The state portrait: its origin and evolution pc289j271

Table of contents :
Frontmatter
List of Illustrations (page iii)
Foreword (page v)
Abbreviations (page vii)
The State Portrait (page 1)

Citation preview

| SERIES OF MONOGRAPHS ON ARCHAEOLOGY AND FINE ARTS BROUGHT OUT AS , | ,

.7aan, to members , , for one year STUDIES BY THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE AND THE COLLEGE ART ASSOCIATION oe

Oo ALAS C.A.A. PRICE SPECIAL PRICE

| OO ‘J. Errner The Flabellum of Tournus - I $1.50 $1.00 |

Sarcophagi of Ravenna — 2 2.50 2.00 —— re| | II. III.Lawrence JenxinsTheThe State Portrait - 3 3.00 2.50

ON ARCHAEOLOGY AND FINE ARTS SPONSORED BY

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA AND THE COLLEGE ART ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

ITS ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION Marianna Jenkins

1947 - STUDY : NUMBER 3 PUBLISHED BY THE COLLEGE ART ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ART BULLETIN

t

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Ficures 1. Portrait of Richard II, London, Westminster Abbey. 2. Portrait of John II, Paris, Musée du Louvre. 3. Fouquet, Portrait of Charles VII, Paris, Musée du Louvre. 4. Michel Sittow, Portrait of Henry VII, London, National Portrait Gallery. 5: Michel Sittow, Portrait of Catherine of Aragon, Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum.

6. Bernhard Strigel, Portrait of Maximilian I, Augsburg, Gemaldegalerie. 7. Portrait of Philip the Fair, Brussels, Musée Royale. 8. Portrait of Joanna of Aragon, Brussels, Musée Royale. 9. Portrait of Charles the Bold, London, British Museum, Ms. Harley 6199.

10. Cranach the Elder, Portrait of Henry the Pious, Dresden, Staatliche Gemildegalerie.

11. Raphael, Portrait of Pope Julius II, Florence, Galleria Uffizi. | 12. Portrait of Joanna of Aragon, Paris, Musée du Louvre. 13. Titian, Portrait of Alfonso d’Este, New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art.

14. Pontormo, Portrait of a Lady, Frankfurt-am-Main, Stidelinstitut. 15. Bronzino, Portrait of Guidobaldo II della Rovere, Florence, Galleria Pitti. 16. Bronzino, Portrait of Stefano Colonna, Rome, Galleria Nazionale.

. 17. Bronzino, Portrait of Cosimo I de’ Medici, Kassel, Staatliche Gemaldegalerie. 18. Bronzino, Portrait of Eleonora of Toledo, Florence, Galleria Uffizi. 19. After Titian (?), Portrait of Charles V, Augsburg, Fugger-Babenhausen Collection.

20. Titian, Portrait of Charles V, Madrid, Museo del Prado. 21. Seisenegger, Portrait of Charles V, Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum.

22. Titian, Portrait of Philip II, Madrid, Museo del Prado. 23. After Titian, Portrait of Philip IT, Florence, Galleria Pitti. 24. Van Orley, Portrait of Charles V, Budapest, Museum of Fine Arts. 25. Joos van Cleve, Portrait of Henry VIII, Hampton Court Palace. 26. Mor, Portrait of Two Pilgrims, Berlin, Kaiser Friedrich Museum. 27. Mor, Portrait of the Younger Granvella, Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum.

28. Titian, Portrait of the Younger Granvella, Kansas City, Kansas City Museum. , 29. Mor, Portrait of the Duke of Alva, New York, Hispanic Museum. 30. Mor, Portrait of the Archduke Maximilian, Madrid, Museo del Prado. 31. Mor, Portrait of the Archduchess Maria, Madrid, Museo del Prado. 32. Mor, Portrait of Anne of Austria, Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum. 33. Mor, Portrait of Philip II, The Escorial.

34. Mor, Portrait of Dofia Juana, Madrid, Museo del Prado. 35. Coello (?), Portrait of a Hapsburg Lady, Madrid, Museo del Prado. 36. Pantoja de la Cruz, Portrait of Charles V, Madrid, Museo del Prado. 37. Pantoja de la Cruz, Portrait of Philip II, The Escorial. 38. Holbein, Cartoon for the Whitehall Portrait of Henry VIII, Chatsworth. 39. After Holbein (?), Portrait of Henry VIII, Chatsworth. 40. Holbein, Portrait of Christina of Denmark, London, National Gallery. 41. Portrait of Edward VI, Welbeck Abbey.

