’s extensive library in 1818.28 By the end of the 19th century, Děčín Castle library, which was owned by Franz Thun-Hohenstein, the governor of Bohemia, totaled some 70,000 volumes (fig. 4).29 According to a hand-written inventory from 1895, the collection included 294 manuscripts and 251 incunabula.30 The compiler of the inventory, Adolf Bosák, listed the Plattnerbuch among the incunabula. He estimated its value at 2,000 crowns, making it one of the most valuable books among those recorded.31 25 Österreichisches Staatsarchiv, AVA, Familienarchiv Harrach, Fam. in spec., Karton No. 715 and 716: Verlassenschaft des Leonhards V., Theil I. und II. (1594–1609), Verlassenschaft seiner Gemahlin Anna (1603). 26 Österreichisches Staatsarchiv, AVA, Familienarchiv Harrach, Fam. in spec., box no. 132: Copia Testamenti Eminentissimi Domini Domini Ernesti Cardinalis ab Harrach, Archi-Episcopi Pragensis (here without details “Libros omnes praeter manuscriptos”). 27 See their correspondence in the Thun Archive: Státní oblastní archiv/State Regional Archive Litoměřice/ Leitmeritz, Děčín/Tetschen Branch, Family Archive of the Thun-Hohenstein Family, Z II 3/3 (Johann Joseph Thun dossier), box no. 151. I am indebted to the archive’s director Otto Chmelík and František Šuman for their assistance in researching these archival fonds. 28 See Ledinská 1974 (cited note 9), p. 196. 29 The nucleus of Engelshofen’s library consisted of a collection of books from the property of the Hegemüller von Dubenweiler family, see Ledinská 1974 (cited note 9), p. 203. 30 Státní oblastní archiv/State Regional Archive Litoměřice/Leitmeritz, Děčín/Tetschen Branch, Family Archive of the Thun-Hohenstein Family, A 2 V: Verzeichnis der Bücher und Werke in der Schlossbibliothek zu Tetschen (1895). 31 Although highly valued, the albums were not classified and catalogued with manuscripts at the time.

146

A dramatic turning point followed the death of Prince Jaroslav Thun-Hohenstein (1864–1929), brother of the childless Franz Jaroslav Thun-Hohenstein was a noted pioneer in motor sports, and also brother-in-law of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and tutor to his children. Under its land reform legislation, the newly-established Czechoslovak Republic severely curbed land ownership by the aristocracy, which also affected the Thun-Hohensteins. When the state imposed an exceedingly high tax on the heir to the Thun estates (amounting to 1,231,886 Czechoslovak crowns), part of the property had to be sold. In September 1932, Prince Franz Anton Thun-Hohenstein (1890–1973) sold Děčín Castle to the Czechoslovak State, which was then taken over by the army. At the same time, he decided to sell the Děčín Castle library. He received numerous offers from home and abroad, and for a period of time negotiations for its purchase by the government were conducted. These ended without result however. Finally, Prince Franz Anton accepted the offer made by the Prague antiquarian Václav Hořejš and sold him the offered portion of the library for 330,000 crowns in February 1933.32 The books were subsequently sold at a series of auctions that were held from April 1933 to February 1934, initially by the Prague antiquarian Karel Zink and later by O. Pyšvejc.33 A total of about 4,000 volumes were sold at these five auctions, whilst other books were probably sold outright. The aforementioned figures clearly suggest that Franz Anton retained a considerable number of books in his possession. He transferred them to the château at Jílové/ Eulau near Děčín, where he settled with his family in 1932 (fig. 5). Both sketchbooks were among the volumes that had not been sold at auction. At the time in 1930, they were out of the country on loan to the Städtisches Maximiliansmuseum in Augsburg, where they were to be exhibited. In May 1932, Thun pressed for their return and at the same time offered them to the City of Augsburg for the sum of 10,000 reichsmarks.34 As is evident from his correspondence, the museum had earlier lent one of the codices – possibly without the owner’s knowledge – for study purposes to Hans Stöcklein in Munich.35 The sale fell through and eventually the albums were returned to Jílové, where they were caught up in war. We know that the books remained there until the liberation of the country in May 1945. Shortly afterwards, in August 1945, the château and all of the Thun property was placed under national administration. A National Security troop was stationed at the château, and in 1946 it was taken over by the army. In later years, it served as a health resort for workers at the chemical plant in Záluží u Mostu. The château’s furnishings were dispersed among various institutions, mainly the National Renewal Fund, established by the government for the interim administration of confiscated property, the National Cultural Committee, the local National Committee, and some

This would explain why the albums are missing from the library’s manuscript inventory, published by Jan Kapras, “Rukopisy Děčínské,” in Časopis Musea Království českého, vol. 78, 1904, pp. 340–344 and 423–430. 32 For more on the sale of the library see Ledinská 1974 (cited note 9), pp. 205–207. Here there are also references to reactions of the period press that reported on the owner’s negotiations with the government in January 1933 (see Prager Tagblatt, Prager Presse, Pražské noviny, Národní politika, and other newspapers). 33 See XXXIII. Zinkova aukce: Děčínská knihovna Thunů-Hohensteinů: dne 10.,11.,12. a 13. dubna 1933: Umělecká aukční síň Praha II., Národní tř. 8, pt. 1, Prague, 1933 [compiled by Bohumír Lifka and Karel Zink]; II. aukce Thun-Hohensteinské knihovny z Děčína: Výstava od 20. května do 5. června: Dražba od 6. června do 9. června 1933/Pořádá v umělecké aukční síni, Praha II., Národní tř. 8. O. Pyšvejc, Prague, 1933; III. aukce Thun-Hohensteinské knihovny z Děčína: Výstava od 20. září do 3. října: Dražba od 4. října do 6. října. O. Pyšvejc, Prague, 1933; IV. aukce Thun-Hohensteinské knihovny z Děčína: Výstava od 24. října do 5. listopadu 1933. Dražba od 6. listopadu do 8. listopadu 1933. O. Pyšvejc, Prague, 1933; 5. aukce Thun-Hohensteinské knihovny z Děčína: výstava od 24.–30. ledna 1934: dražba od 31. ledna do 3. února 1934. O. Pyšvejc, Prague, 1934. 34 Letter of Franz Anton Thun-Hohenstein from the château at Jílové/Eulau, dated 24 May 1932, to the Mayor of the City of Augsburg, requesting the return of the two Musterbücher albums; Prague, Museum of Decorative Arts, inv. no. Gk 11 572 B (document appended). 35 Letter of Hans Stöcklein, dated 18 June 1932, to Franz Anton Thun. Stöcklein refers to permission granted by Jaroslav Thun’s to photograph and publish both codices and requests the loan of the second album; Prague, Museum of Decorative Arts, inv. no. Gk 11 572 B (document appended).

147

ministries.36 Reports from a later investigation indicate that many objects were sold or stolen. Fortunately, the library, including the Thun Archive, remained in a locked room at the château at Jílové until September 1946, when it was transferred to the building of the State Forestry Administration in Děčín-Podmokly.37 The library’s last owner, Franz Anton Thun, was also briefly moved to this location before he was expelled to Bavaria at Easter 1946.38 The property confiscated from the German population in Bohemia in 1945 was frequently divided up so chaotically that even officials of the National Renewal Fund and National Cultural Committee often lost track of their location.39 The library kept in a building of the State Forestry Administration was thus randomly placed in the “care” of another ministry, the Ministry of Agriculture, and heritage preservationists had no knowledge of its whereabouts. Finally, in October 1949, Zdeněk Wirth, chairman of the National Cultural Committee, received a telegram with the encouraging news that the library had been rediscovered.40 Shortly afterwards he was informed in greater detail that, apart from the archive, the building of the State Forestry Administration housed about 10,000 volumes from the Thun library, including a rare book “with illustrated images of armor”.41 Subsequently, the National Cultural Committee took over a substantial portion of the recovered books from the State Forestry Administration (7,323 volumes), together with a large collection of prints, photographic albums and also a number of precious manuscripts, including both Harnischbücher,42 and transferred them to the Sychrov Château. The heritage office then dispersed the remainder of the Děčín Castle library among the National Museum Library, National Library and other institutions.43 In 1953, the two precious albums were entrusted to the Museum of Decorative Arts in Prague, as was a few years later a set of miniature portraits from the Thun collection. The Thun-Hohenstein albums are of extraordinary importance for their wealth of information on late medieval and Renaissance armor and weapons, and also because investigation into their provenance substantially enhances knowledge of the history of the Děčín Castle collections and the library in particular. Studies conducted on the library’s development and composition, have hitherto concentrated mainly on manuscripts acquired in the 19th century from the Pelcl estate, which includes unique documents on early Czech history.44 Identification of surviving older library holdings, including an analysis of archival records relating to their provenance,45 remains 36 See documents in the Archives of the Institute of Art History, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, holdings of Národní kulturní komise (NKK)/National Cultural Committee, Jílové Château, nos. 1350–1379. I am indebted to Kristina Uhlíková from the Institute of Art History for making these sources available to me. 37 Ibid., NKK holdings, Jílové Château, no. 1367, fols. 44–48. 38 For his life at the time see Thomas Thun, “Franz Anton Fürst von Thun und Hohenstein (1890–1973),” in 50 Jahre Adalbert Stifter Verein 1947–1997, Munich, 1998, pp. 150–151. 39 See the inspection report from 1947 and the findings of the investigation conducted in 1949, in Ar­ chives of the Institute of Art History, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, NKK holdings, Jílové Château, no. 1357, fols. 25–27, and no. 1371, fol. 56. 40 Ibid., NKK holdings, Jílové Château, no. 1375, fol. 70 (telegram from Josef Scheybal, dated 29 October 1949). 41 Ibid., letter from Josef Scheybal addressed to Zdeněk Wirth, dated 4 November 1949. 42 Ibid., NKK holdings, Jílové Château, no. 1364, fol. 41 (a list of books and prints that were transferred by the State Forestry Administration to the National Cultural Committee, dated 10 November 1949). 43 Currently books from the Děčín library are mainly housed in the library of the National Museum (4,316 volumes, now kept at the château at Benešov nad Ploučnicí) and in the National Library, as well as in the library of the Academy of Sciences, Museum of Decorative Arts in Prague, the Military History Institute and Moravian Library in Brno. A portion of these volumes was acquired as early as the 1930s at the auctions of the Děčín library. 44 See Alena Richterová, Děčínské rukopisy ze sbírky Františka Martina Pelcla (1734–1801), nyní ve fondech Národní knihovny České republiky, Prague, 2007. 45 See Anežka Baďurová – Jana Svobodová – Vojtěch Šícha, “Vlastnická označení knih v historickém fondu Knihovny Akademie věd ČR (první výsledky průzkumu),” in Sborník Národního muzea v Praze. Řada C – Literární historie, vol. 58, pt. 3–4, 2013, pp. 76–79; Slavíček 2007 (cited note 13), pp. 82–94, and Mašek – Kloth 1997 (cited note 11). For the ownership marks in the oldest holdings of the Děčín library see Vanda Navrátilová, Thun-Hohensteinská děčínská knihovna (dějiny, vývoj, současnost), unpublished diploma thesis, Univerzita Jana Evangelisty Purkyně, Ústí nad Labem, 2007.

148

an important task for researchers. Such studies will doubtless help elucidate further the character and intentions of the collecting activities of the Counts Thun-Hohenstein and their diverse cultural interests.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG

Die Schicksale zweier als „Thun’sche Skizzenbücher“ oder „Plattnerbücher“ bekannter Alben mit zahlreichen Abbildungen von Rüstungen aus dem späten Mittelalter und der Renaissance spiegeln die dramatischen Zäsuren wider, die Mitteleuropa im 20. Jahrhundert betrafen und die auch die Geschichte der Kunstsammlungen in dieser Region beeinflussten. Die nun im Kunstgewerbemuseum in Prag (Uměleckoprůmyslové museum v  Praze) aufbewahrten Alben stammen aus der berühmten Thun-Hohenstein’schen Bibliothek aus dem Schloss Tetschen/Děčín in Nordböhmen. Erster belegter Eigentümer der Bücher ist Johann Joseph Anton Graf von Thun und Hohenstein (1711–1788), ein bekannter Sammler von Kunstwerken, Büchern und Waffen sowie Liebhaber von Musik und Theater. Möglicherweise erwarb er die Bücher von den Grafen Harrach – direkten Vorfahren mütterlicherseits. Beide Bände blieben weitere zwei Jahrhunderte im Eigentum der Familie Thun und Hohenstein. 1932 entschied sich Fürst Franz Anton von Thun-Hohenstein aus finanziellen Gründen zum Verkauf nicht nur des Tetschner Schlosses, sondern auch der umfangreichen Schlossbibliothek. Die „Plattnerbücher“ waren zu diesem Zeitpunkt jedoch nach Augsburg ausgeliehen worden und fielen somit nicht unter den Verkauf. Der Fürst beließ sie im Schloss Eulau/Jílové unweit von Tetschen, wo sie nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg 1945 konfisziert wurden. Die Aussiedelung der deutschen Bevölkerung aus der Tschechoslowakei bedeutete einen tragischen Bruch mit der sozialen und kulturellen Kontinuität und war zugleich mit umfangreichen Verschiebungen von Vermögenswerten verbunden, oft unter sehr chaotischen Bedingungen. Der nicht verkaufte Teil der Thun-Hohenstein’schen Bibliothek überstand diese dramatische Zeit, wie auch das Familienarchiv, ohne größere Verluste; er wurde 1949 der Denkmalpflege und in der Folge den tschechoslowakischen staatlichen Sammlungen übergeben. Ausländischen Forschern galten die Thun’schen Skizzenbücher gleichwohl bis vor Kurzem als verschollen oder gar vernichtet. Erst die zwei Beiträge Pierre Terjanians im Jahrbuch des Kunsthistorischen Museums Wien (Bd.  13/14 und hier Bd. 17/18) stellen nun beide Bände in ihrer Gesamtheit der Öffentlichkeit vor.

The oldest ownership labels marked books acquired by Wolfgang Dietrich Thun-Hohenstein (1593–1642).

149

THUN-HOHENSTEIN ALBUMS PART II

Pierre Terjanian

The art of the armorer in late medieval and Renaissance Augsburg: The rediscovery of the Thun sketchbooks (part II) The two codices traditionally known as the Thun sketchbooks belong to the few albums of drawings known to record planned or completed works by late medieval and Renaissance armorers and the various professionals ‒ painters, etchers, goldsmiths ‒ with whom they frequently collaborated. Predominantly showing late fifteenth- to seventeenth-century luxury armors for field, tournament, and ceremonial use, they provide incomparable insights into the careers and accomplishments of foremost Augsburg armorers of the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance, such as the celebrated masters Lorenz (c. 1445‒1515), Kolman (1470/71‒1532) and Desiderius Helmschmid (1513‒1578/79). Widely thought to be lost after 1936, when they were being studied by the German scholar Hans Stöcklein (1874‒1936), the Thun sketchbooks were recently rediscovered, preserved in splendid condition, in the collections of the Uměleckoprůmyslové Museum v Praze (Museum of Decorative Arts in Prague).1 In a previous issue of this journal it was possible to reintroduce the best known ‒ although frequently misunderstood ‒ of these two albums (henceforth referred to as sketchbook 1), and to provide for the first time a comprehensive overview and reproduction of its illustrations, along with observations that call into question some of the scholarship that was developed from an inadequate photographic documentation. In this article, the focus will shift to the less-well known but equally significant and larger album (henceforth referred to as the Thun sketchbook 2), which in comparison has largely escaped scholarly attention.2 The earliest known publication calling attention to this album dates from 1888, when it was in the Fideikommiss Bibliothek (estate library) of the counts Thun-Hohenstein at Schloss Tetschen (Děčín, Czech republic).3 Only one image from it (image 153, also partly reproduced in fig. 1) was then featured in Quirin von Leitner’s

1 2

Fig. 1: Album of armor designs, horse bard. Augsburg, c. 1517. Prague, Uměleckoprůmyslové Museum v Praze, inv. no. GK 11.572-A, folio 111v (image 153).

3

153

On the rediscovery of the sketchbooks, see Terjanian 2011/2012, pp. 299‒301. The study of the Thun sketchbooks would not have been possible without the kind support and generous assistance of many individuals and institutions. I am especially grateful to Radim Vondráček (UPM) for permission to consult the two albums and for arranging the photography of their illustrations, and to my colleagues Stuart W. Pyhrr (MMA) and Donald J. LaRocca (MMA) for reviewing draft versions of this article, and for their useful suggestions. I am also indebted to Christian Beaufort-Spontin, Dirk H. Breiding (MMA), Gabriele Helke (KHM), Stefan Krause (KHM), Matthias Pfaffenbichler (KHM), Olivier Renaudeau (MA), and Álvaro Soler del Campo (RAM) for their help. Finally, I would like to thank the Direction and staff of the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna; Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna; Patrimonio Nacional, Madrid; Württembergische Landesbibliothek, Stuttgart; Uměleckoprůmyslové Museum v Praze; and Victoria and Albert Museum, London for permission to publish the images in this and the previous article. Leitner 1888.

(1834‒1893) publication, which appeared in this journal.4 Aside from a reproduction of the same image in 1924,5 only four other images in the album appear to have ever been published.6 Since the remainder of the album was apparently never photographed, once the album could no longer be located, the only additional information available about its contents consisted on passing comments by the Austrian scholar Wendelin Boeheim (1832‒1900), Director of the Waffensammlung (weapon collection) at the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna,7 and manuscript notes taken by his German colleague, Stöcklein, curator at the Bavarian Army Museum, when he had the album in his possession from about 1932 until 1936. Published only in 1960, long after Stöcklein’s death, by his successor, Alexander von Reitzenstein (1904‒1986),8 these notes were so laconic ‒ and at times ambiguous enough ‒ that they ultimately proved of little use to Reitzenstein’s contemporaries and later generations of scholars. As a consequence, the Thun sketchbook 2 has remained virtually unknown, and it has occupied a marginal place in the literature on the stylistic development of European armor and the works of the armorers of Germany and Augsburg in particular.9 This is the first time its contents can be presented in full, along with a comprehensive reproduction of its illustrations and a commentary on these images. For kind permission to consult the sketchbook and publish its illustrations, and for the excellent working conditions provided, the author wishes to thank Dr. Radim Vondráček and the Uměleckoprůmyslové Museum v Praze. 10

THE CODEX GK 11.571-B (EX THUN-HOHENSTEIN FIDEI­­KOMMISS-BIBLIOTHEK A/8) 10

The album, 416 mm high by 291 mm wide, consists of 115 leaves (114 folios + 1 flyleaf at the beginning) in paper, bound in full calf with cut leaves from a medieval liturgical manuscript in Latin. The spine bears the faded inscription “Abbildu[ng] [/] verschiede [/] ner [/] harnische” in ink at the top. There is a fragmentary label, now illegible, at the bottom, which in 1888 still read “a/2”.11 The covers are lined with pastedowns. The front pastedown is inscribed “Obriststallmaistereÿ” in ink at the top by a late sixteenth- or an early seventeenth-century hand, which also annotated the front pastedown of the Thun sketchbook 1. In addition, it is inscribed “12565” and “Z-CCXXXIX b” in pencil along the top and the head edges, respectively, “12565” and “R/58/e” in ink along the tail edge, and “GK-11.571-B” in ink along the bottom edge, all by later hands. The rear pastedown, by contrast, is blank. The flyleaf at the beginning is blank on the recto. On the verso it bears both the penciled letter “Z” along the head edge, and a library stamp in faded red ink in the center, which ­features

4

Leitner 1888, Reg. 4583. In addition, this publication provides a facsimile of a monogram that adorns the bard on folio 112v (image154). An actual illustration of the bard is not included. 5 Stöcklein 1924, ill. between pp. 18 and 19; LaRocca 2004, p. 38, ill. 6 A spread of two images is featured in the album of 100 photographic plates published in 1892 in conjunction with a jubilee exhibition held at the Uměleckoprůmyslové Museum v Praze in 1891. The album had been loaned to the museum by Count (later Prince) Franz Anton Thun-Hohenstein (1847‒1916); see exh. cat. Prague 1892, pl. 59; I am indebted to Stuart W. Pyhrr for bringing this publication to my attention. The remaining two images were recently published by the present author; see Terjanian 2014, pp. 38 and 41. 7 Boeheim 1891, pp. 175 and 202. 8 Reitzenstein 1960. In 1951 already, Reitzenstein had announced his intent to publish a study of Sorg’s album, and its relationship to the lost Thun sketchbooks; these plans, however, never came to frui­tion; see Reitzenstein 1951, p. 193, note 96. 9 Most known published references to this album after 1960 pertain to the image reproduced in Leitner 1888, Reg. 4583, and to the horse armor that it represents. See Godoy 1991, p. 137, note 1; LaRocca 2004, p. 53, note 14; exh. cat. Washington 2009, pp. 64‒65. The key exception is provided by Reitzenstein in his discussion of the life and accomplishments of the Augsburg armorer Matthias Frauenpreiss the Younger, and in publications on an armor in Vienna that was subsequently attributed to him (HJRK, inv. no. A 500); see Reitzenstein 1962, pp. 165‒166; Thomas 1980, p. 84; Gamber – Beaufort-Spontin 1990, pp. 100‒101. In addition, the present author recently published an article on two hitherto unpublished images; see Terjanian 2014. 10 The inventory number in Terjanian 2011/2012 (inv. no. GK 11572-A) is incorrect. 11 Leitner 1888, p. I.

154

the heraldic arms of the Thun-Hohenstein along with the inscription “Tetschner Bibliothek,” and which is similar to that to in the Thun sketchbook 1. This stamp establishes that this album was once part of the Fideikommiss-Bibliothek (estate library) of the counts Thun-Hohenstein at Schloss Tetschen. Although this album has none of the bookplates of Count Johann Joseph Anton Thun-Hohenstein (1711‒1788) pasted in the sketchbook 1, it seems probable that it had similarly belonged to him. Circumstantial evidence such as the inscriptions establishing that both albums were in the care of a chief master of the horse in the sixteenth or seventeenth century, strongly suggest that they share the same provenance and were thus likely acquired under the same circumstances and eventually deposited into the Thun-Hohenstein estate library. Research in the archives of the Thun-Hohenstein family would be needed to elucidate this question. The album contains 155 drawings of armored men and horses, disassembled armors, and armor elements, which are almost all executed in pen, ink, and watercolor, with occasional silver and gold highlights, and traces of underdrawings or preliminary sketches in metalpoint.12 As in the Thun sketchbook 1, the drawings do not form a single, coherent group. Instead, they appear to be a collection of works originally created under dissimilar circumstances, for a variety of purposes, and by different hands. For example, some of the drawings were drawn and colored directly on the album’s folios. Others were originally executed on separate paper and subsequently pasted on the album’s folios. Traces of folding creases suggest that some drawings that were pasted in this album were previously folded to be circulated to patrons, craftsmen, or others, or at the very least to be stored outside albums (see, for example, folios 46r, 51r, and 52r [images 82, 87, 88]).13 Like the sketchbook 1, therefore, this album is not homogeneous. As already pointed out in 1888, it may aptly be designated as a volume of collected works (Sammelband), or scrapbook.14 An examination of the subject of the illustrations, the style of their execution, and the paper used establishes that the album is comprised of several coherent groups of images (as well as single images, which cannot be grouped), two of which will be reviewed in great detail (groups A and B). These groups feature and sometimes even share certain modes, or genres, of representations such as standing figures of armored men, or views of armors or armor garnitures in disassembled form, which call for brief observations. The representation of armor on the figures of standing men, which often appear to be posing, with a weapon or commander’s batons in one hand, and the other hand casually resting on the armor, has parallels in other surviving albums of drawings that document the work of armorers or armor decorators. Figures of standing men seemingly posing in armor may be found, for example, in the sketchbook 1 and in the two albums collectively known as the inventario illuminado, which illustrate the armors and weapons that were in the armory of Charles V. Traditionally dated to between 1544 and 1558, they are now preserved in Madrid (RAM, inv. nos. N.18 A and N. 18 B).15 Variants further occur in the album recording a number of armors decorated between 1548 and 1563 by the Augsburg etcher Jörg T. Sorg the Younger (c. 1522 ‒ 1603), which is preserved in Stuttgart (WLB, Cod. Milit. 2˚ 24) and in an additional album, which documents series of armors made in the royal workshops at Greenwich under the supervision of Jacob Halder (recorded in England 1558‒1608), of c. 1567/1607, and which is now in London (Victoria and Albert Museum, inv. 12 Working from Stöcklein’s notes, Reitzenstein put forth a total number of only 114 drawings, the number of folios in the album. See Reitzenstein 1960, p. 88. 13 See Terjanian 2011/2012, p. 299. 14 In his notes, Stöcklein already refers to this album as a scrapbook. See Reitzenstein 1960, p. 88. 15 Regarding the Thun sketchbook 1, see Terjanian 2011/2012, images 10, 12, 16, 38, 39, 40, 43, 59, 61, and 64 (excluding the representations derived from the two albums collectively known as the inventario illuminado, which are discussed in Terjanian 2011/2012, p. 303, note 27, and pp. 314‒320.) No comprehensive reproduction of the inventario illuminado’s illustrations is available to date. However, a detailed study of the inventario is being prepared by José A. Godoy.

155

no. D.586-614-1894).16 In contrast to many of the figures in the Thun sketchbook 1’s group A, which appear to have been freely drawn, the contours of the figures in the sketchbook 2’s group A appear to have been traced with the help of stencils, and the details of the armors then added by hand, as in Sorg’s album and the album on Greenwich armor. As in the inventario illuminado, Sorg’s album, and the Thun sketchbook 1 (in so far as it features armors that also appear in the inventario), the armored men are often shown with loose armor elements ‒ generally matching exchange or reinforcing pieces, or companion pieces for the horse ‒ floating at their sides or represented on the facing side of an adjacent folio.17 The representation of these pieces follows definite conventions: helmets, shaffrons, and leg defenses, for example, are almost always shown in profile. Other pieces such as gorgets,18 breastplates, and backplates, by contrast, typically are facing the viewer. Such standards seem to have guided the representation of armors in a variety of sixteenth-century works on paper, including treatises on the tournament and armored combat, inventories of armories, catalogues of armors for sale, and albums recording the works of armorers and etchers.19 The representation of fully disassembled armors in the Thun sketchbook 2 similarly follows well-established standards. This album is remarkably rich in this genre of representation: an entire section of its group B, for example, features large armor garnitures, the many elements of which are shown on suites of folios (see, for example, a garniture whose elements are shown on folios 72r, 73r, 74r, 76r, 77r, and 78r [images 108‒110, and 113‒115]). The representation of complete horse armors, or bards, calls for comparable observations (folios 38v, 39r, 40r, 41r, 42r, 43r, 44r, 45r, 46r, 111v‒112r, and 112v [images 73, 74, 76‒82, 153, and 154]). As in the inventario illuminado or the Thun sketchbook 1, the bards are invariably shown on horses seen in profile, sometimes with riders. As is the case with many of the figures of standing men in armor, some bards are represented in standardized fashion with the help of stencils. The bards shown on folios 40r, 41r, 42r, and 43r [images 76‒79] have clearly been created with the help of templates. Instead of representing the various pieces of an armor or armor garniture, some of the Thun sketchbook 2’s images exclusively provide representations of one kind of armor element only, such as rondaches, breastplates, or helmets. Arranged in rows, these pieces invariably diverge from one another in decoration, form, or construction. The repetitive manner in which they are laid out may have been adopted to facilitate and invite comparisons. For example, seven folios in the album feature rows of breastplates of comparable construction but dissimilar decoration (folios 54r, 55r, 56r, 57r, 58r, 59r, and 60r [images 90‒96]). The intent may have been to document their varying ornamentation, not unlike the last image in Sorg’s album, which features five identically constructed and formed Zischägge (helmets) whose ornamentation, however, is strikingly dissimilar.20 By contrast, another illustration, which features six helmets of different types (folio 61r [image 97]), may have served the purpose of documenting their dissimilar construction. The only known parallels to this last genre of representation are provided by the Thun sketchbook 1, which includes folios illustrated with rows of dissimilar helmets, although always along

16 On these albums, see Terjanian 2011/2012, p. 299, note 2. 17 See, for example, some of the armors represented in Sorg’s album (Becher – Gamber – Irtenkauf 1980, pp. 49, 51, 53, 55, 59, 61, 71, 79, 87, and 91). The author of the illustrations appears to have no longer represented additional elements – except rondaches (shields) – after 1550 even though the illustrated armors are described in the adjacent annotations as comprising some (see, for example, the armor illustrated on fol. 13v; Becher – Gamber – Irtenkauf 1980, pp. 60–61, ill.). 18 For translations and definitions of the terms used in this study to designate armors and their elements, and for a visualization of the designated objects, see Terjanian 2011/2012, p. 302, note 21. 19 See Terjanian 2011/2012, p. 302. 20 Becher – Gamber – Irtenkauf 1980, pp. 92–93, ill.

156

with a few unrelated armor elements (see for example, folios n79v‒n80r [images 108‒110] in that album21). Finally, the album features a number of illustrations that may be collectively viewed as typifying yet another genre of representation, namely, templates for executing the detail of the ornamentation of particular armor elements. A crucifixion scene with a coat of arms and a kneeling man, probably a model for the etched ornamentation of a breastplate (folio 52r [image 88]), and views of the front and back of gorgets plates, which clearly how trophies of arms and additional designs should be positioned on their surfaces (folios 53r and 86r [images 89 and 123]) are good examples of this last category. In date, the sketchbook’s illustrations appear to range from the last quarter of the fifteenth century to the second decade of the seventeenth century. The representation of an armored horse mounted by a young rider (a page), which may be dated on stylistic grounds to c. 1485‒1500 (folio 38v [image 73]) appears to be the earliest among them. The bard’s construction is of a type that was popular in the late fifteenth century22 and the distinctive ornamentation of its plates with sprays of flutes framed by fields of dense, ripple-like semi-circular ridges, is comparable to that of the pauldrons, vambraces, gauntlets, and cuisses of an armor made ca. 1484 by the Augsburg armorer Lorenz Helmschmid (c. 1445‒1515), now in Vienna (KHM, HJRK, inv. no. A 62), and of a pair of cuisses of about the same date and by the same armorer, now in Detroit (DIA, acc. 53.193. Gift of William Randolph Hearst Foundation).23 Because the illustration was not executed on watermarked paper, however, it is not possible to be absolutely certain that it dates from the same period as the object that it represents. The latest drawings in the album are comparatively more securely identified. They represent gorget plates (folios 53r and 86r [images 89 and 123]) whose decoration is very similar to that of a number of armors made by an anonymous Augsburg armorer, provisionally known as Master HR in reference to the mark that he struck on his works. The similarly decorated armor for man and horse that was presented in 1622 to Prince Elector Johann Georg I of Saxony (1585‒1656), now in Dresden (SKD, RK, inv. no. M 68), and parts of a boy’s armor, of about the same date or slightly later, by the same armorer, in Philadelphia (PMA, acc. 1977-167-40; bequest of Carl Otto Kretzschmar von Kienbusch, 1977)24 strongly suggests that the gorget plates in the album were represented about the same period. The majority of the illustrations, however, as will be shown in detail, appear to date from the second half of the sixteenth century. They feature armors, armor garnitures, horse bards, and armor elements in the Renaissance styles favored during that period and are executed on paper ‒ in so far as watermarks suggest ‒ of about the same date. Annotations, heraldry, and other evidence consistently lend support to this view. All of the album’s folios are numbered in pencil on the recto, at the upper outer corners. These numbers are by the same hand as the penciled ones in the Thun sketchbook 1, and were likewise probably added when studied by Stöcklein. Since there are no traces of an earlier foliation, and since the modern foliation is systematic and uninterrupted, it will remain the basis for referring to the album’s folios. For greater consistency and easier reference, however, every illustration has been assigned an

21 Terjanian 2011/2012, pp. 384–385, ill. 22 See for example, the outline of the peytral and crupper of the bard of the horse mounted by Albrecht May (life dates unknown) when entering the town of Namur in 1481, in a painting after a lost original in Vienna (KHM, GG, inv. no. 2375; Terjanian 2011/2012, p. 309, fig. 7) and a representation of the same bard in the Thun sketchbook 1 (Terjanian 2011/2012, p. 308, fig. 5). 23 On the armor, see Beaufort-Spontin – Pfaffenbichler 2005, pp. 64–67, no. 9, ills. On the cuisses in Detroit, see Gamber 1957, p. 46, fig. 53. 24 On these armors, see Schöbel 1973, p. 34, no. 34, ill.; Kienbusch et al. 1963, p. 49, no. 35, pl. XXXVI. The suggestion, first put forth by Christian Beaufort-Spontin, that this master is likely to have been the armorer Hans Roth (recorded 1613 to 1643) will be reviewed in light of new evidence in a forthcoming publication. See Thomas 1980, p. 88.

157

image number (images 1‒155). The precise location of each illustration within the album is indicated in a table of reference, which is provided in an appendix at the end of this study. The continuous foliation should not obscure the complexity of the album, which does not merely consist of large sheets of paper folded into folios. Some folios are entirely covered on one side by separate sheets of paper, which have been pasted onto them (see, for example, folios 109v‒110r). The verso and recto of facing folios have sometimes been similarly covered with a continuous sheet (see, for example, folios 113v‒114r). The folios numbers overlook these complications, and have invariably been inscribed on the overlaid paper. In addition, in many cases the album’s folios are no more than a backing for drawings of assembled armors, individual armor elements, and heraldic arms that have been executed on separate paper, cut around their edges, and pasted in place. These important details, which may not always be visible in the reproductions of the images, are systematically noted in the accompanying commentary. The watermarks in the paper folios provide precious clues about the date of the watermarked paper, and by implication the date of the illustrations, and that of additional illustrations by the same hands on paper folios that have no watermarks. A visual examination of the 114 folios under artificial light revealed the presence of watermarks on a total of 51 one of them. Of these 51 watermarked folios, 36 have watermarks similar to the type Briquet I 2121; seven have watermarks similar to the type Briquet I 2110; four to the type Briquet 1244; three to an unrecorded type (featuring the letters “GH” and discussed below); and one to the type Briquet I 2119. In addition, the previously noted watermark type Briquet I 2121 appears on the slip of paper that has been pasted onto folio 50r (image 86), the type Briquet I 1246 on the paper sheet pasted onto folio 114r and extending onto folio 113v (image 155), and the unrecorded type (watermark with the letters “GH”) on the flyleaf and the paper that makes up the previously trimmed tail edge of folio 8 (images 15 and 16). The watermarked folios and pasted paper, and the types of watermarks that they respectively have, are identified in the previously mentioned table at the end of this study. The watermarks show that a notable portion of the album, 36 folios at least, is made of the same paper. A radiographic comparison of the chain-and-laid lines of these folios, with folios that have no watermarks would probably identify among the latter additional folios made of the same paper, and substantially increase the total count. The watermarks also signal the presence in the album of at least 15 folios made of other kinds of paper. These include seven folios that have watermarks similar to the type Briquet I 2110 (folios 40, 43, 99, 100, and 103‒105), four that have watermarks similar to the type Briquet I 1244 (folios 54, 57, 59, and 85), three that have watermarks similar to an unrecorded type (featuring the letters “GH” and discussed below, on folios 46, 51, and 113), and one that has a watermark similar to the type Briquet I 2119 (folio 36).25 The type of watermark that is represented on 36 folios (Briquet I 2121) and on the paper pasted onto folio 50r (image 86) identifies paper made in Augsburg. A fir-cone surmounting a shield that encloses an orb with a double-barred cross, the lower bar place diagonally, this watermark occurs on paper known to have been used in Augsburg from 1552 to 1561, including some of the folios in Sorg’s album (a fact that seems to have escaped the notice of the authors of the detailed study published in the 1980 volume of this journal26), and more generally in Germany and Bohemia from 1551 to 1587.27

25 This last mark appears to be a variant of Briquet I 2119, whose shield lacks a fleur-de-lis at the top. 26 The watermark in question is mentioned neither in the preface nor in the discussion of the watermarks in the first part of Becher – Gamber – Irtenkauf 1980, pp. 9 and 11. It occurs for example on folio 44 in Sorg’s album. I am indebted to the Direction and staff of the Württembergische Landesbibliothek’s Department of Manuscripts for permission to examine the album. 27 These other recorded places of use include Prague from 1551 to 1570, Vienna in 1575, Brunswick in

158

The type of watermark that is represented on seven folios (Briquet I 2110) also identifies paper made in Augsburg. A fir-cone, it occurs in a number of variants on paper used in Augsburg in 1483, 1486 to 1497, and 1513 to 1562; in Prague from 1546 to 1554; and in Schrobenhausen as late as 1583.28 Without the help of radiographic examination and comparisons, however, it is not possible to determine to which of the many recorded variants of this popular type it is the closest. The type that is represented on four folios (Briquet I 1244) identifies paper made in Landsberg am Lech, in Upper Bavaria, a town located about 38 km South of Augsburg. A shield enclosing a Greek cross above a trimount, it occurs on paper used in Augsburg in 1536, 1538‒1540, 1545‒1548, 1550, 1555, 1558, 1559, and 1562; and in other places in Germany, Austria, and Bohemia from 1544 to 1587.29 The type that is represented on the paper sheet pasted onto folio 114r and extending onto folio 113v (image 155) (Briquet I 1246) similarly identifies paper made in Landsberg. A shield rising into a lobe up the center, dipping to a point down the center, with inwardly-rolled upper corners, and enclosing a Greek cross above three mounts, it occurs on paper used in Augsburg in 1579 and 1591, in Munich in 1583, and in Lüneburg in 1595.30 The remaining two watermark types, which are represented on three and one folios, respectively (unrecorded mark featuring the letters “GH” and Briquet I 2119), and on the flyleaf and on the paper that makes up the previously trimmed tail edge of folio 8 (images 15 and 16) (unrecorded mark featuring the letters “GH”) both identify paper made in Augsburg. A shield rising into a fleur-de-lis up the center, enclosing a fir-cone, surmounting the letter “A,” and flanked at the top by the letters “G” and “H,” the former of these is likely to identify paper made by Georg Höppeler (life dates unknown), a papermaker thought to have worked in the upper paper mill on the “Sinkel” (Singold) in Augsburg in 1565, as no one else in Augsburg could have used these initials except the papermaker Georg Herz (life dates unknown), who is known to have used a completely different mark. Because other papermakers occupied the same mill in 1555 and 1581, and because Höppeler is not known to have worked in other mills in Augsburg, the paper bearing the watermark under discussion is unlikely to date from before 1555 or after 1581.31 A shield rising into a fleur-de-lis up the center, with inwardly-rolled upper corners, enclosing a fir-cone, surmounting the letter “A,” and flanked at the top by the letters “M” and “M,” the last watermark type that is represented in the album (Briquet I 2119) has been conclusively attributed to the Augsburg papermaker Matthias Mair (life dates unknown), who officially occupied the upper paper mill on the “Sinkel” from 1598 to 1625, but who appears to have actually worked there as early as 1595. Paper bearing his watermark was used in Augsburg in 1599‒1601, 1607, 1610, and 1619, and in Germany, Austria, and Bohemia from 1600 to 1620.32

28 29

30 31 32

159

1580, and Leipzig in 1587. Briquet 1907, vol. 1, p. 157, no. 2121. Also see http://www.wasserzeichen-online.de, Referenznummer DE8085-PO-129512. Briquet 1907, vol. 1, pp. 156‒157, no. 2110. These other recorded places of use include Innsbruck in 1555 and 1563, Vienna from 1544 to 1551 and again in 1563, Dillingen in 1546, Prague in 1555, and Munich in 1587. Briquet 1907, vol. 1, p. 102, no. 1244. Also see http://www.wasserzeichen-online.de, Referenznummern: AT3800-PO-152657 [1536, Augsburg]; DE4629-PO-152721 [1540, Augsburg]; AT3800-PO-152702 [1545, Augsburg]; AT3800PO-152659 [1547, Augsburg]; AT3800-PO-152661 [1548, Augsburg]; AT3800-PO-152669 [1550, Augsburg]; AT3800-PO-152677 [1555, Augsburg]; DE6300-PO-152662 [1558, Augsburg]; AT3800-PO-152664 [1559, Augsburg]; AT3800-PO-152693 [1562, Augsburg]; AT3800-PO-152682 [1555, Innsbruck]; AT3800PO-152657 [1563, Innsbruck]; AT3800-PO-152696 [1563, Vienna]; and DE5925-PO-152730 [1587, Munich]. Briquet 1907, vol. 1, p. 102, no. 1246. Also see http://www.wasserzeichen-online.de, Referenznummern DE6225-PO-152736 [1579, Augsburg] and DE5925-PO-152738 [1583, Munich]. http://www.blogus.de/Pmuehlen.html. On the watermark of the later Augsburg papermaker Georg Herz, see Schmidt 1997, p. 19, fig. 1. Briquet 1907, vol. 1, p. 157, no. 2119. For the attribution of the mark, see Schmidt 1997, p. 77. On the recorded places of use of paper bearing marks of this type, see http://www.wasserzeichen-online.de, Referenznummern DE6300-PO-129627 [1599, Augsburg], AT3800-PO-129648 [1600, Augsburg], DE6300PO-129631 [1601, Augsburg], DE6300-PO-129630 [1607, Augsburg], DE8085-PO-129645 [1610, Augs-

A study of the album’s visible watermarks thus establishes that the watermarked folios are made of paper produced in Augsburg and the nearby town of Landsberg, and known to have been in use from the 1530s through the 1620s. The only exception is provided by seven folios that bear a generic type of watermark (Briquet I 2110) used by Augsburg papermakers from the 1480s through the 1560s and perhaps even the 1580s. A notable portion of the album ‒ 39 folios at least (36 folios with the watermark type Briquet I 2121 and three folios and the flyleaf with an unrecorded mark featuring the letters “GH”) and some of the watermarked paper slips or sheets pasted on other folios (one with the unrecorded mark with the letters “GH” and another with the watermark type Briquet I 1246) ‒ clearly dates from the second half of the sixteenth-century. Only one folio ‒ that with the watermark type Briquet I 2119 ‒ may conceivably be later and possibly dates from the first quarter of the seventeenth century. In so far as watermarks shed light on the places and dates of origin of the paper, the Thun sketchbook 2 thus seems remarkably homogeneous.

AUTHORSHIP OF THE ALBUM

The album’s 155 illustrations are by the hands of a number of artists, or craftsmen, and may be accordingly sorted into distinct groups. Past studies have suggested that the illustrations feature armors that were likely made by the celebrated Augsburg armorers Kolman and Desiderius Helmschmid, Matthias Frauenpreiss the Younger (c. 1530 ‒ 1575),33 and Anton Peffenhauser (c. 1525 ‒ 1603).34 The merits of these attributions are reviewed in the discussion of the principal groups of illustrations, and in the comments on the album’s individual images.

GROUP A

The 64 illustrations included in this group represent numerous armors and armor elements for use in the field and tournament, typically garnitures, which may be dated on the basis of style to the years 1550‒1570.35 Executed by the same hand in pen and ink, and opaque watercolor, with occasional silver and gold highlights, they are represented on folios with no visible watermarks or folios that exclusively bear the watermark type Briquet I 2121 (images 3‒6, 9‒10, 17‒18, 21‒22, 25‒26, 29‒30, 41‒42, 44‒45, 50‒55, and 58‒59). Since that watermark occurs on paper made in Augsburg and known to have been used there from 1552 to 1561 and elsewhere as early as 1551 and as late as 1587, the illustrations under discussion seem broadly contemporaneous with the objects that they represent. The present arrangement of the illustrations appears to be chronologically coherent although the available evidence strongly suggests that the group originally comprised additional illustrations, which are now missing. They are executed on folios that no longer form a continuous suite (folios 1‒30, 33‒34, and 38), since they are interspersed with folios onto which unrelated drawings have been pasted (images 60‒63, 68‒71). Nevertheless, the first five folios bear captions that include the date of 1551 (images 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9); the next three that of 1552 (images 11, 13, 14, and 15); and the following two that of 1553 (images 17, 18, 19, and 20). The last illustration (image 72) in the sequence of relevant folios, as currently bound, is the only one to show an armored figure whose clothing has not been colored; seemingly unfinished, it may plausibly be the latest among them.

burg], DE6300-PO-129641 [1619, Augsburg], DE6300-PO-129635 [1609, Wallerstein], AT8100-PO-129647 [1615, Prague], and DE8085-PO-129640 [1628, Munich]. 33 The alleged death date of 1604 given in Thomas 1980, p. 84, is incorrect. 34 Most of these attributions were put forth by Reitzenstein, who did not have access to the album or images thereof, and who relied on Stöcklein’s notes; see Reitzenstein 1960, pp. 89‒93; Reitzenstein 1962, pp. 165‒166; and Thomas 1980, p. 84. 35 The illustrations included in this group correspond to the images 1‒59, 64‒67, and 72. Not included in this count are the heraldic shields belonging to this group and that have been cut away and pasted onto folio 108r (image 147).

160

Evidence that the group is likely to have originally comprised additional illustrations is provided by full-page representations of exchange and reinforcing elements (images 16, 22, and 26) that do not match any of the assembled armors shown in other illustrations. Other illustrations of like elements in this group are indeed invariably paired with full-page representations of the armors that they complemented (see, for example, images 51‒54). In the absence of an old foliation, however, it is not possible to establish how many additional illustrations the group originally included. The illustrations in this group exclusively feature the figures of standing men in armor, and armor elements shown either to their sides or on separate folios. Holding lances, commander’s batons, infantry staff weapons, or swords, these armored men were first traced with the help of stencils. On occasion, the stencils were flipped to create reverse images of the same figures. As a result, some men are facing left and others right, and the weapons that they are holding are shown in their raised left or right hands. As a rule, however, figures clad in armors of asymmetrical construction (which are typically built with larger or more rigid elements such as pauldrons, titling shields, or gauntlets on the left side, or covered by reinforcing elements) are invariably shown facing the viewer’s left, and thus holding their lances, swords, or batons in the right hand, and revealing more of the left sides of their armors to the viewer.36 The group features a wide range of armors and armor elements, including examples for the tilt in the German and Italian fashions; for the free tourney; and for mounted (cavalry) use in the field; as well as some that would have been suitable for both mounted and foot (infantry) use in the field; some that were designed for foot use in the field only; and others to be used in the exclusive, duel-like foot combat tournament. The diversity of these armors is not limited to the anticipated uses for which they were created, and the resulting types that they exemplify. It extends to key details of construction within groups of armors intended for the same use. A good example is provided by a comparison of three armors for the tilt in the Italian fashion (images 7, 31, and 65), whose grandguards (tilting reinforces for the chin, left jaw, throat, upper torso, and left shoulder – here constructed of one or two pieces), right vambraces (open or laminated on the inside of the elbow), left couter reinforces (very large or large), greaves (open or closed on the inside of the leg), and sabatons (with mail and toe caps or exclusively of articulated plates) markedly differ.37 Details such as these illustrate the care with which the author of the illustrations has captured singularities that distinguish the armors that he represented.38 The same acute sense of detail may be found in the meticulous depiction of minute features, such as the heads of the rivets that secure the plates of elements together, washers, buckles, hinges, hooks, and straps, or perforations in helmets that provide ventilation and facilitate hearing. The representation of these armors rests of course on conventions, some of which may not be immediately apparent. Armors designed for using lances on horseback, for example, are never represented with the lance-rests attached to the breastplates. These are either shown to the side, or among exchange and reinforcing elements on other folios (see, for example, the armors and rests in images 4 and 5, 12 and 13, and 24 and 25.) Consequently, the armors are not necessarily represented in the

36 For an important exception, which probably was a mistake, see the comments on the image 34. 37 The core of the armor shown in image 7 may actually be a field armor worn with reinforcing breastplate and tassets, and additional reinforces for the tilt in the Italian fashion. The armors shown in images 31 and 65, by comparison, seem to represent more integrated variants, in which only a breastplate and pair of tassets specifically designed for the tilt are worn. 38 The representation of a few armors with metallic codpieces decorated en suite with the other elements is equally unlikely to be fortuitous (images 11, 30, 39, and 52). No codpieces are ever shown among the illustrated exchange and reinforcing elements; their representation on assembled armors calls attention to an exceptional feature. Most armors shown in this group of illustrations do not seem to ­have comprised any.

161

fully assembled state in which they would have been ready to use, but in manners that the author of the illustrations, and presumably those expected to see these images, would have nevertheless understood their general design and possible applications. The various armors and armor elements in this group of illustrations exhibit a range of surface treatments, or finishes, including bright polishing (see, for example, image 1), bright polishing combined with etching (image 5) or etching and gilding (image 11), blackening (image 14), blackening combined with bright polishing (image 18), and blackening combined with etching (image 34) or etching and gilding (images 24 and 25). Additional finishes may have included bright polishing combined with gilding and additional coloring techniques, perhaps paint or the application of copper (image 48), which, in the absence of surviving armors of comparable appearance, cannot be readily understood from an examination of the images. Curiously, no illustration in this group seems to represent an armor that might have been blued. A total of 30 illustrations in the group include representations of heraldic arms that identify the patrons or projected recipients of the depicted works.39 Featured in the form of heraldic shields surmounted by helms with crests and mantling, or by bonnets (image 3), these arms demonstrate that the illustrations were meant to record some of the circumstances that presided over the design, and presumably the completion as well, of the works that they represent. For reasons unknown, however, some were later cut away and pasted back onto other folios or simply discarded. Stöcklein identified most of the families who owned these heraldic arms or the arms occasionally represented on the escutcheons of shaffrons, which occasionally provide ‒ albeit often in simplified form ‒ comparable information. The attributions that he wrote on index cards (which Reitzenstein published along with his own comments in 1960) and on slips of paper (which have remained in place in the sketchbook, sandwiched between the relevant folios, and which had remained unpublished40) and their interpretation by Reitzenstein were systematically reviewed during the preparation of this study, and occasional mistakes have been corrected.41 In addition, new attributions are being proposed for some of the arms that had hitherto resisted identification.42 Supporting evidence and concise information about the families and individuals to which they pertain are provided in the comments on the album’s individual images. As Boeheim already observed in 1891, the heraldic shields in this group were unquestionably created by the hand that painted the ones in Sorg’s album.43 The similarities are striking, especially when the heraldic shields of identical patrons are compared (see, for example, those of Leonhard IV of Harrach in images 4 and 5 and in Sorg’s album, folio 16r, or those of Fernando Álvarez de Toledo y Pimentel in image 13 and in Sorg’s album, folios 16v‒17r.) Unlike the examples in Sorg’s album, which, beside one exception,44 were drawn onto the same paper as the armors to which they relate, the heraldic shields in the group under discussion were all represented on separate slips of paper that were carefully cut to follow the contours of the helms, mantlings, and crests, or crowns that surmount them, then pasted in place and occasionally supplemented with a few brushstrokes (the narrow black feathers extending from the wings of the crested helm in image 14, for examples, were thus 39 This count excludes the illustrations that once included pasted heraldic shields and which are now missing. 40 On Stöcklein’s notes and his attribution of the arms featured in this group, see Reitzenstein 1960. 41 For example, Stöcklein’s identification of the arms pasted on folio 24r (image 46) as belonging to the Haintzel/Haintzlin family led Reitzenstein to believe that the patron was a member of the Augsburg patrician family of that name, whereas the arms actually belong to a similarly named, but less eminent and unrelated Augsburg family that belonged to the city’s so-called “honorable lineages”. 42 Stöcklein’s notes (as published by Reitzenstein) apparently provide no identification for the heraldic arms included in images 29, 40, 43, 45, and 57. 43 Boeheim 1891, p. 202. 44 The exception is the heraldic shield on folio 4v, which has been pasted in place. See Becher – Gamber – Irtenkauf 1980, pp. 50–51, ill.

162

painted by hand after the heraldic shield was pasted in place). The stylistic consistencies (including the coloring) in the heraldic arms in Sorg’s album and the representations of the armors to which they pertain, suggests that the Thun sketchbook’s pasted heraldic shields were supplied by the illustrator of Sorg’s entire album who, in addition to being skilled at representing armors, must have been a specialist in heraldic subjects. This material connection with Sorg’s album suggests that the author of this group of illustrations, or the person who hired him, and for whom they were created, must have had ties to Sorg or his immediate circle. The quality of execution of the illustrations strongly suggests that the author of the group under discussion was not an armorer but a professional painter or illuminator working in the same tradition as the illustrator of Sorg’s album. As previously noted, he adopted the same kinds of conventions for the poses of his figures ‒ which he similarly drew with the help of stencils ‒ and for the representation of individual armor elements. He also relied on a comparable repertoire of attributes ‒ lances, batons, swords, and infantry staff weapons ‒ to equip his armored figures. Some batons and lances are even colored with the same combination of alternating blue, white, and red helicoidal stripes. Finally, a comparison of the exposed faces of the figures wearing open burgonets or with helmets whose falling buffes have been lowered down, reveal a similar use and placement of lines to delineate eyes, noses, and mouths. A closer comparison, however, confirms that he was neither the illustrator of Sorg’s album nor the author of the heraldic arms. Beside minor discrepancies such as his willingness to show armored figures facing either left or right (in Sorg’s album they are consistently turned to the viewer’s left), his preference for showing shaffrons in profile (in Sorg’s album they are always shown from the front) or the circular openings in vamplates (through which they could be slipped onto the hafts of lances) (images 2, 6, 31, 42, and 54), the author of the Thun sketchbook’s group A often relies on perspective to provide three-dimensional representations of specific pieces, and reveal their inner sides. The illustrator of Sorg’s album shows no comparable inclination. The discrepancies are particularly apparent when comparing pauldrons (images 2, 4, 6, 8, 16, 22‒24, 26, 28, 30, 31, 42, 51, 53, and 57), certain types of buffes as well as detached cheekpieces (images 6, 20, and 42), or tilting helms (images 12 and 49) to the same types of elements in Sorg’s album. Similarly, the author of the Thun group seems interested in calling attention to details of construction, for example by opening the trap-door of a tilting close helmet (image 26) or by lowering the falling buffes of the helmets worn by some of the figures (images 35, 36, 58, 59, and 66), efforts that have no parallels in Sorg’s album. Most decisively perhaps, his illustrations exhibit notable stylistic differences. The faces of his figures differ in the proportions of their parts (eyes, nose, etc.) from those in Sorg’s album (which typically have exaggerated features such as large eyes and plump lips, and therefore look more naïve and even cartoonish). They are, in fact, far more regular and harmonious. Other significant differences are provided by the complete absence of hatching to suggest the volumes of, and shadows on, the textile-covered armpits, arms, crotch, and legs of his figures (in contrast to the treatment of the same parts in Sorg’s album, which are systematically hatched) or the use of series of long parallel vertical brush strokes to create highlights on bright armors (images 1‒8, 10‒13, 15, 17, 20, 35, 44, 47‒54, and 64, another decorative enhancement that is conspicuously absent in Sorg’s album). In the absence of decisive clues, the identity of this skilled illustrator cannot be ascertained. The remarkable illustrations in this group were clearly created to record the works of an individual armorer. The 13 first representations of assembled armors, as they appear in the order in which the folios are bound, all include captions, which are all written with care and by the same hand (images 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13‒15, and 17‒20). Beginning with the date of manufacture of the illustrated work (from 1551 to 1553), and continuing with the identification of the patron for whom it was made, 163

each caption reads as if written or dictated by an armorer: “In the year […] I have made this work for […].” Because eight of these 13 illustrations (images 1, 3, 7, 9, and 14, 15, 18, 19) represent plain (i.e. undecorated) bright or blackened armors and armor elements, there can be no doubt that the “I” in the captions was not someone who would have specialized in their ornamentation, but their maker ‒ an armorer. The illustrations that complete them and are comprised with this group ‒ 64 in total ‒ appear to record, at least in part, the accomplishments of this anonymous individual. As the largest corpus of drawings known to document the oeuvre of a Renaissance armorer, this group alone is of exceptional importance. It is also a welcome counterpart to Sorg’s much better known album, which records the accomplishments of a prominent armor etcher working during the same period and in the very same city. Because the captions cease abruptly, there is no hard evidence to date the drawings that continue the series of illustrations included in the group. However, the style of the depicted armors suggests that none is likely to have been made beyond the late 1560s. This view is supported by features such as form of their breastplates, gauntlet cuffs, and sabatons; by the profile of their helmet’s visors; as well as by overall analogies in form and construction to the latest armors recorded in Sorg’s album, works that he etched in 1563.45 Accordingly, the armorer whose works are shown in this group was active by 1550, the date given in the caption for his first illustrated work, through part or all of the 1560s. The captions and heraldic arms provide ample evidence that he was a successful armorer. The recipients of his armors include a Hapsburg; namely, Archduke Ferdinand II of Austria (later of Tyrol, 1529‒1595) at a time he was the governor of Bohemia; German, Bohemian, Spanish, and Italian noblemen, including Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, the famed duke of Alba (1507‒1582); as well as members of the wealthiest and most powerful families in Augsburg, beginning with Markus Fugger (1529‒1597). The distinguished status of his clients suggests that he already enjoyed an excellent reputation by the early 1550s. The range of his works, which include a tonlet armor for the foot combat, and large garnitures, similarly speaks for a good degree of recognition, as commissions of this nature were always placed with armorers of note.46 Despite his relative prominence, evidence identifying this armorer has long been lacking. It is hoped that archival research on the patrons or recipients of his armors might yield a document that would name him in the context of one of these commissions. In the absence of such information, the available evidence has long inspired the view that this enigmatic master might have been the Augsburg armorer Matthias Frauenpreiss the Younger.47 The son of the Augsburg armorer Matthias Frauenpreiss the Elder (c. 1505‒1549), and his wife, Anna Hertzler (d. 1570), widow of the Augsburg armorer Briccius Helmschmid (c. 1490‒1529), Frauenpreiss the Younger was born c. 1530. Nothing else is known about him until 1550, the year he married Anna Lotter (d. 1560) and probably became a master. Indeed, by 1551, when his father was already deceased, he is recorded in Sorg’s album in relation to a field armor that Sorg had etched for him. His name appears again in the ensuing years, as Sorg etched additional armors for him.48 By 1555, he was living and working in his family’s house an der

45 Becher – Gamber – Irtenkauf 1980, pp. 88–91. 46 The five foot combat armors represented in Sorg’s album, for example, were all etched for prominent armorers such as Matthias Frauenpreiss the Elder, Hans Lutzenberger (c. 1505 – 1563), Desiderius Helmschmid, and Wolf Neumair; see Becher – Gamber – Irtenkauf 1980, pp. 50–51, 68–71, 74–75, and 78–79, ills. 47 Reitzenstein 1960, pp. 89–90, 93. 48 Becher – Gamber – Irtenkauf 1980, pp. 62–63, ill. The suggestion that he became a master only in 1555, which was already put forth in Reitzenstein 1962, p. 164, is thus erroneous. Journeymen were not allowed to make and sell armors on their own account, and they were discouraged from marrying unless they were about to become masters. Marriage, by contrast, or at least an engagement, was

164

Hornbruck (Schmiedegasse). The taxes he paid suggest a reasonable degree of material success, and greater wealth than Sorg or fellow armorers such as Wolf Neumair (c. 1520/25‒1563), Conrad Richter (c. 1520‒1570), or Pankraz Weiss (c. 1515‒­ 1563).49 Following his mother’s death in 1570, however, he seems to have been unwell, and he relocated to a house at Sträffinger Tor. He is last recorded in 1574 and was dead by 1575, when a guardian was appointed for his son.50 The view that the group under discussion may represent armors made by Matthias Frauenpreiss the Younger has traditionally rested on observations first made by Stöcklein in the years 1934‒1936, when he had the Thun sketchbooks in his possession, but only published in 1960 and 1962, long after his death, by Reitzenstein, who had access to his notes.51 Stöcklein (or Reitzenstein, whose views are intermingled with Stöcklein’s own in his publication of the latter’s notes) observed that two armor garnitures represented in the Thun group seemed to be also recorded in Sorg’s album, and that in the latter both are said to have been etched for Frauenpreiss.52 The Thun group indeed documents the manufacture a garniture for the Bohemian nobleman Leonhard IV von Harrach in 1551 (images 4 and 5, fig. 2), and of another for an enigmatic “Lord Nandel(l)o,” possibly a Spaniard, in 1553 (images 17 and 10, fig. 4).53 Sorg’s album records the etching in 1551 (the same year) and 1554 (a year later) of garnitures intended for the very same individuals (figs. 3, 5).54 In Stöcklein’s opinion, who had access to the relevant illustrations, there was little doubt that they showed the same garnitures: he was certain in the case of Harrach, and leaned towards the same conclusion in the case of Nandello.55 Writing many years later, when the Thun sketchbooks were already missing and suitable images not available, Reitzenstein was unable to perform the same comparisons. However, because the Thun album’s group A appeared to be homogeneous, he quite logically suggested that if the Harrach and Nandello garnitures were made by Frauenpreiss the Younger, the other illustrated works with comparable captions, and in fact all of the armors visibly represented by the same hand and continuing the same suite, must have similarly been his works.56 Additional support for this view was undoubtedly provided by one of Stöcklein’s notes, which links an unusual rondache in one of the Thun illustrations (image 38) to an example signed and marked by Frauenpreiss’ father, now in Madrid (RAM, inv. no. D. 68). Decorated in low relief with an allegorical representation of Fortune, this illustration provides the only known representation of a rondache similarly embossed and etched with the same subject, and may be viewed as possible evidence that the armorer who designed this shield had seen or known about Frauenpreiss the Elder’s example.57

49 50

51 52 53

54 55 56 57

165

r­ equired to secure an honorable standing and master status. These requirements, and Sorg’s album, which lists four armors etched for him between 1551 and 1555 (folios 16r, 24v, 26r, and 31r) leave no doubt that Matthias the Younger became a master in either 1550 or 1551. Reitzenstein 1962, pp. 163–168, 171–175; Becher – Gamber – Irtenkauf 1980, pp. 26–27, 32, 38–39, 43–45, ills. For biographical information on this armorer, see Boeheim 1891, pp. 217–227; Boeheim 1893, pp. 336–338; Reitzenstein 1962, pp. 163–166; Thomas 1980, p. 84; Becher – Gamber – Irtenkauf 1980, pp. 32–33. The early publications are not free of error, and some confusion remains on the Younger Matthias’ standing and accomplishments during the last years of his father’s life. A biographical note drawing on unpublished archival evidence will be presented in a forthcoming publication. Reitzenstein 1960 and Reitzenstein 1962. Reitzenstein 1960, p. 89. The annotation in Sorg’s album, folio 31r, makes it clear that the word “Hernandello” in the Thun album is an alternative spelling for “Herrn Nandello,” that is, “Lord Nandelo” in English; see Becher – Gamber – Irtenkauf 1980, pp. 76–77, ill. Sorg’s album, folios 16r and 31r; see Becher – Gamber – Irtenkauf 1980, pp. 62–63, 76–77, ills. Reitzenstein 1960, p. 89. Reitzenstein 1960, p. 93; Reitzenstein 1962, pp. 165–166. Reitzenstein 1960, p. 90. On the rondache in Madrid, see Boeheim 1891, pp. 218–219, fig. 29; Valencia de Don Juan 1898, p. 145, no. D. 68, fig. 94; and LaRocca 2004, p. 42, fig. 6.

Fig. 2: Album of armor designs, armor for Leonhard IV, baron Harrach and lord of Rohrau (1514‒1590). Augsburg, c. 1551. Prague, Uměleckoprůmyslové Museum v Praze, inv. no. GK 11.572-A, folio 3r (image 5).

At last, the recent rediscovery of the Thun sketchbooks provides the first opportunity since 1936 to review the grounds for the Frauenpreiss attribution put forth by Stöcklein and Reitzenstein. A meticulous comparison of the relevant illustrations in the Thun group and Sorg’s album certainly reveals notable discrepancies, which Stöcklein appears to have overlooked or perhaps dismissed as inconsequential. In the case of Leonhard IV von Harrach these two sources represent an assembled armor with pauldrons that are either asymmetrical (Thun) or symmetrical (Sorg), couters closed or open over the inside of the elbows, a breastplate constructed with or without a waist lame, gauntlets with rounded or peaked cuffs, laminated tassets made in one with the poleyns or short tassets worn along with separate laminated cuisses, and full sabatons of plate or mail sabatons with toe caps (figs. 2, 3). While in each source the armor is consistently of bright steel with etched bands of foliate scrolls, the floral designs on the couters and poleyns are not quite the same, as they are much more intricate in the Thun group than in Sorg’s album. These many discrepancies raise delicate questions of interpretation: should they be attributed to the fact that the armors in the Thun group and in Sorg’s album were 166

Fig. 3: Album of armor designs, armor for Leonhard IV, baron Harrach and lord of Rohrau (1514‒1590). Jörg Sorg the Younger, Augsburg, c. 1551. Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliothek, Cod. Milit. 2˚ 24, folio 16r.

illustrated by different artists, who may not even have had the armors that they represented at hand? Are they mere indications that the illustrations were created for different purposes; namely, documenting the works of an armorer and of an etcher, respectively? Is it possible that they document the same armors at stages during which their manufacture and decoration were only projected, but not yet undertaken? In this regard, it is worth noting that surviving armors featured in Sorg’s album often diverge in significant ways from the illustrations; for reasons that have not been elucidated, the latter are not and cannot be viewed as exact snapshots of what the completed etched works actually looked like.58 Finally, because so many of the works in the Thun group are parts of garnitures, should the discrepancies with Sorg’s album be attributed to the possibility that the illustrated armors might have been configured differently with the help of exchange or reinforcing pieces?

58 For example, the rondache made in 1551 by the Augsburg armorer Anton Peffenhauser for Stefano Doria (d. 1580), now in Turin (AR, inv. no. F 43) is etched with large emblems that are omitted in Sorg’s album, folio 14v; see Becher – Gamber – Irtenkauf 1980, p. 41, fig. 14, and pp. 60–61, ill.

167

Fig. 4: Album of armor designs, armor for “Lord Nandello”. Augsburg, c. 1551. Prague, Uměleckoprůmyslové Museum v Praze, inv. no. GK 11.572-A, folio 9r (image 17).

Regarding this last question, it may be as well to note that the Harrach armor is part of a garniture, and that the elements belonging to it in the Thun group (image 4) include all the unillustrated ones that are carefully listed, however, in Sorg’s album, as well as lames that make it possible to convert long tassets made in one with the poleyns, such as those worn by the armored figure (image 5), into cuisses of the type worn by the figure in Sorg’s album.59 Similarly, the Thun illustration includes a lance59

168

The numbers often inscribed in the ground between the feet of the figures in Sorg’s album are unlikely to be a count of the illustrated and unillustrated elements of armors or armor garnitures in the manner imagined by Gamber, and thus they are not helpful in the case of the Harrach and Nandello garnitures. Evidence that Gamber’s interpretation of these numbers is probably incorrect is suggested for example by a comparison of the armors illustrated in folios 27v and 28r in Sorg’s album, which are typologically identical, but have different numbers (10 and 6, respectively). Whereas the number 10 provides an adequate count of the elements of the former (1. helmet, 2. gorget, 3.–4. pauldrons, 5.–6. vambraces, 7.–8. gauntlets, 9. breastplate with tassets, and 10. backplate), the number 6 cannot account for the elements of the latter, especially if the same number is correct for armors that are similar to it but that have even fewer elements, such as those illustrated on folios 7r and 7v. A comparison of the armors shown on folios 12v, 18v, 22r, 24v, 26r, 27r, 31r, and 37v, to the armors shown on folios 16r, 41r, or 44v points to similar inconsistencies. Gamber’s suggestion that in some cases these num-

Fig. 5: Album of armor designs, armor for “Lord Nandello”. Jörg Sorg the Younger, Augsburg, c. 1554. Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliothek, Cod. Milit. 2˚ 24, folio 31r.

rest and an exchange symmetrical left pauldron of the type worn by the same figure in Sorg’s album. In short, beside the absence of mail sabatons with toe caps, the Harrach garniture, as represented in the Thun sketchbook, includes all the elements required to assemble the Harrach armor in Sorg’s album and to complete the list of its additional elements. The outstanding question, then, is what importance should be attached to minor inconsistencies such as the construction of the breastplate with a waistlame, couters closed over the inside of the elbows, or variations in the decoration of the couters and poleyns, in assessing whether the Thun group and Sorg’s album show identical works. In order to answer the question, a study of additional representations of armors is illuminating. The representation of the “Nandello” armor, and of the elements which appear to belong to the same garniture, raises the same issues as the Harrach garniture. Thus, the armor is represented with dissimilar patterns of ventilation slots

bers provide counts of unillustrated reinforcing or exchange pieces, rather than of those shown in the illustrations, is pure speculation.

169

Fig. 6: Album of armor designs, armor for an anonymous man. Augsburg, c. 1550‒60. Prague, Uměleckoprůmyslové Museum v Praze, inv. no. GK 11.572-A, folio 23r (image 44).

on the helmet’s visor, couters that are either closed or open, tassets that are made in one with the poleyns or short tassets worn along with separate laminated cuisses, gauntlets with rounded or pointed cuffs, and greaves that stop at the ankles or extend at the rear over the heels (figs. 4, 5). In addition, it is decorated overall with etched bands of either foliate scrolls or symmetrically arranged foliage, and on the couters and poleyns with either rosette-like floral designs or mere bands. In this case again, the likely exchange and reinforcing elements of the same garniture in the Thun group (image 10) include all the unillustrated elements that are listed in Sorg’s album, as well as lames that make it possible to convert the long tassets made in one with the poleyns into cuisses of the type worn by the figure in Sorg’s album, plus a lance-rest and an exchange asymmetrical left pauldron of the type worn by the same figure. The only element that is seemingly not correlated is a rondache, which is neither illustrated nor mentioned in Sorg’s album. Although the dates given in the Thun group and Sorg’s album for the manufacture and etching of the works under discussion are not the same, they do follow each other (1553 and 1554), and may thus conceivably document a slight lag between the forging of 170

Fig. 7: Album of armor designs, armor for Hans Helmschmid (c. 1520 ‒ 1575). Augsburg, c. 1556. Stuttgart, Württembergische Landes­ bibliothek, Cod. Milit. 2˚ 24, folio 35r.

the elements and their etching. This difference is not substantial enough to dismiss the possibility that the illustrations show the same garniture. If the Harrach and Nandello garnitures in the Thun group and Sorg’s album thus raise similar issues, leaving much room for interpretation, uncertainty, and perhaps even speculation, a comparison of additional armors, which Stöcklein and Reitzenstein appear to have overlooked, provides much firmer ground for the attribution of the entire group A to Frauenpreiss. This group indeed features a light armor for mounted use in the field (image 44) that agrees completely in form and construction, and almost entirely in decoration, with the design of an example recorded in Sorg’s album as having been etched in 1556 for Matthias Frauenpreiss, and intended for his stepbrother, Hans Helmschmid (c. 1520‒1575) (figs. 6, 7).60 In light of the observable formal, constructional, and ornamental similarities, the fact that in Sorg’s album the decorative band that runs down the center the breastplate encloses foliage ranged symmetrically along a longitudinal line (rather than sinuous foliate scrolls) 60 Sorg’s album, folio 35r; see Becher – Gamber – Irtenkauf 1980, pp. 80–81, ill.

171

Fig. 8: Album of armor designs, armor for an anonymous man. Augsburg, c. 1550‒60. Prague, Uměleckoprůmyslové Museum v Praze, inv. no. GK 11.572-A, folio 18r (image 35).

seems of little consequence, and no more than an indication that a minor change to the ornamentation of the armor was perhaps introduced when it was etched by Sorg. More decisively, however, the Thun group features a light armor for mounted use in the field (image 35) that exhibits unmistakable similarities in form, construction, and above all ornamentation to a work illustrated in Sorg’s album, and which Sorg etched in 1556 for Frauenpreiss (figs. 8, 9).61 The armor is represented with similar burgonet and falling buffe; asymmetrical pauldrons, the left one larger and constructed with a neck guard; full vambraces and fingered gauntlets; and laminated tassets extending down to the top of the knees. More importantly, it is decorated overall with a distinctive pattern ‒ etched bands of double knots ending with trefoils. The similarities encompass the treatment of the edges of the plates, which like the main bands of ornament are bordered by narrow bands of cabling. In Sorg’s album, in which the illustrations are generally not executed with comparable attention to details, the presence of narrow bands in the same places is merely suggested by double lines. Lastly, 61 Sorg’s album, folio 34v; see Becher – Gamber – Irtenkauf 1980, pp. 80–81, ill.

172

Fig. 9: Album of armor designs, armor for ­Arnold Kolhartt (life dates unknown). Augsburg, c. 1556. Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliothek, Cod. Milit. 2˚ 24, folio 34v.

the couters of the vambraces are decorated in the same fashion; namely, with bands. Here again, however, the illustration exhibits the now familiar discrepancies with Sorg’s album, namely, a breastplate constructed with a waistplate, and couters that are closed over the inside of the elbows. The only notable disparity is provided by the helmet, which in the Thun sketchbook is a burgonet worn along with a separate falling buffe buckled round the nape, and which in Sorg’s album is a burgonet comprising a falling buffe attached directly to the bevor. In sum, the illustrations show variants ‒ one more integrated than the other ‒ of the same concept for a head and face defense; they otherwise agree on all key points. There can be little doubt, therefore, that they represent the same armor, and consequently that the Thun group features yet another armor made by Frauenpreiss. In light of this review of the available evidence, which repeatedly points to Matthias Frauenpreiss the Younger as the probable author of the illustrated armors, the group of images under discussion is likely to provide, as Reitzenstein has suggested, a pictorial record of his works. The captions included in the first illustrations, the heraldic shields of the patrons or recipients that were pasted in place, and the care with 173

which the armors and armor elements were represented all suggest that this group is the remnant of an album that was meant to be much more than a private record of one’s past work. The use of silver and gold highlights to suggest reflections on the surfaces of armors or illustrate details such as rivets and other minute features, the ambition to show the heraldic arms of the clients, which had to be obtained from a craftsman specializing in their representation, and the space used to present the exchange and reinforcing elements on armors (which in Sorg’s album are simply listed) are probable indications that the album was to be shown to prospective clients, and perhaps guide their decisions. In the absence of better information about his accomplishments, it provides exceptional insights into the activity of a prominent Augsburg armorer about whom still very little is known. The identification of his clients, made possible by the captions and heraldic arms, provides important leads for future archival research, and the possible identification of surviving works by his hand.

GROUP B

An examination of the remaining drawings singles out another sizable group of illustrations, 63 in total, drawn by a different and comparatively unskilled hand (group B).62 This group includes the representation of Renaissance armors and armor elements for field and tournament use, especially garnitures, which may be dated on the basis of style to the years 1545‒1560 (fig. 10). Executed by the same hand in pen and ink, and translucent watercolor, they are represented on folios with no visible watermarks or folios that bear the watermark types Briquet I 2121 (images 60, 84‒86, 97, 99, 101, 102, 104, 107, 108, 110, 115, 116, 118, 121, 125, 126, 129, 130, 132, and 146), Briquet I 2110 (images 76, 79, 136, 137, and 140‒142), and Briquet I 1244 (images 90, 93, 95, and 122). A large portion of the illustrations was thus executed on the same paper as the group A (bearing the watermark type Briquet I 2121), which is known to have been made in Augsburg and used there from 1552 to 1561 and elsewhere as early as 1551 and as late as 1587. Seven additional illustrations were executed on paper similarly made in Augsburg (bearing a variant of the watermark type Briquet I 2110), and known to have been used there as late as 1562. Finally, four illustrations in this group were drawn and painted on paper (bearing the watermark type Briquet I 1244), which is known to have been made in Landsberg am Lech, and used in Augsburg as early as 1536 and as late as 1562. The available evidence thus suggests that the illustrations are broadly contemporaneous with the objects that they represent. The present arrangement of the illustrations exhibits incoherencies, with images that were cut away and seemingly randomly pasted onto distant folios (images 60 and 63), or represented on folios that are isolated from the main group and interspersed with illustrations by different hands (images 71, 76‒79, and 83‒85). The earliest and latest illustrations in this group cannot be recognized with any certainty. The group features a wide range of armor representations, from fully assembled armors worn by standing men (see, for example, images 60, 63, 71, and 86), through armored horses and riders (images 76‒79), individual armor elements shown either alone (images 83–85) or in rows (90‒97, 126‒127), to armor garnitures shown fully disassembled, with their elements often shown on multiple folios (images 98‒110, 113‒125, 128‒142, and 146). Of poor quality, the drawings are unlikely to have been executed by the hand of an illuminator or other professional specialized in the graphic arts. The execution of human faces (images 63, 71, 76‒79, 83‒84, and 97), in particular, is clumsy, while the outline of armor pieces seems laborious and even hesitant (see, for example, the representation of the backplate in image 117). The general uneasiness that dominates the execution of so many of these illustrations makes one wonder whether their author might not have been an armorer, who would have only been interested in summarily recording his designs.

62 The illustrations included in this group correspond to the images 60, 63, 71, 76–79, 83–86, 90–110, 113–122, 123 (in part), 124–142, and 147 (in part).

174

Fig. 10: Album of armor designs, elements of an armor garniture. Augsburg, c. 1550‒60. Prague, Uměleckoprůmyslové Museum v Praze, inv. no. GK 11.572-A, folio 104r (image 141).

Among the illustrations in this group there are several that might provide important clues for identifying the armorer whose works they show. For example, two illustrations feature helmets with elaborate embossed decoration. One of these pieces (images 83), which in construction may be a morion, is embossed at the apex with a large figure of a gilded dragon, in a manner reminiscent of two helmets, one made c. 1534‒1536 for Emperor Charles V (1500‒1558), and now in Madrid (RAM, inv. no. A. 120), and the other now in Darmstadt (HLM, inv. no. W60:50).63 In view of the fact that an exchange buffe for it, now in New York (MMA, Gift of Christian A. Zabriskie, 1940; 40.135.4), is struck with the armorer’s mark of Desiderius Helmschmid, there can be little doubt that the Madrid helmet was also made by him. 64 The example in the group under discussion may have been inspired by that helmet or a drawing of it comparable to that which is in the Thun sketchbook 1 (ima­­ge 50).65 The other helmet illustrated in this group (image 84), which has a peak embossed 63 The similarity to the Madrid and Darmstadt helmets was already noted by Stöcklein; see Reitzenstein 1960, p. 91. 64 Grancsay 1966, p. 7, figs. 2–3. 65 Terjanian 2011/2012, pp. 352–353, ill.

175

with a human mask and a bowl decorated with a combat between a centaur and a man, may be tentatively compared in general construction and in the decoration of the bowl with combat scenes, to another helmet in Madrid (RAM, inv. no. A. 239), which was made c. 1549 by Desiderius in collaboration with the iron embosser Jörg Sigman (1527‒1601) as part of a small armor garniture for the future King Philip II of Spain (1527‒1598).66 The inspiration for its design, however, may have also been provided by Italian prototypes.67 In either case, the two helmets illustrated in this group exhibit great ambition and suggest that the author of these designs may have had access to patrons prestigious enough to have been interested in commissioning works of this nature. Other illustrations seem noteworthy for the fact that they feature armors with distinctive patterns of ornament, many of which have traditionally been ‒ oftentimes too simplistically ‒ associated with the work of specific Augsburg armorers. For example, many illustrations represent pieces decorated with bands of bright squares that are arranged into three rows and separated from one another by narrow gilded bands (images 71, 85, 92, 116‒117, 127‒129, and 132‒133), or bands of alternating bright and gilded oblique slash-like designs (images 127 and 137‒140), patterns that have often been associated with Anton Peffenhauser on the grounds that some garnitures that he is thought to have made are similarly decorated.68 Because none of the garnitures in question bear his armorer’s mark, however, their attribution to Peffenhauser is far from secure. In this light, and in view of the fact that multiple armorers often created armors that were adorned with similar band decoration,69 an attribution of the works in this last group of illustrations on the basis of this type of ornamentation is not advisable. A better clue is probably provided by the rare occurrence of a badge and motto within the decoration of some armors, such as the stars surrounded by banderoles bearing the inscription “BVENA GVIA” (good guidance), which appear on the helmets, pauldrons, couters, poleyns, and rondache of a garniture (images 106 and 107) and on the rondache of a different garniture (image 117). Representing the star of Bethlehem and the motto granted in 1486 by Pope Innocent VIII (1432‒1492) to Íñigo López de Mendoza y Quiñones (1440‒1515), first marquis of Mondéjar and second count of Tendilla, these details indicate that the garnitures in question were intended for his descendant, Íñigo López de Mendoza y Mendoza (1512‒1580), third marquis of Mondéjar and fourth count of Tendilla, who was captain-general of the kingdom of Granada from 1535 to 1575, and subsequently governor of Valencia and Naples.70 Research on the life of this individual might provide the missing key to identify the armorer who planned, and perhaps made, these garnitures, and possibly all of the other works included in the group B. Although he cannot be identified for the moment, this armorer appears to have had a singular predilection for the representation of large-scale combat scenes inspired by Classical mythology, especially events from the life of Hercules or scenes featuring centaurs, as they occur on five rondaches (images 126, 127, and 139) and one helmet (images 84). In scale and conception the central decoration of these rondaches, which was probably embossed in low relief, compares closely to two rondaches, now both in Madrid. Already mentioned in relation to the group A, one was made in 1543 by Frauenpreiss the Elder, and is embossed with an allegory of Fortune (inv. no. D. 68). Probably dating from c. 1550‒60, the other ron-

66 Godoy 1992, pp. 174–183, ills. 67 See, for example, exh. cat. New York 1998, pp. 155–170, nos. 29–30, ills. 68 On the first of these patterns, see Grancsay 1940, pp. 256–258, ills; and Terjanian 2014; on the second one, see Haenel 1923, pp. 16–17, pl. 8. 69 See, for example, the use of a similar pattern to decorate an armor made in 1550 by Peffenhauser, and another made in 1556 by Neumair (Sorg’s album, folios 12r and 33r–34; Becher – Gamber – Irtenkauf 1980, pp. 58–59, 78–81, ills.). 70 Ricard – de la Véronne 1956, p. 226, note 1.

176

dache features Hercules fighting the Nemean lion (RAM, inv. no. D. 11771), the subject of a rondache represented in the group of illustrations under discussion (image 126). In sum, the illustrations in the group B seem to record the repertoire of a prominent Augsburg armorer, a master who appears to have been capable of making full horse bards, large garnitures, and richly decorated parade pieces. Precious for the study of topics such as armor decoration or the composition of garnitures, they are also invaluable for the glimpses that they provide on exceptional objects such as parade helmets and shields, and their design. The arrangement of many breastplates or rondaches into rows strongly suggests that some illustrations were primarily intended to expose the range of works that the armorer could make, and the options available for their ornamentation. Because of their lackluster quality, however, it seems rather doubtful that they would have been shown to prospective clients. In view of the fact that every single armor or armor element that they show is decorated, these illustrations were perhaps intended for discussion with armor etchers. Nevertheless, it is clear enough that the illustrations in the group were not all templates or samples. The representation of two garnitures intended for the third marquis of Mondéjar is a rare indication that some illustrations record actual projects for specific individuals. In the absence of sufficient clues, however, the identification of additional clients and the armorer will prove difficult.