42. The “Cobham Hall Portrait” of Queen Elizabeth, London, National Portrait Gallery.

43. The “Dillon Portrait” of Queen Elizabeth, London, National Portrait Gallery. 44. Portrait of Queen Elizabeth, Welbeck Abbey.

iv LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 45. Portrait of Queen Elizabeth, Hardwick Hall. 46. Portrait of Queen Elizabeth, Siena, Accademia di Belle Arti. 47. Stuart, Portrait of George Washington, Boston. 48. Photographs of John C. Calhoun and Abraham Lincoln. 49. Portrait of Francis I, Paris, Musée du Louvre. 50. Francois Clouet, Portrait of Henry II, Florence, Galleria Uffizi. 51. After Francois Clouet (?), Portrait of Catherine de’ Medici, Florence, Galleria Uffizi.

52. Francois Clouet, Portrait of Charles [X, Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum. 53. Francois Clouet, Portrait Drawing of Henry III, Paris, Cabinet des Estampes. 54. Portrait of Henry III, Versailles, Museum. 55. Pourbus the Younger, Portrait of Marie de’ Medici, Madrid, Museo del Prado. 56. Rigaud, Portrait of Louis XIV, Paris, Musée du Louvre.

57. Ingres, Portrait of Napoleon. 58. Titian, Portrait of Isabella of Portugal, Madrid, Museo del Prado. 59. Portrait of Isabella of Portugal, Florence, Private Collection. 60. Parmigianino, Portrait of Charles V, Richmond, Cook Collection. 61. Amberger, Portrait of Charles V, Berlin, Kaiser Friedrich Museum. 62. Newspaper Drawing of Charles V. 63. Thackeray, Lodovicus Rex.

FOREWORD RESEARCH on the subject treated in this monograph was begun at the suggestion of the late Georgiana Goddard King. Although the original direction and intention have been somewhat altered and expanded, the

author is anxious to acknowledge an indebtedness that extends far beyond but includes the stimulating promptings that first led her to examine the material. At the same time she takes pleasure in thanking Professor Joseph C. Sloane of Bryn Mawr College for generous help given during the period when the text was being written. Finally, the author would like to take this occasion to express her deep gratitude to

the American Council of Learned Societies for the subvention that made possible the publication of this monograph.

°

.

f

a

.

*

.

®

LJ

.

‘

ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE NOTES

Art But. Art Bulletin

Burr. Macs. | Burlington Magazine

Gaz. pes B-A. Gazette des Beaux-Arts Jaurs. Kunstu. SAMML, Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien Jaurs. Kunstu. SAMML, Au. Katseru. Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhichsten Kaiserhauses

JaurRs. Preuss. KUNSTSAMML. Jahrbuch der Preusstschen Kunstsammlungen

MAarBurc. JAHRB. Marburger Jahrbuch fiir Kunstwissenschaft MUuENCH. JAHRB. Miinchner Jahrbuch der Bildenden Kunst Unless otherwise indicated, all page numbers refer to the edition of any given work originally cited. When a painting is to be found in the principal public gallery of a town, only the name of the town is given in the text.

‘

*

*

.

.

I XCEPT in its archaic phases, the art of portraiture _—- vidualized as was customary in most Roman portraiture.

k frequently adopts special methods of handling and — The sculptor has so contrived that a specific individual apformulates distinctive conventions of design to re- _— pears in the guise of a god accoutered as a warrior. The veal such intangibles as the character, rank, or occupation _ likeness of a human being has been transformed into a of the subject. In time the usages so evolved may become __ visible projection of the divine nature of the Caesar, so traditional and even assume emblematic connotations. that it can serve as a symbol of Roman right to rule.”

Therefore the production of given schools or stylistic In some respects the paintings listed above are not so cycles can often be divided into categories determined by _— deliberately heroic, but they are characterized by features

the status or calling of the person represented. that serve similar ends. Because their subjects were the Perhaps because so many men have an instinctive desire _—_ earthly embodiments of abstract principles, effort has been

to glorify their rulers and leaders, the state-portrait is made to stress this fact even at the expense of personal charprominent among these subdivisions of a larger art. The —_ acterization. They are large in scale and austerely monu-

classification embraces those works that depict people of | mental in conception, with the result that they are adgreat political power or achievement in their public charac- _—mirably adapted to purposes of public display. In every case

ter. The primary purpose is not the portrayal of an indi- __ the figure is posed in a ceremonious attitude which seems vidual as such, but the evocation through his image of those _ to spring from a sense of inborn authority. In the treatabstract principles for which he stands. It follows that the ment of the faces realism has been tempered with idealism, purest examples of the state-portrait will be representations and any revelation of personal feeling is conspicuously of rulers or their deputies. Of course it may happen that _—_ lacking. The commanding note struck by the calculated formulas used for this purpose will be adopted for persons _ poses is therefore reinforced by the suggestion that the subof lesser political and social distinction, for the prestige ac- _ject is both physically and spiritually a remote and superior cruing to them will inevitably tempt the merely ambitious _ being.

and pretentious. But while this circumstance may at times The formulas and methods of procedure embodied in seem to confuse the issue, it cannot, in the last analysis, de- these works were developed in the sixteenth century, but tract from the significance of the formulas when they are _ they are still being perpetuated, and it would often seem employed for chiefs-of-state and their representatives. that they have acquired symbolic import betokening suApart from sporadic instances, the Western World has. __ preme power as invested in individuals or the states whose

known two major manifestations of the state-portrait. The aspirations they serve or personify. Although the same sculptors of ancient Rome were responsible for the first," poses and gestures, the same approach and handling are inwhile the second was the creation of the painters of six- | deed employed for subjects whose rank and worth are of teenth-century Europe. The Prima Porta statue of the little moment, they constitute a code which was evolved in Emperor Augustus is perhaps the best-known example an effort to portray the heads of states and their deputies in from Roman art, and such works as Titian’s armor por- _ such a way that their unique position would be manifest. trait of Philip II (Madrid), the so-called “Dillon Queen = The conditions that brought such a code into being as well

Elizabeth” (London, National Portrait Gallery), Fran- as the means by which it was formulated are therefore gois Clouet’s Henry II (Florence, Uffizi), and Rigaud’s _ worthy of consideration.

Louis XIV (Paris) are notable products of the later Euro- The sixteenth-century state-portrait was, in fact, the

pean development. product of an extremely propitious synchronization of conThe Prima Porta statue is a life-size, full-length figure temporary political, social, stylistic, and aesthetic trends. clothed in armor. Its pose is adopted from one commonly _ Political needs and public taste demanded a type of porassociated with the images of male deities. Although the _ trait expressly designed to depict great people in their offiface is a recognizable likeness, it is not so strongly indi- _—_ cial character; and full realization of those needs coincided with movements in both art and aesthetics that 1. Cf. among others R. P. Hinks, Greek and Roman Portrait enabled painters to produce that very rare thing — a soluSculpture, London, 1935; Max Wegner, Die Herrscherbildnisse in tion that was not only impeccable but enduring. Antoninischer Zeit, Berlin, 1939; and Robert West, Rémische Por-

trét-Plastik, Munich, 1933. 2. Cf. West, of. cit., pp. 111 ff.

2 THE STATE PORTRAIT Concepts of governmental authority or royal majesty _ peared in Rome, Florence, Orvieto, Anagni, and Bologna are of a political nature, and perhaps for this reason the = during that Pope’s reign,° their nature and intention were

state-portrait is a natural although not obligatory out- sufficiently apparent for Philip IV of France to accuse growth of strong political pretensions. It is probably no Boniface of encouraging the practice of idolatry with his coincidence that the symbolic Caesar portrait of the type of | own person as the object.’

the Prima Porta statue came into existence with the estab- The earliest known panel painting which might qualify lishment of Roman imperial rule.° And even in the early —_—as_a state-portrait, in accordance with sixteenth-century and high Middle Ages, when realistic portraiture was in __ standards, is the life-size portrayal of Richard II of Eng-

eclipse, somewhat analogous instances can be observed. land in Westminster Abbey (Fig. 1). The subject is Representations of the living were confined to generic clothed in full regalia and is seated on a throne. In general images and seldom appeared except in a religious context. design the work so closely resembles a religious composition

Yet among the few simulacra of secular intent that do that it has some of the same arresting authority.® Painted exist, the most outstanding bear the names of men whose _ about 1390,” it belongs to a period when easel portraiture

political ambitions knew no bounds. was still in its infancy, and not until Holbein took up his The extravagant imperial claims of the Carolingian and duties at the court of Henry VIII was another English Ottonian rulers are given visible projection in more than __ ruler to be so satisfactorily represented as an embodiment one contemporary manuscript. A page from a Registrum of almost superhuman power. It is therefore an exceptional Gregorit at Chantillysshows the emperor acknowledging — work, but Richard entertained exceptionally strong ideas the homage of subject provinces. The Sacramentaries of concerning the rights and privileges of kingship.