GROUP C

The remaining illustrations in the Thun sketchbook ‒ 28 in total ‒ form a heterogeneous group that spans, in so far as the styles of the works that they represent suggest, some 140 years (about 1480 to 1620).72 Featuring armored men and horses, armor elements, disassembled armors and armor garnitures, and designs for the placement and execution of the decoration of specific pieces, these illustrations differ notably from one another in date, scale, and quality of execution (fig. 11). Most are drawn and colored on separate sheets or slips of paper that have been pasted into this album because of their subject matter. Although many of them are of great significance, a detailed discussion of each illustration goes beyond the scope of this publication, which is to reintroduce the Thun sketchbooks and signal the importance of their contents. Listed in chronological order, the most important illustrations in this group probably include the representation of a late fifteenth-century horse bard with fluted decoration comparable to surviving works by Lorenz Helmschmid (image 73); an armor for man and horse of c. 1510‒15, the extravagant armor of the rider constructed with a pleated skirt of steel and comprising a helmet evoking the head and headgear of a fool (image 74; fig. 11); splendid and detailed drawings of an exceptional horse bard, along with a saddle, the drawings probably by the hand of the Augsburg painter and printmaker Hans Burgkmair the Elder (1473‒1531), and the works that they represent of c. 1517 and attributed to Kolman Helmschmid (image 153; fig. 1); an armor embossed with ribs evoking the puffed and slashed clothing that was fashionable at the time in the German lands, and an unparalleled helmet embossed to evoke the head of an ancient bearded general or Caesar, both of c. 1515‒25 (image 152); the elements of a garniture made c. 1550 for Philip II of Austria (later King Philip II of Spain) and attributed to Desiderius Helmschmid (images 144 and 145); horse bards dating from the mid sixteenth-century or slightly later (images 80‒82); the elements of a garniture comprising a tonlet armor for the foot combat, intended for Christian I of Saxony (1560‒1591), and thus of c. 1580‒90 (images 143 and 151); as well as designs for the ornamentation of an armor to be 71 This rondache was donated to the Real Armería in memory of Valencia de Don Juan by his son; see Quintana de Lacaci 1987, p. 52, ill. p. 63. 72 The illustrations included in this group correspond to the images 61, 62, 68–70, 73–75, 80–82, 86–89, 111–112, 143–146, and 148–155.

177

Fig. 11: Album of armor designs, armor for man and horse. Augsburg, c. 1510‒15. Prague, Uměleckoprůmyslové Museum v Praze, inv. no. GK 11.572-A, folio 39r (image 74).

presented in 1590 on behalf of Emperor Rudolf II of Austria (1552‒1612) to the Ottoman Grand Vizier Sinan Pasha (1506‒1596) (image 150).73 Many of these illustrations provide unique insights into surviving works. The drawings for the horse bard in Madrid (image 153; fig. 1), for example, document not only a preliminary vision for its elaborate embossed, etched, and gilded decoration, but also what is likely to be the circumstance for its commission, for the escutcheon on its shaffron, which bears the heraldic arms of England, strongly suggests that it was originally intended as a diplomatic gift to King Henry VIII (1491‒1547). This capital detail had previously been overlooked because the escutcheon’s heraldic arms are not discernable in the black-and-white reproduction of the image that was published in 1888. Other illustrations are invaluable because they document works that were perhaps never made or that have long been lost. Thus, the representation of tonlet armor for the foot combat, which was probably intended for Christian I, prince elector of Saxony, suggests that this type of armor did not fall out fashion nearly as early as previously thought, since it can only have been made in the 1580s.74 Of capital importance in this regard is the fascinating representation of a helmet evoking the head of an ancient hero (image 152), which documents a project for a style of helmet that has become widely associated with the leading armorers of Milan, and which is not known to have emerged before the early 1530s. The Thun sketchbook’s drawing strongly ­suggests that some German armorers were already contemplating the creation of such

73 Each of these illustrations is discussed in the comments of the album’s individual images. 74 See Terjanian 2014, pp. 40–41, fig. 2.

178

helmets some ten to fifteen years earlier, and this with great audacity.75 In the absence of surviving German helmets of comparable type, the illustration provides an irreplaceable clue for the emergence and development of this genre of luxury armor.

EPILOGUE

The recent rediscovery of the Thun sketchbooks in the collections of the Uměleckoprůmyslové Museum v Praze provides at last an opportunity since 1936 to gain fresh insights into a unique and very large corpus of drawings that have been chiefly studied from handwritten notes or inadequate photographic reproductions. Comprising 155 illustrations that have remained virtually unpublished and thus essentially unknown, the Thun sketchbook 2 provides an unprecedented wealth of material for the study of the art of the armorer in late medieval and Renaissance Augsburg. Like the Thun sketchbook 1, it is a complex work that brings together drawings that were created under dissimilar circumstances and for a variety of purposes. For the most part, it consists of the remnants of two large ensembles of drawings (groups A and B), which document the patterns, projects, and completed works of two or more Renaissance Augsburg armorers, among them Matthias Frauenpreiss the Younger. Offering many parallels and at times even connections with the album of drawings recording the armors etched by Jörg Sorg the Younger, it is especially important for the insights that it indirectly provides into the practices of Augsburg armorers, such as the nature and functions of the pictorial records that they kept and maintained, and the kinds of representations that served their purposes. The sketchbook is also of great significance for the light that it sheds on surviving and lost armors, and as a source for comparisons and attributions of specific works. It is hoped that its rediscovery, as well as that of the other sketchbook, will inspire further study of their contents and new inquiries in the many subjects ‒ whether small or large ‒ that have merely been evoked in this publication.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG

Der Beitrag beschäftigt sich mit zwei lange verloren geglaubten Alben mit Rüstungsentwürfen, die vor kurzem in den Sammlungen des Uměleckoprůmyslové museum v Praze wiederentdeckt wurden. Bei diesen sogenannten Thun’schen Skizzenbüchern handelt es sich um aquarellierte Federzeichnungen, die uns in einzigartiger Weise Informationen aus erster Hand über Arbeitsprozesse, Gemeinschaftsarbeiten und Werke der im späten Mittelalter und in der Renaissance in Augsburg tätigen Künstler und Plattner liefern. Eine Untersuchung über eines der beiden wiederaufgefundenen Alben wurde vor kurzem in diesem Jahrbuch veröffentlicht (Bd. 13/14). Bei dem nun besprochenen anderen Album scheint es sich um das jüngere zu handeln. Die hier enthaltenen Zeichnungen stammen überwiegend aus der zweiten Hälfte des 16. Jahrhunderts und dokumentieren zum einen die Leistungen eines bedeutenden Plattners, der höchstwahrscheinlich mit dem Plattnermeister Matthias Frauenpreiss d. J. identisch ist. Angeführt sind Harnische und komplette Garnituren, welche deutsche und ausländische Adelige sowie Augsburger Patrizier bei ihm in Auftrag gegeben hatten. Zum anderen dokumentiert das Skizzenbuch Rüstungen, welche von einigen weiteren – zum Teil hervorragendsten – Augsburger Plattnern angefertigt oder zumindest geplant wurden. Die 155 Zeichnungen des Skizzenbuches werden hier zum ersten Mal zur Gänze reproduziert, der begleitende Text erläutert die Objekte, auf die sich die Zeichnungen beziehen.

75 On embossed armor in the German-speaking lands, see LaRocca 2004.

179

The Images

76

Folio 1r Image 1 (Group A) Armored man. Made in 1550 for Bernhard, count of Ortenburg, baron of Freienstein and Karlsbach, lord of Héricourt and l’Isle-sur-le-Doubs (c. 1526 ‒ 1557), this armor is of plain bright steel, and intended for mounted use in the tilt in the German fashion.77 The vamplate on the lance clearly belongs to it. The caption at the top left reads “Anno 1550 · hab Ich heren Bernhartt graffen zü · Orttenbürg freÿherenn : zü freÿenstain · vnd karls//pach · herren zü Ericürtt vnnd lill /· Dise Arbaitt Gemachtt · etc.”. The heraldic shield at the bottom right bears the patron’s family arms and crested helms. The shield itself and the crest of the central helm are represented on paper that has been pasted in place. Bernhard, count of Ortenburg was the second son of Gabriel Salamanca, count of Ortenburg, baron of Freienstein and Karlsbach (1489‒1539), and Elisabeth, countess of Eberstein (1509‒1532). His father was chancellor (1521 to 1526) and treasurer general of Tyrol (1523 to 1526), chief treasurer of all hereditary Austrian lands (1525 to 1526), bailiff (Landvogt) of Upper Alsace (1527 to 1531), and counselor (from 1537) of Ferdinand I of Austria. In 1554 Bernhard was cupbearer at his court.78 Folio 1v Image 2 (Group A) Armor elements. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒60, made for a member of the Álvarez de Toledo family, and belonging together, these elements are of plain bright steel, and intended for mounted use in the free tourney and tilt in the German fashion, and for foot use in the field. They include (1) a pate defense, (2) a buffe, (3) a left pauldron, (4) a left pauldron reinforce, (5) a targe, (6) a right pauldron reinforce (partly covered), (7) another right pauldron reinforce, (8) a burgonet, (9) a full shaffron, (10) a besagew, (11) a left gauntlet, (12) a left couter reinforce, (13) another besagew, (14) a one-piece lance-rest, (15) a vamplate, and (16) a locking gauntlet for the right hand (partly covered). The escutcheon on the shaffron displays the family arms of the Álvarez de Toledo.

76

The illustrated objects are listed in the following order: complete armors first, then individual elements as they appear from the viewer’s left to right, and from the top row to the bottom one. The numbers assigned to the elements for easier reference follow the same order. Where multiple elements (such as a pair of cheekpieces or a visor with upper bevor represented on folio 21v [image 42]) are shown assembled, as a unit, a single number was assigned to the group. Where multiple elements (such as pairs of vambraces) are represented separately, each was assigned a different number. 77 The armor for the tilt in the German fashion includes a targe that covers the left pauldron, a small left couter reinforce, and a large left mitten gauntlet called a manifer, unlike the armor for the tilt in the Italian fashion, which includes a left pauldron reinforce that is modeled to the shoulder and breast, and large left couter and gauntlet reinforces, the latter in the form of a mitten. 78 Firnhabe 1860, p. 19; Freytag von Loringhoven 1975, pl. 18.

180

Image 1

181

Image 2

Folio 2r Image 3 (Group A) Armored man. Made in 1551 for Ferdinand II, archduke of Austria (1529‒1595), this armor is of plain bright steel, and intended for mounted use in the free tourney.79 The caption at the top right reads “Anno 1551 · hab Ich dem Dürchle[uch]tigisten · hochgebornen · fürsten · vnnd herrn · herrn · ferdinandus : erherzu[g] zu Österreich : herzögen zu Burgund[en] Graffen zu habspurg · flandern · vnd Tÿroll : etc. :. disse · arbait gemachtt”. Represented on paper that has been pasted in place, the heraldic shield at the bottom right bears the patron’s arms and an archducal bonnet with coronet, and it is encircled by the collar of the Order of the Golden Fleece, which was awarded to Ferdinand only on March 28, 1557, thus several years after the manufacture of this armor. According to Bruno Thomas, a helmet for mounted use in the field in Ambras (SAI, inv. no. A22) belongs to this armor. If this identification is correct, the armor was thus also for mounted use in the field.80 Folio 2v Image 4 (Group A) Armor elements. Belonging to the same garniture as the armor shown on folio 3r (image 5), these elements are of bright steel with bands of scrolling foliage, and intended for mounted and foot use in the field, and mounted use in the free tourney. They include (1) a burgonet, (2) a buffe, (3) a pate defense, (4) a half-shaffron, (5) the cantle plate of a saddle, (6) a hinged lance-rest, (7) the pommel plates of a saddle, (8‒9) a pair of upper lames for cuisses, and (10) a left pauldron fitted with a besagew. Represented on paper that has been pasted in place, the heraldic shield at the bottom right bears the patron’s family arms and crested helms. The escutcheon on the half-shaffron displays the same arms. Folio 3r Image 5 (Group A) Armored man. Made in 1551 for Leonhard IV, baron of Harrach and lord of Rohrau (1514‒1590), and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folio 2v (image 4), this armor is of bright steel with (a) bands of scrolling foliage, and (b) floral designs (couters and poleyns). It is intended for mounted use in the field. The caption at the top right reads “Anno 1551 · hab Ich herrnn · Leonharden von harrach zw Roraw : disse arbaitt · Gemachtt”. The son of Leonhard III, lord of Harrach and Rohrau (1481‒1527), and Barbara von Gleinitz (1485‒1535), Leonhard was lord then (from 1552) baron of Harrach, and lord then (from 1566) baron of Rohrau, chief hereditary master of the horse in Upper and Lower Austria (from 1559), privy counselor (from 1557), high steward (1559 to 1563), and chief chamberlain (1560/61 to 1575) of Maximilian II, and subsequently privy counselor of Rudolf II. He was received into the Order of the Golden Fleece in 1585. In 1536 he married Barbara von Windisch-Grätz (1519‒1580), daughter of Siegfried von Win­ disch-Grätz (c. 1475‒1541) and Afra von Grasswein (c. 1485‒1550).

Comparable armors with elements for the tourney and matching armors for the tilt (Stechzeuge) in the Italian fashion are represented in Sorg’s album on folios 1v‒2r, 3v‒4r, 5v‒6r, 17v‒18r, 19v‒20r, 20v‒21r, 22v‒23r, 31v‒32r, 33v‒34r, 38v‒39r, 39v‒40r, 42v‒43r, 43v‒44r; see Becher ‒ Gamber ‒ Irtenkauf 1980, pp. 48‒53, 64‒69, 78‒81, 84‒91, ills. 80 Thomas 1980, p. 84. Armors for the free tourney generally are field armors worn with reinforcing and exchange pieces. However, Sorg’s album features a type of armor that appears to have been specifically intended for this contest (Stechkürisse), and that may not have included pieces for the field. They are essentially constructed like field armors but include close helmets rotating on the upper rim of the gorget and fitted with visors rising to the level of the sight, asymmetrical pauldrons, the left one fitted with a neck guard, and laminated tassets extending down to the middle of the thighs. 79

182

Image 3

Image 4

183

Image 5

Folio 3v Image 6 (Group A) Armor elements. Presumably belonging to the same garniture as the armor shown on folio 4r (image 7), these elements are of plain bright steel, and intended for foot use in the field, and for mounted use in the free tourney and the tilt in the German fashion. They include (1) a close helmet, (2) a burgonet, (3) a visor with upper bevor, (4) a pivoted peak with falling buffe, (5‒6) two buffes, (7) a pate defense, (8) a right pauldron fitted with a besagew, (9) a left pauldron reinforce, (10) another left pauldron reinforce, (11) a right pauldron reinforce, (12) a left pauldron reinforce, (13) a right couter reinforce, (14) a targe, (15) a right gauntlet (probably of locking type), (16) a left gauntlet, (17) a left couter reinforce, (18) a besagew, (19) a one-piece lance-rest, and (20) a vamplate. Folio 4r Image 7 (Group A) Armored man and shaffron. Made in 1551 for Ferdinand, count of Ortenburg, baron of Freienstein and Karlsbach, and lord of Héricourt and l’Isle-sur-le-Doubs (1530‒1570), this armor is of plain bright steel, and intended for mounted use in the tilt in the Italian fashion. The vamplate on the lance, the adjacent full shaffron, and presumably also the elements shown on folio 3v (image 6) belong to it. The caption at the top left reads “Anno 1551 · hab Ich herrnn ferdinandus Graffen zw · Orttenburg · freÿherrn zw · freÿenstain vnd karlspach herren zw Ericurtt : vnnd Lyll · etc :. disse arbait gemacht /·”. The outline of helms’ crests and mantling show that a heraldic shield was originally represented at the bottom right, and has been cut away. The escutcheon on the shaffron displays the patron’s family arms. Ferdinand, count of Ortenburg, was the eldest son of Gabriel Salamanca and Elisabeth, countess of Eberstein.81 In 1549 he married Eva Hofmann, baroness zu Grünbichl und Strechau (life dates unknown). Her father, Hans Hofmann, baron zu Grünbichl und Strechau (c. 1492‒1564), was treasurer general of all hereditary Austrian lands (1526 to 1556), privy counselor (1526 to 1556), and high steward (1545 to 1556) at the court of Ferdinand I of Austria. In 1547 and 1554 Ferdinand was carver at his court.82 Folio 4v Image 8 (Group A) Armor elements. Belonging to the same garniture as the armors and elements shown on folios 6r‒7r (images 11‒13), these elements are of bright steel with (a) gilded bands of scrolling foliage, (b) rows of gilded crescents, the ends of which rest against the bands, and the areas between the crescents and bands filled with hatching, and (c) gilded foliate and floral designs (pate defense, buffe, besagews, couters, and rondache). Intended for mounted and foot use in the field, and for mounted use in the free tourney, they include (1) a pate defense, (2) a buffe, (3) a falling buffe, (4) a pivoted peak with falling buffe, (5) a gorget made in one with pauldrons of spaulder type and fitted with a pair of besagews, (6) a right pauldron fitted with a besagew, (7) a half-shaffron, (8‒9) a pair of couters, (10) a rondache, (11‒12) a pair of vambraces (truncated), (13) a locking gauntlet for the right hand, (14) the pommel plates of a saddle, (15) a hinged lance-rest, and (16‒17) a pair of upper lames for cuisses. The escutcheon on the half-shaffron displays the patron’s family arms.

81 See comments on image 1. 82 Pribram ‒ Turba ‒ Stich 1889‒1901, vol. 2, p. 230, note 2; Firnhabe 1860, p. 18.

184

Image 6

Image 8

185

Image 7

Folio 5r Image 9 (Group A) Armored man. Made in 1551 for Luís de Leyva, second prince of Ascoli, second marquis of Atella, and second count of Monza (1537 to 1557) (d. 1557), this armor is of plain blackened steel, and intended for mounted use in the field. The caption at the top right reads “Anno 1551 · hab Ich dem Prÿntzn de ass · Cullÿ disse arbaitt gem[acht]”. The son of the famed Spanish imperial commander Antonio de Leyva, duke of Terranova, first prince of Ascoli, first marquis of Atella, and first count of Monza (1480–1536), and of Castelana de Villaragut (life dates unknown), Luís de Leyva was a knight of the Order of Santiago, captain-general of the cavalry of Flanders, and count of Monza. He was married with Mariana de La Cueva y Cabrera y Bobadilla (life dates unknown). He was killed at the battle of Saint-Quentin. Folio 5v Image 10 (Group A) Armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒55, and probably belonging to the same garniture as the armor shown on folio 9r (image 17), these elements are of bright steel with bands of scrolling foliage, and they are intended for mounted and foot use in the field. They include (1) a burgonet, (2) a rondache, (3) a left pauldron, (4) a half-shaffron, (5) a hinged lance-rest, (6‒7) the pommel and cantle plates of a saddle, and (8‒9) a pair of upper lames for cuisses. The escutcheon on the half-shaffron is plain. Folio 6r Image 11 (Group A) Armored man and two helmets. Made in 1552 for Fernando (which is equivalent to “Hernando”) Álvarez de Toledo y Pimentel, third duke of Alba, fourth marquis of Coria, and third count of Salvatierra de Tormes (1507‒1582), and belonging to the same garniture as the armor and elements shown on folios 4v, 6v, and 7r (images 8, 12, and 13), this armor is of bright steel with (a) gilded bands of scrolling foliage, (b) rows of gilded crescents, the ends of which rest against the bands, and the areas between the crescents and bands filled with hatching, and (c) gilded foliate and floral designs (close helmet, burgonmet, cabasset, pauldrons, couters, and poleyns). It is intended for mounted use in the field. The adjacent (1) burgonet and (2) morion, which are decorated en suite, belong to the same garniture, and are for foot and possibly also mounted use in the field. The caption at the top left reads “Anno · 1552 · hab Ich Don hernando · de :. Dolleto / disse · arbait gemacht /·”. The heraldic shield that was presumably shown at the bottom right has been cut away. The son of García Álvarez de Toledo y Zúñiga (d. 1510) and Beatriz Pimentel (life dates unknown), Fernando Álvarez de Toledo y Pimentel, the famed third duke Alba, was one of Emperor Charles V of Austria and King Philip II of Spain’s most trusted men. A knight of the Order of the Golden Fleece (1546), he successively was governor of the duchy of Milan (1555 to 1556), viceroy of the kingdom of Naples (1556 to 1558), governor of the Low Countries (1567 to 1573) and viceroy and constable of the kingdom of Portugal (1580 to 1582).

186

Image 9

Image 11

187

Image 10

Folio 6v Image 12 (Group A) Armor elements. Belonging to the same garniture as the armors and elements shown on folios 4v, 6r, and 7r (images 8, 11, and 13), these elements are of bright steel with (a) gilded bands of scrolling foliage, (b) rows of gilded crescents, the ends of which rest against the bands, and the areas between the crescents and bands filled with hatching, and (c) gilded foliate and floral designs (helmet, left pauldron reinforce, couters, and poleyns). Intended for mounted use in the tilt in the Italian fashion, they include (1) a helm, (2) a left pauldron reinforce, (3) a left gauntlet reinforce, (4) a right vambrace (truncated), (5) a full shaffron, (5) a left couter reinforce, (6) a one-piece lance-rest, (7) the pommel plates of a saddle, (8) what may be a waistplate (truncated), (9) an unidentifiable piece (truncated), and (10) the cantle plate of a saddle. The escutcheon on the shaffron displays the patron’s family arms. Folio 7r Image 13 (Group A) Armored man. Belonging to the same garniture as the armor and elements shown on folios 4v, 6r, and 6v (images 8, 11, and 12), this armor is of bright steel with (a) gilded bands of scrolling foliage, (b) rows of gilded crescents, the ends of which rest against the bands, and the areas between the crescents and bands filled with hatching, and (c) gilded foliate and floral designs (helmet, couters, and poleyns), and it is intended for the tilt in the German fashion. The vamplate on the lance, which is decorated en suite, belongs to it. The caption at the top right reads “Anno 1552 · hab Ich · Don hernando · de · Doletto : disse · arbaitt · gemacht”. Represented on paper that has been pasted in place, the heraldic shield at the bottom right bears the patron’s family arms and crested helm. Folio 7v Image 14 (Group A) Armored man and armor elements. Made in 1552 for Ludwig Hörmann von und zu Gutenberg (1515‒1588), this armor is of plain blackened steel, and intended for foot use in the field. The adjacent (1) backplate and (2) breastplate with short tassets, which are also blackened, appear to belong to it, and are probably intended for foot and perhaps also mounted use in the field. The caption at the top right reads “Anno 1552 · hab Ich · dem · Ludwig herman · disse · arbaitt · gemachtt”. Represented on paper that has been pasted in place, the heraldic shield at the bottom right bears the patron’s family arms and crested helm.83 The Hörmann belonged to the “honorable lineages” of Augsburg.84 Ludwig Hörmann (1515‒1588) was the son of Georg Hörmann (1491‒1552) and Barbara Reihing (d. 1556), and a younger brother of Hans Georg Hörmann (see comments on image 15). A patrician of Kaufbeuren, his father worked for the Fuggers in Antwerp before he became the head of their mining office in Schwaz in Tyrol (1524 to 1550). Ennobled by Charles V in 1528, the latter also was counselor of Ferdinand I (from 1536). Ludwig worked for Anton Fugger in Naples (until 1543) and married in 1543 Regina Haug (c. 1520 ‒ 1587), a daughter of the Augsburg merchant Anton Haug (1474‒1549), following which he became a partner in the Haug-Langnauer-Linck merchant company (1545 to 1557).85

83 Zimmermann 1970, no. 1973, pl. 68. 84 Siebmacher 1605, pl. 214. 85 Häberlein 1998, p. 358.

188

Image 12

Image 14

189

Image 13

Folio 8r Image 15 (Group A) Armored man. Made in 1552 for Hans Georg Hörmann von und zu Gutenberg (1513‒1562), this armor is of plain bright steel, and intended for foot use in the field. The caption at the top right reads “Anno 1552 · hab Ich dem · hannss Jerg hermann Disse arbaitt gemacht ·”. The heraldic shield that was represented at the bottom right has been cut away and pasted onto folio 108r (image 147).86 The Hörmann belonged to the “honorable lineages” of Augsburg.87 Hans Georg Hörmann (1513‒1562) was the son of Georg Hörmann (1491‒1552) and Barbara Reihing (d. 1556), and an older brother of Ludwig Hörmann (see comments on image 14). He worked for the Fuggers in Augsburg (from 1529) and married in 1538 Radegundis Herwart (c. 1515 ‒ 1559), daughter of Erasmus Herwart (b. 1485) and Radegundis Eggenberger (1480‒1520).88 From 1549 he was a member of Augsburg’s Greater City Council.89 Folio 8v Image 16 (Group A) Armor elements. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒55, made for a member of the Herwart family, and belonging together, these elements are of plain blackened steel, and intended for foot use in the field, and for mounted use in the tilt in the Italian fashion. They include (1) a burgonet, (2) a buffe, (3) a left shoulder reinforce, (4) a reinforcing breastplate with tassets (truncated), (5) a buffe, (6) a one-piece lance-rest, (7) a left couter reinforce, (8) a right pauldron, (9) a left gauntlet reinforce, (10) what is either a left pauldron fitted with a besagew or the visible portion of a gorget made in one with pauldrons of spaulder type, and fitted with besagews (truncated), (11) a left pauldron, (12) a vamplate, and (13) a full shaffron. The escutcheon of the shaffron displays the patron’s family arms.90 The Herwart were one of Augsburg’s most venerable patrician families.91 In the sixteenth century, its members were active in metal trade, copper and silver mining, and finance. The armor garniture to which these elements belonged was perhaps made for the sons of Hans Herwart (d. 1528), who were ennobled by Charles V in 1548, either the Augsburg burgomaster (1553 to 1554) Hans Paul (1519‒1586) or his brother Hans Heinrich (1520‒1583). In 1568, two years after he had acquired the barony and castle of Hohenburg, to which he moved in 1574, Hans Paul ranked among Augsburg’s five wealthiest men.92 Folio 9r Image 17 (Group A) Armored man. Made in 1553 and probably belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folio 5v (image 10), this armor is of bright steel with (a) bands of scrolling foliage and (b) floral designs (couters and poleyns), and it is intended for mounted use in the field. The caption at the top right reads “Anno 1553 · hab Ich hernandello · disse Arbaitt gemachtt ·”. The patron, “Lord Nandello,” who probably was a Spaniard, has not been identified.93

86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93

190

Zimmermann 1970, no. 1973, pl. 68. Siebmacher 1605, pl. 214. Häberlein 2012. Reitzenstein 1960, p. 94, note 11. Zimmermann 1970, no. 5694, pl. 198. Stetten 1762, pp. 101‒107. Winder 2013, pp. 55‒59. The annotation in Sorg’s album, folio 31r, makes it clear that the word “Hernandello” in the Thun album is an alternative spelling for “Herrn Nandello,” that is, “Lord Nandelo” in English; see Becher – Gamber – Irtenkauf 1980, pp. 76‒77, ill.

Image 15

Image 17

191

Image 16

Folio 9v Image 18 (Group A) Armored man. Made in 1553 for Ulrich Schellenberger (life dates unknown), this armor is of blackened steel with plain bright bands, and intended for foot use in the field. The caption at the top left reads “Anno 1553 · hab Ich dem Junckher Ullich Schellenberger · disse · arbaitt · gmacht”. Represented on paper that has been pasted in place, the heraldic shield at the bottom left bears the patron’s family arms and crested helm. These feature (1 and 4) the family arms of the von Schellenberg quartered with (2 and 3) those of the died-out von Randegg, as granted in 1521 by Charles V of Austria to Hans I von Schellenberg (d. 1544). The armor was made for one of his relatives,94 and not for a member of the zu Kisslegg branch, whose arms consisted of the family arms of the Schellenberg quartered with those of the zu Kisslegg. Folio 10r Image 19 (Group A) Armored man and armor elements. Made in 1553 for Friedrich Gienger (life dates unknown), this armor is of plain blackened steel, and intended for foot use in the field. 95 The adjacent (1) falling buffe and (2‒3) pair of lames made in one with poleyns, which are also blackened, appear to belong to it. The caption at the top reads “Anno 1553 · hab Ich dem friderich · Gienngerr · disse arbaitt gemacht /·”. Represented on paper that has been pasted in place, the heraldic shield at the bottom left displays the patron’s family arms and crested helm. The Gienger were admitted among the “honorable lineages” of Augsburg in the sixteenth century.96 This armor may have been made for Friedrich Gienger von Grünbichel (and from 1589) auf Oberhöflein (life dates unknown).97 Married with Anna Humblin,98 he was imperial servant and steward at the court of Matthias of Austria (1557‒1619). Folio 10v Image 20 (Group A) Armored man and armor elements. Made in 1553 for Markus Fugger, lord of Kirchberg and Weissenhorn (1529‒1597), this armor is of bright steel with (a) bands of interlace, (b) bands of scrolling foliage, (c) narrow bands of cabling, and (d) floral designs (pauldrons). It is intended for the foot combat. The adjacent (1) pate defense and (2) buffe, which are decorated en suite, belong to this armor. The caption at the top left reads “Anno 1553 · hab Ich herrenn · Marx · fugger / herrnn zw: kirchberg · / vnd weissenhorn etc. · disse arbaitt gemachtt”. Represented on paper that has been pasted in place, the shield at the bottom left feet bears the patron’s family arms and crested helms. The son of Anton Fugger (1493‒1560) and Anna Rehlinger (1511‒1548), Markus Fugger was one of Augsburg’s wealthiest men. Married in 1557 to Countess Sybilla von Eberstein (1531‒1589), he was chamberlain of Archduke Ernst of Austria (1553‒1595) and counselor of the duke of Bavaria. This armor was perhaps commissioned in anticipation of the tournament held in Augsburg in 1553 to celebrate the marriage of Jakob, count of Montfort in Pfannberg (1524‒1572/73) with Katharina Fugger (1532‒1585), daughter of Anton Fugger (1493‒1560), in which Markus Fugger took part.

94 No member of this family with the name of Ulrich is recorded in Schwennicke 1978‒1995, vol. 12, pll. 148–149. 95 Zimmermann 1970, pl. 146, no. 4305. 96 Stetten 1762, p. 442. 97 Reitzenstein 1960, p. 94, note 18. 98 Bergmann 1844‒1858, vol. 1, pp. 201–202, no. XLIII.

192

Image 18

Image 20

193

Image 19

Folio 11r Image 21 (Group A) Armored man and armor elements. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒55, and made for a count of Ortenburg-Salamanca, this armor is of plain blackened steel, and intended for mounted use in the field. The adjacent blackened (1) full shaffron, (3) buffe, (5) reinforcing breastplate, and (6) hinged lance-rest appear to belong to it. Of about the same date and of plain bright steel, the remaining elements include (2) a close helmet and (4) buffe for mounted use in the tilt that were apparently made for the same patron, but evidently intended to complement another armor of his. Represented on paper that has been pasted in place, the shield at the bottom right bears the patron’s family arms and crested helms. This armor must have been made for one of Gabriel Salamanca’s four sons, either Ferdinand (see comments on image 7), Bernhard (see comments on image 1), Ernst (d. 1598), or Ehrenfried (recorded 1540 to 1585). Ernst and Ehrenfried were born from Gabriel’s second marriage in 1539 with Elisabeth, margravine of Baden-Durlach (1516‒1568). Married in 1564 with Rosina von Schärffenberg (dates unknown), daughter of Ulrich von Schärffenberg auf Hohenwang und Kindberg (1518‒1578) and Johanna von Polheim (1526‒1571),99 Ernst was hereditary chamberlain of Carinthia. Married in 1574 with ­Giulia of Arco (b. 1558), daughter of Pyrrhus, count of Arco (d. 1565), and of Margaretha Szécsy de Felsölendva (1524‒1567), and in 1585 with Eva (life dates unknown), daughter of Otto von Neudegg zu Rastenberg und Wildegg (life dates unknown) and of Anna Löw von Rozmital (life dates unknown),100 Ehrenfried was counselor of Archduke Ferdinand II. Folio 11v Image 22 (Group A) Armor elements. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒55, and belonging together, these elements are of plain blackened steel, and intended for mounted and foot use in the field. They include (1‒2) two burgonets, (3) a pivoted face guard, (4) a breastplate with short tassets, (5) a backplate, (6) a falling buffe, (7‒8) a pair of pauldrons of spaulder type fitted with besagews, (9) a right fingered gauntlet, (10) a gorget, (11) a full shaffron, (12) a left fingered gauntlet, and (13) a rondache. The escutcheon on the shaffron d ­ isplays the unidentified family arms of the patron, possibly only the fields 2 and 4 of quartered arms, namely, or, a lion passant sable, and azur, a six-pointed star or, respectively. Folio 12r Image 23 (Group A) Armored man and armor elements. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒55, and made for a member of the Fugger von der Lilie family, this armor is of plain blackened steel, and intended for mounted use in the field. The adjacent elements, which are also blackened, appear to belong to it, and are intended for mounted and foot use in the field. They include (1) a gorget made in one with pauldrons of spaulder type and fitted with besagews, (2) a hinged lance-rest, (3) a breastplate reinforce, (4) a pair of mitten gauntlets, and (5) a full shaffron. Represented on paper that has been pasted in place, the heraldic shield at the bottom right bears the patron’s family arms and crested helms. The escutcheon on the shaffron displays a portion of the same arms.

99 Freytag von Loringhoven 1975, pl. 18. 100 Witting 1918, p. 9, pl. 3.

194

Image 21

Image 23

195

Image 22

Folio 12v Image 24 (Group A) Armor elements. Belonging to the armor and elements shown on folio 13r (image 25), the majority of these elements are of blackened steel with gilded bands of interlace, and they are intended for foot use in the field and for mounted use in the free tourney and the tilt. They include (1) a burgonet, (2) a buffe, (3) the pommel plates of a saddle, (4) a right vambrace, (5) a left pauldron of spaulder type fitted with a besagew, (6) a locking gauntlet for the right hand, (7) the cantle plate of a saddle, (9 and 11) the pommel and cantle plates of another saddle, and (12) a one-piece lance-rest. Of about the same date, the remaining elements are of bright steel with (a) gilded bands of interlace, and (b) rows of gilded semi-circles filled with hatching, and consist of (8 and 10) the pommel and cantle plates of a saddle. The detail of heir decoration does not match any other pieces shown in this album. Folio 13r Image 25 (Group A) Armored man and armor elements. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒55, and made for a member of the Fugger von der Lilie family, this armor is of blackened steel with (a) gilded bands of interlace, (b) narrow gilded bands of cabling, and (c) gilded floral designs (pauldrons, couters and poleyns), and it is intended for mounted use in the field. The adjacent elements, which are decorated en suite, belong to it and are for mounted and foot use in the field and for mounted use in the free tourney. They include (1) a pate defense, (2) a pivoted peak with falling buffe, (3‒4) a pair of upper lames for cuis­ ses, and (5) a full shaffron. Represented on paper that has been pasted in place, the heraldic shield at the bottom left has largely been cut away, but the crests and mantling that remain in place unmistakably identify the missing arms as those of the Fugger von der Lilie family. The escutcheon on the shaffron displays a portion of the same arms. Folio 13v Image 26 (Group A) Armored man and armor elements. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒55, this armor is of plain blackened steel, and intended for mounted use in the field. The blackened (5) breastplate reinforce shown at the bottom right clearly belongs to it. Of about the same date, and of bright steel with bands of scrolling foliage, and fleurs-de-lis (buffe, left pauldron), the remaining elements are intended for mounted use in the tilt. They include (1) a close helmet, (2) a grandguard for the tilt in the Italian fashion, (3) a left pauldron, and (4) a full or half-shaffron (truncated). If made for the same patron, they evidently complement a different armor. Folio 14r Image 27 (Group A) Armored man and upper lames for cuisses. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒55, this armor is of plain blackened steel, and intended for mounted use in the field. The adjacent (1‒2) pair of upper lames for cuisses, which are also blackened, seem to belong to it.

196

Image 24

Image 26

197

Image 25

Image 27

Folio 14v Image 28 (Group A) Armor elements. Belonging to the armor shown on folio 15r (image 29), these elements are of blackened steel with (a) rows of bright half-disks bordered by rows of gilded halfdisks, and (b) gilded foliate and floral designs (pauldrons, couters, and poleyns). Intended for mounted and possibly also foot use in the field, they include (1‒2) two burgonets, (3) a buffe, (4) a pivoted peak with falling buffe, (5‒6) a pair of pauldrons of spaulder type and fitted with besagews, (7) a full shaffron, (8‒9) a pair of vambraces, (10) a hinged lance-rest, and (11‒12) a pair of upper lames for cuisses. The escutcheon on the shaffron displays a portion of the patron’s family arms. Folio 15r Image 29 (Group A) Armored man. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒55, and made for either Karl (1513‒1571) or Jakob (d. 1599) Villinger, both barons of Schönenberg and Seyfriedberg, this armor is of blackened steel with (a) rows of bright half-disks bordered by rows of gilded half-disks, and (b) gilded foliate and floral designs (pauldrons, couters, and poleyns). It is intended for mounted use in the field. Represented on paper that has been pasted in place, the heraldic shield at the bottom right bears the patron’s family arms and crested helms.101 These feature (1 and 4) the family arms of the Villinger quartered with (2 and 3) those of the von Schönenberg, as granted in 1546 by Charles V to Karl Villinger upon his elevation to baron.102 Karl Villinger was the son of Jakob Villinger, lord of Schönenberg (c. 1480 ‒ 1529), treasurer general and counselor of Maximilian I (from 1512) and Charles V (from 1522), and of his wife, Ursula Adler (d. 1547). In 1538 he married Barbara Rehlinger (1515‒1593), the daughter of Hans Rehlinger (1483‒1553) and Anna Ditenheimer (1486‒1563). His relative Jakob (d. 1597/99) married in 1565 Sidonia Isabella Fugger (1543‒1601), daughter of Georg Fugger, lord of Kirchberg and Weissenhorn (1518‒1569), and Ursula, countess of Liechtenstein (d. 1573). Folio 15v Image 30 (Group A) Armored man and armor elements. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒55, probably made for a member of the Rehlinger family, and possibly belonging to the same garniture as the armor and elements shown on folio 16r (image 31), this armor is of plain blackened steel, and intended for mounted use in the field. The adjacent elements, which also are blackened, seem to belong to it, and are intended for mounted and foot use in the field, and possibly for mounted use in the free tourney. They include (1) a gorget made in one with pauldrons of spaulder type, (2) a full shaffron, (3) a falling buffe, (4) a hinged lance-rest, (5) a burgonet, (6) a buffe, and (7‒8) a pair of upper lames for cuisses. The escutcheon on the shaffron displays a portion of the patron’s family arms, which appears to be a simplified version of the Rehlinger’s arms shown on folio 16r (image 31). Folio 16r Image 31 (Group A) Armored man and armor elements. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒55, and made for a member of the Rehlinger zu Windach und Nordendorf family, probably Carl Wolfgang Rehlinger (1529‒1588),103 this armor is of plain blackened steel, and intended for the tilt in the Italian fashion. The vamplate on the lance and the elements adjacent to the armor, which also are blackened, appear to belong to it, and are for mounted use

101 Zimmermann 1970, pl. 181, no. 5223. 102 Kadich ‒ Blažek 1899, p. 281. 103 Beierlein 1851, pp. 148–150.

198

Image 28

Image 30

199

Image 29

Image 31

in the tilt and free tourney. They include (1) a left pauldron, (2) a one-piece lance-rest, (3) a pate defense, and (4) a vamplate. Represented on paper that has been pasted in place, the heraldic shield at the bottom right bears the patron’s family arms and crested helms.104 The Rehlinger belonged to the oldest and most distinguished patrician families of Augsburg.105 Carl Wolfgang Rehlinger was the son of the Augsburg burgomaster (1534, 1536, 1537, 1539, and 1541) Wolfgang Rehlinger (c. 1502 ‒ 1557) and of Anna Wieland (d. 1551). He married in 1558 Catharina Soiter (d. 1595), daughter of the imperial knight and doctor in law Melchior Soiter zu Windach (d. 1555) and of Constanzia Peutinger (1502‒1546). In 1565 he purchased Schloss Nordendorf from his uncle, Anton Rehlinger, lord zu Bernsau and Nordendorf (c. 1529‒1569). Folio 16v Image 32 (Group A) Armor elements. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒55, these elements are all for mounted use in the field. They include (1) a Zischägge of bright steel with interlace and scrolling foliage, (2‒3) two Zischägge of plain bright steel (one partially covered by a strip of paper), (4) a burgonet with attached bevor or separable buffe, of blackened steel with gilded fleurs-de-lis, (5‒6) a third and fourth Zischägge of plain bright steel, of the same type as nos. 2 and 3), (7) a full shaffron, (8‒11) four left fingered gauntlets, (12) a hinged lance-rest, and (13‒14) a pair of upper lames for cuisses, all (nos. 7‒14) of blackened steel. The escutcheon on the shaffron is blank. The burgonet no. 4 appears to belong to the armor shown on folio 17r (image 33), whose helmet is also blackened and decorated with a gilded fleur-de-lis. The elements nos. 12‒14, and perhaps the gauntlets nos. 8‒11 as well, which are also blackened, may similarly belong to the same armor. Folio 17r Image 33 (Group A) Armored man. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒55, this armor is of blackened steel with (a) bands of gilded scrolling foliage and (b) a gilded fleur-de-lis (helmet), and it is intended for mounted use in the field. A burgonet and other blackened elements shown on folio 16v (image 32) may belong to it. Folio 17v Image 34 (Group A) Armored man. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒60, this armor is of blackened steel with bright bands of scrolling foliage, and it is intended for mounted use in the field. Unless the owner of this armor was left-handed, the design of this armor appears to have been mistakenly reversed, the right pauldron being constructed with a neck guard, and the left one with none, contrary to the norm, which is to provide greater protection to the left side of the body and limbs. Folio 18r Image 35 (Group A) Armored man. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒60, this armor is of bright steel with (a) bands of foliate knots flanked by narrow bands of cabling, and (b) narrow bands of cabling. It is intended for mounted use in the field. The heraldic shield that was presumably shown at the bottom right has been cut away.

104 Zimmermann 1970, pl. 118, no. 3486. 105 Stetten 1762, pp. 87–95.

200

201

Image 32

Image 33

Image 34

Image 35

Folio 18v Image 36 (Group A) Armored man and armor elements. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒60, and made for a member of the Höchstetter family, possibly Joachim II (1523‒1597), this armor is of blackened steel with bright bands of scrolling foliage, and it is intended for foot and mounted use in the field. The adjacent elements, which are decorated en suite, belong to it, and are for mounted and foot use in the field. They include (1) a triple-combed burgonet, (2) a hinged lance-rest, and (3) a half-shaffron. The escutcheon on the shaffron displays the same arms as the heraldic shield that was originally shown at the bottom left, and that has been cut away and pasted onto folio 108r (image 147). A major merchant family active in long-distance trade, mining, and finance, the Höchstetter were raised to the imperial nobility in 1518 and belonged to the “honorable lineages” of Augsburg.106 The son of Joachim I (1505‒1535) and Anna Langenmantel (c. 1502‒1589), Joachim Höchstetter married in 1555 Dorothea Straub (c. 1530‒1567). Folio 19r Image 37 (Group A) Armored man and armor elements. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒60, and made for a member of the Man(n)lich family, this armor is of plain blackened steel, and intended for foot use in the field. The adjacent elements, which are also blackened, appear to belong to it, and include (1) a cabasset and (2) a skull cap that is constructed of rows of small plates. Represented on paper that has been pasted in place, the heraldic shield at the bottom right bears the patron’s family arms and crested helm.107 Active in long-distance trade, copper mining, and banking, the Man(n)lich belonged to the richest merchant families in sixteenth-century Augsburg. They were admitted among the “honorable lineages” of Augsburg sometime between 1539 and 1605.108

106 Siebmacher 1605, pl. 214. 107 Zimmermann 1970, no. 5364, pl. 186. 108 Stetten 1762, pp. 156, 442; Siebmacher 1605, pl. 214.

202

Image 36

203

Image 37

Folio 19v Image 38 (Group A) Armor elements. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the armor shown on folio 20r (image 39), these elements are of plain blackened steel, and intended for foot and mounted use in the field. They include (1) a burgonet, (2‒3) a pair of pauldrons made in one with vambraces and fitted with couters, (4) the pommel plates of a saddle, (5‒6) a pair of fingered gauntlets, (7) the cantle plate of a saddle, (8) a rondache, (9) a full shaffron, (10) a hinged lance-rest, and (11‒12) a pair of upper lames for cuisses. The construction of the gauntlets with tapering plates and mail over the back of the wrist and hand is similar to a pair belonging to a garniture of Charles V, of c. 1535, and attributed to Desiderius Helmschmid, which are now in Vienna (HJRK, inv. no. A 381).109 The rondache seems to be embossed in low relief with the figure of Fortune standing on a ball amid water, and holding a sail, and is similar to an example embossed with the same subject, which is dated 1543, signed and marked by Matthias Frauenpreiss the Elder, and preserved in Madrid (RAM, inv. no. D. 68).110 The escutcheon on the shaffron exhibits a simplified portion of the patron’s family arms. Folio 20r Image 39 (Group A) Armored man. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒60, and made for a count of Ortenburg-Salamanca, this armor is of blackened steel with a gilded representation of Christ on the cross on the breastplate, and it is intended for mounted use in the field. Represented on paper that has been pasted in place, the heraldic shield at the bottom right bears the patron’s family arms and crested helms.111 This armor must have been made for one of Gabriel Salamanca’s four sons (see comments on image 21). Folio 20v Image 40 (Group A) Armored man and armor elements. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒60, and made for a member of the Lokschan von Lokschan family (also spelled Loxan, Loksan, and Lokschau), almost certainly Ferdinand Lokschan (c. 1540 ‒ 1603), this armor is of plain blackened steel, and intended for mounted use in the field. The adjacent elements, which are also blackened, appear to belong to it and are intended for mounted use in the field. They include (1‒2) a pair of cheekpieces, (3) a falling buffe, (4) a half-shaffron, and (5) a breastplate reinforce. Represented on paper that has been pasted in place, the heraldic shield at the bottom left bears the patron’s family arms and crested helm. The escutcheon on the shaffron displays a portion of the same arms. Ferdinand Lokschan von Lokschan, lord of Březnice (c. 1540 ‒ 1603),112 was the son of Georg Lokschan von Lokschan (c. 1491 ‒ 1554), vice chancellor of Bohemia (by 1530) and imperial counselor (from 1530), and his wife, Katharina Adler (1516‒1580). He was counselor and cupbearer (by 1562) at the court of Archduke Ferdinand II of Austria and part of his retinue at the Vienna tournaments of 1560 and 1571.113 He was married by 1566 with Susana, countess Schlick (d. 1580), daughter of Lorenz Schlick (life dates unknown), and by 1587 with Ursula Svihovsky von Riesenberg (life dates unknown). The illustrated armor was obviously made for him, and not for his father, who at the time of its manufacture already was in his sixties.

109 Thomas 1977, vol. 2, p. 1636, fig. 111. 110 Reitzenstein 1960, p. 90. On the rondache in Madrid, see Boeheim 1891, pp. 218–219, fig. 29; Valencia de Don Juan 1898, p. 145, no. D. 68, fig. 94; LaRocca 2004, p. 42, fig. 6. 111 Witting 1918, pl. 3. 112 Miltner ‒ Neumann 1852, pp. 310‒317, no. CVIII. 113 Bůžek 2009, p. 97, notes 264‒265; p. 220, note 680; p. 226, note 691; and pp. 272‒273, note 828.

204

Image 38

Image 40

205

Image 39

Folio 21r Image 41 (Group A) Armored man and armor elements. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒60, and made for a member of the Fugger von der Lilie family, this armor is of plain blackened steel, and intended for mounted use in the field. The adjacent elements, which are also blackened, appear to belong to it, and are intended for mounted and foot use in the field. They include (1‒2) a pair of cheekpieces, (3) a falling buffe, (4) a half-shaffron, and (5) a rondache. Represented on paper that has been pasted in place, the heraldic shield at the bottom right bears the patron’s family arms and crested helms. The escutcheon on the shaffron displays a portion of the same arms. Additional elements of this garniture are shown on folio 20v (image 40). Folio 21v Image 42 (Group A) Armor elements. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the armor shown on folio 22r (image 43), these elements are of plain blackened steel, and intended for mounted and foot use in the field, and for mounted use in the tourney. They include (1) a burgonet, (2) a pivoted peak with falling buffe, (3) a pate defense, (4) a buffe, (5) a pair of cheekpieces, (6) a visor with upper bevor, (7) a gorget made in one with pauldrons of spaulder type, (8‒9) a pair of splint vambraces, (10) a half-shaffron, (11‒12) a pair of upper lames for cuisses, (13‒14) a pair of mitten gauntlets, (15‒16) a pair of lames made in one with poleyns, and (17) a pivoted lance-rest. In conception the splint vambraces are similar to a pair in Madrid (RAM, inv. no. A. 191).114 The escutcheon on the shaffron bears the patron’s family arms. Folio 22r Image 43 (Group A) Armored man. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒60, this armor is of plain blackened steel, and for mounted use in the field. Represented on paper that has been pasted in place, the heraldic shield at the bottom right bears the unidentified family arms (azur, a five-pointed star or) and crested helm of the noble patron, tentatively identified by Stöcklein as belonging to the Remlein family in Bad Windsheim, which are also shown again, along with a different armor, on folio 29v (image 57).115 Folio 22v Blank Folio 23r Image 44 (Group A) Armored man. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒60, this armor is of bright steel with (a) bands of scrolling foliage and (b) narrow bands of cabling, and it is intended for mounted use in the field.

114 Valencia de Don Juan 1898, pp. 72‒73, fig. 49. 115 Manuscript note by Hans Stöcklein on a slip of paper placed between this and the previous folio. The arms of this family, as represented in Siebmacher’s Das Erneuerte und vermehrte Teutsche Wappenbuch, Nuremberg, 1657, pl. 273, are not quite the same.

206

207

Image 41

Image 42

Image 43

Image 44

Folio 23v Image 45 (Group A) Armored man. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒60, and possibly made for a member of the Wieland or Rumler families,116 this armor is of plain blackened steel, and intended for foot use in the field. Represented on paper that has been pasted in place, the heraldic shield at the bottom left bears the unidentified family arms and crested helm of the patron. The armor was perhaps made for Macharius Rumler (c. 1510 ‒ 1593), who in 1553 married Sabina Meuting (c. 1517‒1557).117 Folio 24r Image 46 (Group A) Armored man. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒60, and made for a member of the Haintzel/Haintzlin family, this armor is of plain blackened steel, and for foot use in the field. Represented on paper that has been pasted in place, the heraldic shield at the bottom right bears the patron’s family arms and crested helm.118 The Haintzel/Haintzlin family belonged to the “honorable lineages” of Augsburg.119 Folio 24v Image 47 (Group A) Armored man and upper lames for cuisses. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒60, and made for a member of the Manrique de Lara family, this armor is of bright steel with bands of scrolling foliage, and intended for mounted use in the field. The adjacent (1‒2) pair of upper lames for cuisses, which is decorated en suite, clearly belongs to it. Represented on paper that has been pasted in place, the heraldic shield at the bottom left bears the patron’s family arms and crested helm. The combination of a helmet of this type, apparently a cabasset, with a falling buffe is most unusual at this period, as is the use of what appears to be a coif of mail. A prominent Spanish family, the Manrique de Lara provided many courtiers to the Hapsburgs. The armor was possibly made for Bernardino (1515‒1591), Juan Esteban (1504‒1558), Juan Fernández (1508–1570), Luis Fernández II (d. 1585) or Garcia (life dates unknown) Manrique de Lara. A gentleman of the bedchamber of Charles V, Bernardino sojourned in the Low Countries, Germany, and Italy, as part of the retinue of Charles’ son, Philip of Austria. An armor was made for him in Augsburg in 1549, probably following the Imperial Diet of 1548, which he must have attended.120 Juan Esteban Manrique de Lara, third duke of Najera, knight of the Golden Fleece (1543), chamberlain (mayordomo, 1544) and chief chamberlain (maître d’hôtel) of Charles V, also came with Philip of Austria to the Low Countries and was with him in Brussels in 1549. Luis Fernández II, fourth marquis of Aguilar, sixth count of Casteñeda, Chief Hunter of Philip, went with Philip to the Low Countries in 1548. He was in England in 1554 and in the Low Countries again for the abdication of Charles V.121

116 117 118 119 120

Zimmermann 1970, pl. 212, nos. 6046 and 6047. Warnecke 1886, p. 51. Zimmermann 1970, pl. 76, no. 2215. Siebmacher 1605, pl. 217. Sorg’s album, fol. 5r; Becher ‒ Gamber ‒ Irtenkauf 1980, pp. 50‒51. On his life, see Salazar y Castro 1694‒1697, vol. 1, pp. 266‒267. 121 Piferrer 1857‒1863, vol. 3, pp. 18‒21, no. 1131, pl. XLIX.

208

Image 45

Image 47

209

Image 46

Folio 25r Image 48 (Group A) Armored man and armor elements. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒60, and made for a member of the Manrique de Lara family, this armor is of bright steel with perhaps coppered or painted (represented in red-brown color) bands of gilded scrolling foliage, bordered at each side by a narrow gilded band, and it is intended for mounted use in the field. The adjacent elements are for mounted use in the field. They include (1) a cabasset of plain bright steel, which is not en suite with the armor and presumably does not belong to it, and (2‒3) a pair of upper lames for cuisses, which are en suite with the armor, and thus belong to it. Represented on paper that has been pasted in place, the heraldic shield at the bottom right bears the patron’s family arms and crested helm. Here again, the combination of a helmet of this type, apparently a cabasset, with a falling buffe is most unusual at this period, as is the use of what appears to be a coif of mail. On the Manrique de Lara, see the comments on image 47. Folio 25v Image 49 (Group A) Armor elements. Belonging to the armor shown on folio 26r (image 50), these elements are of bright steel with (a) gilded bands of scrolling foliage and (b) rows of gilded semicircles filled with hatching. Intended for mounted use in the tilt and tourney, they include (1) a tilting helm, (2) a left pauldron reinforce, (3) a left pauldron, (4) a buffe, (5) a pate defense, (6) a left couter reinforce, (7) a right pauldron reinforce, (8) a right vambrace, (9) a full shaffron, (10) another left couter reinforce, (11) a left gauntlet, (12‒13) a pair of besagews, (14) a locking gauntlet for the right hand, (15) a vamplate, (16) a one-piece lance-rest, (17‒18) the pommel and cantle plates of a saddle, and (19) a hinged lancerest. The escutcheon on the shaffron is blank. Folio 26r Image 50 (Group A) Armored man and armor elements. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒60, this armor is of bright steel with (a) gilded bands of scrolling foliage, (b) rows of gilded semicircles filled with hatching, and (c) gilded floral and foliate designs (couters, reinforcing tassets, and poleyns). It is intended for mounted use in the tilt in the German fashion. The vamplate on the lance and other adjacent elements, which are en suite, belong to the armor, and are for mounted use in the field. They include (1) a close helmet, (2) a left ­cuisse, and (3) a right cuisse. The elements shown on folio 25v (image 49) belong to this armor.

210

Image 48

Image 49

211

Image 50

Folio 26v Image 51 (Group A) Armor elements. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folios 27r‒28r (images 52‒54), these elements are of bright steel with (a) bands of interlace and scrolling foliage, and (b) foliate and floral designs (buffe, left pauldron reinforce, and rondache). Intended for mounted and foot use in the field, and for mounted use in the free tourney, they include (1) a burgonet, (2) a morion, (3) a buffe, (4) a pivoted peak with falling buffe, (5) a pate defense, (6) a left pauldron reinforce, (7) a half-shaffron, (8) a hinged lance-rest, (9‒10) a pair of pauldrons of spaulder type, (11) a locking gauntlet for the right hand, (12) the pommel plates of a saddle, (13) the upper lame for a cuisse, (14) a rondache, (15) the cantle plate of a saddle, and (16) another upper lame for a cuisse. The escutcheon on the shaffron displays the patron’s family arms. A rondache with similar but not identical ornament, and decorated with the heraldic arms and helms with crests of the Spinola family, is in Saint Petersburg (SHM, inv. no. Z.O. 2505).122 Folio 27r Image 52 (Group A) Armored man. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒60, made for a member of the Spinola family, most probably Marc Antonio Spinola, first count of Tassarolo (d. 1578), and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folios 26v, 27v, and 28r (images 51, 53‒54), this armor is of bright steel with (a) bands of interlace and scrolling foliage, and (b) floral designs (couters and poleyns). It is intended for mounted use in the field. Represented on paper that has been pasted in place, the heraldic shield at the bottom right bears the patron’s family arms and crested helm. Marc Antonio Spinola first served Charles V then held positions at the courts of Ferdinand I, Maximilian II, and Rudolf II of Austria through his death. Cupbearer of Maximilian II (1546), knight of the Order of Santiago (1548), he was elevated to count of Tassarolo in 1560. He took part to the tournaments held in Vienna from May 2 to June 13, 1560, in honor of the visit of Duke Albrecht of Bavaria, and in Bratislava in 1563 to celebrate the coronation of Maximilian II to king of Hungary.123

122 Gille ‒ Rockstuhl 1835‒1853, pl. XVII. 123 Liebenau 1890, pp. 60‒62.

212

Image 51

213

Image 52

Folio 27v Image 53 (Group A) Armor elements. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folios 26v, 27r, and 28r (images 51, 52, and 54), these elements are of bright steel with (a) bands of scrolling foliage, (b) foliate designs (left pauldron reinforce), and (c) various animals, including an eagle and a swan (targe). Intended for mounted use in the tilt in the German and Italian fashions, they include (1) a buffe, (2) a left pauldron reinforce, (3) a targe, (4) a right pauldron reinforce, (5) a left pauldron, (6‒7) two left couter reinforces, (8) a right couter reinforce, (9‒10) two left gauntlets, (11‒12) the pommel plates of two saddles, (13) a one-piece lance-rest, and (14‒15) the cantle plates of two saddles. Folio 28r Image 54 (Group A) Armored man and armor elements. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folios 26v‒28r (images 51‒53), this armor is of bright steel with (a) bands of interlace, (b) bands of scrolling foliage, and (c) floral designs (left pauldron, couters, poleyns), and it is intended for mounted use in the free tourney. The adjacent elements, which are decorated en suite, belong to it. They include (1) a full shaffron and (2‒3) two vamplates. Other elements belonging to this garniture are shown on folio 27v (image 53). Represented on paper that has been pasted in place, the heraldic shield at the bottom right displays the patron’s arms and crested helm. The escutcheon on the shaffron displays the same arms. Folio 28v Image 55 (Group A) Armored man and armor elements. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒60, and made for a member of the Fugger von der Lilie family, this armor is of plain blackened steel, and intended for mounted use in the field. The adjacent backplate and breastplate, which are also blackened, seem to belong to it. Represented on paper that has been pasted in place, the heraldic shield at the bottom bears the patron’s family arms and crested helm. Folio 29r Image 56 (Group A) Armored man and armor elements. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒60, and made for a count of Hanau-Münzenberg, either Philip III (1526‒1561) or his younger brother Reinhard (1528‒1554), this armor is of blackened steel with bright bands of scrolling foliage, and it is intended for mounted use in the field. The adjacent (1) breastplate reinforce and (2‒3) pair of upper lames for cuisses, which are decorated en suite, belong to it. Represented on paper that has been pasted in place, the heraldic shield at the bottom right bears the patron’s family arms and crested helms. This armor was perhaps commissioned in 1558, when Philip III of Hanau-Münzenberg attended the Imperial Diet of Augsburg and ordered from the armorer Matthias Frauenpreiss the Younger a field armor with additional elements, all of blackened steel with similar bands of ornament, and a cuirass of anime construction, all of which Jörg Sorg the Younger etched in 1559.124 Alternatively, it might have been intended for his brother Reinhard, who is known to have taken part to a tournament in Heidelberg in 1551 and to Charles V’s military campaign against the French in 1554, during which he lost his life.

124 See Becher ‒ Gamber ‒ Irtenkauf 1980, pp. 88‒89, re. fol. 41v.

214

215

Image 53

Image 54

Image 55

Image 56

Folio 29v Image 57 (Group A) Armored man and armor elements. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒60, this armor is of plain blackened steel, and intended for mounted use in the field. The adjacent elements, which are also blackened, belong to it, and are for mounted and possibly also foot use in the field. They include (1) a gorget made in one with pauldrons of spaulder type, (2) a half-shaffron, and (3‒4) a pair of vambraces. Represented on paper that has been pasted in place, the heraldic shield at the bottom left bears the unidentified family arms (azur, a five-pointed star or) and crested helm of the noble patron, tentatively identified by Stöcklein as belonging to the Remlein family in Bad Windsheim,125 and which are also represented, along with a different armor, on folio 22r (image 43). The escutcheon on the shaffron displays the same arms. Folio 30r Image 58 (Group A) Armored man. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒60, and made for a member of the von Raunach family, this armor is of plain blackened steel, and for mounted use in the field. Represented on paper that has been pasted in place, the heraldic shield at the bottom right bears the patron’s family arms and crested helms. The von Raunach belonged to one of the oldest noble families in the duchy of Carniola (Slovenia). This armor was perhaps made for a descendant of Maximilian I’s counselor, Bernhard von Raunach (c. 1450 ‒ 1526). Folio 30v Image 59 (Group A) Armored man and armored elements. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒60, and made for a member of the von Stetten family, this armor is of plain blackened steel, and intended for foot use in the field. The adjacent (1‒2) pair of poleyns with lames, which is also blackened, seems to belong to it. Represented on paper that has been pasted in place, the heraldic shield at the bottom left bears the patron’s family arms and crested helm.126 The von Stetten were among the 38 lineages that were admitted into Augsburg’s patriciate in 1538. The right to use the helm surmounting the heraldic arms in this drawing, which is of the type reserved for the nobility, was granted upon their ennoblement in 1548 by Charles V to the brothers Georg I (1489‒1562) and Christoph I (1506‒1556) von Stetten.127 This armor was probably made for one of their sons, perhaps George II von Stetten, lord of Bocksberg (1520‒1573), or his cousin, Christoph II von Stetten (1534‒1607).

125 See comments on folio 22r (image 43). 126 Zimmermann 1970, pl. 137, no. 4049. 127 Stetten 1762, pp. 151, 215‒219; Hefner 1854, p. 117, pl. 144.

216

Image 57

Image 59

217

Image 58

Folio 31r Image 60 (Group B) Armored man. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1570‒80, and represented on paper that has been pasted in place, this armor is of bright steel with (a) bands of alternating gilded and bright shingle-like designs, bordered at each side by two narrow bands of comparable designs, and (b) gilded floral and foliate designs (helmet, pauldrons, and couters). Constructed with a deep tonlet, it is intended for the foot combat. The decoration of this armor is the same as that of breastplate no. 2 on folio 57r (image 93) and similar to, but not identical with, that of the elements of a garniture shown on folios 64r, 65r, 70r, and 71r (images 100, 101, 106, and 107), whose couters and poleyns are decorated not with foliate designs but with stars over banderoles. Nevertheless, the form of the breastplate, which projects forward and downward to a rounded medial point above the waist (so-called “Tapul”), suggests that this armor is markedly later than all of those comparable pieces. Folio 31v Image 61 (Group C) Armored man. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1525‒35, and represented on paper that has been pasted in place, this armor is of bright steel with (a) gilded scrolling floral designs and (b) narrow gilded bands (along the main edges and down the center of the greaves). The numerous ventilation slots in the visor, the close-fitting pauldrons, the vambraces laminated inside the joint of the elbows, and the tassets made in one with the poleyns, as well as the pollaxe shown in the figure’s left hand suggest that it may have been intended for the foot combat. Folio 32r Image 62 (Group C) Armored man. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1525‒35, and represented on paper that has been pasted in place, this armor is of brigh t steel with (a) gilded floral designs and (b) gilded bands of scrolling foliage, and it is intended for mounted use in the field. Its ornamentation is related in conception to that of an armor etched in 1551 by Jörg Sorg for Desiderius Helmschmid, of which the cuirass is preserved in Turin (AR, inv. no. C 12).128 Folio 32v Image 63 (Group B) Armored man. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1560‒70, and represented on paper that has been pasted in place, this armor is of bright steel with gilded bands and probably intended for both mounted and foot use in the field.

128 On this armor, see Sorg’s album, folio 15v (Becher ‒ Gamber ‒ Irtenkauf 1980, pp. 62‒63, ill.); Bertolotto et al. 1982, p. 327, pll. 15‒15a.

218

219

Image 60

Image 61

Image 62

Image 63

Folio 33r Image 64 (Group A) Armored man. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒60, this armor is of bright steel with bands of alternating bright and gray-brown chevrons, bordered at each side by a narrow gray-brown band. It is intended for mounted use in the field. Parts of a garniture decorated with a similar pattern and thought to have been made for a member of the von Hirnheim family are in London (WC, inv. no. A 43) and Leeds (RAL, inv. no. II. 187).129 Folio 33v Image 65 (Group A) Armored man and armor elements. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒60, and made for a count of Montfort, this armor is of plain blackened steel, and intended for mounted use in the tilt in the Italian fashion. The vamplate on the lance, and the adjacent elements, which are also blackened, appear to belong to it. Intended for mounted use in the tilt in the German and Italian fashions, and perhaps also for mounted use in the field, they include (1) a full shaffron, (2) a one-piece lance-rest, and (3) a targe. Represented on paper that has been pasted in place, the heraldic shield at the bottom right bears the patron’s family arms and crested helm.130 The escutcheon on the shaffron exhibits the same arms. This armor was intended for one of the counts Monfort living at the time, of which there were too many to be listed here. Folio 34r Image 66 (Group A) Armored man. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒60, and made for a member of the Rehm family, this armor is of plain blackened steel, and intended for foot use in the field. Represented on paper that has been pasted in place, the heraldic shield at the bottom right bears the patron’s family arms and crested helm.131 An old and prominent merchant family of Augsburg, the Rehm were among the 38 lineages that were admitted into the city’s patriciate in 1538. In 1547 Lucas Rehm (1521‒1581) and his descendants were ennobled by Charles V.132 Because the helm that surmounts the heraldic shield in this drawing is of the type normally associated with commoners, the armor may have been made for a relative who had not benefitted from this elevation. Folio 34v Image 67 (Group A) Armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the armor shown on folio 38r (image 72), these elements are of bright steel with (a) bands of scrolling foliage, and (b) a foliate design (rondache). Intended for mounted and foot use in the field, they include (1) a burgonet, (2) a rondache, (3) a second burgonet, (4) a pivoted peak with falling buffe, (5) the pommel plates of a saddle, (6) a half-shaffron, (7) the upper lame for a cuisse, (8) the cantle plate of a saddle, (9) another upper lame for a cuisse, and (10) a hinged lance-rest. The escutcheon on the shaffron is blank.

129 On these parts and other garnitures with similar decoration, see Mann 1962, pp. 50‒52, pl. 23; Dufty 1968, pl. XXXI; and Norman 1986, pp. 17‒18. 130 Zimmermann 1970, pl. 97, no. 2896. 131 Zimmermann 1970, pl. 144, no. 4232. 132 Stetten 1762, pp. 158‒162.

220

221

Image 64

Image 65

Image 66

Image 67

Folio 35r Image 68 (Group C) Armored man. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1520‒30, and represented on paper that has been pasted in place, this armor is of bright steel with (a) candelabra ornament (breastplate and pauldrons), (b) bands of scrolling foliage, most of them bordered at each or only one side by a cusped line, and (c) floral and foliate designs (helmet, pauldrons, couters, poleyns, and sabatons). It is intended for mounted use in the field. The helmet ‒ an armet with a roundel and post affixed to the nape ‒ is remarkable for the fact that its cheekpieces seemingly meet not over but under the wearer’s chin. An armet of similar construction and probable Augsburg manufacture is in London (WC, inv. no. A 165).133 Folio 35v Image 69 (Group C) Armor elements. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒60, represented on a sheet of paper that has been pasted in place, and belonging to the same garniture as the armor and elements shown on folios 109r‒v (images 148 and 149), these elements are of blackened steel with bright bands of scrolling foliage, and intended for mounted use in the field, free tourney, and tilt. The paper onto which they are represented has been cut off from a sheet of which the other (viewer’s left) half is now folio 109v (image 149) in this album. These elements include (1) a close helmet, (2) a buffe, (3) a backplate, (4) a vamplate, (5) a right pauldron, (6) a besagew, (7) a gorget, (8) another vamplate, (9) a right fingered gauntlet, (10) a right vambrace, (11) a left fingered gauntlet, (12) a lance-rest (apparently of one piece), (13) a breastplate with short tassets, (14‒15) a pair of toes caps, (16‒17) a pair of half-greaves, (18) a right mitten gauntlet, and (19‒20) a pair of full leg defenses with sabatons (truncated). Folio 36r Image 70 (Group C) Armored man and armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1570‒80, this armor is of blued steel with bands of three gilded lines, and intended for mounted use in the tilt in the Italian fashion. The adjacent elements, which are decorated en suite, belong to it and are for the same use. They include (1‒2) two vamplates, (3) a half-shaffron, and (4‒5) the pommel and cantle plates of a saddle. The escutcheon on the shaffron is gilded but otherwise undecorated. This is one of the few representations of blued armor in this album, which all belong to group C. Folio 36v Blank Folio 37r Image 71 (Group B) Armored man and armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, this armor is of bright steel with (a) bands of bright squares arranged into three rows and separated from one another by narrow gilded bands, the main bands bordered at each or only side by a cusped line, and (b) gilded entwined snakes on a dotted ground (couters). It is intended for foot use in the field. The adjacent elements, which are decorated en suite and with gilded entwined snakes and a gilded sun (burgonet), belong to it and are for the same use. They include (1) a falling buffe, (2) a burgonet, and (3‒4) a pair of short tassets or tasset extensions. A rondache belonging to this armor is shown on folio 49r (image 85). The breastplate no. 3 on folio 56r (image 92) may similarly belong to it.

133 I am grateful to Tobias Capwell for bringing this helmet to my attention. See Mann 1962, p. 136, pl. 69; Norman 1986, pp. 61‒62.

222

223

Image 68

Image 69

Image 70

Image 71

Folio 37v Blank Folio 38r Image 72 (Group A) Armored man. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folio 34v (image 67), this armor is of bright steel with bands of scrolling foliage, and intended for mounted use in the field. The fact that the exposed clothing is uncolored suggests that this drawing was left unfinished. Folio 38v Image 73 (Group C) Armored horse. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1485‒1500, and represented on paper that has been pasted in place, the horse’s armor, or bard, is of bright steel decorated with series of curved, ripple-like ridges. The page riding on the horse is using smaller stirrups. His head has been cut away and pasted onto folio 111r (image 152). This drawing is reviewed in the discussion of the sketchbook’s group C. Folio 39r Image 74 (Group C) Armored horse and rider. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1510‒15, and represented on a sheet of paper that has been pasted in place, the horse’s bard and the rider’s armor are of steel with pink highlights. The rider’s armor is decorated on the cuirass, steel skirt, and pauldrons with sequences of letters and stars. These read “CIEBCM MC M TH D ICIM ICH”. The construction of the helmet with a face defense in the form of a human mask, and a bowl fitted with donkey’s ears and jingle bells, undoubtedly to evoke the face and headgear of a fool, is extraordinary. The helmet may be compared in inspiration and even construction (with the face defense fitting inside the remainder of the helmet) to an equally extravagant example presented by Maximilian I of Austria to Henry VIII of England, which is now preserved in Leeds (RAL, inv. no. IV. 22), and which may have belonged to a very similar armor with pleated skirt of steel.134 Folio 39v Image 75 (Group C) Armored man and armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1525‒30, and represented on paper that has been pasted in place, this armor is of bright steel with (a) bands of scrolling foliage, (b) rows of semi-circles filled with foliage and separated from one another by tendrils, and (c) floral designs (couters and poleyns). It is clearly intended for mounted use in the field even though it is not represented with a lance-rest. The adjacent elements, which have also been pasted in place, are decorated en suite and belong to this armor. Intended for mounted use in the field, they include (1) a half-shaffron, (2) a burgonet, (3‒4) a pair of pauldrons of spaulder type, (5) a falling buffe, and (6‒7) a pair of shin defenses. The escutcheon on the shaffron is blank.

134 On this helmet, see Blair 1965, pp. 17‒20, pl. Xa, c, XIa, b; Borg 1974; and Blair 1974.

224

Image 72

Image 74

225

Image 73

Image 75

Folio 40r Image 76 (Group B) Armored man and horse. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1560, the rider’s armor is of bright steel with (a) bands of bright diamonds inside gilded foliate diamonds that are enclosed into oval frames, the frames longitudinally extended into lobes (the frame thus somewhat comparable in overall form to lemons), alternating with pairs of similar gilded foliate half-diamonds, the bands bordered at each or only one side by a narrow gilded bands and by rows of gilded crescents that are cusped on the outside, and the tips of which are turned towards the band, and (b) gilded floral and foliate designs (close helmet, couters, and poleyns). It is for mounted use in the field. The horse bard is en suite with the rider’s armor and decorated with medallions enclosing gilded lion’s masks on the peytral and crupper. The decoration of this armor for man and horse is very similar to, and possibly the same as, that of breastplate no. 4 on folio 58r (image 94), so much that they may belong to the same garniture. The rondache no. 1 on folio 89r (image 126) is decorated with what appears to be a variant of this pattern (foliate diamonds enclosed into differently shaped, almond-like, frames). A related pattern comprising blackened foliate diamonds alternating with similar gilded foliate diamond-halves, but without rows of semi-ovals, was chosen for the decoration of a garniture made by the armorer Anton Peffenhauser for García Álvarez de Toledo (1514‒1577) in 1551, and represented in Sorg’s album.135 Folio 40v Blank Folio 41r Image 77 (Group B) Armored man and horse. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1560, the rider’s armor is of bright steel with (a) gilded bands and (b) gilded foliate designs (couters and poleyns), and it is intended for mounted use in the field. The horse bard is decorated en suite with it and adorned with medallions enclosing crosses with radiating flames on the peytral and crupper. Folio 41v Blank Folio 42r Image 78 (Group B) Armored man and horse. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1560, the rider’s armor is of bright steel with (a) gilded bands of bright stylized clouds, bordered at each or only one side by a narrow gilded band and by a cusped line, and (b) gilded floral designs (couters and poleyns). It is intended for mounted use in the field. The horse bard is decorated en suite with the rider’s armor, and adorned on the peytral and crupper with medallions enclosing armored tritons set against a dotted ground. A similarly decorated man’s armor bearing the inspection mark of Augsburg, of c. 1560‒65, formerly was in Vienna (KHM) and now is in Budapest (MNM, inv. no. 55.3280).136 Folio 42v Blank

135 Sorg’s album, fol. 19; see Becher ‒ Gamber ‒ Irtenkauf 1980, pp. 64‒65, ill. 136 Boeheim 1895, pp. 288‒289, figs. 21 and 22; Temesváry 1992, p. 65, nos. 18‒20, ills. and pl. IV.

226

Image 76

Image 78

227

Image 77

Folio 43r Image 79 (Group B) Armored man and horse. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1560, the rider’s armor is of bright steel with (a) bands of gilded leaves tied to one another by twigs, bordered at each or only one side by a narrow gilded band and by a cusped line, (b) narrow gilded bands, and (c) gilded foliate designs (couters and poleyns). It is intended for mounted use in the field. The horse bard is decorated en suite with the rider’s armor, and adorned with medallions enclosing suns on the peytral and crupper. Folio 43v Blank Folio 44r Image 80 (Group C) Armored horse. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒60, this horse bard is of bright steel with gilded bands filled with dots. The stirrups are decorated en suite with the bard. The ornamentation with bands filled exclusively with dots is unusual, and compares to that of an armor made c. 1546 by Desiderius Helmschmid for the famed duke of Alba, and now preserved in Vienna (HJRK, inv. no. A 420),137 and that of a horse bard wrought by the same armorer and etched by Jörg Sorg for the same patron in 1551, which is represented in Sorg’s album, but otherwise not known to survive.138 Although this bard differs from that shown in Sorg’s album in the construction and embossed decoration of the crupper, the checky pattern on the escutcheon of its shaffron may be an uncolored representation of the arms of the Álvarez de Toledo family and thus an indication that the bard was made for the duke of Alba or one of his close relatives. Folio 44v Blank Folio 45r Image 81 (Group C) Armored horse. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒60, this horse bard is of bright steel with bands of alternating gilded and bright transverse crescents, bordered at each side by a narrow gilded band. The escutcheon on the shaffron bears a checky pattern. In construction and decoration, this bard is similar to, although not identical with, a bard made by Desiderius Helmschmid and etched by Jörg Sorg for Wilhelm III (V), duke of Jülich, Kleve and Berg, Ravensburg and Ravenstein in 1553, which is represented in Sorg’s album and of which no parts are known to survive.139 Folio 45v Blank

137 Gamber – Beaufort-Spontin 1990, pp. 51‒52, pl. 27. 138 Sorg’s album, fol. 16v‒17r; see Becher ‒ Gamber ‒ Irtenkauf 1980, pp. 62‒63, ill. 139 Sorg’s album, fol. 29v‒30r; see Becher ‒ Gamber ‒ Irtenkauf 1980, pp. 76‒77, ill.

228

Image 79

Image 81

229

Image 80

Folio 46r Image 82 (Group C) Armored horse. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1560‒70, represented on paper that has been pasted in place, and probably belonging to the same ensemble as the armor elements shown on folio 75v (image 112), this horse bard is of bright steel with (a) gilded bands of red-brown scrolling foliage, and (b) a medallion enclosing a gilded double-tailed mermaid on the peytral’s visible boss. The escutcheon on the shaffron is blank. The execution of the drawing, the colors used, and the ornament in the bands that adorn this bard suggest that it probably complements the elements, which were clearly drawn and colored by the same hand, shown on folio 75v (image 112). Folio 46v Blank Folio 47r Image 83 (Group B) Helmeted head. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1545‒60, this burgonet is of bright steel with (a) an embossed and gilded dragon and (b) narrow gilded bands of cabling. It is reviewed in the discussion of the sketchbook’s group B. Folio 47v Blank Folio 48r Image 84 (Group B) Helmeted head. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1545‒60, this helmet is of bright steel with the scene of a combat between a gilded centaur a gilded man (on the visible side of the bowl), (b) embossed and partly gilded dolphins (peak and nape), (c) an embossed bearded mask on the brow, and (c) alternating gilded and bright trilobes (cheekplates). No comparable helmet is known to survive. This helmet is reviewed in the discussion of the sketchbook’s group B. Folio 48v Blank Folio 49r Image 85 (Group B) Rondache. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the armor and elements shown on folio 37r (image 71) and possibly also to breastplate no. 3 on folio 56r (image 92), this rondache is of bright steel with (a) a gilded sun encircled by (b) intertwined gilded snakes, and, along the perimeter, (c) a band of bright squares separated from one another by narrow gilded bands, and arranged into three rows. Folio 49v Blank

230

231

Image 82

Image 83

Image 84

Image 85

Folio 50r Image 86 (Group C) Armored man and armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1570, and represented on a sheet of paper that has been pasted in place, this armor is of bright steel with gilded scrolling foliage and gilded floral designs (couters and poleyns), and it is intended for mounted use. The adjacent elements, which are decorated en suite, belong to the armor. They include (1) a left couter reinforce (truncated) and (2) an indistinct piece (truncated). Folio 50v Blank Folio 51r Image 87 (Group C) Armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1600‒20, and represented on a sheet on paper that has been pasted in place, these elements are of plain blued steel with bands of three bright lines. Intended for mounted use in the field, they include (1) a backplate with shoulders straps covered by small plates, (2) a Zischägge, (3) a right pauldron made in one with lames that cover the upper arm, (4) a gorget, (5) a left pauldron made in one with lames that cover the upper arm, (6) a right fingered gauntlet with a long cuff, (7) a breastplate, (8) a left fingered gauntlet with a long cuff, and (9‒10) a pair of short tassets. This is one of the few representations of blued armor in this album, which all belong to group C. Folio 51v Blank Folio 52r Image 88 (Group C) Votive scene. Represented on paper that has been pasted in place, this scene features a man kneeling in prayer before Christ on the cross. His armor and the styling of his hair and beard may be dated on stylistic grounds to c. 1600‒20. Details such as the representation of a right poleyn that develops into a protective wing on its left side, a fauld whose lower edge is not arched over the groin, and a close helmet with a simplistic peaked face defense are clear indications that the author of this drawing knew little about the design of actual armors. The heraldic shield in front of the man bears the family arms and crested helm of the Römersthal von Römersthal before their augmentation in 1621, following which they were quartered with the family arms of the died-out von Klingenberg.140 This drawing is likely to be a model for the etched ornamentation of a breastplate.141 The armor to which it would have belonged may have been intended for Wolfgang Simon Römersthal von Römersthal (life dates unknown), who in 1607 was counselor of the prince bishop of Augsburg.142 Folio 52v Blank

140 Kirnbauer von Erzstätt 1909, pp. 380‒381, pl. 213. 141 A breastplate made in Augsburg in 1578 and decorated with a votive scene is in Turin (AR, inv. no. C 79); see Dondi 1982, p. 331, fig. 28. 142 Landesarchiv Baden-Württemberg, Abteilung Staatsarchiv Ludwigsburg, PL 12 I Gräflich Adelmannsches Archiv Hohenstadt, Urkunden U 176.

232

Image 86

Image 88

233

Image 87

Folio 53r Image 89 (Group C) Front plate of a gorget. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1620, this gorget plate is of blued steel with (a) gilded trophies of arms and a gilded double-headed eagle bearing a representation of Christ on the cross on its chest, and surmounted by a gilded closed coronet, and (b) narrow gilded bands. The careful representation of constructional details such as a vacant hole on the proper left side for the rivet that would connect this plate to a rear gorget plate, and of a keyhole slot on the opposite side to accommodate a stud with a domed head on the corresponding part of the rear gorget plate is noteworthy. The gorget is reviewed in the introductory discussion of this sketchbook’s contents. This image is one of the few representations of blued armor in this album, which all belong to group C. Folio 53v Blank Folio 54r Image 90 (Group B) Four breastplates with short tassets. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, these (1‒4) four breastplates are of bright steel with (1) (a) gilded bands of scrolling foliage, bordered at each or only one side by a narrow bright band and by a rows of gilded crescents that are cusped on the outside, and the tips of which are turned towards the narrow band, and (b) vertical rows of gilded roses between the bands on the torso; (2) bands of gilded oblique double bars alternating with scrolling foliage, bordered at each side by a narrow gilded band and at each or only one side by a cusped line; (3) bands of gilded oblique triple bars alternating with gilded flowers and tendrils, bordered at each or only one side by narrow alternating gilded and bright bands; and (4) bands of gilded transverse crescents that are cusped on the outside, with tendrils sprouting from each cusp, bordered at each side by a narrow gilded band. The decoration of the breastplate no. 2 is similar to, but not identical with, that of an armor, parts of which are in Baltimore (WAG, acc. 51.541), Chicago (AIC, acc. 1982.2695), Leeds (RAL, inv. no. III.265), and London (WC, inv. no. A 182).143 Folio 54v Blank Folio 55r Image 91 (Group B) Four breastplates with short tassets. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, these (1‒4) four breastplates are of bright steel with (1) bands of gilded transverse crescents, with tendrils sprouting from their outer sides, bordered at each side by a narrow gilded band; (2) bands of gilded oblique double bars alternating with flower heads inside gilded diamonds, with tendrils sprouting from the diamonds’ sides, the bands bordered at each side by a narrow gilded band and at each or only one side by a row of gilded crescents that are cusped on the outside, and the tips of which are turned towards the narrow band; (3) bands of scrolling lines, bordered at each side by a narrow gilded band; and (4) bands of gilded symmetrical foliage, with tendrils sprouting between the bunches of leaves. The breastplate no. 1 is very similar in decoration to breastplate no. 4 on folio 54r (image 90), whose crescents, however, are cusped on the outside and consistently facing a single direction.