Metz (Paris, Bib. Nat., Ms. Lat. 1141) and Bamberg In the sixteenth century, however, more than one Euro(Munich, Staatsbibliothek, Cod. Lat. 4456) depict him as —_ pean ruler was able to make good the pretensions that had he receives his crown from on high, and in the Gospels of brought Richard to a violent end. So far as a given period Aix-la-Chapelle (Cathedral Treasury), where he is sur- = can mark a change in human history, the sixteenth century rounded by the four symbols of the evangelists, he almost saw the integration of the modern state, and this was ef-

..2.*3.

seems to have changed places with the Son of Man.‘

Ev lat the thirteenth t th t notable 6. In regard to the portraiture of Boniface VIII, cf. Harald en as tate as the thirteen cen uEY> © most nota ; Keller, “Der Bildhauer Arnolfo di Cambio und seine Werkstatt,”

works intended to portray specific individuals are certain JAHRB. PREUsS. KUNSTSAMML., LVI, 1935, pp. 26f.; Eugéne statues of Frederick II and Boniface VIII, both of whom Mintz, “Boniface et Giotto,” Etudes sur Phistotre des arts @ Rome aspired to unusual temporal power. According to a con- pendant le moyen-age, Rome, 18815 and Jean Guiraud, LE glise

; > romaine et les origines de la Renaissance, sth ed., Paris, 1921,

temporary chronicler, the colossal and hieratic image of pp. 5 f. Another important secular representation dating from the the German Emperor that formerly adorned the Torre del thirteenth century is the statue of Charles of Anjou (Rome, Pal. Castello at Capua depicted him in the act of making an dei Conservatori), which like some of the statues of Boniface is

. . rude ¢ ‘hed associated with the name of Arnolfo di Cambio: cf. A. Venturi,

official pronouncement. His attitude is described as menac- Storia delParte italiana, Milan, 1v, 1906, pp. 109 ff., and Keller,

ing, but the monument was regarded as a fitting tribute to | “Der Bildhauer Arnolfo di Cambio,” JaHrb. Preuss. Kunsr-

. . 7. . Muntz, of. ctt., pp. 13-14.

the “eternal and immortal memory” of the subject.’ As for CE wv 19345 Pp. 222 f. the great honorary figures of Boniface VIII which ap- 8. It is even possible that the disposition of the figure was suggested by a religious image. For a parallel between the portrait

3. Cf£. ibid., p. 88. of Richard and a panel painting of the Madonna enthroned, cf. 4. For reproductions as well as short comments, see Adolph J. G. Noppen, “The Painter of Richard II,” Burt. Mac., Lx,

Goldschmidt, German Illumination, 2 vols., Florence and New 1932, pp. 82-83. Other instances which suggest this type of trans-

York, 1928 (?), 1m, pls. 8, 1, and 72; and Amédée Boinet, La ference are to be found among the Carolingian and Ottonian Miniature carolingienne, Paris, 1913, pl. cxxx1. Another notable manuscripts cited above as well as certain representations of memwork of the Carolingian period that must have had some of the bers of the Neapolitan branch of the House of Anjou; for the latadded purport necessary to the state-portrait was the mosaic de- ter cf. Harald Keller, “Die Entstehung des Bildnisse am Ende des picting Pope Leo III and Charlemagne: cf. Joseph Wilpert, Die Hochmittelalters,” Rdstsches Jahrbuch fiir Kunstgeschichte, 111, Rémanischen Mosatken und Malereien der kirchlichen Bauten vom 1939, pp. 305 ff. Such a derivation may even be possible in the IV-XIUI Jahrhundert, 2 vols., Freiburg-im-Breisgau, 1917, 1, pp. case of the statue of Frederick II, but the strong classical influence 155 ff.; and Raimond van Marle, The Development of the Italian prevailing in his circle makes a Roman prototype more likely.

Schools of Painting, The Hague, 3, 1923, pp. 1137114. g. T. Borenius and E. W. Tristram, English Mediaeval Paint5s. Andrew the Hungarian as quoted by Emile Bertaux, L’Art ing, Florence and New York, 1927 (?), p. 26, state that it may dans P Italie méridtonale, Paris, 1904, pp. 713, note 1, and 715. have been done to commemorate a state-visit paid to Westminster Cf. tbid., pp. 707-717 for particulars on the monument of which Abbey in that year. See also John Rothenstein, 4m Introduction to

this statue was a part. English Painting, London, 1933, pp. 21 f.

THE STATE PORTRAIT 3 fected in such a manner that the national will was largely | God?”’* In England similar sentiments are repeated by identified with the ambitions and fortunes of the ruler. As _ the soldier-courtier, the scholar, and the poet. In the introMichelet has said: ‘“‘Le nouveau Messie est le roi.”’ Henry — duction to his History of the World, Raleigh says of Henry

VIII (1491-1547), Charles V (1500-1558), and VIII: “‘And for this crown of England, it must be truly

.?1 t....