143 Norman 1986, pp. 67‒68, no. A 182.

234

Image 89

Image 90

235

Image 91

Folio 55v Blank Folio 56r Image 92 (Group B) Nine breastplates with short tassets. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, these (1‒9) nine breastplates are of bright steel with (1) gilded bands of trophies of arms and scrolling foliage, bordered at each or only one side by a narrow gilded band and by a cusped line; (2) bands of alternating bright and gilded transverse bars, bordered at each or only one side by alternating gilded and bright narrow bands and by a cusped line; (3) bands of bright squares arranged into three rows and separated from one another by narrow gilded bands, the main bands bordered at each or only one side by a cusped line; (4) (a) bands of alternating bright and gilded oblique slash-like designs, bordered at each or only one side by a narrow gilded band and by a cusped line, and (b) vertical rows of gilded oblique slash-like designs between the bands; (5) bands of narrow double or single gilded bands bordered at each or only one side by a gilded cusped band, the cusps developing into trefoils; (6) bands of narrow gilded bands bordered at each or only one side by a narrow gilded band that forms loops and cusps, the cusps developing into trefoils; (7) bands of gilded semicircular arcs, bordered at each side by a narrow gilded band and at each or only one side by a cusped line, the ends of the arcs resting onto one of these narrow bands; (8) (a) horizontal rows of gilded crescents, the tips of which are turned upward, arranged to form a pattern of scales, and (b) narrow gilded bands; and (9) (a) gilded bands of floral designs and scrolling foliage, bordered at each side by a narrow gilded band, and (b) two gilded lion’s masks over the chest. The breastplate no. 2 belongs to the same garniture as the elements shown on folios 93r and 94r (images 130 and 131), the elements nos. 1‒4 on folio 108r (image 147), and rondache no. 2 on folio 89r (image 126). The breastplate no. 3 may belong to one of three garnitures represented in this album: one of which an armor and elements are shown on folios 37r and 49r (images 71 and 85); another of which elements are shown on folios 79r and 80r (images 116 and 117) and a rondache (no. 4) on folio 90r (image 127); and a third of which elements are shown on folios 91r, 92r, 95r, and 96r (images 128, 129, 132, and 133). The breastplate no. 5 is similar to, but not identical with one that is shown among the elements of a garniture on folios 104r and 105r (images 141 and 142). The bands on breastplate no. 7 are similar to, but not identical with, those of a horse bard made by the Nuremberg armorer Kunz Lochner for Don Carlos of Austria c. 1550, which is now in Madrid (RAM, inv. no. A. 243).144 Folio 56v Blank

144 Valencia de Don Juan 1898, p. 84, no. A. 243, pl. XIV.

236

Image 92

237

Folio 57r Image 93 (Group B) Nine breastplates with short tassets. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, these (1‒9) nine breastplates are of bright steel with (1) bands of gilded circles, bordered at each or only one side by a narrow gilded band and by a cusped line; (2) bands of alternating gilded and bright shingle-like designs, bordered at each or only one side by two narrow bands of comparable designs; (3) narrow gilded bands; (4) (a) narrow gilded bands bordered at each or only one side by a cusped line, and (b) gilded bundles of plumes between the bands on both the torso and tassets; (5) empty bands bordered at each side by a narrow gilded band and by a cusped line; (6) narrow gilded bands bordered at each or only one side by a narrow gilded cusped band; (7) narrow gilded bands bordered at each or only one side by rows of gilded semicircular arcs that are separated from one another by gilded triangular designs; (8) narrow gilded bands bordered at each or only one side by rows of crescents that are cusped on the outside, and the tips of which are turned towards the bands; and (9) gilded bands of scrolling foliage, bordered at each or only one side by a narrow gilded band and a cusped line. The decoration of breastplate no. 2 is the same as that of the armor shown on folio 31r (image 60) and of the elements of an earlier garniture shown on folios 64r, 65r, 70r, and 71r (images 100, 101, 106, and 107). In light of its form and construction, it is possible that the breastplate belongs to the latter. The breastplates nos. 1 and 9 have asymmetrical tassets with boxed flanges and are thus of types intended for the tilt. The breastplate no. 2 may belong to the same garniture as the elements shown on folios 64r, 65r, 70r, and 71r (images 100, 11, 106, and 107). The breastplate no. 3 may belong to the same garniture as the elements shown on folio 62r and 63r (images 98 and 99). Folio 57v Blank Folio 58r Image 94 (Group B) Four breastplates with short tassets. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, these (1‒4) four breastplates are of bright steel with (1) bands of alternating bright and gilded chevrons, bordered at each side a by narrow gilded band and at each or only one side by a row of bright half-disks that are separated from one another by gilded triangular designs; (2) bands of gilded interlacing lines with tendrils, bordered at each or only one side by narrow gilded bands and at each or only one side by a cusped line; (3) bands of alternating bright and gilded shingle-like designs arranged into three rows, bordered at each side by a narrow gilded band; and (4) bands of gilded diamonds inside foliate diamonds that are enclosed into gilded oval frames, the frames longitudinally extended into lobes (the frames thus somewhat comparable in overall form to lemons), alternating with pairs of similar but chromatically reversed bright half-diamonds inside gilded foliate halfdiamonds, the bands bordered at each side by a narrow gilded band and at each or only one side by a row of gilded crescents that are cusped on the outside and the tips of which are turned towards the narrow band. The decoration of breastplate no. 3 is related to, but not the same as, that of a garniture of which elements are shown on folios 64r, 65r, 70r, and 71r (images 100, 11, 106, and 107) and possibly a breastplate (no. 2) on folio 57r (image 93). The decoration of breastplate no. 4 is very similar to, and possibly the same as, that of an armor for man and horse shown on folio 40r (image 76), so much that they may all be parts of a garniture. A rondache (no. 1) decorated with what appears to be a variant of this pattern (its foliate diamonds are enclosed into differently shaped, almond-like, frames) is shown on folio 89r (image 126).

238

Image 93

239

Image 94

Folio 58v Blank Folio 59r Image 95 (Group B) Four breastplates with short tassets. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, these (1‒4) four breastplates are of bright steel with (1) bands of gilded foliate knots, alternating with pairs of gilded trefoils with split stems, the bands bordered at each side by a narrow gilded band and at each or only one side by a cusped line, the foliate knot at the top of the central band on the breastplate set against a dotted ground; (2) narrow gilded bands bordered at each or only one side by a narrow gilded cusped band, the cusps developing into trefoils; (3) narrow gilded bands bordered at each or only one side by a row of gilded chevrons, the ends of which rest against the narrow band; and (4) bands of alternating bright and gilded tri-lobed designs, the bright ones filled with tendrils or foliage, the bands bordered at each or only one side by alternating gilded and bright narrow bands and at each or only one side by a row of gilded semicircular arcs. Folio 59v Blank Folio 60r Image 96 (Group B) Four breastplates with short tassets. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, these (1‒4) four breastplates are of bright steel with (1) gilded bands of bright intertwined snakes set against a dotted ground, bordered at each or only one side by a narrow bright band, and by a gilded and dotted cusped band overlapped by a narrow bright cusped band, the cusps of which develop into trefoils; (2) bands of gilded intertwined snakes set against a dotted ground, bordered at each or only one side by a narrow gilded and dotted band and by a row of gilded crescents that are cusped on the outside, and the tips of which are turned towards the bands, the spaces comprised between the bands and crescents alternatively filled with dots or plain; (3) bands of gilded foliate knots set against a dotted ground, bordered at each or only one side by a narrow gilded band of bright oblique double bars filled with dots; and (4) bands of gilded oblique slash-like designs, bordered at each or only one side by a narrow gilded band and by a cusped line. The breastplate no. 3 belongs to the same garniture as the elements shown on folios 66r, 67r, 68r, and 69r (images 102‒105). Folio 60v Blank

240

Image 95

241

Image 96

Folio 61r Image 97 (Group B) Six helmets. These six helmets include (1‒4) four helms for mounted use in jousts, (5) a helm for use in the foot combat, and (6) a ceremonial burgonet. The helm no. 1 is decorated with (a) bands of gilded oblique double bars, bordered at each side by a narrow gilded band and a row of gilded crescents that are cusped on the outside, and the tips of which are turned towards the narrow band, and (b) narrow gilded lines bordered at one side by a row of gilded crescents that are cusped on the outside, and the tips of which are turned towards the band. The helm no. 2 is decorated with (a) bands of gilded double bars alternating with flower heads and tendrils, bordered at each side by gilded crescents that are cusped on the outside, and the ends of which are turned towards the narrow band, and (b) narrow gilded bands bordered on one side by a row of gilded crescents that are cusped on the outside, and the ends of which are turned towards the narrow band; the helms nos. 3‒5 are decorated with narrow gilded bands; the helmet no. 6 is decorated with (a) an embossed and partly gilded dolphin, (b) a gilded band, and (c) alternating bright and gilded chin strap plates.The decoration of the helm no. 1 is similar to that of a garniture whose elements are shown on folios 72r, 73r, 74r, 76r, 77r, and 78r (108‒110, 113‒115). The decoration of helm no. 2 is similar to, but not identical with, that of breastplate no. 2 on folio 55r (image 91), whose flower heads and tendrils are placed inside gilded diamonds. A pate defense with similar but not identical decoration is in New York (MMA, Gift of William H. Riggs, 1913; acc. 14.25.63a,b). The burgonet (6) is related in conception to the helmet shown on folio 47r (image 83). Folio 61v Blank Folio 62r Image 98 (Group B) Armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folio 63r (image 99) and possibly breastplate no. 3 on folio 57r (image 93), these elements are of bright steel with (a) narrow gilded bands, and (b) gilded foliate and floral designs (pauldrons, couters, and poleyns). Intended for mounted use in the field and tilt, they include (1) a close helmet, (2) a gorget, (3) a buffe, (4) a right pauldron, (5) a breastplate with short tassets, (6) a left pauldron, (7) a hinged lance-rest, (8) a right vambrace, (9) a left vambrace, (10) a right fingered gauntlet, (11‒12) a pair of cuisses, (13) a left fingered gauntlet, (14) a right greave with sabaton, and (15) a left greave with sabaton. Folio 62v Blank Folio 63r Image 99 (Group B) Armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folio 62r (image 98) and possibly breastplate no. 3 on folio 57r (image 93), these elements are of bright steel with (a) narrow gilded bands, (b) gilded flower heads (saddle plates), and (c) gilded animals, including a rabbit, a bird, a unicorn, and a boar, as well as the gilded letter “B” and a gilded hunter (targe). Intended for mounted use in the tilt in the German and Italian fashions, they include (1) a left couter reinforce, (2) a targe, (3) a left pauldron reinforce, (4) a left gauntlet or gauntlet reinforce, (5) another left couter reinforce, (6) a backplate, (7) a half-shaffron, (8) a full shaffron, (9) a vamplate, (10) a second vamplate, (11‒12) the cantle and pommel plates of a saddle, (13) a third vamplate, and (14‒15) the cantle and pommel plates of another saddle. An annotation at the viewer’s top left of this folio, which reads “29 stuck” (29 pieces), may provide a count of the diverse elements that the garniture comprised.

242

Image 97

Image 98

243

Image 99

Folio 63v Blank Folio 64r Image 100 (Group B) Armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folios 65r, 70r, and 71r (images 101, 106, and 107) and possibly breastplate no. 2 on folio 57r (image 93), these elements are of bright steel with (a) bands of alternating bright and gilded shingle-like designs, bordered at each side by two narrow bands of comparable designs, (b) gilded eight-pointed stars placed over gilded banderoles (pauldrons, besagews, couters, and poleyns), and (c) gilded foliate designs (buffe and couters). Intended for mounted use in the field and tilt, they include (1) a close helmet, (2) a backplate, (3) a buffe, (4) a right pauldron shown from the rear, (5) a left pauldron shown from the rear, (6) a besagew, (7) a right vambrace, (8) a gorget, (9) a left vambrace, (10) another besagew, (11) a hinged lance-rest, (12) a breastplate with short tassets, (13) a right fingered gauntlet, (14) a left fingered gauntlet, (15) a right cuisse, and (16) a left cuisse. Folio 64v Blank Folio 65r Image 101 (Group B) Armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folios 64r, 70r, and 71r (images 100, 106, and 107) and possibly breastplate no. 2 on folio 57r (image 93), these elements are of bright steel with (a) bands of alternating bright and gilded shingle-like designs, bordered at each or only one side by two narrow bands of comparable designs, (b) gilded eight-pointed stars placed over gilded banderoles, (c) gilded flower heads (saddle plates), and (d) gilded animals, including a unicorn, a dog, and an elephant (targe). It is unclear whether the foliate design on the pate defense, which has been painted over, would have been gilded or fretted on the actual piece. Intended for mounted use in the field, free tourney, and tilt, they include (1) a targe, (2) a close helmet, (3) a pate defense, (4) a left couter reinforce, (5) a left pauldron reinforce, (6) a second left pauldron reinforce, (7) a buffe, (8) a third left pauldron reinforce, (9) a second left couter reinforce, (10) the pommel plates of a saddle, (11) a half-shaffron, (12) a left gauntlet, (13) a right greave with sabaton, (14) a vamplate, (15) a left greave with sabaton, and (16) the cantle plate of a saddle. Folio 65v Blank Folio 66r Image 102 (Group B) Armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folios 67r, 68r, and 69r (images 103‒105) and breastplate no. 3 on folio 60r (image 96), these elements are of bright steel with (a) bands of gilded foliate knots set against a dotted ground, bordered at each side by a narrow gilded band of bright oblique double bars filled with dots, and (b) gilded foliate designs (couters). Intended for mounted use in the field and the tilt, they include (1) a close helmet, (2) a backplate, (3) a buffe, (4) a right pauldron shown from the rear, (5) a left pauldron shown from the rear, (6) a besagew, (7) a gorget, (8) another besagew, (9) a right vambrace, (10) a hinged lance-rest, (11) a breastplate with short tassets, (12) a left vambrace, (13) a right fingered gauntlet, and (14) a left fingered gauntlet.

244

Image 100

Image 102

245

Image 101

Folio 66v Blank Folio 67r Image 103 (Group B) Armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folios 66r (image 102), 68r (image 104), and 69r (images 102, 104, and 105) and breastplate no. 3 on folio 60r (image 96), these elements are of bright steel with (a) bands of gilded foliate knots set against a dotted ground, bordered at each side by a narrow gilded band of bright oblique double bars filled with dots, (b) narrow gilded bands of bright oblique double bars filled with dots (close helmet, besagews, greaves and half-shaffron), (c) gilded foliate and floral designs, including flower heads (poleyns and saddle plates), and (d) gilded animals, including a stag, a rabbit, a goat, a unicorn, a dog, and a serpent (targe). Intended for mounted use in the field, free tourney, and tilt in the German and Italian fashions, they include (1) a close helmet, (2) a targe, (3) a left pauldron reinforce, (4) a left couter reinforce, (5) another left pauldron reinforce, (6) another left couter reinforce, (7) a vamplate, (8) a left gauntlet or gauntlet reinforce, (9‒10) a pair of cuisses, (11) the pommel plates of a saddle, (12‒13) a pair of greaves with sabatons, (14) the cantle plate of a saddle, and (15) a half-shaffron. Folio 67v Blank Folio 68r Image 104 (Group B) Armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folios 66r, 67r, and 69r (images 102, 103, and 105) and breastplate no. 3 on folio 60r (image 96), these elements are of bright steel with (a) bands of gilded foliate knots set against a dotted ground, bordered at each or only one side by a narrow gilded band of bright oblique double bars filled with dots, (b) narrow gilded bands of bright oblique double bars filled with dots (burgonet, close helmet, and besagews), gilded foliate and floral designs (couters and besagews). Intended for mounted use in the field, they include (1) a closed burgonet with falling buffe, (2) a backplate, (3) a close helmet, (4) a right pauldron with vambrace, (5) a besagew, (6) a gorget, (7) another besagew, (8) a left pauldron with vambrace, (9) a right fingered gauntlet, (10) a breastplate with short tassets, and (11) a left fingered gauntlet. Folio 68v Blank Folio 69r Image 105 (Group B) Armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folios 66r (image 102), 67r (image 103), and 68r (images 102, 103, and 104) and breastplate no. 3 on folio 60r (image 96), these elements are of bright steel with (a) bands of gilded foliate knots set against a dotted ground, bordered at each or only one side by a narrow gilded band of bright oblique double bars filled with dots, (b) narrow gilded bands of bright oblique double bars filled with dots (half-shaffron and greaves, and (c) gilded foliate and floral designs (rondache, poleyns, and saddle plates). Intended for mounted and foot use in the field, they include (1) a burgonet, (2) a rondache, (3) a half-shaffron, (4‒5) a pair of cuisses, (6) the pommel plate of a saddle, (7‒8) a pair of half-greaves, (9) the cantle plate of a saddle, and (10‒11) a pair of toe caps. This folio is annotated at the viewer’s bottom right with a partly undecipherable caption, the beginning of which reads “46”.

246

Image 103

Image 105

247

Image 104

Folio 69v Blank Folio 70r Image 106 (Group B) Armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folios 64r, 65r, and 71r (images 100, 101, and 107) and possibly breastplate no. 2 on folio 57r (image 93), these elements are of bright steel with (a) bands of alternating bright and gilded shingle-like designs, bordered at each or only one side by two narrow bands of comparable designs, and (b) gilded eight-pointed stars placed over gilded banderoles, some which enclose the motto “BVENA GVIA” (burgonet no. 2, pauldrons, couters, and poleyns). Intended for mounted and foot use in the field, they include (1) a burgonet, (2) a gorget, (3) a second burgonet, (3) a right pauldron shown from the rear, (4) a breastplate with short tassets, (5) a left pauldron shown from the rear, (6) a right vambrace, (7) a left vambrace, (8) a right fingered gauntlet, (9‒10) a pair of full leg defenses, and (11) a left fingered gauntlet. Folio 70v Blank Folio 71r Image 107 (Group B) Armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folios 64r, 65r (image 101) and 70r (images 100, 101, and 106) and possibly breastplate no. 2 on folio 57r (image 93), these elements are of bright steel with (a) bands of alternating bright and gilded shingle-like designs, bordered at each side by two narrow bands of comparable designs, (b) gilded eight-pointed stars placed over a gilded banderole, one of which encloses the motto “BVENA GVIA” (halfshaffron’s escutcheon and rondache), and (c) gilded flower heads (saddle plates). Intended for mounted and foot use in the field, they include (1) a closed burgonet with falling buffe (represented on paper that has been pasted over what seems to be a larger representation of the same burgonet), (2) a rondache, (3) a backplate, (4) a half-shaffron, and (5‒6) the cantle and pommel plates of a saddle. Folio 71v Blank

248

Image 106

249

Image 107

Folio 72r Image 108 (Group B) Armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folios 73r, 74r, 76r, 77r, and 78r (images 109, 110, and 113‒115) and helm no. 1 on folio 61r (image 97), these elements are of bright steel with bands of gilded oblique double bars, bordered at each side by a narrow gilded band and by a row of gilded crescents that are cusped on the outside, and the tips of which are turned towards the narrow band. Intended for mounted and foot use in the field, and for mounted use in the free tourney, they include (1) a cabasset, (2) a buffe, (3) a close helmet, (4) a right pauldron reinforce, (5) a backplate, (6) a left pauldron reinforce, (7) a right vambrace, (8) a gorget, (9) a left vambrace, (10) a hinged lance-rest, (11) a right fingered gauntlet, (12) a breastplate with short tassets, (13) a left fingered gauntlet, and (14)  a locking gauntlet for the right hand. The decoration of the breastplate is similar to but not the same as that of parts of an armor in Baltimore (WAG, acc. 51.541), Chicago (AIC, acc. 1982.2695), Leeds (RAL, inv. no. III.265), and London (WC, inv. no. A 182).145 Key differences include the apparent absence of foliage within the bands and, more importantly, the type of ornament that flanks the bands. Folio 72v Blank Folio 73r Image 109 (Group B) Armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folios 72r, 74r, 76r, 77r, and 78r (images 108, 110, 113‒115) and helm no. 1 on folio 61r (image 97), these elements are of bright steel with bands of gilded oblique double bars, bordered at each side by a narrow gilded band and by a row of gilded crescents that are cusped on the outside, and the tips of which are turned towards the narrow band, and (b) gilded flower heads (saddle plates). It is unclear whether the floral design on the pate defense, which has been painted over, would have been gilded or fretted on the actual object. Intended for mounted use in the field, free tourney, and tilt, they include (1) a pate defense, (2) a closed burgonet with falling buffe, (3) a half-shaffron, (4) a left pauldron reinforce, (5‒6) a pair of asymmetrical pauldrons, the right one fitted with a besagew, (7‒8) a pair of cuisses, (9) the pommel plates of a saddle, (10‒11) a pair of greaves, (12) the cantle plate of a saddle, and (13‒14) a pair of mail sabatons with toe caps. Folio 73v Blank Folio 74r Image 110 (Group B) Armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folios 72r, 73r, 76r, 77r, and 78r (images 108, 109, and 113‒115) and helm no. 1 on folio 61r (image 97), these elements are of bright steel with bands of gilded oblique double bars, bordered at each side by a narrow gilded band and by a row of gilded crescents that are cusped on the outside, and the tips of which are turned towards the narrow band. Intended for mounted and foot use in the field, they include (1) a burgonet, (2) a backplate, (3) a close helmet, (4) a right pauldron fitted with a besagew, (5) a gorget, (6) a left pauldron, (7) a right vambrace, (8) a breastplate with short tassets, (9) a left vambrace, (10) a right fingered gauntlet, (11‒12) a pair of cuisses, and (13) a left fingered gauntlet. 145 Norman 1986, pp. 67‒68, no. A 182.

250

Image 108

Image 110

251

Image 109

Folio 74v Blank Folio 75r Image 111 (Group C) Armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550, and represented on a sheet of paper that has been pasted in place, these elements belong together and are of bright steel with (a) gilded bands of foliate knots, (b) gilded bands of scrolling foliage, (c) gilded flower heads (over holes for securing elements to one another with screws), and (d) gilded fire steels with flints and sparks (couter of vambrace, targe, and poleyn wings). Intended for mounted use in the field, free tourney, and tilt in the German fashion, they include (1) a right vambrace, (2) a reinforcing breastplate with asymmetrical short tassets, (3) a targe, (4) a left pauldron reinforce, (5‒6) a pair of fingered gauntlets, (7) a left couter reinforce, (8-9) a pair of asymmetrically constructed cuisses, (10) a left gauntlet reinforce, (11‒12) a second pair of fingered gauntlets, (13) a right greave with sabaton, (14‒15) a pair of shin defenses, (16) a left greave with sabaton, (17) a left mitten gauntlet, (18‒19) a pair of half-greaves, and (21) a couter reinforce. In form and construction these elements compare closely to elements of a garniture made by the armorer Matthias Frauenpreiss the Elder in 1548 and 1549 and presumably completed by his son, Matthias the Younger, for Archduke Maximilian II of Austria (1527‒1576).146 The fire steel designs suggest that these elements were probably intended for a Hapsburg. Similar designs are on the couter wings of an armor made by the armorer Desiderius Helmschmid and etcher Ulrich Holzmann in 1544 for Archduke Philip II of Austria (later king of Spain), now in Vienna (HJRK, inv. no. A 547).147 Folio 75v Image 112 (Group C) Armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1560‒70, and represented on paper that has been pasted in place, these elements belong together and probably also to a bard that is shown on folio 46r (image 82), which appears to be decorated en suite with them. Of bright steel with (a) gilded bands of red-brown scrolling foliage,148 and gilded foliate designs, they are intended for mounted use in tournaments,149 and include (1) a backplate, (2) a close helmet, (3) a right pauldron, (4) a gorget, (5) a left pauldron, (6) a right vambrace, (7) a breastplate, (8) a left vambrace, and (9‒10) a pair of gauntlets. The note over the left pauldron, which reads “das pant auch gultt” (the band also gilt), confirms that both pauldrons were to be decorated with three longitudinal bands like the helmet, gorget, breastplate, backplate, and vambraces.

146 147 148 149

252

On this garniture, see Thomas 1977, vol. 2, pp. 1229‒1256, figs. 1‒20. Beaufort-Spontin – Pfaffenbichler 2005, pp. 134‒135, no. 43, ill. The foliage in the bands is represented in a red-brown color. The helmet, which is designed to fit over and rotate around the upper rim of a gorget, is not of a type normally used in the field. The absence of ventilation holes on the left side of the upper bevor suggests that it is unlikely to have been suitable for the free tourney. The symmetrical pauldrons are unlikely to have been compatible with the use of a lance-rest, for the attachment of which there is a row three holes on the breastplate. Consequently, the shown elements are likely to have been for dissimilar uses, and parts of a garniture.

Image 111

253

Image 112

Folio 76r Image 113 (Group B) Armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folios 72r, 73r, 74r, 77r, and 78r (images 108‒110, and 114‒115) and the helm no. 1 on folio 61r (image 97), these elements are of bright steel with bands of gilded oblique double bars, bordered at each side by a narrow gilded band and by a row of gilded crescents that are cusped on the outside, and the tips of which are turned towards the narrow band, (b) gilded flower heads (saddle plates), and (c) narrow gilded bands (greaves). Intended for mounted and foot use in the field and mounted use in the tilt, they include (1) a closed burgonet with falling buffe, (2) a gorget made in one with pauldrons of spaulder type, (3) a rondache, (4‒5) the pommel and cantle plates of a saddle, (6‒7) a pair of half-greaves, and (8) a half-shaffron. Folio 76v Blank Folio 77r Image 114 (Group B) Armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folios 72r (image 108), 73r (image 109), 74r (image 110), 76r (image 113), and 78r (images 108‒110, 113, and 115) and helm no. 1 on folio 61r (image 97), these elements are of bright steel with bands of gilded oblique double bars, bordered at each side by a narrow gilded band and by a row of gilded crescents that are cusped on the outside, and the tips of which are turned towards the narrow band. Intended for mounted use in the tilt, they include (1) a close helmet, (2) a backplate, (3) a tilting helm, (4) a buffe, (5) a gorget, (6) a left pauldron reinforce, (7) a vamplate, (8) a hinged lance-rest, (9) a breastplate with asymmetrical short tassets, (10) a left couter reinforce, (11) a second vamplate, (12) a left gauntlet or gauntlet reinforce, and (13) a third vamplate. Folio 77v Blank Folio 78r Image 115 (Group B) Armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folios 72r, 73r, 74r, 76r, and 77r (images 108‒110 and 113‒114) and helm no. 1 on folio 61r (image 97), these elements are of bright steel with (a) bands of gilded oblique double bars, bordered at each side by a narrow gilded band and by a row of gilded crescents that are cusped on the outside, and the tips of which are turned towards the narrow band, (b) gilded flower heads (saddle plates), and (c) gilded animals, including an owl, a unicorn, a stag, a lion, and an elephant, and a gilded horseman (targe). Intended for mounted use in the field and the tilt, they include (1) a left vambrace (which is represented on paper that has been pasted over what appears to be a larger representation of the same vambrace), (2‒3) a pair of vambraces, (4‒5) a pair of fingered gauntlets, (6) a targe, (7‒8) a pair of pauldrons, (9) a full shaffron, (10) a left couter reinforce, (11) a half-shaffron, (12‒13) a pair of full leg defenses with sabatons, and (14‒15) the pommel and cantle plates of a saddle. Folio 78v Blank

254

Image 113

Image 115

255

Image 114

Folio 79r Image 116 (Group B) Armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folios 80r (image 117) and rondache no. 4 on folio 90r (image 127), these elements are of bright steel with (a) bands of bright squares that are arranged into three rows and separated from one another by narrow gilded bands, the main bands bordered at each side by a cusped line, and (b) gilded eight-pointed stars placed over gilded banderoles (couters and poleyns). Intended for mounted and foot use in the field, they include (1) a burgonet, (2) a gorget, (3) a closed burgonet with falling buffe (which is represented on paper that has been pasted over what appears to be a larger representation of the same helmet), (4) a right pauldron with vambrace, (5) a hinged lance-rest, (6) a breastplate with short tassets, (7) a left pauldron with vambrace, (8) a right fingered gauntlet, (9) a left fingered gauntlet, and (10‒11) a pair of full leg defenses. Folio 79v Blank Folio 80r Image 117 (Group B) Armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folio 79r (image 116) and rondache no. 4 on folio 90r (image 127), these elements are of bright steel with (a) bands of bright squares that are arranged into three rows and separated from one another by narrow gilded bands, the main bands bordered at each side by a cusped line, and (b) a gilded eight-pointed star placed over a gilded banderole that is inscribed “BVENA GVIA” (rondache), and (c) gilded flower heads (pommel plates). Intended for mounted and foot use, they include (1) a rondache, (2) the pommel plates of a saddle, (3) a backplate, (4) the cantle plate of a saddle, and (5) a half-shaffron. Folio 80v Blank Folio 81r Image 118 (Group B) Armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to same garniture as the elements shown on folios 82r, 83r, and 84r (images 119, 120, and 121), these elements are of bright steel with (a) bands of alternating bright and gilded chevrons, bordered at each side by a narrow gilded band and by a cusped line. Intended for mounted and perhaps also foot use in the field, they include (1) a close helmet, (2) a backplate, (3) a closed burgonet with falling buffe, (4) a right pauldron with vambrace, (5) a gorget, (6) a left pauldron with vambrace, (7) a right fingered gauntlet, (8) a breastplate with short tassets, (9) a left fingered gauntlet, (10) a right cuisse, (11‒12) a pair of toe caps, and (13) a left cuisse. For references to a garniture with similar, but not identical decoration, see the comments on folio 33r (image 64). Folio 81v Blank

256

Image 116

Image 118

257

Image 117

Folio 82r Image 119 (Group B) Armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to same garniture as the elements shown on folios 81r, 83r, and 84r (images 118, 120, and 121), these elements are of bright steel with (a) bands of alternating bright and gilded chevrons, bordered at each side by a narrow gilded band and by a cusped line, (b) gilded flower heads (pommel and cantle plates), and (c) narrow gilded bands bordered at each side by a cusped line (half-greaves). Intended for foot use in the field, and for mounted use in the tilt, they include (1) a burgonet, (2) a rondache, (3) the pommel plates of a saddle, (4‒5) a pair of half-greaves, (6) the cantle plate of a saddle, and (7) a half-shaffron. Folio 82v Blank Folio 83r Image 120 (Group B) Armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to same garniture as the elements shown on folios 81r, 82r, and 84r (images 118, 119, and 121), these elements are of bright steel with (a) bands of alternating bright and gilded chevrons, bordered at each side by a narrow gilded band and by a cusped line, and (b) gilded foliate designs (besagews, couters, and poleyns). Intended for mounted use in the field and tilt, they include (1) a close helmet, (2) a backplate, (3) a buffe, (4) a right pauldron shown from the rear, (5) a gorget, (6) a left pauldron shown from the rear, (7) a besagew, (8) another besagew, (9) a vamplate, (10) a right vambrace, (11) a hinged lance-rest, (12) a breastplate with short tassets, (13) a left vambrace, (14) a right fingered gauntlet, (15) a left fingered gauntlet, (16) a right cuisse, and (17) a left cuisse. Folio 83v Blank Folio 84r Image 121 (Group B) Armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to same garniture as the elements shown on folios 81r, 82r, and 83r (images 118–120), these elements are of bright steel with (a) bands of alternating bright and gilded chevrons, bordered at each side by a narrow gilded band and by a cusped line, (b) gilded flower heads (targe, and saddle plates). It is unclear whether the fleur-de-lis on the pate defense, which has been painted over, would have been gilded or fretted on the actual piece. Intended for mounted use in the field, free tourney, and tilt in the German and Italian fashions, these elements include (1) a targe, (2) a close helmet, (3) a pate defense, (4) a left couter reinforce, (5) a left pauldron reinforce, (7) a second left pauldron reinforce, (8) a third left pauldron reinforce, (9) another left couter reinforce, (10) the cantle plate of a saddle, (11) a half-shaffron, (12) a left gauntlet reinforce, (13‒14) a pair of greaves with sabatons, and (15) the pommel plates of a saddle. Folio 84v Blank

258

Image 119

Image 121

259

Image 120

Folio 85r Image 122 (Group B) Armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to same garniture as the elements shown on folios 87r and 88r (images 124 and 125) and elements nos. 1‒4 and 6 on folio 86r (image 123), these elements are of bright steel with bands of scrolling lines, bordered at each side by a straight line. Intended for mounted and foot use in the field, they include (1) a burgonet, (2) a backplate, (3) a closed burgonet with falling buffe, (4) a gorget, (5) a besagew, (6) a right pauldron with vambrace, (7) a hinged lance-rest, (8) a breastplate with short tassets, (9) a left pauldron with vambrace, (10) a right fingered gauntlet, (11) a left fingered gauntlet, (12) a right half-greave, (13‒14) a pair of cuisses, (15) a left half-greave, and (16‒17) a pair of toe caps. Folio 85v Blank Folio 86r Image 123 (Groups B and C) Armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the same garniture as these elements shown on folios 85r, 87r, and 88r (images 122, 124, and 125), some of these elements are of bright steel with (a) bands of scrolling lines, bordered at each side by a straight line, and (b) gilded flower heads (saddle plates). Intended for mounted and foot use in the field, they include (1) a rondache, (2) a half-shaffron, (3) a close helmet, and (4 and 6) the pommel and cantle plates of a saddle. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1600‒20, and represented on paper that has been pasted in place, the remaining elements are the (5 and 7) front and rear plates of a gorget of blued steel with (a) gilded trophies of arms and musical instruments, bordered at each side by a narrow gilded band, and (b) narrow gilded bands. These drawings of gorgets are among the few representations of blued armor in this album, which all belong to group C. Folio 86v Blank Folio 87r Image 124 (Group B) Armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folios 85r and 88r (images 122 and 125) and elements nos. 1‒4 and 6 on folio 86r (image 123), these elements are of bright steel with bands of scrolling lines, bordered at each side by a straight line. Intended for mounted use in the field and tilt, they include (1) a close helmet, (2) a backplate, (3) another close helmet, (4) a right pauldron shown from the rear, (5) a gorget, (6) a left pauldron shown from the rear, (6) a besagew, (7) another besagew, (8) a hinged lance-rest, (9) a right vambrace, (10) a breastplate with short tassets, (11) a left vambrace, (12) a right fingered gauntlet, and (13) a left fingered gauntlet.

Folio 87v Blank

260

Image 122

Image 124

261

Image 123

Folio 88r Image 125 (Group B) Armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folios 85r, 86r, and 87r (images 122‒124), these elements are of bright steel with (a) bands of scrolling lines, bordered at each side by a straight line, (b) gilded flower heads (pommel and cantle plates), and (c) animals including a bird, a stag, and a unicorn, and a gilded hunter (targe). Intended for mounted use in the field, and the tilt in the German and Italian fashions, they include (1) a vamplate, (2) a buffe, (3) a targe, (4) the pommel plates of a saddle, (5) a breastplate with a lancerest and short tassets, (6) a left pauldron reinforce, (7) the cantle plate of a saddle, (8) a left couter reinforce, (9) a left gauntlet or gauntlet reinforce, (10) the pommel plates of a saddle, (11‒12) a pair of cuisses, (13) another left couter reinforce, (14) the cantle plate of a saddle, (15‒16) a pair of greaves with sabatons, and (17) a half-shaffron. Folio 88v Blank Folio 89r Image 126 (Group B) Four rondaches. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, these (1‒4) four rondaches are of bright steel with (1) (a) bands of gilded diamonds inside foliate diamonds that are enclosed into gilded mandorla-shaped frames, alternating with pairs of comparable but chromatically reversed bright half-diamonds inside gilded foliate half-diamonds, the bands bordered at each side by narrow gilded bands and by a row of gilded crescents that are cusped on the outside, and the tips of which are turned towards the band, and (b) tendrils radiating from the peaked umbo; (2) bands of alternating bright and gilded transverse bars, bordered at each side by alternating gilded and bright narrow bands and by a cusped line on the inside; (3) (a) a scene of a combat between the gilded figures of a centaur and a man, and (b) a band of gilded leaves tied to one another by twigs, bordered at each side by a narrow gilded band and by a row of gilded tulips on the inside; and (4) (a) a scene of a combat between the gilded figures of Hercules and the Nemean lion, and (b) a band of alternating bright and gilded shingle-like designs, bordered at each side by two narrow bands of comparable designs. The decoration of rondache no. 1 appears to be a variant of that of an armor for man and horse on folio 40r (image 76) and that of breastplate no. 4 on folio 58r (image 94) (in both cases, the foliate diamonds are enclosed into differently shaped frames). The rondache no. 2 belongs to the same garniture as the elements shown on folios 93r and 94r (images 130 and 131), the elements nos. 1–4 on folio 108r (image 147), and breastplate no. 2 on folio 56r (image 92). The rondache no. 4 does not appear to belong to any of the garnitures with similar band decoration that are represented in this album, as unlike all of their elements its turned edge is not engrailed but roped. Folio 89v Blank

262

Image 125

263

Image 126

Folio 90r Image 127 (Group B) Four rondaches. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, these (1‒4) four rondaches are of bright steel with (1) (a) a scene of a combat between the gilded figures of Hercules and a centaur, and (b) a band of alternating bright and gilded oblique slash-like designs, bordered at each side by a gilded narrow band, and by a cusped line on the inside; (2) (a) a scene of a combat between the gilded figures of a man on horseback and another on foot, with gilded helmets and weapons on the ground, and (b) a band of bright squares that are arranged into three rows and separated from one another by gilded narrow bands, the main band bordered at one side by a cusped line; (3) (a) bands of scrolling lines set against a pebbled ground, and bordered at each side by a narrow gilded band, and (b) gilded quatrefoils; and (4) (a) a gilded eight-pointed star placed over a banderole that is inscribed “BVENA GVIA,” and (b) a band of bright squares that are arranged into three rows and separated from one another by narrow gilded bands, the main band bordered at one side by a cusped line. The rondache no. 1 features a similar combat scene and bright-and-gilded oblique slash band decoration as a rondache shown on folio 102r (image 139), in which the combat is set against an elaborate background. The rondache no. 2 does not appear to belong to any of the three garnitures with similar band decoration that are represented in this album, as unlike all of their elements its turned edge is not engrailed but roped. The rondache no. 3 probably belongs to a garniture of which other elements, including a similar rondache, are shown on folios 85r, 86r, 87r, and 88r (images 122‒125). The rondache no. 4 belongs to the same garniture as the elements shown on folios 79r and 80r (images 116 and 117) and possibly the breastplate no. 3 on folio 56r (image 92). It is likely to be a repetition of the rondache shown on 80r (image 117). Folio 90v Blank Folio 91r Image 128 (Group B) Armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folios 92r, 95r, and 96r (images 129, 132, and 133) and possibly breastplate no. 3 on folio 56r (image 92), these elements are of bright steel with (a) bands of bright squares that are arranged into three rows and separated from one another by narrow gilded bands, the main bands bordered at one side by a cusped line, (b) comparable bands of bright squares arranged into two rows and separated from one another by narrow gilded bands, the main bands bordered at one side by a cusped line, and (c) gilded eight-pointed stars (besagews). Intended for mounted and possibly also foot use in the field, they include (1) a closed burgonet with falling buffe, (2) a backplate, (3) a close helmet, (4) a right pauldron with vambrace, (5) a gorget, (6) a left pauldron with vambrace, (7) a besagew, (8) a breastplate with short tassets, (9) another besagew, (10) a right fingered gauntlet, (11) a left fingered gauntlet, and (11‒12) a pair of toe caps. Folio 91v Blank

264

Image 127

265

Image 128

Folio 92r Image 129 (Group B) Armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folios 91r, 95r, and 96r (images 128, 132, and 133) and possibly breastplate no. 3 on folio 56r (image 92), these elements are of bright steel with (a) bands of bright squares that are arranged into three rows and separated from one another by narrow gilded bands, the main bands bordered at each side by a cusped line, (b) comparable bands of bright squares arranged into two rows and separated from one another by narrow gilded bands, the main bands bordered at one side by a cusped line, (c) a gilded eight-pointed star with tendrils radiating from it (rondache), and (d) gilded flowers heads (saddle plates). Intended for mounted and foot use in the field, and possibly also for mounted use in tournaments, they include (1) a burgonet, (2) a rondache, (3) a half-shaffron, (4‒5) a pair of cuisses, (6) the pommel plates of a saddle, (7‒8) a pair of half-greaves, and (9) the cantle plate of a saddle. Folio 92v Blank Folio 93r Image 130 (Group B) Armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folio 94r (image 131), the elements nos. 1‒4 on folio 108r (image 147), breastplate no. 2 on folio 56r (image 92), and rondache no. 2 on folio 89r (image 126), these elements are of bright steel with (a) bands of alternating bright and gilded transverse bars, bordered at each or only one side by alternating gilded and bright narrow bands and by a cusped line, and (b) gilded floral and foliate designs (pauldrons and couters), including flower heads. Intended for mounted use in the field and tilt, they include (1) a close helmet, (2) a backplate, (3) a buffe, (4) a right pauldron, (5) a gorget, (6) a left pauldron, (7) a right vambrace, (8) a hinged lance-rest, (9) a breastplate with short tassets, (10) a left vambrace, (11) a right fingered gauntlet, and (12) a left fingered gauntlet. Folio 93v Blank Folio 94r Image 131 (Group B) Armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folio 93r (image 130), the elements nos. 1‒4 on folio 108r (image 147), breastplate no. 2 on folio 56r (image 92), and rondache no. 2 on folio 89r (image 126), these elements are of bright steel with (a) bands of alternating bright and gilded transverse bars, bordered at each or only one side by alternating gilded and bright narrow bands and by a cusped line, (b) gilded floral and foliate designs (left couter reinforces, left pauldron reinforce, left gauntlet reinforce, and saddle plates), including flower heads, and (c) gilded animals, including dogs, stags, a boar, a rabbit, and a unicorn, and a gilded hunter (targe). Intended for mounted use in the tilt in the Italian and German fashions, they include (1) a targe, (2) a half-shaffron, (3) a left couter reinforce, (4) a vamplate, (5) the pommel plates of a saddle, (6) a left pauldron reinforce, (7) another vamplate, (8) the cantle plate of a saddle, (9) another left couter reinforce, (10) a left gauntlet reinforce, and (11‒12) a pair of full leg defenses with sabatons. Folio 94v Blank

266

Image 129

Image 131

267

Image 130

Folio 95r Image 132 (Group B) Armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folios 91r, 92r, and 96r (images 128, 129, and 133) and possibly breastplate no. 3 on folio 56r (image 92), these elements are of bright steel with (a) bands of bright squares that are arranged into three rows and separated from one another by narrow gilded bands, the main bands bordered at each side by a cusped line, (b) comparable bands of bright squares arranged into two rows and separated from one another by narrow gilded bands, the main bands bordered at one side by a cusped line, and (c) gilded eight-pointed stars, some with tendrils (pauldrons, besagews, couters, and poleyns). Intended for mounted use in the field and tilt, they include (1) a close helmet, (2) a backplate, (3) a buffe, (4) a right pauldron shown from the rear, (5) a left pauldron shown from the rear, (6) another besagew, (7) a gorget, (8) a right vambrace, (9) a hinged lance-rest, (10) a left vambrace, (11) a right fingered gauntlet, (12) a breastplate with short tassets, (13) a left fingered gauntlet, (14) a right cuisse, and (15) a left cuisse. Folio 95v Blank Folio 96r Image 133 (Group B) Armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folios 91r, 92r, and 95r (images 128, 129, and 132) and possibly breastplate no. 3 on folio 56r (image 92), these elements are of bright steel with (a) bands of bright squares that are arranged into three rows and separated from one another by narrow gilded bands, the main bands bordered at each side by a cusped line, (b) comparable bands of bright squares arranged into two rows and separated from one another by narrow gilded bands, the main bands bordered at one side by a cusped line, (c) gilded flowers heads (saddle plates), and (d) gilded animals, including a stag and an elephant (targe). Intended for mounted use in the tilt and the free tourney, they include (1) a targe, (2) a close helmet, (3) a pate defense, (4) a left couter reinforce, (5) a left pauldron reinforce, (6) a second left pauldron reinforce, (7) a buffe, (8) a third left pauldron reinforce, (9) another left couter reinforce, (10‒11) the cantle and pommel plates of a saddle, (12) a left gauntlet or gauntlet reinforce, (13) a right greave with sabaton, (14) a vamplate, (15) a left greave with sabaton, and (16) a half-shaffron. Folio 96v Blank Folio 97r Image 134 (Group B) Armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folios 98r and 99r (images 135 and 136), the elements nos. 2, 4, 5, and 7 on folio 105r (image 142), and breastplate no. 1 on folio 56r (image 92), these elements are of bright steel with (a) gilded bands of scrolling foliage, some of which include trophies of arms, bordered at each side by a cusped line (backplate, gorget, and breastplate), (b) gilded bands of Moorish tracery, bordered at one side by a cusped line (pauldrons), (c) bands of gilded cabling (besagews), (d) gilded winged tritons (pauldrons), and (e) gilded stars (couters). Intended for mounted use in the field and tilt, they include (1) a close helmet, (2) a backplate, (3) a buffe, (4) a right pauldron shown from the rear, (5) a gorget, (6) a left pauldron shown from the rear, (7) a besagew, (8) a breastplate with short tassets, (9) another besagew, (10) a right vambrace, (11) a left vambrace, (12) a right fingered gauntlet, (13) a left fingered gauntlet, (14‒15) a pair of cuisses, (16) a vamplate shown from the front, and (17) another vamplate shown from profile.