Francis I (1494-1547 ), all born within a decade of each = avowed, that he hath received it even from the hand of other at the end of the fifteenth century, thought and acted God. . . .”** During the reign of Henry’s daughter the

as the sole representatives. of the lands they ruled. In their case was not otherwise, because Francis Bacon states that: own minds and in those of their contemporaries, they were “Princes are like unto heavenly bodies . . .”** Moreover,

the embodiment of the state as such. it was in Elizabeth’s time that Shakespeare used the phrase, Theoretically, the doctrine of the divine right of kings “‘divinity doth hedge a king,”’’® and had one of his characwas an established principle long before Charles, Francis, __ ters refer to the ruler as: and Henry appeared on the scene,’° but it was their privi-

* . 1s capta stewar. .t t j°° ; -. Anointed, crowned.

lege and good luck to assume the reins of power under con- His. the figure of $a] ak

ditions which made it more workable than heretofore. This ape one en ea

is not the place to echo the writers on political theory, but quotations taken almost at random from a few sixteenth- The king wasa spiritual as well asa temporal force, and by

and seventeenth-century authors can serve to illustrate that token was regarded as a symbol of the state. how the ruler was regarded. Baldassare Castiglione says: Hence, if the state had come to exist as a coherent entity Thus, just as in heaven the sun and moon and other stars and the ruler was its divinely appointed embodiment, it was show the world as in a mirrour some likeness of God, so on fitting that he be portrayed with that fact in mind. There earth a much liker image of God is found in those good princes _ therefore arose a demand for a clearly official type of por-

who ore ane revere am ane show me people the shining trait: one designed to proclaim the subject’s rank and staIBAE OF Rus Justice anc 2 rellection of fits divine reason an tion rather than to record his features. Under certain condi-

mind; . . . Accordingly men have been placed by God under ; — ; ;

the ward of princes... .22 tions, however, it 1s possible that a satisfactory answer to

such a demand might have come less quickly and in a less Following much the same line of thought, Guazzo calls a _ felicitous manner than it did in the sixteenth century. It was good ruler “‘the lively Image of God,’”? while in France _ because the time was ripe in other respects as well that the Dampmartin inquires: “Are not princes the live Images of need was met so promptly.

The political trends outlined above may be partially truth of his verdict. But even there Louis XIV caused the responsible for the unusual esteem in which the art of walls to be adorned with numerous images of himself. No portraiture was held in the sixteenth century. Because the = matter what other means men may use to make their bid age witnessed an increasing relaxation of ecclesiastical | for immortality, the portrait remains the most direct and authority and a coincidental strengthening of secular comprehensible of those offered by the artist, and this fact

re ;

power, the lay patron rose to a new prominence. And it is _ alone goes far to account for its popularity in the sixteenth for him that the portrait has particular appeal. Admittedly, century.

the vision of personal glory and the urge to immortalize it A notable commentary in this connection is to be found can be served by many forms of art. Colbert is reported to _in Castiglione’s Book of the Courtier. In attempting to

. Tt ¢ ab] > > >

have said, Crest 4 Paune des monuments quon mes 13. Pierre de Dampmartin, Le Bonheur de la cour, Antwerp, les rois,” and the palace of Versailles attests to the partial 1592; Marguerite de Valois, Mésmotres de Marguerite de Valois .. . auquelsonaajousté . . . La Fortune de la cour, Liége, 1713, 10. Cf. J. M. Figgis, The Divine Right of Kings, 2nd ed., p. 239: “les Princes ne sont-ils pas les vives Images de Dieu?” (La

p. 262. Il, p. Xvil. .

Cambridge, Eng., 1922, passt. Fortune de la cour was an enlarged and revised edition of Le 11. Il libro del cortegiano, Venice, 1528; The Book of the Bonheur de la cour.) Courtier, trans. Leonard Eckstein Opdycke, New York, 1903, 14. The Works of Sir Walter Raleigh, 8 vols., Oxford, 1829,

12. Stefano Guazzo, La civile conversatione, Brescia, 1574; 15. The Moral and Historical Works of Lord Bacon, ed. Joseph The Civile Conversation of M. Steeven Guazzo, trans. George Devey, London, 1857, p. 57. Pettie, 1581, and Barth. Young, 1586, 2 vols., New York, 1925, I, 16. Hamlet, 1v, v.

p. 209. 17. Richard II, 1v, i.

4 THE STATE PORTRAIT

Pp g P ysorp & & po P ° 3321 . cc

determine the relative merits of painting and sculpture, one Biondo says of painting that it is “‘a godlike power for paintof the members of the court of Urbino is made to observe: _ ing represents the absent, and shows us the dead as if they

, . ere alive.”** Lomazzo partl ibutes “‘the excellence

In that statues are more enduring, perhaps we might say that were ali ° . om _ © partly attr but . ccs ©

they are of greater dignity; for being made as memorials, they and utility of painting” to the fact that it is an “instrument fulfill better than painting the purpose for which they are made. | of the memory,”*? and he emphasizes this point by enuBut besides serving as memorials, both painting and sculpture = merating the names of many famous people who had emser ve also to beautify, and in this respect painting is much —_pjoyed the services of the artist with that end in view. Man’s