268

Image 132

Image 134

269

Image 133

Folio 97v Blank Folio 98r Image 135 (Group B) Armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folios 97r and 99r (images 134 and 136) the elements nos. 2, 4, 5, and 7 on folio 105r (image 142) and breastplate no. 1 on folio 56r (image 92), these elements are of bright steel with (a) gilded bands of scrolling foliage, bordered at each side by a cusped line, (b) floral designs, including flower heads (pate defense, couters, gauntlet reinforce, saddle plates), (c) gilded animals, including a stag and a lion (targe), and (d) a fretted fleur-de-lis (pate defense).150 Intended for mounted use in the field, free tourney, and tilt in German and Italian fashions, they include (1) a targe, (2) a close helmet, (3) a pate defense, (4) a left couter reinforce, (5‒7) three left pauldron reinforces, (8) another left couter reinforce, (9) a full shaffron, (10) the pommel plates of a saddle, (11) a left gauntlet reinforce, (12‒13) a pair of greaves with sabatons, and (14) the cantle plate of a saddle. Folio 98v Blank Folio 99r Image 136 (Group B) Armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folios 96r and 97r (images 134 and 135), the elements nos. 2, 4, 5, and 7 on folio 105 r (image 142) and breastplate no. 1 on folio 56r (image 92), these elements are of bright steel with (a) gilded bands of scrolling foliage, some of which include trophies of arms (backplate and breastplate), bordered at each or only one side by a cusped line, and (b) floral designs, including flower heads (couters and poleyns). Intended for mounted and possibly also foot use in the field, they include (1) a closed burgonet with falling buffe, (2) a backplate, (3) a close helmet, (4) a gorget, (5) a right pauldron with vambrace, (6) a hinged lance-rest, (7) a breastplate with short tassets, (8) a left pauldron with vambrace, (9) a right fingered gauntlet, (10) a left fingered gauntlet, (11‒12) a pair of full leg defenses, and (13‒14) a pair of toe caps. Folio 99v Blank Folio 100r Image 137 (Group B) Armor elements. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folios 101, 102r, and 103r (images 138‒140), these elements are of bright steel with (a) bands of alternating bright and gilded oblique slashlike designs, bordered at each side by a narrow gilded band and by a cusped line, (b) gilded foliate and floral designs, including flower heads (close helmet, couters, and poleyns). Intended for mounted use in the field, they include (1) a closed burgonet with falling buffe, (2) a backplate, (3) a close helmet, (4) a gorget, (5) a right pauldron with vambrace, (6) a hinged lance-rest, (7) a breastplate with short tassets, (8) a left pauldron with vambrace, (9) a right fingered gauntlet, (10) a left fingered gauntlet, (11) a pair of full leg defenses, and (12) a pair of toe caps.

150 The brushwork around the edges of this design makes it clear that the latter is fretted.

270

Image 135

Image 137

271

Image 136

Folio 100v Blank Folio 101r Image 138 (Group B) Armor elements. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folios 100r, 102r, and 103r (images 137, 139, and 140), these elements are of bright steel with (a) bands of alternating bright and gilded oblique slash-like designs, bordered at each side by a narrow gilded band and by a cusped line, (b) gilded floral designs, including flower heads (couter reinforces and saddle plates), and (c) gilded animals, including a dog, a stag, a camel, a lion, a unicorn, a bull, and birds, and a hunter (targe). Intended for mounted use in the field and the tilt in the German and Italian fashions, they include (1) a targe, (2) a left pauldron reinforce, (3) a vamplate, (4) a left couter reinforce, (5) another left couter reinforce, (6) another vamplate, (7) a left gauntlet or gauntlet reinforce, (8) a full shaffron, and (9‒10) the pommel and cantle plates of a saddle. Folio 101v Blank Folio 102r Image 139 (Group B) Armor elements. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folios 100r, 101r, and 103r (images 137, 138, and 140), these elements are of bright steel with (a) bands of alternating bright and gilded oblique slash-like designs, bordered at each side by a narrow gilded band and by a cusped line, (b) gilded flower heads (saddle plates), and (c) a partly gilded scene of a combat between Hercules and a centaur, set against a mountainous background (rondache). Intended for mounted and foot use in the field, they include (1) a burgonet, (2) a rondache, (3) a half-shaffron, (4) the pommel plates of a saddle, and (5) the cantle plates of a saddle. A rondache with a similar scene and bright-and-gilded oblique slash band decoration along the perimeter, but with a plain background for the combat between Hercules and a centaur, is shown on folio 90r (image 127). Folio 102v Blank Folio 103r Image 140 (Group B) Armor elements. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folios 100r, 101r, and 102r (images 137‒139), these elements are of bright steel with (a) bands of alternating bright and gilded oblique slashlike designs, bordered at each side by a narrow gilded band and by a cusped line, (b) gilded stars (couters and poleyns), and (c) gilded foliate designs (close helmet, couters, and poleyns). Intended for mounted use in the field and tilt, these include (1) a close helmet, (2) a backplate, (3) a buffe, (4) a gorget, (5) a right pauldron shown from the rear, (6) a breastplate with short tassets, (7) a left pauldron shown from the rear, (8) a right vambrace, (9) a left vambrace, (10) a right fingered gauntlet, (11‒12) a pair of full leg defenses with sabatons, and (13) a left fingered gauntlet. Folio 103v Blank

272

Image 138

Image 140

273

Image 139

Folio 104r Image 141 (Group B) Armor elements. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the same garniture as some of the elements shown on folio 105r (image 142), these elements are of bright steel with (a) narrow gilded bands bordered at each side by a gilded cusped line, its cusps developing into trefoils, (b) gilded foliate designs (close helmet, couters, and poleyns), and (c) gilded suns (couters and poleyns). Intended for mounted and possibly also foot use in the field, they include (1) a closed burgonet with falling buffe, (2) a backplate, (3) a close helmet, (4) a gorget, (5) a right pauldron with vambrace, (6) a left pauldron with vambrace, (7) a breastplate with short tassets, (8) a right fingered gauntlet, (9)  a left fingered gauntlet, (10‒11) a pair of full leg defenses, and (12‒13) a pair of toe caps. Folio 104v Blank Folio 105r Image 142 (Group B) Armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the same garniture as the elements on folio 104r (image 141), some of these elements are of bright steel with (a) narrow gilded bands bordered at each side by a gilded cusped line, its cusps developing into trefoils, and (b) gilded flower heads (saddle plates). Intended for mounted and foot use in the field, they include (1) a burgonet, (3) a half-shaffron, (6) the pommel plates of a saddle, and (7) the cantle plates of a saddle. Of about the same date, represented on paper that has been pasted in place, and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folios 97r, 98r, and 99r (images 134, 135, and 136), the remaining elements are of bright steel with (a) gilded bands of scrolling foliage, bordered at each side by a cusped line, and (b) gilded flower heads (saddle plates).151 Intended for mounted and foot use in the field, these include (2) the pommel plates of a saddle, (4) the cantle plate of a saddle, (5) a burgonet, and (7) a half-shaffron. Folio 105v Blank Folio 106r Image 143 (Group C) Armor elements. Datable on heraldic grounds to between 1586 and 1591, intended for Christian I, prince elector of Saxony (1560‒1591), represented on paper that has been pasted in place, and belonging to a garniture that included the armor shown on folio 110v (image 151), these elements are of blackened steel with (a) gilded bands, some of which enclose scrolling foliage, lions, and an eagle (burgonet and rondache), (b) gilded floral designs (burgonet and pauldrons), and (c) gilded heraldic shields that bear the arms of Electoral Saxony and the letters “FSV” (rondache). Intended for foot use in the field, they include (1) a backplate made in one with the rear half of a gorget, (2) a burgonet, (3) a right pauldron, (4) a breastplate made in one with the front half of a gorget, and with short tassets, (5) a left pauldron, (6) a right fingered gauntlet, (7) a left fingered gauntlet, and (8) a rondache. The rondache bears the heraldic arms and the initials (FSV) for the motto (“Fide Sed Vide”) of Christian I, prince elector of Saxony (1560‒1591). The son of August, prince elector of Saxony, and Anna of Denmark, Christian married in 1582 Sophia, margravine of Brandenburg (1568‒1622), the daughter of Johann George, margrave of Brandenburg (1525‒1598) and his second wife, Sabina, margravine of Brandenburg-Ansbach (1529‒1575).152

151 The brushwork around the edges of this design leaves little doubt that the latter is fretted. 152 On the elements shown on this folio, see Terjanian 2014.

274

Image 141

Image 143

275

Image 142

Folio 106v Image 144 (Group C) Armor elements. Represented on paper that has been pasted in place, and belonging to a garniture made c. 1550 in Augsburg for Philip II of Austria, of which other elements are shown on folio 107r (image 145), these elements are of bright steel with gilded bands of bright diamonds framed by bright split-legged trefoils, alternating with pair of bright half-diamonds, the bands bordered at each side by a narrow gilded band. Intended for mounted use in the field, they include (1) a backplate, (2) a close helmet, (3) a right pauldron, (4) a gorget, (5) a left pauldron, (6) a right vambrace, (7) a breastplate with long tassets and poleyns, (8) a left vambrace, (9) a right fingered gauntlet, and (10) a left fingered gauntlet. The garniture in question, of which the principal parts are preserved in Madrid (RAM, inv. no. A.217, and additional inventory numbers), has been attributed beyond reasonable doubt to the Augsburg armorer Desiderius Helmschmid.153 This and the following image may be early designs for it. Folio 107r Image 145 (Group C) Armor elements. Represented on paper that has been pasted in place, and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folio 106v (image 144), these elements are of bright steel with gilded bands of bright diamonds framed by bright split-legged trefoils, alternating with pairs of bright half-diamonds, the bands bordered at each side by a narrow gilded band. Intended for mounted and foot use in the field, and possibly the foot combat, they include (1‒2) a pair of pauldrons of spaulder type fitted with besagews, (3)  a burgonet, (4‒5) a pair of asymmetrical cuisses, (6‒7) a pair of mitten gauntlets, (8‒9) a pair of greaves with sabatons, (10‒11) a pair of half-greaves, (12) the pommel plates of a saddle, (13) the cantle plate of a saddle, and (14) a half-shaffron whose escutcheon displays a schematic representation of the arms of Philip II of Austria. Folio 107v Image 146 (Group C) Armor elements. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1570‒75, represented on paper that has been pasted in place, and belonging together, these elements are of bright steel with bands of gilded interlace that enclose gilded pellets and gilded flower heads, with gilded foliate designs along the inside edges of the bands, and the bands bordered at each side by a narrow gilded band. Intended for foot use in the field, they include (1) a burgonet, (2) a backplate made in one with the rear half of a gorget, (3) a second burgonet, (4) a breastplate reinforce, and (5) a breastplate made in one with the front half of a gorget.

153 On this garniture, see exh. cat. Washington 2009, pp. 169‒178, 228‒229, nos. 46‒47, ill.

276

Image 144

Image 146

277

Image 145

Folio 108r Image 147 (Groups A and B) Armor elements. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folio 93r and 94r (images 130 and 131), breastplate no. 2 on folio 56r (image 92), and rondache no. 2 on folio 89r (image 126), most of these elements are of bright steel with (a) bands of alternating bright and gilded transverse bars, bordered at each or only one side by alternating gilded and bright narrow bands and by a cusped line, and (b) gilded flower heads (saddle plates). Intended for foot and mounted use in the field, they include (1) a morion, (2) a half-shaffron, (3) the pommel plates of a saddle, and (4) the companion cantle plates of saddle. Immediately beneath the morion there are faint traces of a lead-point drawing of a buffe. Of about the same date, the remaining elements, (5‒6) a pair of shin defenses of bright steel with gilded bands of sinuous lines bordered at each side by a cusped line, clearly belong to a different armor. The heraldic shield at the top right, which bears the family arms and crested helm of the Hörmann, has been cut away from folio 8r (image 15) and pasted in place. The heraldic shield at the bottom right, which bears the family arms and crested helm of the Höchstetter, has similarly been cut away from folio 18v (image 36) and pasted onto this folio. Folio 108v Blank Folio 109r Image 148 (Group C) Armored man and armor elements. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒60, represented on a sheet of paper that has been pasted in place, and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folios 35v and 109v (images 69 and 149), this armor is of blackened steel with bright bands of scrolling foliage, and it is intended for mounted use in the field. The adjacent elements, which are decorated en suite, belong to it, and include (1) a buffe and (2) a burgonet. Folio 109v Image 149 (Group C) Armor elements. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1550‒60, and belonging to the same garniture as the armor and elements shown on folios 35v and 109r (images 69 and 148), these elements are of blackened steel with (a) bright bands of scrolling foliage, and (b) bright flower heads (targe), and intended for mounted use in the field, the German joust of war, and the tilt in the German and Italian fashions. The paper onto which they are represented has been cut off from a sheet of which the other (viewer’s left) half is now folio 35v (image 69) in this album. These elements include (1) a buffe, (2) a sallet, (3) a backplate, (4) an unidentifiable piece, (5) a close helmet, (6) a besagew (truncated), (7) a left pauldron, (8) a right pauldron, (9) a gorget, (10) a left pauldron, (11) a left vambrace, (12) a left pauldron reinforce, (13) a breastplate with short tassets, (14) a targe, (15) a lance-rest, (16) a left couter reinforce, (17) another left couter reinforce, (18) the pommel plates of a saddle, (19) the cantle plate of a saddle, (20) a left gauntlet, and (21) a full shaffron.

278

Image 147

Image 149

279

Image 148

Folio 110r Image 150 (Group C) Armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1590, and represented on paper that has been pasted in place, some of these elements are of bright steel with narrow gilded foliate interlace, and intended for the field. They include (1) a backplate made in one with the rear half of a gorget, (2) a Zischägge, (3) a right fingered gauntlet, and (4) breastplate made in one with the front half of a gorget and with short tassets. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1570‒80, represented on paper that has been pasted in place, and belonging to the same garniture as the elements shown on folios 113v‒114r (image 155), the adjacent (5) close helmet is of bright steel and intended for mounted use, probably in the tilt. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1570‒80, and represented on paper that has been pasted in place, the remaining element is (7) a breastplate of blued steel with a gilded vase and gilded foliate and floral scrolls; it may be for foot or mounted use in the field. In form and decoration the elements nos. 1‒4 match the design for an armor to be made in Augsburg in 1590 for presentation to the Ottoman Grand Vizier Sinan Pasha (1506‒1596), a preliminary drawing of which was submitted by the imperial treasurer (Reichspfennigmeister) Zacharias Geizkofler (1560‒1617) to Rudolf II of Austria (1552‒1612) for his approval.154 The drawings in this sketchbook call attention to the arrangement of the ornament and omit constructional details such as the lamination of the cuirass. Among the elements that they show the gauntlet is the only one to exhibit the minute ornament that would have filled the interlace pattern. These drawings are likely to be early versions of the designs eventually provided by Geizkofler. The Augsburg armorer who proposed to make the illustrated gift has not been identified. Folio 110v Image 151 (Group C) Armored man. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1560‒70, but unmistakably decorated en suite with, and thus belonging to the same garniture as, the elements shown on folio 106r (image 143), and therefore designed or made between 1586 and 1591 for Christian I, prince elector of Saxony (1560‒1591), and represented on paper that has been pasted in place, this tonlet armor for use in the foot combat is of blackened steel with (a) gilded bands of scrolling foliage and (b) gilded floral and foliate designs and lion’s masks.155

154 On this commission, see Mraz 1983. 155 On this armor, see Terjanian 2014.

280

Image 150

281

Image 151

Folio 111r Image 152 (Group C) Helmet, armored man, and head. Datable on stylistic grounds to c. 1515‒25, and represented on paper that has been pasted in place, the helmet appears to be a burgonet with a detachable buffe, as is suggested by the representation of a keyhole slot near the cheekbone of the latter. Of bright steel, it is embossed to look like the head of a bearded ancient general or Caesar wearing an open-face helmet in the style of the Classical Antiquity. The embossed mustache appears to be pierced with series of ventilation slits, and the neckline is bordered by a collar of interlocking links in the manner of some close helmets from the period.156 This is the earliest known representation of a German helmet in the heroic style. Details such as the collar above the neckline or the execution of the drawing, which is clearly by the same hand as the adjacent armor, suggest that this design predates all known works in the same style by Italian armorers. It is closely related in conception and form to helmets represented in the Thun sketchbook 1, which are all associated with the Helmschmid.157 While no strictly comparable helmet is known, this helmet may be compared to an example with embossed ears, of c. 1535‒40, and attributed to Desiderius Helmschmid, in Vienna (HJRK, inv. no. A 547),158 and to a well-known burgonet made for Charles V in 1533 by the Milanese armorer Filippo Negroli (c. 1510 – 1579), which is preserved in Madrid (RAM, inv. no. D 1).159 Also executed on paper that has been pasted in place and of about the same date, the adjacent armor is of bright steel embossed with seashells, a monster’s mask, and puffs and slashes in the manner of fashionable male dress of the period. The fact that the right sabaton is of mail with a toe cap while the left one is built entirely of plates suggests that the dissimilar construction of the leg defenses and the dissimilar decorative treatment of those elements as well as the pauldrons and vambraces represent alternate designs for the limbs, rather than a finalized mi-parti design for the left and right sides of the armor. This and the adjacent design for a helmet are remarkable for their extravagance, and thus likely to represent projects for or by Kolman Helmschmid. The head that is pasted on this folio originally belonged to the drawing that is pasted on folio 38v (image 73). Folios 111v‒112r Image 153 (Group C) Armored man and horse. Executed on paper that has been pasted in place, the three drawings show the left side of an elaborate horse bard, the right side of its crupper and peytral, and the right side of its saddle. Attributed to the Augsburg painter and printmaker Hans Burgkmair the Elder, they appear to have been preliminary designs for a luxurious horse bard and saddle made c. 1517 by Kolman Helmschmid for Maximilian I, and now in Madrid (RAM, inv. no. A 149).160 The Madrid bard indeed notably departs from these designs in the detail of its embossed ornamentation. In addition to providing the first opportunity to reproduce them in color since their publication in 1888, the rediscovery of the sketchbook provides information that will call for a reinterpretation of the bard’s history and iconography. Indeed, its shaffron bears an escutcheon that unmistakably represents the royal arms of England. It is thus probable that the bard was originally intended as a diplomatic gift, and never delivered.161

156 See, for example, an armet in London (WC, inv. no. A 164); Mann 1962, pp. 135‒136, pl. 72. 157 Thun sketchbook 1, folios n74r and n80r‒v (images 97, 109, and 110); see Terjanian 2011/2012, pp. 378‒379 and 384‒385, ills. 158 Gamber – Beaufort-Spontin 1990, pp. 57, pl. 20. 159 Exh. cat. New York 1998, pp. 125–131, no. 20, ills. 160 On this bard, see Valencia de Don Juan 1898, pp. 52–53, pl. X; Godoy 1991, pp. 130–137, no. 20, ills.; exh. cat. Washington 2009, pp. 64–65, no. 9, ill. On the attribution to Burgkmair, see Leitner 1888, p. III, Reg. 4583, ill.; Reitzenstein 1955, pp. 265–266, pl. 90; Reitzenstein 1960, p. 92; and Falk 1968, pp. 74–78. 161 A publication on this exceptional horse bard is in preparation.

282

Image 152

Image 153

283

Folio 112v Image 154 (Group C) Armored horse. Executed on paper that has been pasted in place, the horse bard and companion saddle are in the style of the years 1515‒25 and decorated overall with sixpointed stars and crowned monograms seemingly consisting of the interlaced letters “S” and “P”. The escutcheon on the shaffron displays undecipherable quartered heraldic arms.162 Folio 113r Blank Folios 113v‒114r Image 155 (Group C) Armor elements. Datable on the basis of style to c. 1570‒80, and belonging to the same garniture as close helmet no. 5 on folio 110r (image 150), these elements are of plain bright steel, and intended for mounted use in the field and the free tourney, and perhaps also for the foot tourney at the barriers. They include (1) a right pauldron reinforce, (2) a close helmet, (3) a brow reinforce, (4) a backplate, (5) a left pauldron reinforce, (6) a close helmet, (7) another brow reinforce, (8) another right pauldron reinforce, (9) a right pauldron, (10) a left pauldron, (11) a buffe, (12) another right pauldron, (13) another backplate, (14) another left pauldron, (16) a right vambrace, (17) a gorget, (18) a left vambrace, (19) another right vambrace, (20) another gorget, (21) another left vambrace, (22) a solid lance-rest, (23) a breastplate with short tassets, (24) a left couter reinforce, (25) a reinforcing breastplate, (26) a right fingered gauntlet, (27) a left fingered gauntlet, (28) another right fingered gauntlet, (29) another left fingered gauntlet, (30) a right greave, (31‒32) a pair of cuisses, (33) a left greave, (34) the pommel plates of a saddle, (35) a vamplate, (36) the cantle plate of a saddle, and (37) a half shaffron. Folio 114v Blank

162 This bard is mentioned in Leitner 1888, p. II, ill.

284

Image 154

Image 155

285

Appendix

STRUCTURE OF THE ALBUM

Penciled foliation

Watermarks

Recto

Verso

INV. GK 11.571–B IN THE UMĚLECKOPRŮMYSLOVÉ

1

–

Image 1

Image 2

2

Type Briquet I 2121

Image 3

Image 4

3

Type Briquet I 2121

Image 5

Image 6

4

–

Image 7

Image 8

5

Type Briquet I 2121

Image 9

Image 10

6

–

Image 11

Image 12

7

–

Image 13

Image 14

8

–

Image 15

Image 16

9

Type Briquet I 2121

Image 17

Image 18

10

–

Image 19

Image 20

11

Type Briquet I 2121

Image 21

Image 22

12

–

Image 23

Image 24

13

Type Briquet I 2121

Image 25

Image 26

14

–

Image 27

Image 28

15

Type Briquet I 2121

Image 29

Image 30

16

–

Image 31

Image 32

17

–

Image 33

Image 34

18

–

Image 35

Image 36

19

–

Image 37

Image 38

20

–

Image 39

Image 40

21

Type Briquet I 2121

Image 41

Image 42

22

–

Image 43

–

23

Type Briquet I 2121

Image 44

Image 45

24

–

Image 46

Image 47

25

–

Image 48

Image 49

26

Type Briquet I 2121

Image 50

Image 51

27

Type Briquet I 2121

Image 52

Image 53

28

Type Briquet I 2121

Image 54

Image 55

29

–

Image 56

Image 57

30

Type Briquet I 2121

Image 58

Image 59

31

Type Briquet I 2121

Image 60

Image 61

32

–

Image 62

Image 63

33

–

Image 64

Image 65

34

–

Image 66

Image 67

35

–

Image 68

Image 69

36

Type Briquet I 2119

Image 70

–

37

–

Image 71

–

38

–

Image 72

Image 73

39

–

Image 74

Image 75

40

Type Briquet I 2110

Image 76

–

41

–

Image 77

–

MUSEUM V PRAZE

286

Penciled foliation

Watermarks

Recto

Verso

42

–

Image 78

–

43

Type Briquet I 2110

Image 79

–

44

–

Image 80

–

45

–

Image 81

–

46

Unrecorded watermark

Image 82

–

47

–

Image 83

–

48

Type Briquet I 2121

Image 84

–

49

–

Image 85

–

50

Type Briquet I 2121 (on Image 86 pasted paper)

–

51

Unrecorded watermark

Image 87

–

52

–

Image 88

–

53

–

Image 89

–

54

Type Briquet I 1244

Image 90

–

55

–

Image 91

–

56

–

Image 92

–

57

Type Briquet I 1244

Image 93

–

58

–

Image 94

–

59

Type Briquet I 1244

Image 95

–

60

–

Image 96

–

61

Type Briquet I 2121

Image 97

–

62

–

Image 98

–

63

Type Briquet I 2121

Image 99

–

64

–

Image 100

–

65

Type Briquet I 2121

Image 101

–

66

Type Briquet I 2121

Image 102

–

67

–

Image 103

–

68

Type Briquet I 2121

Image 104

–

69

–

Image 105

–

70

–

Image 106

–

71

Type Briquet I 2121

Image 107

–

72

Type Briquet I 2121

Image 108

–

73

–

Image 109

–

74

Type Briquet I 2121

Image 110

–

75

Type Briquet I 2121

Image 111

Image 112

76

–

Image 113

–

77

–

Image 114

–

78

Type Briquet I 2121

Image 115

–

79

Type Briquet I 2121

Image 116

–

80

–

Image 117

–

81

Type Briquet I 2121

Image 118

–

82

–

Image 119

–

83

–

Image 120

–

84

Type Briquet I 2121

Image 121

–

85

Type Briquet I 1244

Image 122

–

86

–

Image 123

–

87

–

Image 124

–

287

ABBREVIATIONS

Penciled foliation

Watermarks

Recto

Verso

88

Type Briquet I 2121

Image 125

–

89

Type Briquet I 2121

Image 126

–

90

–

Image 127

–

91

–

Image 128

–

92

Type Briquet I 2121

Image 129

–

93

Type Briquet I 2121

Image 130

–

94

–

Image 131

–

95

Type Briquet I 2121

Image 132

–

96

–

Image 133

–

97

–

Image 134

–

98

–

Image 135

–

99

Type Briquet I 2110

Image 136

–

100

Type Briquet I 2110

Image 137

–

101

–

Image 138

–

102

–

Image 139

–

103

Type Briquet I 2110

Image 140

–

104

Type Briquet I 2110

Image 141

–

105

Type Briquet I 2110

Image 142

–

106

Type Briquet I 2121

Image 143

Image 144

107

Type Briquet I 2121

Image 145

Image 146

108

–

Image 147

–

109

–

Image 148

Image 149

110

–

Image 150

Image 151

111

–

Image 152

Image 153

112

–

Image 153

Image 154

113

–

–

Image 155

114

Unrecorded watermark

Image 155

–

AIC Art Institute of Chicago (Chicago) AR Armeria Reale (Turin) DIA Detroit Institute of Arts (Detroit) HJRK Kunsthistorisches Museum, Hofjagd- und Rüstkammer (Vienna) HLM Hessisches Landesmuseum Darmstadt (Darmstadt) KHM Kunsthistorisches Museum (Vienna) MA Musée de l’Armée (Paris) MMA The Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York) MNM Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum (Budapest) PMA Philadelphia Museum of Art (Philadelphia, PA) RAL Royal Armouries (Leeds, London, and Portsmouth) RAM Patrimonio Nacional, Real Armería (Madrid) SAI Kunsthistorisches Museum, Schloss Ambras Innsbruck (Ambras) SHM State Hermitage Museum (Saint Petersburg) SKD Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden, Rüstkammer (Dresden) UPM Uměleckoprůmyslové Museum v Praze (Prague) WAG Walters Art Gallery (Baltimore) WC The Wallace Collection (London) WLB Württembergische Landesbibliothek (Stuttgart)

288

REFERENCES

Beaufort-Spontin – Pfaffenbichler 2005: Christian Beaufort-Spontin ‒ Matthias Pfaffenbichler, Meisterwerke der Hofjagd- und Rüstkammer, Vienna, 2005 Becher – Gamber – Irtenkauf 1980: Charlotte Becher – Ortwin Gamber – Walter Irtenkauf, Das Stuttgarter Harnisch-Musterbuch 1548–1663. Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien 76 (new series 40), 1980, pp. 7–96 Beierlein 1851: Johann Peter Beierlein, “Medaillen auf ausgezeichnete und berühmte Bayern, in Abbildungen, und mit biographisch-historischen Notizen,” in Oberbayerisches Archiv für vaterländische Geschichte 12, 1851, no. 21, pp. 115–181 Bergmann 1844‒1858: Joseph Bergmann, Medaillen auf berühmte und ausgezeichnete Männer des österreichischen Kaiserstaates, vom XVI. bis XIX. Jahrhunderte, Vienna, 1844–1858, 2 vols. Bertolotto et al. 1982: Claudio Bertolotto – Marisa Cartasegna – Michela Di Macco – Giorgio Dondi – Franco Mazzini – Raffaele Natta Soleri – Giovanni Romano – Carlenrica Spantigati, L’Armeria reale di Torino, Busto Arsizio, 1982 Blair 1965: Claude Blair, “The silvered armour of Henry VII in the Tower of London,” in Archaeologia XCIX, 1965, pp. 1–55 Blair 1974: Claude Blair, “Comments on Dr. Borg’s ‘Horned Helmet,’” in Journal of the Arms and Armour Society, vol. 8, no. 2, December 1974, pp. 138–185 Boeheim 1891: Wendelin Boeheim, “Augsburger Waffenschmiede, ihre Werke und ihre Beziehungen zum kaiserlichen und zu anderen Höfen,” in Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses 12, 1891, part 1, pp. 165–228 Boeheim 1893: Wendelin Boeheim, “Augsburger Waffenschmiede, ihre Werke und ihre Beziehungen zum kaiserlichen und zu anderen Höfen. Nachträge,” in Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses 14, 1893, pp. 329–345 Boeheim 1895: Wendelin Boeheim, “Nürnberger Waffenschmiede und ihre Werke in den kaiserlichen und in anderen Sammlungen,” in Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses 16, 1895, pp. 364–399 Borg 1974: Alan Borg, “The Ram’s Horn Helmet,” in Journal of the Arms and Armour Society, vol. 8, no. 2, December 1974, pp. 127–137 Briquet 1907: Charles Moïse Briquet, Les Filigranes. Dictionnaire historique des marques de papier dès leur apparition vers 1282 jusqu’en 1600, Geneva, 1907, 4 vols. Bůžek 2009: Václav Bůžek, Ferdinand von Tirol zwischen Prag und Innsbruck. Der Adel aus den böhmischen Ländern auf dem Weg zu den Höfen der ersten Habsburger, Vienna – Cologne – Weimar, 2009 Dondi 1982: entries in Claudio Bertolotto – Marisa Cartasegna – Michela Di Macco – Giorgio Dondi – Franco Mazzini – Raffaele Natta Soleri – Giovanni Romano – Carlenrica Spantigati, L’Armeria reale di Torino, Busto Arsizio, 1982 Dufty 1968: Arthur Richard Dufty, European Armour in the Tower of London, London, 1968 exh. cat. New York 1998: exhibition catalogue Stuart W. Pyhrr – José A. Godoy (eds.), Heroic armor of the Italian Renaissance: Filippo Negroli and his contemporaries, New York (Metropolitan Museum of Art), 1998 exh. cat. Prague 1892: exhibition catalogue Auswahl von kunstgewerblichen Gegenständen aus der retrospectiven Ausstellung der allgemeinen Landes- und Jubiläums-Ausstellung in Prag 1891, Prague (Kunstgewerbliches Museum der Handels- und Gewerbekammer in Prag), 1892 exh. cat. Washington 2009: exhibition catalogue Álvaro Soler del Campo (ed.), The Art of Power. Royal Armor and Portraits from Imperial Spain, Washington, DC (National Gallery of Art), 2009 Falk 1968: Tilman Falk, Hans Burgkmair. Studien zu Leben und Werk des Augsburger Malers, Munich, 1968 Firnhabe 1860: Friedrich Firnhabe, Der Hofstaat Koenig Ferdinand’s I. im Jahre 1554, Vienna, 1860 289

Freytag von Loringhoven 1975: Wilhelm Karl Prinz zu Isenburg, Stammtafeln zur Geschichte der europäischen Staaten, ed. by Frank Baron Freytag von Loringhoven, Marburg, 1975, 2 vols. Gamber 1957: Ortwin Gamber, “Der Turnierharnisch zur Zeit König Maximilians I. und das Thunsche Skizzenbuch,” in Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien 53, 1957, pp. 33–70 Gamber – Beaufort-Spontin 1990: Ortwin Gamber – Christian Beaufort-Spontin, with the collaboration of Matthias Pfaffenbichler, Katalog der Leibrüstkammer. II. Teil: Der Zeitraum von 1530 – 1560, Busto Arsizio, 1990 Gille ‒ Rockstuhl 1835‒1853: F. Gille – A. Rockstuhl, Musée de Tzarskoe-Selo ou Collection d’Armes de sa Majesté L’Empereur de Toutes les Russies, St. Petersburg – Carlsruhe, 1835–1853, 2 vols. Godoy 1991: José A. Godoy, “Renaissance arms and armor from the Patrimonio Nacional,” in exhibition catalogue Antonio Domínguez Ortiz – Concha Herrero Carretero – José A. Godoy, Resplendence of the Spanish Monarchy. Renaissance Armor and Tapestries from the Patrimonio Nacional, New York, 1991, pp. 95–164 Godoy 1992: José A. Godoy, “La Real Armería,” in exhibition catalogue Juan Hernández Ferrero – Concepción Herrero – José A. Godoy, Tapices y Armaduras del Renacimento. Joyas de las Colecciones reales, Madrid – Barcelona, 1992, pp. 99–193 Grancsay 1940: Stephen V. Grancsay, “Elements of armor made for Christian I of Saxony,” in The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 35, 1940, pp. 203–204; reprinted in Arms and Armor, essays by Stephen V. Grancsay from The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 1920–1964, New York, 1986, pp. 256–258 Grancsay 1966: Stephen V. Grancsay, “The illustrated inventory of the arms and armor of Charles V,” in Homenaje a Rodríguez-Moñino. Estudios de erudición que le ofrecen sus amigos o discípulos hispanistas norteamericanos, Madrid, 1966, pp. 1–8 Häberlein 1998: Mark Häberlein, Brüder, Freunde und Betrüger. Soziale Beziehungen, Normen und Konflikte in der Augsburger Kaufmannschaft um die Mitte des 16. Jahrhunderts, Berlin, 1998 Häberlein 2012: Mark Häberlein, The Fuggers of Augsburg: Pursuing Wealth and Honor in Renaissance Germany, Charlottesville – London, 2012 Haenel 1923: Erich Haenel, Kostbare Waffen aus der Dresdner Rüstkammer, Leipzig, 1923 Hefner 1854: Otto Titan von Hefner, J. Siebmacher’s grosses und allgemeines Wappenbuch. Die Wappen des blühenden und abgestorbenen Adels der Königreiche Bayern und Hannover, des Herzogthums Braunschweig, des Königreichs Sachsen und der sächsischen Herzogthümer, des Königreichs Württemberg, des Grossherzogthums Baden, und des Herzogthums Nassau, Nuremberg, 1854 Kadich – Blažek 1899: Heinrich von Kadich – Conrad Blažek, J. Siebmachers’s großes Wappenbuch. Der Mährische Adel, Nuremberg, 1899 Kienbusch et al. 1963: Carl Otto von Kienbusch – John f. Hayward – Anita Reinhard – Richard H. Randall – Hans Schedelmann, The Kretzschmar von Kienbusch Collection, Princeton, NJ, 1963 Kirnbauer von Erzstätt 1909: Johann Evang. Kirnbauer von Erzstätt, J. Siebmacher’s grosses und allgemeines Wappenbuch. Niederoesterreichischer Adel, Abt. 1. A‒R, Nuremberg, 1909 LaRocca 2004: Donald J. LaRocca, “‘Monsters, Heroes, and Fools’: A Survey of Embossed Armor in Germany and Austria, ca. 1475 – ca. 1575,” in A Farewell to Arms. Studies on the History of Arms and Armour: Liber Amicorum in honour of Jan Piet Puype, former senior curator of the Army Museum Delft, Delft, 2004, pp. 34–55 Leitner 1888: Quirin Ritter von Leitner, “Artistisches Quellenmaterial aus der gräfl. 290

Thun-Hohenstein’schen Fideikommiss-Bibliothek in Tetschen,” in Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen der Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses 7, 1888, part 2, pp. I–VI, nos. 4578–4583 Liebenau 1890: Theodor von Liebenau, “Zur Münzgeschichte der Spinola,” in Bulletin de la Société suisse de numismatique 9, 1890, pp. 60–77 Mann 1962: James Gow Mann, European Arms and Armour (Wallace Collection Catalogues), London, 1962, 2 vols. Miltner ‒ Neumann 1852: Heinrich Ottokar Miltner ‒ Josef Neumann, Beschreibung der bisher bekannten böhmischen Privatmünzen und Medaillen. Personen, Prague, 1852 Mraz 1983: Gottfried Mraz, “Risse der Rüstungen und Handfeuerwaffen für die Türkenverehrung 1590,” in Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien 79, 1983, pp. 107–125 Norman 1986: Arthur Vesey B. Norman, Wallace Collection Catalogues. European Arms and Armour. Supplement, London, 1986 Piccard 1983: Gerhard Piccard, Wasserzeichen Frucht (Veröffentlichungen der Staatlichen Archivverwaltung Baden-Württemberg: Sonderreihe Die Wasserzeichenkartei Piccard im Hauptstaatsarchiv Stuttgart; Findbuch 14), Stuttgart, 1983 Piferrer 1857‒1863: Francisco Piferrer, Nobiliario de los Reinos y Señoríos de España, Madrid, 1857–1863, 6 vols. Pribram ‒ Turba ‒ Stich 1889‒1901: Alfred Francis Pribram ‒ Gustav Turba ‒ Ignaz Stich, Venetianische Depeschen vom Kaiserhofe, Vienna, 1889–1901, 3 vols. Quintana de Lacaci 1987: Guillermo Quintana de Lacaci, Armeria del Palacio Real de Madrid, Munich, 1987 Reitzenstein 1951: Alexander Freiherr von Reitzenstein, “Die Augsburger Plattnersippe der Helmschmied,” in Münchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst, 3rd series, vol. 2, 1951, pp. 179–194 Reitzenstein 1955: Alexander Freiherr von Reitzenstein, “Die Plattner von Augsburg,” in Hermann Rinn (ed.), Augusta 955–1955. Forschungen und Studien zur Kultur- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte Augsburgs, Munich, 1955, pp. 265–272 Reitzenstein 1960: Alexander Freiherr von Reitzenstein, “Das Thun’sche Plattnerbuch a/2,” in Waffen- und Kostümkunde, 3rd series, vol. 2.2, 1960, pp. 88–95 Reitzenstein 1962: Alexander Freiherr von Reitzenstein, “Augsburger Plattner um die Mitte des 16. Jahrhunderts,” in Münchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst, 3rd series, vol. 13, 1962, pp. 166–178 Ricard – de la Véronne 1956: Robert Ricard – Chantal de la Véronne, Les Sources inédites de l’Histoire du Maroc, Paris, 1956 Salazar y Castro 1694–1697: Luis de Salazar y Castro, Historia genealógica de la Casa de Lara, justificada con Instrumentos, y Escritores de inviolabile Fe, Madrid, 1694–1697, 4 vols. Schmidt 1997: Frieder Schmidt, “Papierherstellung in Augsburg bis zur Frühindustrialisierung,” in Augsburger Buchdruck und Verlagswesen: von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart, ed. by Helmut Gier and Johannes Janot, Wiesbaden, 1997, pp. 73–96 Schöbel 1973: Johannes Schöbel, Prunkwaffen: Waffen und Rüstungen aus dem Historischen Museum Dresden, Vienna – Düsseldorf, 1973 Schwennicke 1978‒1995: Europäische Stammtafeln: Stammtafeln zur Geschichte der europäischen Staaten, Neue Folge, ed. by Detlev Schwennicke, Marburg, 1978–1995 Siebmacher 1605: Johann Siebmachers Wappenbuch von 1605, ed. by Horst Appuhn, Munich, 1999 Stetten 1762: Paul von Stetten the Younger, Geschichte der adelichen Geschlechter in der freyen Reichs-Stadt Augsburg sowohl in Ansehung ihres besondern Standes als auch in Ansehung einer jeden einzeln Familie beschrieben und aus bewährten Geschicht-Schreiber und Urkunden gezogen, Augsburg, 1762 291