. . . . 23

snperior. instinctive desire to perpetuate his fame is, therefore, an Apparently it was accepted without question in contempo- _— entirely valid reason for the creation of portraits.

rary court circles that one of the chief functions of art was to It is likwise one that no amount of disapproval will disserve as a “weapon ’gainst oblivion.” In fact, this convic- courage. If the subject be sufficiently distinguished, others tion was so strong that it found frequent expression in the than himself will be anxious to see his features immorwritings of theorists of art, and its origins can be traced to _—talized. For reasons to be discussed later, the philosopher classical sources. It is, moreover, one of those convictions, Plotinus refused to sit for his portrait when his admirers which, but dimly realized at first, gather momentum as _ requested him to do so,” but they succeeded in getting one

time passes. by stealth. Because it endows its subject with immortality, The following account of the rise of the art of sculpture _—‘ the portrait can be a potent ethical force, and this fact

in bronze in ancient times is given by Pliny: furnishes another reason for its popularity at various mo- . ments. Sixteenth-century writers follow the lead of their

From figures gods, bronze came to be usedin in pointing various waysout . . aethat ; ; . of classical predecessors

for statues and images of men. . . . The ancients did not makeart ; ;not only

any statues of individuals unless they deserved immortality by furnishes memorials, but that these memorials can be an some distinction, originally by a victory at some sacred games, example to others; and it is significant that this idea is most especially those of Olympia, where it was the custom to dedi- _ frequently illustrated by specific reference to portraiture. cate statues of all those who had conquered, and portrait statues Among others Lodovico Dolce tells a story that was not

if they had conquered three times. | only a universal favorite but also served as excellent propaHe then adds that the Athenians were “introducing anew ganda. He relates that when Caesar was a young man, he custom when they set up statues at the public expense in | WaS So moved by a statue of Alexander that he was imhonour of Harmodias and Aristogeiton who killed the mediately inspired. to emulate the Macedonian conqueror. tyrants.” This led to more such monuments, so that the The same author follows this anecdote with another con‘memories of men were immortalized, and their honours cerning Quintus Fabius and Publius Scipio which ends with were no longer graven on their tombstones, but handed _ the following words: down for posterity to read on the pedestals of statues. When they beheld the statues of their ancestors, they found

. 9919

Hence, according to Pliny, the artist moved from the re- _ their souls ablaze with ardor, and the remembrance of their ligious image to representations of great men which were __ glorious deeds so far increased the flame, that it could not be expressly designed to preserve the memory of their achieve- layed, until they had by their own powers equalled at least the

ment glories of theirand ancestors. So actions.** the images of the best men excite . , ; virtue good In the sixteenth century” Biondo, Lomazzo, Vasari, and 5

Dolce were among the writers who stressed the advantages Even Vasari, who professed a low opinion of portraiture, that art can offer those who wish to “cling to immortality.”

21. Michelangelo Biondo, Della nobilissima pittura, Venice,

18. Op. ctt., p. 66. 1549; ed. Julius Schlosser, Quellenschriften fiir Kunstgeschichte, 19. The Elder Pliny’s Chapters on the History of Art, trans. Vienna, 1888, v, p. 16.

K. Jex-Blake, London, 1896, pp. 13—15. 22. Giovanni Paolo Lomazzo, Trattato dell’arte della pittura, 20. It can also be added that similar opinions have been ex- scoltura, et architettura, Milan, 1584; ed. Milan, 1585, p. 6: “Da pressed in other centuries. Leon Battista Alberti has this to say in his tutte queste cose adunque si conosce, quanta sia leccellenza et

Della pittura (written ca. 1436): “Et cosi certo il viso di chi gia utilita de la pittura; pioche é instrumento de la memoria, instrusia morto per la pittura vive lunga vita”; cf. Della pittura, ed. mento de lintelletto, instrumento de la volunta; . . .” See also H. Janitschek, Quellenschriften fiir Kunstgeschichte, Vienna, 1888, ibid., p. 2.

XI, p. 89. Among seventeenth-century writers see Carlo Ridolfi, 23. This anecdote is told by Porphyry. Cf. Plotinus, Complete Le maraviglie dellarte, Venice, 1648; 2 vols, ed. Padua, 1835—- Works, trans. Kenneth S. Guthrie, 4 vols., Alpine, N.J., 1919, 1, 1837, I, p. 270; Filippo Baldinucci, Notizie de’? professori dal pp. 5-6. disegno . . ., Florence, 1681-1728}; 21 vols., ed. Florence, 1757- 24. L’Aretino, Dialogo della pittura, Venice, 1557; ed. Flor1774, XXI, pp. 113-114; and Félibien les Avaux, Entretiens sur les ence, 1910, pp. 47~48. See note 26 below for the original; for vies . . . des plus excellens peintres anciens et modernes, Paris, English text cf. 4 Dialogue on Painting, London, 1770, p. 59. 1666-1669; 4 vols., ed. London, 1705, 1, p. 73. And for the eight- Variants of the story about Alexander and the statue of Caesar apeenth century cf. Jonathan Richardson, 4n Essay on the Theory of pear frequently: cf., among others, Lomazzo, o?. cit., p. 431, and

Painting, London, 1715, pp. 16 f. Biondo, op. cét., p. 16.

THE STATE PORTRAIT 5 realized its ethical value. He particularly eulogized the _ he proceeds to illustrate this pious statement by telling how Venetian practice of exhibiting ancestral likenesses, for he | Caesar was inspired to emulate Alexander at sight of the

says that it is latter’s statue. He therefore starts with the particular case

a custom which is certainly most praiseworthy, and was in of the religious rep resentation and ends with praise for the use even among the ancients. For who does not feel infinite images of “good and virtuous men” in general. Apparently contentment, to say nothing of the beauty and ornament result- the two are so closely linked in his mind that he hardly ing from them, at the sight of the effigies of his ancestors, more tries to distinguish between them. In contemplating either particularly if they have been distinguished for their deeds in type of work men are aroused to high-minded thoughts

war .or. ,by theirheroic worksactions, in peace.so. .both . And to what ;;, . and serve the other causespurpose of morality. . . . did the ancients place the statues of their great men, with L i -_

honorable inscriptions, in the public places, if not to the end OMALZO also Seems to have felt that religious art and that they might awaken the love of glory and excellence in portraiture were connected and of almost equal importance,

those who come after? *® for in speaking of the latter he says:

The consideration that portraiture can stir men to high I believe it to be so ancient, that it was born at the same time endeavor is closely linked with a wider interpretation of the ** the art of painting itself, which arose for the making of

. images, because the portraits of great men are like unto idols in

form as a whole. The opening sentences of the passage clay.27 quoted above from Pliny — “from figures of gods, bronze

came to be used . . . for the statues and images of men” — Probably he knew the writings of Pliny and was therefore could easily be construed as placing the representations of | aware that the classical author held the earliest forms of great men in a category not far removed from religious art. representational art to have been religious in character. It is true that Pliny himself does not actually connect the Certainly the passage just quoted might imply this, but — sacred image and the portrait-memorial except inachrono- _ since it makes no clear distinction between “portraits of logical sequence, but he implies that the one evolved from = great men”’ and “idols,” it gives the impression that the the other, and in an age noted for its devotion to classical development recounted by Pliny was simultaneous rather writers, this alone might furnish a potent argument in favor than consecutive. In any case, with Lomazzo, portraiture of the art of portraiture. Biondo may have had just this occupies a place so close to sacred art that it seems to partake

...a>.*..

. . . ae . . “2 28

idea in mind when he declared that painting was a godlike © of some of the same essential qualities.

. .. ce . .ee . . e. b 0 .29 *

power while the pronouncements of Dolce and Lomazzo Arguments in its favor were therefore numerous and indicate that they detected a significant reason behind the cogent, and accordingly, people not only desired likenesses

fact that art evolved from the portrayal of gods to that of | of themselves, but were also anxious to acquire those of

great men. others. In some quarters collecting portraits of distinIn a discussion of the usefulness of painting, Dolce moves guished men and women became almost an obsession. with no transition from the sacred image to the secular. He | Galleries such as those formed by Paolo Giovio,*” William begins by saying that all people have realized the benefits si fece eguale ad Alessandro, ma lo superd. Scrive anco Sallustio that come from the display of figures of the Saviour, the che Quinto Fabio e Publio Scipione solevano dire che quando Virgin, and the saints, because “Gmages — like pleasing riguardavano le immagini dei maggiori si sentivano accendere

b ken th ‘ad to d ‘on.2° Th tutti alla virtu: non che la cera o il marmo, di ch’era fatta Dim-

remembrances —~ awaken the mind to devotion. en. magine, avesse tanta forza, ma cresceva la flamma negli animi di quegli egregi uomini per la memoria de’fatti illustri: né prima si 25. Giorgio Vasari, Le wite de’ pit eccelenti pittort . . ., Flor- acquetava, che essi le loro prodezze non aveano eguagliata la lor ence, 1550, 2nd ed., 1568; ed. Gaetano Milanesi, 8 vols., Florence, gloria. Le immagini adunque de’buoni e de’virtuosi infiammano gli

1878-1885, III], pp. 168-169. For English text cf. The Lives of uomini, come io dico, alla virtt ed alle opere buone.”