Stöcklein 1924: Hans Stöcklein, Turnierzug Hans Burgkmair des Älteren, Munich, 1924 Temesváry 1992: Ferenc Temesváry, Waffenschätze und Prunkwaffen im Ungarischen Nationalmuseum, Budapest, 1992 Terjanian 2011/2012: Pierre Terjanian, “The art of the armorer in late medieval and Renaissance Augsburg: The rediscovery of the Thun sketchbooks,” in Jahrbuch des Kunsthistorischen Museums Wien 13/14, 2011/2012, pp. 299–395 Terjanian 2014: Pierre Terjanian, “Zwei Entwürfe zu Harnischen im Auftrag von Kurfürst Christian I. von Sachsen,” in Dresdener Kunstblätter 1, 2014, pp. 38–47 Thomas 1977: Bruno Thomas, Gesammelte Schriften, Graz, 1977, 2 vols. Thomas 1980: Bruno Thomas, “Augsburger Harnische und Stangenwaffen,” in exhibition catalogue Welt im Umbruch. Augsburg zwischen Renaissance und Barock, Augsburg, 1980, 3 vols., vol. 2, pp. 79–92 and 502–537 Valencia de Don Juan 1898: Juan Bautista Crooke y Navarrot, conde viudo de Valencia de Don Juan, Catálogo histórico-descriptivo de la Real armería de Madrid, Madrid, 1898 Warnecke 1886: Friedrich Warnecke, “Augsburger Hochzeitsbuch, enthaltend die in den Jahren 1484 bis 1594 stattgefundenen Heiraten, nach zwei Handschriften herausgegeben. Vierteljahrsschrift für Wappen-, Siegel- und Familienkunde 14, 1886, pp. 1–91 Winder 2013: Lukas Winder, Die Kreditgeber Ferdinands I., Maximilians II. und Rudolfs II. (1521–1612), Master’s thesis, Universität Wien, 2013, pp. 55–59 http://othes.univie.ac.at/26663/1/2013-02-26_0348475.pdf (accessed May 22, 2015) Witting 1918: Johann Baptist Witting, J. Siebmacher’s großes Wappenbuch. Die Wappen des Adels in Niederösterreich, Teil 2: S–Z, Neustadt an der Aisch, 1918 Zimmermann 1970: Eduard Zimmermann, Augsburger Zeichen und Wappen, Augsburg, 1970

292

Register

A Aachen, Hans von 87 Adler, Katharina 204 Adler, Ursula 198 Aertsen, Pieter 121, 123, 125 Africa, röm. Provinz 38 Agesandrus 30 Albert IV of Bavaria siehe Albrecht IV., Herzog von Bayern Albrecht IV. (Albert IV of Bavaria), Herzog von Bayern 59 Albrecht V., Herzog von Bayern 30, 38, 212 Aldegrever, Heinrich 30 Aldrovandi, Ulisse 17, 23 Alençon, François duc d’ 64, 83 f., 86, 88 Alençon, Madame d’ 62 Alexander der Große 93 Alfonso d’Aragona siehe Alfonso  V., König von Aragón und Neapel Alfonso V. (Alfonso d’Aragona), König von Aragón und Neapel 51 Alighieri, Dante siehe Dante Alighieri Allegri, Antonio siehe Correggio Alpen (Alpi) 99 f., 103 Alpi siehe Alpen Altissimo, Cristofano dell’ 68 Álvarez de Toledo y Osorio, García 226 Álvarez de Toledo y Pimentel, Fernando (Hernando), Herzog von Alba 162, 164, 186, 188, 228 Álvarez de Toledo y Pimentel, Hernando siehe Álvarez de Toledo y Pimentel, Fernando Álvarez de Toledo y Zúñiga, García 186 Álvarez de Toledo, Familie 180, 228 Amburgo siehe Hamburg Amerika (New World) 82 Amiens, Musée des Beaux-Arts, Andrea della Robbia, Putto 108 Amman, Jost 144 Anderson, Jaynie 56 Anglicus, Bartholomaeus 88 Anm. Anna, Erzherzogin 72 Anm. Anna, Königin von Spanien 65 Anm. Anna von Dänemark (Anne of Denmark), Königin von England, Schottland und Irland 65, 66 Anm., 67, 76, 85, 87, 274 Anne of Denmark siehe Anna von Dänemark, Königin von England, Schottland und Irland Anselmi, Familie 54 Anselmi, Franceschina, geb. Baldissera de’ Colti 55 Anselmo, Andrea 55 Anselmo, Bartolomeo d. Ä. 55 Anselmo, Bartolomeo d. J. 55 Anselmo (Inselmo), Bortholamio (Bortolamio) 54, 57 Anselmo, Giacomo (Jacomo) 54–57 Anselmo, Giovanni 55 Anselmo, Jacomo siehe Anselmo, Giacomo Anselmo, Pagano 55 293

Antico 33 Antwerp siehe Antwerpen Antwerpen (Antwerp) 62, 71 Anm., 79, 83, 84 Anm., 119–121, 120 Anm., 123, 125, 130, 188 – Museum Mayer van der Bergh, Anonym, Bauernhochzeit im Freien 126 – Rubenshuis, Kopie nach Marten van Cleve (?), Martinsfest 123 Anm. Apianus, Petrus 100 Aquileia 23, 28 Aranjuez 102 Arcimboldo, Giuseppe 59, 59 Anm., 87 Arco, Giulia von 194 Arco, Pyrrhus Graf von 194 Aretino, Pietro 33 f., 43 Arezzo 33, 113 – Palazzo Pretorio, Wappen 113 Aristoteles (Aristotle) 88, 88 Anm. Aristotle siehe Aristoteles Arndt, Paul 12 Anm. Artemisia II. 29 f. Arundell, Thomas 72 Asburgo siehe Habsburg Aspetti, Tiziano 22 Anm. Atene siehe Athen Atenodorus of Rhodes siehe Athanadoros von Rhodos Athanadoros von Rhodos (Atenodorus of Rhodes) 30 Athen (Atene) 133 Atkinson, Stephen 87, 87 Anm. Augsburg (Augusta) 66, 66 Anm., 71 f., 88, 100, 143, 145, 147, 149, 153–155, 157–160, 164, 174, 176 f., 179, 188, 190, 192, 200, 202, 208, 214, 216, 220, 222, 226, 232, 276, 280, 282 – Städtisches Maximiliansmuseum 147 Augsburg, Christoph 34 August, Kurfürst von Sachsen 274 Augusta siehe Augsburg Augustus (Octavian), röm. Kaiser 12, 14, 16 f., 25, 38 Anm., 68 Austria siehe Österreich Averlino, Antonio siehe Filarete B Bacchi, Andrea 40 Anm. Bad Windsheim 206, 216 Baden-Durlach, Elisabeth von 194 Badoer, Alvise 55 Badoer, Contessa 55 Badoer, Marc’Antonio 55 Badoer, Marietta 55 f. Baglioni, Malatesta 134, 134 Anm. Balbín, Bohuslav 144 Baldass, Ludwig 47, 124 Baldissera de’ Colti, Franceschina siehe Anselmi, Franceschina

Baldissera de’ Colti, Lorenzo 55 Baldissera de’ Colti, Prosdocimo 55 Balduin, Francesco 54 Baltimore, Walters Art Museum, Antico, Venus 33, 33 Anm.; Harnischteile 234, 250 Bandini, Angelo Maria 110 Barbarella, Familie 53 Barbarella, Gasparino 53 Barbari, Jacopo de’ 56, 59, 59 Anm. Barbaro, Marco 54 Barbaro di Giovanni, Pietro Alvise 55 Barberini, Familie 13, 13 Anm., 133, 136, 139 Barberini, Francesco, Kardinalnepot 133–139, 134 Anm., 137 Anm. Barberini, Haus 136 Barberini, Taddeo 137–139 Barbieri, Giovanni Francesco siehe Guercino Barbo, Marco, Bischof von Palestrina 12 Barclay (Barkley), John 72–74, 74 Anm. Barisciani, Margherita 15 Anm., 18 Anm. Barkley, John siehe Barclay, John Bartolotti, Gian Giacomo 45 Anm. Basel (Basilea) 69, 136 Basilea siehe Basel Bassetti, Massimiliano 49, 50, 52, 57 Battaglia Terme (Padova) 115 – Schloss Catajo siehe Catajo, Schloss Bavaria siehe Bayern Bayern (Bavaria) 148, 192 Beatis, Antonio de 51 Beck von Leopoldsdorf, Hieronymus 61 Anm., 69, 79 Belford, Mark 66 Belgien (Belgio) 99 Belgio siehe Belgien Bellini, Giovanni 33 Benci, Ginevra de 48 Benešov nad Ploučnicí siehe Bensen Bening, Simon 63, 64 Anm., 78, 78 Anm. Bensen (Benešov nad Ploučnicí), Schloss 148 Anm. Berenson, Bernard 45 Bergamasco, Bartolomeo 30 Anm. Bergamo, Privatsammlung, Giovanni Cariani, Gentiluomini e cortigiani 38 Anm. Bergheim 94 Berlin – Bode-Museum, Simone Bianco, Weibliche Büste 36, 38, 43 – Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Gemäldegalerie, Pieter Bruegel d. Ä., Niederländische Sprichwörter 123 – Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett, Marten van Cleve, Allegorie des Geschmacksinns 129 Anm.; Marten van Cleve, Spinn- und Webstube 120 Bethlehem 176 Beuckelaer, Joachim 122, 125 Bianco, Ser Marin 34 Bianco, Simone 28, 32–38, 32–35 Anm., 37 f. Anm., 40–43, 40–43 Anm. Binche 99, 102 f. – Schloss 101–103 Biondo, Damiano 34 Anm. Biondo, Domenico 34, 34 Anm. Blotius, Hugo 72 Boccaccio, Giovanni 29, 29 Anm.

294

Böckler, Georg Andreas 144 Boco, Salvador 34 Boeheim, Wendelin 154 Boemia siehe Böhmen Bohemia siehe Böhmen Böhmen (Boemia, Bohemia) 71, 74, 100, 141, 143 f., 146, 148, 158 f., 164, 204 Boleyn, Anne, Königin von England 79 Bologna 17, 105, 137 – Pinacoteca Nazionale, Guercino, Pflege des hl. Sebastian 137 Bon, Pietro 55 Bordone, Paris 43 Borghese, Sammlung 23 Anm. Borgia, Stefano, Kardinal 106 Anm. Bortolo, Sier 54 Bosák, Adolf 146 Bosch, Hieronymus 124, 124 Anm. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, Antico, Cleopatra 33, 33 Anm. Botticelli, Sandro 102 Brandenburg, Haus 69 Brander, Gustavus 68 Brandon, Robert 64 Bratislava siehe Pressburg Braunschweig (Brunswick) 158 Anm. Bregno, Giambattista 33 Bregno, Lorenzo 33 Brescia 34 Britain siehe Großbritannien Brno siehe Brünn Bronckhorst, Arnold 87 Browne, Lancelot 88 Bruegel, Pieter d. Ä. 64, 64 Anm., 119, 122 f., 123 Anm., 125, 129, 131 Brueghel, Pieter d. J. 128 f. Anm. Brunelli, Vettor 34 Anm. Brünn (Brno), Moravská zemská knihovna (Moravian Library) 148 Anm. Brunswick siehe Braunschweig Brunswick-Lüneburg, Haus 69 Brüssel (Brussels, Bruxelles) 70, 99, 101–103, 208 – Musées royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, Pieter Bruegel d. Ä., Prudentia 122 Anm.; Frans Floris, Hl. Familie 123 Anm. Brussels siehe Brüssel Bruxelles siehe Brüssel Buccleuch, Sammlung des Duke of 78; Hans Holbein und Nicholas Hilliard (u. a.), 8 Miniaturen von Tudor-Herrschern und Gemahlinnen 69 Buchanan, George 84 Buchell, Arnold van 17, 17 Anm. Budapest 12, 14 – Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, Harnisch 226 – Szépművészeti Múzeum (Museum of Fine Arts), nach Antonis Mor, Porträt Maria I. 79 Buglioni, Benedetto 110, 112, 116 f. Buonarroti, Michelangelo siehe Michelangelo Buonarroti Burgkmair, Hans d. Ä. 177, 282 C Caffarelli, Giovan Pietro 14 Anm. Callot, Jacques 145 Calvi, Jacopo Alessandro 139

Cambridge 72 Caorlino, Marco 35 Cariani (Zaninus), Giovanni (Ioannis) 38 Anm., 53, 53 Anm. Carinthia siehe Kärnten Carinzia siehe Kärnten Carlo V siehe Karl V., Kaiser Carniola siehe Krain Caro, Annibale 64 Carolus V. siehe Karl V., Kaiser Caroto, Giovan Francesco 29 Carpi, Sammlung 16 Carracci, Annibale 145 Carretto, Galeotto del 30 Carthage siehe Karthago Cassiano dal Pozzo 101 Castelfranco 48 Castelfranco, Giorgio da siehe Giorgione Castile siehe Kastilien Catajo, Schloss 105–107, 108 Anm., 114 Anm., 115, 117; Benedetto Buglioni (zugeschr.), Pietà mit Heiligen 115, 117 Catena, Vincenzo 47, 47 Anm., 57 Cecchetto, Giacinto 53 Ceci, Battista 139 Anm. Cecil, William, Baron Ros 74, 87 Cellini, Benvenuto 88 Cenami, Pandolfo 33 Cenci, Prudenzia 133 Cento 137–139, 137 Anm. Cesarini, Giovan Giorgio 22, 22 Anm. Cesi, Sammlung 17 Chantilly, Musée Condé, Nicolas Hilliard, Porträt François duc d’Anjou & d’Alençon 83 Charles I siehe Karl I., König von England Charles II of Austria siehe Karl II. von Innerösterreich Charles IV siehe Karl IV., Kaiser Charles V siehe Karl V., Kaiser Charles IX siehe Karl IX., König von Frankreich Charles the Great siehe Karl der Große, Kaiser Chester-le-Street 69 Chicago, Art Institute of Chicago, Harnischteile 234, 250 Chichester, Arthur, Baron 75 Christian I., Kurfürst von Sachsen 68, 177 f., 274, 280 Christian IV., König von Dänemark 67 Cimabue 108 Anm. Città di Castello – Pinacoteca Comunale, Andrea della Robbia, Putti 108 – San Giovanni 108 Civitali, Matteo 113 Cleopatra siehe Kleopatra, Königin von Ägypten Cleef, Martin von siehe Cleve, Marten van Cleve, Familie van 129 Anm. Cleve, Gillis van 120, 129 Anm. Cleve, Hendrick van 130 Cleve, Joris van 120, 129 Anm. Cleve (Cleef), Marten van (Martin von) 119–131 Cleve, Marten van (Sohn) 120, 129 Anm. Cleve, Nicolaas van 120, 129 Anm. Cleves, Anne of siehe KIeve, Anna von, Königin von England Clouet, François 65, 69, 80, 86 Clouet, Jean 62 Clovio, Giulio 61, 63 f., 64 Anm., 78, 86, 86 Anm.

295

Coletti, Roberto 105 Colli Euganei 105 Colloredo, Hieronymus Graf von, Fürsterzbischof von Salzburg 96 Cologne siehe Köln Colonna, Familie 16 Columbus, Christopher 83 Commodus, röm. Kaiser 14, 17 f., 17 Anm. Como 68 Compiègne, Château de Compiègne, Simone Bianco, Männliche Büste 34, 38 Anm., 43 Coninxloo, Gillis van 130 Contarini, Nicolò 48 Contarini, Taddeo 48, 52, 57 Conti, Agapito 16 Anm. Conti, Bartolomeo 18 Anm. Conti, Bernardino 15, 15 Anm., 18, 18 Anm., 22 Conti, Domenico 13 Anm. Conti, Familie 15 f. 15 f. Anm., 22 f. Conti, Giovanni 15 Anm. Conti, Giuliano 15, 15 Anm. Conti, Giuliano di Onofrio 18 Anm. Conti, Giulio 16 Anm. Conti, Graziosa 15 Conti, Ippolita 15, 15 Anm. Conti, Maria 15 Anm. Conti, Mario 13–19, 13–15 Anm., 22–25 Conti, Onofrio 15 f., 15 Anm. Conti, Pietro 15 Conti, Pietro Paolo 15, 15 Anm. Conti, Porzia 15 Anm. Conti, Sammlung 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 25 Conti, Tarquinia 15 Anm. Copenhagen siehe Kopenhagen Cordelies, Ferdinando 106 Cormali, Giovanni Battista 34 Cornaro, Giacomo di Giorgio 48 Correggio, Antonio Allegri gen. 21, 138 Correr, Marcantonio 73 f. Anm. Cortesi Bosco, Francesca 53, 53 Anm. Costaguida, Marchese di 134, 134 Anm. Cotton, Robert 67 Anm. Cranach, Lucas d. Ä. 62, 76 Crato, Johannes 70 Cyprus siehe Zypern Czechoslovakia siehe Tschechoslowakei D Dante Alighieri 51 Darmstadt, Hessisches Landesmuseum, Marten van Cleve, Unkrautjäten 129 Anm.; Helm 175, 175 Anm. David, Jacques-Louis 21 Decembrio, Angelo 61 f., 61 Anm. Děčín (Tetschen) – Rodinný archiv Thun-Hohensteinů (Thun Archive) 145, 155 – Schloss, Thun-Hohenstein’schen Bibliothek (Thun library) 141– 149, 153–155 Dee, John 71, 87 Del Grande, Alessandro siehe Grandi, Alessandro Demus, Klaus 124 Detroit, Detroit Institute of Arts, Lorenz Helmschmid, Beinharnisch 157, 177

Deutschland (German Lands, Germania, Germany) 71, 73, 75, 87, 135, 154, 158 f., 177, 208 Digby, John 74 Dillingen 159 Anm. Ditenheimer, Anna 198 Dollmayr, Hermann 46 Don Carlos, Fürst von Asturien 236 Donà, Giacomo 48 Donà, Laura 48 Donatello 51 Doort, Abraham van der 69, 75, 87 Doria, Stefano 167 Anm. Dorset, 2nd Marquess of 78 Douai, Musée de la Chatreuse, Frans Floris, Hl. Familie 123 Anm. Drake, Francis 61 Anm., 71, 82 f., 86 Drebbel, Cornelis 74 Dresden – Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden, Grünes Gewölbe, Goldene Tasse des Augustin Kesenbrot 68 Anm. – Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden, Rüstkammer, Harnisch 157 – Staatliche Kunstsammlung Dresden, Skulpturensammlung, Giammaria Mosca, Relief des Mucius Scaevola 31 Anm. Drey, A. S., Händler 40 Anm. Duarte, Diego 79 Anm. Dubrœucq, Jacques 101–103 Duccio, Agostino di 102 Duchesne, Joseph 88, 88 Anm. Dudley, Robert, Earl of Leicester 66, 71, 81 f., 86 Dujardin, François 65 Dunkerque, Musée des Beaux-Arts, Kopie nach Marten van Cleve (?), Martinsfest 122 Anm. Dürer, Albrecht 59 Anm., 62, 75, 77, 87, 123, 124 Anm., 145 Durham, Bischof von 69 Durham, Kathedrale, Gerlach Flicke (zugeschr.), Porträt Maria I. 79 Dyer, Edward 71, 87 E Eberhard III., Herzog von Württemberg 135 Eberstein, Elisabeth Gräfin von 180, 184 Eberstein, Sybilla Gräfin von 192 Écluse, Charles de l’ 70, 72 Effingham, Howard of, Earl of Nottingham 67 Eggenberger, Radegundis 190 Elisabeth I. (Elizabeth  I), Königin von England 63  f., 66, 70–73, 78–89, 81 Anm. Elisabeth von Österreich (Elizabeth of Austria), Königin von Frankreich 65 Elixhausen 94, 97 Elizabeth I siehe Elisabeth I., Königin von England Elizabeth of Austria siehe Elisabeth von Österreich, Königin von Frankreich Emilia 137 Emo, Giovanni di Alvise 34 Engellanndt siehe England Engelshofen, V. 146, 146 Anm. England (Engellanndt) 59, 62, 67, 69 f., 73 Anm., 76, 78, 80, 82 f., 86 f., 88 Anm., 155, 178, 208, 282 Ernesto di Baviera siehe Ernst von Bayern Ernst von Bayern (Ernesto di Baviera), design. Erzbischof von Salzburg 100 f.

296

Ernst, Erzherzog 72, 192 Ertz, Klaus 126 Anm., 128 f. Anm., 129 Este, Isabella d’ 30, 101 Este, Leonello d’ 61 Este, Luigi d’, Kardinal 22, 24, 24 Anm. Esztergom 72 Eulau (Jílové), Schloss 142 f., 147–149 Europa (Europe) 87 Europe siehe Europa Evans, R.J.W. 72 Exeter 64 F Famagosta 35 Farnese, Alessandro, Kardinal 22, 22 Anm. Farnese, Garten 17 Anm. Farnese, Odoardo I., Herzog von Parma 137 Farnese, Sammlung 17 Federighi, Benozzo, Bischof von Fiesole 112 Feilding, Basil 45 Feragalli, Antonio 134, 136 f. Ferdinand I. (Ferdinando d’Asburgo), Kaiser 59 Anm., 100 f., 180, 184, 188, 212 Ferdinand II. (Ferdinando II), Kaiser 74, 135 Ferdinand II. von Tirol, Erzherzog 59, 61, 61 Anm., 68–70, 72, 72 Anm., 81, 85–87, 89, 164, 182, 194, 204 Ferdinand III. (Ferdinando III), Kaiser 133 f., 137–139 Ferdinando d’Asburgo siehe Ferdinand I., Kaiser Ferdinando II siehe Ferdinand II., Kaiser Ferdinando III siehe Ferdiand III., Kaiser Ferino-Pagden, Sylvia 47, 49 Ferrara 30, 61 Ferriguto, Arnaldo 47, 51 Fiesole – Museo Bandini 110; Giovanni della Robbia, Putti 108 – Oratorio di Sant’Ansano 110 Filarete, eig. Antonio Averlino 68 Anm. Filippo III siehe Philipp III., König von Spanien Finco, Giacomo 105 Finet, John 67 Firenze siehe Florenz Fischer von Erlach, Johann Bernhard 144 Flandern (Flanders) 87 Flanders siehe Flandern Flicke, Gerlach 79 Florence siehe Florenz Florenz (Firenze, Florence) 18 f., 18 Anm., 105–107, 112–114, 117 – Accademia delle Arti del Disegno, Benedetto Buglioni, Madonna mit Kind 112 – Galleria degli Uffizi 68 Anm., 107, 108 Anm.; Sandro Botticelli, Primavera 102; nach François Clouet, Doppelporträt Heinrich II. und Caterina de’ Medici 69; Venus Medici 18 Anm. – Kloster San Marco 111 – Museo Nazionale del Bargello, Giovanni della Robbia, Geburt Christi 114; Antonio Rossellino, Madonna mit Kind 112 – Palazzo degli Albizzi 40 Anm. – Palazzo Pitti 112 – San Francesco di Paola 112 – San Girolamo delle Poverine 114 – San Pancrazio 112 – Sant’Onofrio 112

– Santa Maria Novella, Sakristei, Giovanni della Robbia, Wasserbecken 110 – Santa Maria Nuova, Chiostro delle medicherie, Benedetto Bu­ glioni, Pietà 116 – Santa Trinita, Cappella Scali 112; Luca della Robbia, Grabmal Benozzo Federighi 112 – Uffizi siehe Galleria degli Uffizi – Villa del Poggio Imperiale 107 Floris, Frans 120 f., 123, 129–131 Floris, Frans, Umkreis 129 Fontainebleau, Schloss 100 Forlì 133 Foscarini, Antonio 85 Anm. Fra’ Ambrogio siehe Robbia, Francesco della Fra’ Mattia siehe Robbia, Marco della France siehe Frankreich France, Josef Angelo de 38 Anm. Francesco I siehe Franz I., König von Frankreich Francesco V., Herzog von Modena 114 Anm. Francia siehe Frankreich Francis I siehe Franz I., König von Frankreich Francis II siehe Franz II., König von Frankreich Francoforte siehe Frankfurt am Main Frangioni, Antonio 107, 110, 114 Frankfurt am Main (Francoforte) 136 – Städel Museum, Marten van Cleve (?), Besuch bei der Amme 123 Frankreich (France, Francia) 64, 69, 80, 82 f., 101, 133 Franz I. (Francesco I, Francis I), König von Frankreich 62, 100 Franz II. (Francis II), König von Frankreich 80 Franz Ferdinand von Habsburg-Este, Erzherzog 114 Anm., 147 Frauenpreiss, Matthias d. Ä. 164 f., 164 Anm., 176, 204, 252 Frauenpreiss, Matthias d. J. 154 Anm., 160, 164–166, 165 Anm., 171–173, 179, 214, 252 Frederick II of Denmark siehe Friedrich II., König von Dänemark und Norwegen Frederick IV, Elector Palatine siehe Friedrich IV. von der Pfalz Friedrich II. (Frederick II of Denmark), König von Dänemark und Norwegen 71, 85 Friedrich IV. von der Pfalz (Frederick IV) 71, 74 Fröschl, Abraham 87 Fröschl, Daniel 66, 74 f., 87 f. Frosien-Leinz, Heike 36 Fugger, Anton 188, 190, 192 Fugger, Christoph 34, 43 Fugger, Familie 71, 84, 188, 194, 196, 206, 214 Fugger, Georg 198 Fugger, Katharina 192 Fugger, Markus 164, 192 Fugger, Sidonia Isabella 198 Furttenbach, Joseph 144 G Galeazzi, Gaetano Cristofano 105 f., 112, 114, 114 Anm. Galgano, Flaminio 24, 24 Anm. Galle, Philips 120 Gamber, Ortwin 168 Anm. Gasparini, Iohannis 53 Gasser, Achilles 66 Anm. Geizkofler, Zacharias 280 Geneva siehe Genf Genf (Geneva) 88

297

Gent (Ghent) 62 Gentilini, Giancarlo 111 f. German Lands siehe Deutschland Germania siehe Deutschland Germany siehe Deutschland Ghent siehe Gent Gherardini, Giuseppe 114, 114 Anm. Gherardini, Sammlung 108, 110 f. Gherardini, Tommaso 107, 107 Anm. Gheyn II, Jacques de 75 Giampietrino, eig. Giovanni Pietro Rizzoli 30 Gienger von Grünbichel auf Oberhöflein, Friedrich 192 Gienger, Familie 192 Giorgione, Giorgio da Castelfranco gen. 45, 47 f., 52 f., 56 f. Giotto 106 Giovanni, Bertoldo di 113, 113 Anm. Giovio, Paolo 61 Anm., 68 f., 85 Giusti, Ippolito 139 Anm. Giustini, Familie 15 Anm., 22 Giustini, Girolamo 22 Gleinitz, Barbara von 182 Goltzius, Hendrik 65, 74 f., 145 Goltzius, Julius 144 Gonzaga, Anna 72 Anm. Gonzaga, Federico II., Herzog von Mantua 35 Gordianus, M. Antonius, gen. Africanus, röm. Prokonsul von Africa 38 Gori, Antonio Francesco 18 Gotha, Herzogliches Museum 69 Gottardi, Silvestro 22, 22 Anm. Granada 176 Grandi, Alessandro, alias Del Grande 24, 24 Anm. Granvelle, Antoine de, Kardinal 79 Grasswein, Afra von 182 Great Britain siehe Großbritannien Greece siehe Griechenland Greenwich 155 f. Gregor XIII. (Gregory XIII), Papst 70 Gregory XIII siehe Gregor XIII., Papst Greve, Maria de 119 Griechenland (Greece) 29 Grimani, Angela 34 Anm. Grimani, Antonio, Doge 9, 34 f. Anm., 35 Grimani, Domenico, Kardinal 13, 18, 21 Anm., 28, 35, 35 Anm. Grimani, Familie 9–14, 35 f. Grimani, Giovanni, Patriarch von Aquileia 10 f., 13, 22–25, 22 Anm., 27 f., 35 f., 43 Grimani, Marco 35 Grimani, Marino, Kardinal, Patriarch von Aquileia 13, 28, 35 Grimani, Michele 9 Anm. Grimani, Sammlung 11 Anm., 12, 23, 35 Grimani, Villa 13 Anm. Gritto, Bartolomeo 16 Anm., 22 Anm. Großbritannien (Britain, Great Britain) 72 f., 75 Guercino, Giovanni Francesco Barbieri gen. 136–139, 137 Anm. Guevara, Felipe de 124 Anm. Guggenheim, Michelangelo 9 f. Guidoni, Enrico 48, 56 Gunderrot, Henry de 74 Anm. Gurk 100

H Habsburg (Asburgo, Habsburger, Hapsburg), Familie 68, 74, 85, 87, 100, 134, 137, 139, 208, 252 Habsburg, Haus 70, 72 Habsburger siehe Habsburg, Familie Hadrian, röm. Kaiser 40 Anm., 43 Haintzel (Haintzlin), Familie 162 Anm., 208 Haintzlin siehe Haintzel, Familie Halder, Jacob 155 Hamburg (Amburgo) 134 Hamilton, Lord 45 Hanau-Münzenberg, Grafen 214 Hanau-Münzenberg, Philip III. Graf von 214 Hanau-Münzenberg, Reinhard Graf von 214 Hannover, Haus 69 Anm. Hapsburg siehe Habsburg Harrach, Aloys Thomas Raimund Graf von 145 f. Harrach, Ernst Adalbert von, Kardinal 133, 146 Harrach, Familie 145 f. Harrach, Ferdinand Bonaventura Graf von 146 Harrach, Franz Anton Fürst von, Fürsterzbischof von Salzburg 95 Harrach, Grafen 145, 149 Harrach, Leonhard III. von 182 Harrach, Leonhard IV. Freiherr von 145, 162, 165  f., 168  f., 168 Anm., 171, 182 Harrach, Leonhard V. Freiherr von 145 Harrach, Maria Philippine Josepha Gräfin von 145 Harrach-Rohrau, Friedrich August Graf von 146 Hasdrubal 29 Haug, Anton 188 Haug, Regina 188 Hay, James, Viscount Doncaster 74 Haydocke, Richard 64 Hegemüller von Dubenweiler, Familie 146 Anm. Heidelberg 214 Heinrich II. (Henri II), König von Frankreich 69 Heinrich II., König von Frankreich 83 Heinrich IV. (Henri IV), König von Frankreich 66 Heinrich V., Fürstbischof von Augsburg 232 Heinrich VIII. (Henricus Rex, Henry VIII), König von England 61– 63, 61 Anm., 70, 76–79, 85 f., 178, 224 Helfenstein, Graf von 70 Helke, Gabriele 56 Helmschmid, Briccius 164 Helmschmid, Desiderius 153, 160, 164 Anm., 175–177, 204, 218, 228, 252, 276, 282 Helmschmid, Hans 171 Helmschmid, Kolman 153, 160, 177, 282 Helmschmid, Lorenz 153, 157, 177 Henri II siehe Heinrich II., König von Frankreich Henri IV siehe Heinrich IV., König von Frankreich Henricus Rex siehe Heinrich VIII., König von England Henry, Prince of Wales 65–67, 75 Henry VIII siehe Heinrich VIII., König von England Hermanin, Federico 47 Hertzler, Anna 164 Herwart, Erasmus 190 Herwart, Familie 190 Herwart, Hans 190 Herwart, Hans Heinrich 190 Herwart, Hans Paul 190

298

Herwart, Radegundis 190 Herz, Georg 159, 159 Anm. Hess, Joachim Albrecht von 38 Anm. Hessen 67 Hilliard, Nicholas 59, 61, 63–67, 69, 74 Anm., 80–89, 81 Anm., 88 Anm. Himmelmann, Nikolaus 93 Hirnheim, Familie 220 Hochmann, Michel 35 Höchstetter, Familie 202, 278 Höchstetter, Joachim I. 202 Höchstetter, Joachim II. 202 Hoefnagel, Joris 59 Hofmann, Eva 184 Hofmann, Hans 184 Hogenberg, Remigius 79 Anm. Hohenburg 190 Hohenlohe-Langenburg, Friedrich Graf 71 Holbein, Hans d. J. 61–64, 66, 69, 76–78, 86 f., 89 Holberton, Paul 49, 52 Holste, Lukas siehe Holstenio, Luca Holstenio (Holste), Luca (Lukas) 134 f., 134 Anm. Holzmann, Ulrich 252 Höppeler, Georg 159 Hořejš, Václav 147 Horenbout, Gerard 62 Horenbout, Lucas 62 f., 86 Horenbout, Susanna 62 f., 77, 86 Hörmann von und zu Gutenberg, Georg 188, 190 Hörmann von und zu Gutenberg, Hans Georg 188, 190 Hörmann von und zu Gutenberg, Ludwig 188, 190 Hörmann, Familie 188, 190, 278 Howard, Thomas, Earl of Arundel 87 Humblin, Anna 192 Hungary siehe Ungarn Hurtlederus, N. 136 I India siehe Indien Indien (India) 66 Innozenz VIII., Papst 176 Innsbruck (Inspruck) 70, 72, 81, 159 Anm. – Schloss Ambras 37, 41, 43, 59–61, 59 Anm., 64, 76, 83, 85–87, 89; Gipsköpfe des älteren Laocoon-Sohns 30 Anm.; Helm 182; Sammlung 64 Anm., 78 Anm. Inselmo, Bortolamio siehe Anselmo, Bortholamio Inspruck siehe Innsbruck Ireland siehe Irland Irland (Ireland) 82 Isola Bella, Palazzo Borromeo, Giampietrino, Sophonisba 30 Italia siehe Italien Italien (Italia, Italy) 62, 86 Anm., 100, 139, 208 Italy siehe Italien J Jahangir, Herrscher des Mogulreiches 66 Jakob I. (James I), König von England und Irland (= Jakob VI. von Schottland) 64–66, 66 Anm., 69, 72–76, 73 f. Anm., 84, 87, 89 Jakob IV. (James IV), König von Schottland 61, 61 Anm., 85 Jakob V. (James IV), König von Schottland 61 Anm., 80

Jakob VI. (James VI), König von Schottland (= Jakob I., König von England und Irland) 61 Anm., 85, 87 James I siehe Jakob I., König von England und Irland James IV siehe Jakob IV., König von Schottland James V siehe Jakob V., König von Schottland James VI siehe Jakob VI., König von Schottland Jílové siehe Eulau Johann Georg I., Kurfürst von Sachsen 157 Johann Georg, Kurfürst von Brandenburg 274 John of Austria, Don siehe Juan de Austria, Don Jones, Inigo 85 Jonson, Ben 85 Juan de Austria (John of Austria), Don 66 Jülich-Kleve-Berg, Herzogtümer 74 Junkerman, Anne Christine 56 Justi, Ludwig 46 f. K Kaltemarckt, Gabriel 68, 86, 86 Anm. Kansas City (MO), William Rockhill Nelson Trust 30 Anm. Karl der Große (Charles the Great), Kaiser 68 Karl I. (Charles I), König von England 66 f., 66 Anm., 69, 75, 84, 87 f. Karl II. von Innerösterreich (Charles II of Austria), Erzherzog 70 Karl IV. (Charles IV), Kaiser 68 Karl V. (Charles  V, Carlo  V, Carolus  V.), Kaiser 79, 99, 136, 155, 175, 186, 188, 190, 192, 198, 204, 208, 212, 214, 216, 220, 282 Karl IX. (Charles IX), König von Frankreich 65, 65 Anm., 86 Karlstein, Burg 68 Kärnten (Carinthia, Carinzia) 99, 103, 194 Karthago (Carthage) 29 Kassel, Schloss Wilhelmhöhe, Frans Floris, Mann mit geschultertem Schwert 120; Frans Floris, Parisurteil 130 Kastilien (Castile) 67 Katharina von Aragon (Katherine of Aragon), Königin von England 78 Katherine of Aragon siehe Katharina von Aragon, Königin von England Kaufbeuren 188 Kelley, Edward 71 f., 87 Kenner, Friedrich von 61 Kesenbrot, Augustin 68 Kisslegg, Familie 192 Klagenfurt 99 Klášterec nad Ohří siehe Klösterle an der Eger Kleimayrn, Johann Franz Thaddäus von 94, 96 f. Kleopatra (Cleopatra), Königin von Ägypten 29, 43 Kleve, Anna von (Anne of Cleves), Königin von England 62 f. Klingenberg, Familie 232 Klösterle an der Eger (Klášterec nad Ohří), Schloss 144 Köln (Cologne) 71 Anm. – Wallraf-Richartz Museum, Joachim Beuckelaer, Geschlachtetes Schwein 122 Konopiště, Schloss 106 Kopenhagen (Copenhagen), Statens Museum for Kunst, Simone Bianco, Weibliche Büste 37, 38 Anm., 41, 43 Köpl, Karl 124 Anm. Krain (Carniola) 216 Kretzschmar von Kienbusch, Carl Otto 157 Kryza-Gersch, Claudia 37, 37 Anm., 43 Anm.

299

L La Cueva y Cabrera y Bobadilla, Mariana de 186 Lafreri, Antonio 23 Lancia, Luca 101–103 Landsberg am Lech 159 f., 174 Lang von Wellenburg, Matthäus, Bischof von Gurk 100 Langenmantel, Anna 202 La Spezia, Museo Civico Amedeo Lia 30 Anm. Leeds – Royal Armouries, Harnischteile 220, 234, 250; Helm Heinrich VIII. von England 224 – Tomasso Brothers Fine Art, Simone Bianco, Mädchenbüste 37 f., 43; Relief eines weiblichen Profilkopfes 40 Anm. Leicester, Earl of siehe Dudley, Robert Leiden, Universität, Prentenkabinet, Marten van Cleve, Bauernstube mit Herbergssuche 129 Anm. Leipzig 159 Anm. Leitner, Quirin von 141, 153 Lemnos 31 Leonardo da Vinci 48, 51 Leoni, Leone 101 Leopold Wilhelm (Leopoldo Guglielmo), Erzherzog 45, 121 Leopoldo Guglielmo siehe Leopold Wilhelm, Erzherzog Lesieur, Stephen 71, 73 f. Lesley, John, Bischof von Ross 70, 81, 81 Anm., 85 Leuchtenberg, Georg Ludwig, Pfalzgraf von 73, 73 Anm. Lewknor, Lewes 73 Leyva, Antonio de, Prinz von Ascoli 186 Leyva, Luís de, Prinz von Ascoli 186 Liberale, Giorgio 86 Liburnio, Niccolò 33 Liechtenstein, Johann II. Fürst von 10 Liechtenstein, Ursula Gräfin von 198 Lifka, Bohumír 142 Anm. Ligorio, Pirro 15 Liverpool 68 – Walker Art Gallery, 69 Anm.; Porträt Heinrich VIII. 61 Anm. Livius (Livy), Titus 29 Livy siehe Livius, Titus Lobell, Paul de 88 Anm. Lochner, Kunz 236 Lokschan von Lokschan, Familie 204 Lokschan von Lokschan, Ferdinand 204 Lokschan von Lokschan, Georg 204 Lomazzo, Paolo 64 Lombardo, Antonio 30 Lombardo, Tullio 27, 31 f., 38 Anm., 43 London (Londra) 62, 64, 66 Anm., 67, 73 f., 79, 84 Anm., 85 – Bonhams, Miniatur-Porträt Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester 81 Anm. – British Library, Gebetsbuch Königin Elisabeth I. (Faksimile) 83, 83 Anm. – British Museum 68 – Greenwich 62, 74 – Ham House 70 – Hampton Court Palace 62 – National Gallery, Giorgione, Hommage an einen Poeten 56; Andrea Mantegna, Tuccia 30 – National Portrait Gallery, 59 Anm.; Miniatur-Porträt Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester 81; Nicolas Hilliard, Miniatur-Porträt Sir Francis Drake 82 Anm.

– Patricia Wengraf Ltd., Simone Bianco, Weibliche Büste 37 f., 41, 43 – Royal Collection Trust, 69 Anm.; Porträt Maria I. von Schottland 80 Anm.; Jean Clouet, Miniatur-Porträt Dauphin François (später Franz I.) 62; Daniel Fröschl, Porträt Rudolph II. 75; Nicholas Hilliard, Vier Miniatur-Porträts der Tudor-Dynastie 69; Hans Holbein d.  J., Porträt Margaret Wotton, Marchioness of Dorset 64; Hans Holbein d. J., Zwei Porträts unbekannter Frauen 77 – Sammlung Mond, Vincenzo Catena, Madonna mit Kind und Heiligen (verloren) 47 – Somerset House 73 – Sotheby’s, Marten van Cleve (?), Besuch bei der Amme 123 Anm. – The Wallace Collection, Harnischteile 220, 234, 250; Wolfgang Großschedel, Visierhelm 282 Anm.; Helmschmid-Werkstatt (?), Visierhelm 222 – The Weiss Gallery, nach Hans Holbein d.  J., Porträt Margaret, Marchioness of Dorset 78 – Tower 62, 82, 88 Anm. – Victoria and Albert Museum, 59 Anm.; Harnisch-Album 155 f.; Miniatur-Porträt Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester 81; Porträt Maria I. von Schottland 80 Anm.; Simon Bening, Selbstporträt 78 Anm.; Nicholas Hilliard und Isaac Oliver (u. a.), Nachkommen von Königin Maria I. von Schottland 69; Hans Holbein d. J., Miniatur-Porträt Anna von Kleve 62; – Warburg Institute 59 Anm. – Westminster 74 – Westminster Palace 62, 77 – Whitehall Palace 69 f. Londra siehe London Loredan, Andrea 38 Loro 33 Lotter, Anna 164 Lotto, Lorenzo 33 Anm. Lovrieri, Alvise dei 34 Low Countries siehe Niederlande Löw von Rozmital, Anna 194 Lower Austria siehe Niederösterreich Loyola, Ignatius von 134 Lucca 113 – San Frediano 113; Marco della Robbia, Verkündigung 113 – San Martino 113 Lucco, Mauro 47 Ludwig, Gustav 53 Anm. Lugano 53 Lumley, John 69, 78–81, 83, 87 Lumley Castle 69 Lüneburg 159 Luther, Martin 62, 76 Lutzenberger, Hans 164 Anm. Lysipp 18 M Maastricht, Bonnefantenmuseum, Pieter Aertsens, Fleischerladen 121 Anm. Madrid – Museo del Prado 99; Baccio Bandinelli  (?), Venus Belvedere 101–103; Antonis Mor, Porträt Maria I. 79; David Teniers II, Galerie Erzherzog Leopold Wilhelms 45 – Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza, Antico, Hockende Venus 33 Anm. – Real Armería, Armschienen 206; Inventario illuminado 155 f., 155 Anm.; Rundschild 177, 177 Anm.; Matthias Frauenpreiss

300

d. Ä., Rundschild 165, 165 Anm., 176, 204, 204 Anm.; Desiderius Helmschmid, Harnischgarnitur Philipp II. von Spanien 177, 276; Desiderius Helmschmid, Helm 175, 175 Anm.; Desiderius Helmschmid und Jörg Sigman, Helm 176; Kolman Helmschmid, Rossharnisch und Sattel Maximilian I. 282; Kolman Helmschmid und Hans Burgkmair (?), Rossharnisch Maximilian I. 177 f.; Kunz Lochner, Rossharnisch 236; Filippo Negroli, Zeremonialhelm Karl V. 282 Magellan 83 Magnapera, Laura 14 Anm. Mailand (Milan) 178, 186 – Castello Sforzesco, Giovanni Cariani, Lot und seine Töchter 38 Anm. Mair, Matthias 159 Malatesta, Giovanni Battista 35 Maletti, Giovanni 114 Anm. Maltheuern (Záluží u Mostu) 147 Malvasia, Cesare 137, 139 Mander, Karel van 63, 79, 87, 120 f., 123, 129 f., 129 Anm. Manlich (Mannlich), Familie 202 Mannheim 75 Mannlich siehe Manlich, Familie Manrique de Lara, Bernardino 208 Manrique de Lara, Familie 208, 210 Manrique de Lara, Juan Esteban, Herzog von Najera 208 Manrique de Lara, Juan Fernández 208 Manrique de Lara, Luis Fernández II., Markgraf von Aguilar 208 Mantegna, Andrea 30 Mantova siehe Mantua Mantua (Mantova) 35, 101 Marc Aurel, Kaiser 134 Marche siehe Marken Margaret of Austria siehe Margarete von Österreich Margaret of Parma siehe Margarethe von Parma Margarete von Österreich (Margaret of Austria), Statthalterin der Niederlande 62, 68 Margarethe von Parma (Margaret of Parma) 70 Maria Anna, Kaiserin 134 Maria d’Ungheria siehe Maria von Ungarn Maria I. (Mary I Tudor), Königin von England und Irland 63, 70, 78 f., 85 Maria I. (Mary I, Mary Stewart), Königin von Schottland 65 f., 69– 71, 80 f., 85 Maria von Ungarn (Maria d’Ungheria), Statthalterin der Niederlande 99–103 Marken (Marche) 105, 117 Marquand, Allan 111 f. Marrini, Orazio 107 Anm. Martini, Simone 61 Mary I siehe Maria I., Königin von Schottland Mary I Tudor siehe Maria I., Königin von England und Irland Marzelo, Andrea 54 Masinissa, König 29, 30 Massimiliano d’Asburgo siehe Maximilian I., Kaiser Matham, Jacob 102 Mattei, Fabio 134 Mattei, Gaspare 133–139, 134 Anm. Mattei, Mario 133 Matthias, Kaiser 65, 65 Anm., 72–76, 72 Anm., 87, 192 Maurice of Hessen-Kassel siehe Moritz von Hessen-Kassel Mausolos (Mausolus), persischer Satrap von Karien 29

Mausolus siehe Mausolos Maximilian I. (Massimiliano d’Asburgo), Kaiser 59, 100, 198, 216, 224, 282 Maximilian II., Kaiser 59, 59 Anm., 65, 70 f., 86, 182, 212, 252 May, Albrecht 157 Anm. Mayerne, Theodore Turquet de 88, 88 Anm. Mechel, Christian von 121, 138 Mechelen 68 Medici, Caterina de’ 65, 69, 83, 86 Medici, Cosimo I. de’ 68 Medici, Familie 68 Medici, Ferdinando de’, Kardinal 22, 22 Anm. Medici, Juliano de 51 Medici, Lorenzo de’, il Magnifico 113 Medici, Piero de’ 68 Medici, Sammlung 17 f. Meister HR 157 Meller, Peter 33 Melville, James 65 Memmo, Giovanni Antonio 34 Anm. Mendoza y Mendoza, Íñigo López de 176 f. Mendoza y Quiñones, Íñigo López de 176 Meucci, Vincenzo 107 Meuting, Sabina 208 Michelangelo Buonarroti 22 Michiel, Aurelio 53 Anm., 55 Michiel, Giovanni 79 f. Anm. Michiel, Marcantonio (Marc’Antonio) 33, 47, 55 Milan siehe Mailand Minello, Antonio 30 Anm. Mocenigo, Giovanni, Doge 32 Modena, Galleria Estense 106; Simone Bianco, Profilbüste einer Frau 40 f., 40 Anm., 43 Molin, Nicolò 34, 43, 73 Anm., 84 Anm. Monaco siehe München Mondéjar 176 Montelupo, Raffaello da 22 Montfort, Grafen 220 Montfort-Pfannberg, Jakob Graf von 192 Moosham 94, 97 Mor, Antonis 78 , 85 Morassi, Antonio 47 Moritz von Hessen-Kassel (Maurice of Hessen-Kassel), Landgraf 75 Moro, Santo 54 Moryson, Fynes 72, 72 Anm. Mosca, Giammaria 31, 31 Anm., 43 Mostaert, Gillis 130, 130 Anm. Muller, Jan 145 München (Monaco, Munich) 46 Anm., 129 Anm., 147, 159, 159 Anm. – Bayrisches Armeemuseum 141, 154 – Residenz, Antiquarium 38; Kopf nach dem älterem Laocoon-Sohn 30; Simone Bianco (?), Sechs Köpfe 37, 38 Anm.; Simone Bianco, Weibliche Büste 37, 43; Simone Bianco, Zwei Büsten 36, 43 – Residenz, Paramentenkammer, Simone Bianco, Weibliche Büste 38, 43 – Schleißheim, Gemäldegalerie 129 Anm. Munich siehe München Munstero, Sebastiano 136 Murray, William, 1st Earl of Dysart 70

301

N Naldi, Dionigi 30 Anm. Namur 157 Anm. Nandello (Nandelo), Herr 165, 165 Anm., 168 Anm., 169, 171, 190, 190 Anm. Nandelo, Lord siehe Nandello, Herr Naples siehe Neapel Naunton, Robert 81 Anm. Nave, Bartolomeo della 45 Neapel (Naples) 145, 176, 186, 188 – Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Farnese-Krieger 17, 17 Anm.; Lucius Verus 17 Anm. Negroli, Filippo 282 Nepi Scirè, Giovanna 47 Nesselthaler, Andreas 96 Netherlands siehe Niederlande Neudegg zu Rastenberg und Wildegg, Otto von 194 Neudegg, Eva von 194 Neumair, Wolf 164 Anm., 165, 176 Anm. Neumann, Franz de Paula 93 New World siehe Amerika New York – Christie’s 30 Anm. – The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Helm 242; Guercino, Gefangennahme des Samson 137; Hans Holbein d.  J., Porträt eines bartlosen Mannes 77; Desiderius Helmschmid und Daniel Hopfer, Bart 175; Tullio Lombardo, Adam 31 f. Neysi, Giovanni 29 Niederlande (Low Countries, Netherlands, Paesi Bassi) 62, 66, 71, 81, 84, 86, 99–103, 186, 208 Niederösterreich (Lower Austria) 145, 182 Noe, Helen A. 56 Noll, Rudolf 12 Anm. Nordendorf, Schloss 200 Norgate, Edward 88 Numidia siehe Numidien Numiedien (Numidia) 29 Nypoort, Justus van den 144 O Oberbayern (Upper Bavaria) 159 Oberelsaß (Upper Alsace) 180 Oberösterreich (Upper Austria) 182 Oberthaler, Elke 47 Obizzi, Familie 105 f. Obizzi, Ferdinando degli 105 Obizzi, Sammlung 108 Anm., 110, 117, Obizzi, Tommaso degli 105–108, 105 Anm., 107 f. Anm., 110–115, 114 Anm., 117 Octavian siehe Augustus, röm. Kaiser Odoni, Andrea 33, 33 Anm. Oliver, Isaac 64–67, 69, 75, 85 Orestilia, Fabia 38 Orleans, Duke of 62 Orsini De Marzo, Niccolò 54 Orsini, Fulvio 24 Ortenburg, Bernhard Graf von 180, 194 Ortenburg, Ferdinand Graf von 184, 194 Ortenburg, Gabriel Salamanca Graf von 180, 184, 194, 204 Ortenburg-Salamanca, Anna von 146 Ortenburg-Salamanca, Grafen 204

Österreich (Austria) 70, 72, 86, 133, 159, 180, 184 Overbury, Thomas 88 Anm. Oxford, New College 64 P Padova siehe Padua Padua 30, 43, 105, 117 – Archivio di Stato 106 – Biblioteca Civica, Reisetagebuch des Tommaso degli Obizzi 105, 105 Anm. – Sant’Antonio, Cappella del Santo, Antonio Minello, Investitur des hl. Antonius 30 Anm. Paesi Bassi siehe Niederlande Palestrina 12 f., 13 Anm., 15 f., 15 Anm. – Fortuna-Heiligtum 12, 25 – Forum 12 – Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Wildschwein-Relief 12, 12 Anm. Palladio, Andrea 53 Palma il Vecchio, Jacopo 43 Panichi, Filippo 114 Pantoja de la Cruz, Juan 67, 67 Anm. Panzani, Matteo 22 Anm. Panzani, Orazio 22 Anm. Paolo V Borghese siehe Paul V., Papst Paolino da San Bartolomeo 106 Anm. Parham Park 70 Paris 23, 23 Anm., 40 Anm., 83 f. – Christie’s 37, 37 Anm. – École Nationale Supérieure des Beaux-Arts, Marten van Cleve, Triumph des Lebens 130 Anm. – Musée du Louvre, Relief der Suovetaurilia 23; Simone Bianco, Männliche Büste 32; Simone Bianco, Zwei männliche Büsten 34, 38 Anm., 43, 43 Anm.; Pieter Bruegel d. Ä., Die Krüppel 123 Parker, John 77 Parker, Lucas 77 Parma 45 Anm. Parmigianino 87 Parr, Katherine, Königin von England und Irland 63 Paschini, Pio 23 Paul V. (Paolo V Borghese), Papst 133 Paulet, Amyas 64 Peake, Robert 75 Pedrocco, Filippo 56 Peffenhauser, Anton 160, 167 Anm., 176, 176 Anm., 226 Pelcl, František Martin siehe Pelzel, Franz Martin Pelli Bencivenni, Giuseppe 107 Pelzel (Pelcl), Franz Martin (František Martin) 146, 148 Pencz, Georg 30 Percy, Henry, Earl of Northumberland 88 Perelli, Sano 14 Anm. Perkins, Christopher 71 Perna, Pietro 69 Perugia 133 – Congregazione della Carità 112 – Galleria Nazionale dell’Umbria, Benedetto Buglioni, Madonna mit Kind 112 – Palazzo dei Priori, Camera del Capuffizio 117 Petrarca (Petrarch), Francesco 29, 45, 48, 61 f., 61 Anm., 68 Petrarch siehe Petrarca, Francesco Peutinger, Constanzia 200 Philadelphia, Museum of Art, Knabenharnisch 157

302

Philip II siehe Philipp II., König von Spanien Philip III siehe Philipp III., König von Spanien Philipp II. (Philip  II), König von Spanien 70  f., 70 Anm., 79, 86, 176 f., 186, 208, 252, 276 Philipp III. (Filippo III, Philip III), König von Spanien 67, 134 Philiskos von Rhodos 28 Philoctetes 31 Pietro Leopoldo, Großherzog von Toskana, später Kaiser Leopold II. 107 f. Pimentel, Beatriz 186 Pincus, Debra 31 Pisa 113 Pistoia 113 – San Zeno, Andrea della Robbia, Madonna 113 Pitati, Bonifazio de’ 34 Anm. Pius IV., Papst 16 Planiscig, Leo 112 Plinius d. Ä. (Pliny the Elder), Gaius 28, 88 Pliny the Elder siehe Plinius d. Ä., Gaius Poggio a Caiano, Villa Medici 113; Fries 113 f., 113 Anm. Poland siehe Polen Polen (Poland) 31 Anm. Polheim, Johanna von 194 Poli, Herzöge von 15 Anm. Polidorus 30 Polo 55 Pommersfelden, Schloss Weißenstein, Relief mit dem Erlöser 38 Anm. Porta, Gabriele della 16 Porta, Giacomo della 16 Anm. Porta, Jacopo della 16 Portugal 186 Pory, John 67 Anm. Pospisil, Francesco 47 Anm. Prag (Praga, Prague) 70–72, 74, 87, 100 f., 106, 141, 143, 146 f., 153, 154 Anm., 158 f. Anm., 159 – Akademie věd České republiky, Knihovna (Academy of Sciences Library) 148 Anm. – Burg 124, 137, 138 – Burggalerie, Frans Floris, Kopf einer alten Frau 120 – Národní Galerie 106; Niccolò di Tommaso, Krönung Mariens 108 – Národní knihovna České republiky (National Library of the Czech Republic) 148, 148 Anm. – Národní muzeum (National Museum) 142 Anm., 143 – Národní muzeum, Knihovna (National Museum Library) 142, 148, 148 Anm. – Palais Thun-Hohenstein 144 – Schatz- und Kunstkammer 124 Anm. – Uměleckoprůmyslové museum v Praze (Museum of Decorative Arts in Prague), 143, 143 Anm., 148  f., 148 Anm., 154 Anm.; Thun’sche Skizzenbücher (Thun sketchbooks, Thun-Hohenstein Albums) 141–149, 153–292 – Univerzita Karlova v Praze (Charles University in Prague) 146 – Vojenský historický ústav Praha (Military History Institute) 148 Anm. Praga siehe Prag Prague siehe Prag Praxiteles 33 Pressburg (Bratislava) 71, 212 Primaticcio, Francesco 100 f.

Primisser, Johann Baptist 60 Anm. Puppi, Lionello 53 Q Quirini, Antonio 9 Anm. R Raimondi, Marcantonio 124 Anm., 145 Raleigh, North Carolina Museum of Art, Pieter Aertsens, Fleischerladen 121 Anm. Raleigh, Walter 71, 81 f., 83 Anm., 84, 86 Ramharter, Johannes 96 Randegg, Familie 192 Raunach, Bernhard von 216 Raunach, Familie 216 Regensburg 142 Rehlingen, Johann Josef Reichsfreiherr von 93 Anm., 94, 95 Rehlinger, Anna 192 Rehlinger, Anton 200 Rehlinger, Barbara 198 Rehlinger, Carl Wolfgang 198, 200 Rehlinger, Familie 198, 200 Rehlinger, Hans 198 Rehlinger, Wolfgang 200 Rehm, Familie 220 Rehm, Lucas 220 Reihing, Barbara 188, 190 Reitzenstein, Alexander von 141, 145, 154, 154 f. Anm., 160 Anm., 162 Anm., 165 Anm. Reitzenstein, Andreas von 154, 162, 165 f., 171, 173 Remlein, Familie 206, 216 Richard-Ginori, Manufaktur 113 Anm. Richter, Conrad 165 Richter, Georg Martin 47 Rimini, Tempio Malatestiano, Agostino di Duccio , Relief 102 Rizzoli, Giovanni Pietro siehe Giampietrino Robbia (Rubia), della 105, 107, 110, 112–114, 114 Anm., 117 Robbia, Andrea della 108, 111–114 Robbia, Francesco della (Fra’ Ambrogio) 111, 114 Anm. Robbia, Giovanni della 108, 110 f., 114 Robbia, Luca della 112 Robbia, Marco della (Fra’ Mattia) 113 Rocca San Casciano – San Donnino in Soglio 112 – Santa Maria delle Lacrime, Benedetto Buglioni, Madonna mit Kind 112 Rodolphus, Kaiser siehe Rudolf II., Kaiser Roe, Thomas 66 Rom (Roma, Rome) 13, 15–17, 15 Anm., 19, 22–25, 29 f., 64 Anm., 71 Anm., 81 Anm., 100, 105 Anm., 134, 139 – Belvedere 30 – Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana (Vatican Library) 64 Anm. – Campidoglio 134 – Colonna (Rione) 15 Anm. – Diokletiansthermen 16, 16 Anm. – Esquilinus 30 – Fontana dell’Acqua Felice siehe Rom, Mosesbrunnen – Foro Romano 17 Anm. – Kaiserforen 16 – Lateran 16 – Mosesbrunnen (Fontana dell’Acqua Felice) 16, 22 Anm.

303

– Musei Vaticani, Laocoon 30 f. – Museo Nazionale di Castel Sant’Angelo, Benedetto Buglioni, Madonna mit Kind 112 – Museo Nazionale di Palazzo Venezia, Giammaria Mosca, Dido-Plakette 31, 31 Anm. – Ospedale di San Giacomo degli Incurabili 14 Anm., 22–25, 22 Anm. – Palazzo Barberini alle Quattro Fontane 134 – Palazzo Sforza 13 Anm. – Palazzo Venezia 23 – Palazzo Zuccari, Federico Zuccari, Herkules im Kampf mit dem Löwen 19 – Quirinal 13, 16, 23 – Rione Campo Marzo 14 Anm. – Sammlung Borghese 23 Anm. – San Giovanni in Laterano 14, 16 – San Marco 12 – Santa Maria degli Angeli 16, 16 Anm., 22, 25 – Santa Maria della Pace, Grabmal des Girolamo Giustini 22 – Santa Maria Maggiore 13 Anm., 14 – Santa Maria sopra Minerva 18 Anm. – Santa Susanna 16 – Vatikan 17 – Vatican Library siehe Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana – Via Pia 16, 16 Anm. – Villa Grimani 23 – Villa Medici 107 Roma siehe Rom Romagna 133 Romano, Matteo 16 Anm. Rome siehe Rom Römersthal von Römersthal, Familie 232 Römersthal von Römersthal, Wolfgang Simon 232 Roo, Gerardus de 60 f., 61 Anm., 85 Roscoe, William 69 Rosenberg, Wilhelm von 71 Rossellino, Antonio 112 Roth, Hans 157 Anm. Rottmayr, Johann Michael 95, 144 Rouen 64 Rubens, Peter Paul 122 Anm. Rubia, della siehe Robbia, della Rudolf II. (Rodolphus, Rudolph II), Kaiser 59, 59 Anm., 66, 66 Anm., 70–75, 72 Anm., 79, 86–88, 178, 182, 212, 280 Rudolph II. siehe Rudolf II., Kaiser Rumler, Familie 208 Rumler, Johann Udalric 66 Anm. Rumler, Johann Wolfgang 66, 66 Anm., 75, 88, 88 Anm. Rumler, Macharius 208 Rustici, Giovan Francesco 113 S Sabina von Brandenburg-Ansbach 274 Sachsen (Saxony) 274 Sacken, Eduard von 93 Sadeler, Aegidius 144 Saint Petersburg siehe St. Petersburg Saint-Quentin 186 Salamanca, Ehrenfried 194 Salamanca, Ernst 194 Salisburgo siehe Salzburg

Salisbury, Earl of 73, 81 Salzburg, Land 93–97 Salzburg (Salisburgo), Stadt 94, 96 f., 99, 100–103 – Dom 96 – Residenz 95–97 – Schloss Freisaal 96 San Diego, Museum of Art, Giorgione, Porträt eines Mannes (Ritratto Terris) 48 f. San Martino ai Monti 15 Anm. San Pietroburgo siehe St. Petersburg San Severino 133 Sangallo, Giuliano da 113 Sanquirico, Antonio 33 Sansovino, Andrea 113, 113 Anm. Sansovino, Jacopo 34 Sant’Agnese, Andrea da 55 Sanudo, Marin 27, 35, 51, 54 Savelli, Federico 133 Savelli, Giacomo, Kardinal 23 Anm. Savelli, Paolo 133 Savoy siehe Savoyen Savoyen (Savoy), Herzog von 67 Saxe-Lauenburg, Herzog von 67 Saxony siehe Sachsen Scaevola, Mucius 31, 31 Anm. Schärffenberg auf Hohenwang und Kindberg, Ulrich von 194 Schärffenberg, Rosina von 194 Schellenberg, Familie 192 Schellenberg, Hans I. von 192 Schellenberger, Ulrich 192 Schier, Rudolf 48 Schlick, Lorenz Graf von 204 Schlick, Susana Gräfin von 204 Schlosser, Julius 63 f. Schneider, Robert von 93 Schönborn, Sammlung 38 Anm. Schönenberg, Familie 198 Schottland (Scotland) 70, 80, 84, 87 Schreiber, Theodor 11 f. Schrobenhausen 159 Schwarzenberg, Erkinger 93 Schwaz 188 Scipio Africanus 29 Scotland siehe Schottland Scrinari, Valnea Santa Maria 12 Anm. Scudieri, Magnolia 110 Segar, William 81, 83 Segre, Renata 48, 52 f. Sellink, Manfred 125 Septimius Severus, röm. Kaiser 14, 17, 41–43, 41 Anm. Serra, Jacopo, Kardinal 137 f. Sevilla (Seville) 71 Anm. Seville siehe Sevilla Seyler Johann Christian 144 Sforza, Giulia 15 Anm. Shakespeare, William 73 Sichrow (Sychrov), Schloss 148 Sidney, Philip 70 f. Sigman, Jörg 176 Sinan Pascha, Großwesir 178, 280 Sixtus V., Papst 16

304

Slovenia siehe Slowenien Slowenien (Slovenia) 216 Soiter, Catharina 200 Soiter, Melchior 200 Solleysel, Jacques de 144 Sophie von Brandenburg 274 Sophonisba 29–31, 43 Soranzo, Alvise 48 Soranzo, Giacomo 79 Anm. Soranzo, Giacomo di Francesco 48 Sorg, Jörg T. d. J. 155, 163–165, 172, 179, 214, 218, 228 Spagna siehe Spanien Spain siehe Spanien Spanien (Spagna, Spain) 73, 84, 100–102, 133 f. Spillman, John 67 Spinelli, Gasparo 62, 65 Spinola, Familie 212 Spinola, Marc Antonio 212 Spranger, Bartholomeus 102 St. Petersburg (Saint Petersburg, San Pietroburgo) – Eremitage (Hermitage Museum), Bronze-Porträt des Hadrian 41 Anm.; Rundschild 212; Statuette Herkules erwürgt den Nemeischen Löwen 18  f., 25; Anonynm, Kinderspiele 128; Simone ­Bianco, Kopf des Septimius Severus 41–43, 41 Anm.; Marten van Cleve, Dörfliche Karnevalsfeier 120–123, 123 Anm.; Marten van Cleve  (?), Soldaten plündern eine Bauernstube 124; Giovanni della Robbia, Putto 110 – Hermitage Museum siehe St. Petersburg, Eremitage – Museum für Religionsgeschichte, Anonym, Segnung des Hochzeitsbettes 128 Stainhauser, Johann 101 f. Stas, Pieter 128 Anm. Stazio, Familie 53 Stazioner, Giacomo 53 Steno, Michele 54 Stetten, Christoph I. von 216 Stetten, Christoph II. von 216 Stetten, Familie 216 Stetten, Georg I. von 216 Stetten, Georg II. von 216 Stewart, Francis, Earl of Bothwell 81 Stewart, Mary siehe Maria I., Königin von Schottland Stimmer, Tobias 61 Anm., 69, 85 Stoccarda siehe Stuttgart Stockholm, Nationalmuseum, Simone Bianco, Männliche Büste 38 Anm., 42 f.; Marten van Cleve, Pflügen 129 Anm.; Marten van Cleve, Sähen 129 Anm. Stöcklein, Hans 141, 147, 153  f., 155 Anm., 157, 160 Anm., 162, 162 Anm., 165 f., 171, 175 Anm., 206, 216 Stoppio, Niccolò 30, 38 Storffer, Ferdinand 137, 139 Stow, John 82 Strada, Jacopo 38 Straub, Dorothea 202 Strocka, Volker Michael 12 Stroganov, Sammlung 110 Stuart, Elizabeth 84 Stuart, Familie 69, 72 Stuart, Haus 74, 85, 88 Stuttgart – Würtembergische Landesbibliothek, Jörg T. Sorg d. J., Harnisch-­

Album 154 Anm., 155  f., 156 Anm., 158, 158 Anm., 162–174, 164 f. Anm., 167 f. Anm., 182 Anm., 190 Anm., 218 Anm., 226, 228 – S. Croce 135 Sueton (Suetonius) 68 Suetonius siehe Sueton Suffolk, 1st Duke of 78 Surian, Antonio 54 Sussex, Earl of 70, 80 Svihovsky von Riesenberg, Ursula 204 Sychrov siehe Sichrow Syphax, König von Westnumidien 29 Szécsy de Felsölendva, Margaretha 194 T Tassini, Giuseppe 55 Teerlinc, Levina 63 f., 64 Anm., 78, 86 Tendilla 176 Teniers, David II 45 f., 46 Anm. Terjanian, Pierre 141 Anm., 149 Tetschen siehe Děčín Thames siehe Themse Themse (Thames) 74 Thomas, Bruno 142, 182 Thun, Sigmund 141 Anm. Thun-Hohenstein, Familie 143, 147, 149 Thun-Hohenstein, Franz Anton Fürst von 141 Anm., 147–149 Thun-Hohenstein, Franz Anton I. Graf von 146 Thun-Hohenstein, Franz Fürst von 141  f., 141 Anm., 146  f., 154 Anm. Thun-Hohenstein, Grafen 144, 149 Thun-Hohenstein, Jaroslav Fürst von 147 Thun-Hohenstein, Johann Franz Graf von 144 f. Thun-Hohenstein, Johann Joseph Anton Graf von 145 f., 145 Anm., 149, 155 Thun-Hohenstein, Maximilian Graf von 144 f. Thun-Hohenstein, Paul Graf von 142 Thun-Hohenstein, Wenzel Joseph Jan Graf von 146 Thun-Hohenstein, Wolfgang Dietrich Graf von 149 Anm. Tiberius, röm. Kaiser 23 Tiepolo, Paolo 70 Anm. Tilly, Count 75 Tirol (Tyrall) 72, 89, 180, 188 Titian siehe Tiziano Vecellio Titus, röm. Kaiser 76 Tizian siehe Tiziano Vecellio Tiziano Vecellio (Titian, Tizian) 34, 43, 45 Anm., 87, 120 Toledo, Kathedrale 64 Anm. Tommaso, Niccolò di 108 Torre, Francesca del 45 Anm. Toscana siehe Toskana Toskana (Toscana) 105, 112, 117 Toutain, Richard d. J. 76 Traballesi, Giuliano 107 Trauttmannsdorff, Johann Maximilian von 134 Treviso 33 – Dom, Cappella del Santissimo Sacramento 33 Trissino, Gian Giorgio 30 Tschechien 144 Anm. Tschechoslowakei (Czechoslovakia) 142, 147, 149 Tudor, Haus 62, 69, 88

305

Turin, Armeria Reale, Brustpanzer 232 Anm.; Desiderius Helmschmid und Jörg T. Sorg d. J., Küriss 218; Anton Peffenhauser, Rundschild Stefano Doria 167 Anm. Tyrall siehe Tirol U Udine 86 Umbria siehe Umbrien Umbrien (Umbria) 105, 117 Ungarn (Hungary, Ungheria) 71, 73, 100, 212 Ungheria siehe Ungarn Upper Alsace siehe Oberelsaß Upper Austria siehe Oberösterreich Upper Bavaria siehe Oberbayern Uppsala, Museum Gustavianum, Pieter Aertsens, Fleischerladen 121 Anm. Urban VIII., Papst 133, 135, 137–139, 139 Anm. Urbino 133, 139 Anm. Ursprung 94; Schloss 94 Utrecht, Rijksmuseum Het Catharijneconvent, Frans Floris, Hl. Familie mit Verwandten 123 Anm.; Frans Floris, Hl.  Familie vor Lustgarten und Pavillon 123 Anm. V Valdarno 33 Valencia 176 Valentinelli, Giuseppe 29 Valladolid 67 Vallaresso, Zaccaria 51 Valle, Guglielmo della 63, 64 Anm. Valmontone 15 Valmontone, Juliano de 15 Anm. Valperga, Girolamo 22 Anm. Vasari, Giorgio 33, 61–63, 86 Anm., 124 Anm. Vedello, Martino dal 33 Vega, Lope de 86 Velasco, Juan Fernández de 67 Vendramin, Andrea, Doge 27 Vendramin, Gabriele 52, 57 Venedig (Venezia, Venice) 10, 11 Anm., 12, 14, 22–25, 23 Anm., 27 f., 30, 33–35, 38, 43, 54, 66, 72, 124 Anm., 137 Anm., 138 f. – Archivio di Stato 48, 55 – Biblioteca Marciana (Libreria di San Marco, Markusbibliothek), Statuario Pubblico 11, 23 f., 28 – Ca’ Colti ai Frari 55 – Ca’ d’Oro, Galleria Giorgio Franchetti 35 Anm.; Tullio Lombardo, Doppelporträt 38 Anm. – Campo San Polo, Ca’ Soranzo 48 – Libreria di San Marco siehe Venedig, Biblioteca Marciana – Markusbibliothek siehe Venedig, Biblioteca Marciana – Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Ara Grimani 20–25; Peplophoros 36, 36 Anm.; Statue des Odysseus 18; Simone Bianco, Sophonisba/Muse 27 f., 30–32, 35 f., 36 Anm., 43 – Museo Correr, Bibliothek 55 – Ospedale di San Marco 55 – Palazzo Grimani 9–11, 9 Anm., 23  f., 28, 33; Simone Bianco, Büste Antonio Grimani 35 Anm. – Piazza San Marco 62 – San Benedetto 55 – San Marco 35 Anm. – San Marcuola 34

– – – – – – – – – – –

San Rocco, Bartolomeo Bergamasco, Hl. Sebastian 30 Anm. San Vidal 54, 55 Sant’Alvise 34 Anm. Santa Maria della Valverde 55 Santa Maria Formosa 9 f., 28, 33, 35, 35 Anm. Scuola della Misericordia 55 Scuola della Trinità 55 Scuola di San Giovanni Evangelista 55 Scuola Grande di San Marco 34 Anm. SS. Filippo e Giacomo 68 SS. Giovanni e Paolo, Tullio Lombardo, Tugend auf Grab des Dogen Giovanni Mocenigo 32; Antonio Minello, Bildnis Dionigi Naldi da Brisighella 30 Anm. Veneto 53, 106 Venezia siehe Venedig Venice siehe Venedig Verheyen, Egon 56 Verona 49, Museo del Castelvecchio, Giovan Francesco Caroto, Sophonisba 29 Verrius Flaccus 12 Vesalius, Andreas 66 Anm. Vespucci, Amerigo 83 Vettori, Piero 15 Vicenza 30 Vienna siehe Wien Vierthaler, Franz Michael 96 Ville, Antoine de 144 Villinger von Schönenberg, Jakob 198 Villinger zu Schönenberg und Seyfriedsberg, Jakob 198 Villinger zu Schönenberg und Seyfriedsberg, Karl 198 Villinger, Familie 198 Vitelli, Francesco 138 Vos, Cornelis De 87 Vries, Adriaen de 87 W Waad, William 88 Waldhauer, Oskar 18 Walsingham, Francis 71 Warsaw siehe Warschau Warschau (Warsaw), National Museum 30 Anm. Washington, D.C. – National Gallery of Art, Leonardo da Vinci, Bildnis Ginevra de Benci 48 – Freer Gallery of Art, Mogul-Miniatur 66 Weckherlin, Georg Rudolph 75 Wedel, Leopold von 71, 86 Weimar 135 Weiss, Pankraz 165 Welser, Philippine 72, 72 Anm. Wengraf, Patricia 38 Wenzel von Luxemburg, röm.-dt. König 68 Weski, Ellen 36 West Indies siehe Westindische Inseln Westindische Inseln (West Indies) 82 Wickhoff, Franz 11 f. Wieland, Anna 200 Wieland, Familie 208 Wien (Vienna) 10 f., 13, 24 f., 59 Anm., 64 Anm., 65, 68, 70, 72, 74, 76, 80, 85, 87, 96, 99, 101, 103, 108 Anm., 114 Anm., 115, 133– 139, 158 f. Anm., 204, 212

306

– Albertina, Anonym, Bauernhochzeit 126 Anm.; Marten van Cleve, Jahrmarkt 120 Anm. – Belvedere, 137 Anm.; Bologneser Saal 138; Schloss 121; Unteres Belvedere 60 – Hofbibliothek 38 Anm. – Kunsthistorisches Museum 30 Anm., 47, 49, 59 Anm., 60, 89, 100, 106, 226 – Kunsthistorisches Museum, Antikensammlung, Bronzestatuette eines Heerführers 97; Grimani-Reliefs 9 f., 12, 14, 17, 21, 23–25; Jüngling vom Magdalensberg 93, 96, 99–103; Kameo Königin Elisabeth von England 72; Medallion mit Kameo 87; Medaillon mit Titus-Kameo 76; Weiblicher Kopf 37 Anm.; Zeichnung Grimani-Relief mit Löwin 10 – Kunsthistorisches Museum, Gemäldegalerie, Pieter Aertsens, Bauernfest 123 Anm.; Anonym, Bauernfest 120; Anonym, Bauernmahl 124–126, 126 Anm., 131; Anonym, Blindensturz 128; Ano­ nym, Harnischmeister von Kaiser Maximilian I. 157 Anm.; Anonym, Porträt Elisabeth I. von England und Irland 79 f.; Anonym, Porträt François Duc d’ Anjou & Alençon 83; Anonym, Porträt Mary Stewart von Schottland 80; Anonym, Raufhandel zwischen Bauern und Soldaten 124, 126; Pieter Bruegel d. Ä., Bauerntanz 125; Pieter Bruegel d. Ä., Kampf zwischen Karneval und Fasten 123; Marten van Cleve, Ausgeweideter Ochse 120 f., 123, 125; Marten van Cleve, Bauernstube mit vornehmen Besuchern 121, 123, 129 Anm.; Correggio, Jupiter und Io 21; Frans Floris, Bildnis eines Gildenknappen 120; Frans Floris, Christus am Kreuz 120; Giorgione, Laura 45, 49, 53, 56 f.; Guercino, Heimkehr des verlorenen Sohnes 137–139; Guercino, Hl. Johannes der Täufer in der Wüste 138 f.; Nicholas Hilliard, Miniatur-Porträts Jakob I. und Anna von Dänemark 87; Nicolas Hilliard, Porträt Anna von Dänemark 85; Nicolas Hilliard, Porträt François duc d’Anjou & d’Alençon 83 ; Nicolas Hilliard, Porträt Jakob I. von Schottland und England 84; Nicolas Hilliard, Porträt Sir Francis Drake 61 Anm., 82 f.; nach Nicolas Hilliard, Porträt Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester 81 f.; nach Nicolas Hilliard, Porträt Sir Francis ­Drake 83; nach Nicolas Hilliard, Porträt Sir Walter Raleigh 81 f.; Hans Holbein d. J., Porträt einer 28-jährigen Frau 61, 77; Hans Holbein d. J., Porträt eines 30-jährigen Mannes 61, 76; nach Antonis Mor, Porträt Maria I. von England und Irland 78 f. – Kunsthistorisches Museum, Hofjagd- und Rüstkammer, Matthias Frauenpreiss d. J., Reiterharnisch 154 Anm.; Desiderius Helmschmid (?), Handschuhe 204; Desiderius Helmschmid, Halbharnisch Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, Herzog von Alba 228; Desiderius Helmschmid und Ulrich Holzmann, Reiterharnisch 252, 282; Lorenz Helmschmid, Harnisch 157, 177 – Kunsthistorisches Museum, Kunstkammer 117; Inventar Schloss Catajo 114 Anm.; Männliche Büste (Hadrian?) 40 Anm.; Antico, Atropos 33 Anm.; Antico, Venus Felix 33 Anm.; Simone ­Bianco, Männliche Büste (Hadrian?) 38 Anm., 42 f.; Benedetto Buglioni, Madonna mit Kind und Johannes dem Täufer 111; François Clouet, Medaillon mit Miniaturporträts von Karl IX. und Caterina de’ Medici 65; Giulio Clovio, Selbstporträt 64; Levina Teerlinc (?) nach Hans Holbein d. J., Porträt Margaret Wotton, Marchioness of Dorset 61, 64, 78; Andrea della Robbia (?), Scipione l’Africano 114; Francesco della Robbia, Madonna mit Kind 110, 114 Anm.; Giovanni della Robbia (?), Putti 108, 108 Anm.; Venezianisch, Kopf eines Mannes 42 Anm.; Venezianisch, Männliche Büste 38 Anm., 42 – Kunsthistorisches Museum, Münzkabinett 59, 89 – Kunsthistorisches Museum, Sammlungen Schloss Ambras siehe Innsbruck, Schloss Ambras

– Museum Francianum 38 Anm. – Österreichisches Staatsarchiv 146 – Schatzkammer 61 Wilde, Johannes 47, 49 f. Wilhelm III. (V.), Herzog von Jülich-Kleve-Berg 228 Wilhelm, Johann 144 Winckelmann, Johann Joachim 29 Windisch-Grätz, Barbara von 182 Windisch-Grätz, Siegfried von 182 Windsor Castle, Royal Collection, Lorenzo Lotto, Bildnis Andrea Odoni 33 Anm.; Johan Zoffany, Tribuna der Uffizien 18 Anm. Wirth, Zdeněk 148 Wolsey, Kardinal 61 Anm. Wood, Jeremy 45 Anm. Wotton, Henry 66, 72, 74 Wotton, Margaret, Marchioness of Dorset 64, 78, 86

307

Z Zabrera, Sammlung 25 Anm. Záluží u Mostu siehe Maltheuern Zanetti d. Ä., Anton-Maria 28 Zanetti d. J., Anton-Maria 28 Zaninus, Ioannis siehe Cariani, Giovanni Zelada, Francesco Saverio de, Kardinal 64 Anm. Zink, Karel 147 Zoffany, Johan 18 Anm. Zuccari, Federico 11 Anm., 19, 102 Zypern (Cyprus) 35

Abbildungsnachweis

Abbildungen auf dem Cover: Nicolas Hilliard, Jakob I. und Anna von Dänemark, König und Königin von Schottland und England. Wien, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Gemäldegalerie, Inv.-Nrn. 5476 und 5477. (©: KHM-Museumsverband.) Lothar Sickel: Palestrina, Museo Archeologico Nazionale: Abb. 4; Rom, Biblioteca dell’Istituto di Storia dell’Arte: Abb. 7; Rom, Bibliotheca Hertziana: Abb. 6, 9, 11; Rom, Staatsarchiv: Abb. 5; St. Petersburg, Eremitage: Abb. 8a, 8b; Wien, KHM-Museumsverband: Abb. 1–3; Venedig, Museo Archeologico Nazionale: Abb. 10a, 10b, 12. Anne Markham Schulz: Archiv des Autors: Fig. 1; Berlin, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut: Fig. 3; Berlin, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin: Fig. 12; Leeds, Tomasso Brothers Fine Arts: Fig. 8; Modena, Galleria Estense (Foto: Magliani): Fig. 13; München, Residenz (­ Foto: Magliani): Figs. 6, 7, 9, 11; New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art: Fig. 4; Paris, Musée du Louvre: Fig. 5; St. Petersburg, Eremi­t age: Fig. 14; Stockholm, Nationalmuseum: Fig. 15; Venedig, Museo Archeologico Nazionale: Fig. 2; Wien, KHM-Museumsverband: F ­ igs. 10, 16, 17. Enrico Maria Dal Pozzolo: Archiv des Autors: Figs. 2–13;

308

Wien, KHM-Museumsverband: Fig. 1. Mark Evans: London, Victoria and Albert Museum: Fig. 6; München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek: Figs. 2, 3; Wien, KHM-Museumsverband: Figs. 1, 4, 5, 7–22. Norbert Heger: Wien, KHM-Museumsverband: Abb. 1, 2. Stefano Pierguidi: Madrid, Museo del Prado: Fig. 2; Wien, KHM-Museumsverband: Fig. 1. Gianluca Tormen: Battaglia Terme (Padova), Castello del Catajo: Fig. 8–10; Florenz, Museo Nazionale del Bargello: Fig. 7; Wien, KHM-Museumsverband: Figs. 1–6. Björn Blauensteiner: Antwerpen, Museum Mayer van der Bergh: Abb. 7; Archiv des Autors: Abb. 10; Berlin, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin: Abb. 4; St. Petersburg, Eremitage: Abb. 2; Wien, KHM-Museumsverband: Abb. 1, 1a, 3, 5, 6, 6a, 8, 9. Matteo Borchia: Wien, KHM-Museumsverband: Figs. 1–3. Radim Vondráček: Děčín/Tetschen, Regional Museum, Fig. 2; Litoměřice/Leitmeritz, State Regional Archive: Figs. 4, 5; Prag, Uměleckoprůmyslové museum v Praze: Figs. 1, 3. Pierre Terjanian: Prag, Uměleckoprůmyslové Museum v Praze, Figs. 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, Images 1–155; Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliothek: Figs. 3, 5, 7, 9.