the Most Eminent Painters . . ., trans. Mrs. Jonathan Foster, 27. Op. cit., p. 430: “L’uso del ritrarre dal naturale cioé di far

5 vols., London, 1891, MH, p. 170. le imagini de gl’huomini simili 4 loro, si che da chiunque gli vede 26. Op. ctt., pp. 46-48: “Prima non é dubbio, ch’é di gran siano riconosciuti per quei medesimi; credo io che sia tanto antico, beneficio agli uomini il veder dipinta immagine del nostro Re- che nascesse in un punto insieme con l’arte istessa de dipingere; dentore, della Vergine, e di diversi santi e sante. E puossi prendere laqualle da prima non ft ritrovata ad altro che 4 fare le imagini, argomento da questo, che ancora che alcuni imperatori, e massima- cloé i ritratti de’grandi huomini come d’Idoli in terra. Onde ne é mente greci, proibissero l’uso pubblico delle immagini, esso da che in quei primi tempi solo i Principi Pusarono, come scrive molti pontefici ne’sacri concili fu approvato. . . . Perché le imma- Lattantio, dicendo che le imagini over ritratti cosi di rilievo come gini non pur sono, come si dice, libri degl’ignoranti, ma, quasi di pittura furono fatte prima per memoria dei Ré.. . .” piacevolissimi svegliatoi, destano anco a devozione gl’intendenti: 28. See also Vincenzio Carducci, Dialogo de la pittura . . .,

questi e quelli innalzando alla considerazione di cid ch’elle rappre- 1633; Didlogos de la pintura, ed. D. G. Cruzada Villaamil, ; sentano. Onde si legge che Giulio Cesare vedendo in Ispagna una Madrid, 1865, pp. 250-251. statua di Alessandro Magno, e mosso da quella a considerar che 29. Cf. Hildamarie Schwindrazheim, “Eine Portritsammlung Alessandro negli anni, ne’ quali esso allora si trovava, aveva quasi Wilhelms IV von Hessen und der ‘Giildene Saal,’ Marsura. acquistato il mondo, e che da lui non si era ancor fatta cosa degna JAHRB., X, 1937, pp. 263 ff., for a good account of the growth of di gloria, pianse: e tanto s’insiammo nel desiderio della immor- such collections as well as information on most of those cited here. talita, che si mise dipoi a quelle alte imprese, per le quali non solo 30. Cf. ibid., pp. 264 f.; see also Louis Dimier, L’Histotre de la

6 THE STATE PORTRAIT IV of Hesse,** Ferdinand of Tyrol,*” Cosimo I de’ Me- __ should not be forgotten that conventions originating in redici,*’ Catherine de’ Medici,** Lord Lumley,*° and Maria _ligious art are sometimes adopted for the portrayal of great of Hungary,*° some of which contained hundreds of speci- _—_— secular personages. And there is one striking instance of a

mens, are symptomatic of the age. And no less so was the _—sixteenth-century author who even looked upon the reli-

publication of series of engravings of great people as if in gious figure and the portrait as interchangeable. In a answer to the demands of those who could not afford discussion of proportion Lomazzo says that:

original paintings.*” , ae , At the same time the high regard in which portraiture . . os .

5 S . , . ; From proportion there follows and results infinite and im; _ portant effects, of which the principal ones are majesty and

was held explains why even the most original and inventive beauty of the body, called by Vitruvius, “Eurythmy” (hargeniuses of the age were sought in their capacity as portrai- mony)... . The further importance of this beauty and majtists, and why, in addition, many artists devoted their esty of the body is seen more clearly in the divine cult than in talents to little else. The art therefore not only received the anything else, for it is a marvellous thing how piety, religion,

we , oe and reverence for God and the saints are increased in our minds attentions of the best practitioners, but it recruited its own ; ,

; ; F h hat in th by the majesty and beauty of sacred images, caused by the pres-

professionals as well. It is small wonder, then, that in t € ence in them of Eurythmy.®® sixteenth century its production increased to an astonish-

ing degree, and that its resources were given the fullest In 1598 an English translation of Lomazzo’s Trattato possible expression, so that new conventions and approaches = appeared at Oxford. This was the work of one Richard

were developed in answer to specialized needs. Haydocke, most of whose rendering is reasonably close to Nor, from what has been said, is it surprising that the the spirit and letter of the original. But Haydocke seems to state-portrait should have enjoyed special favor. The most have been decidedly anti-papist, and when he came to the influential patrons were the men who controlled the po- — passage quoted above, he translated it as follows:

litical destinies of Europe, for the greatest wealth and , . ; . , P a 8 dth But if we shall enter into further consideration of this beauty,

power were concentrated in their hands; and these were the it will appeare most evidently, in things appertaining to Civile very individuals who are its rightful subjects. Since they _—_dicipline. For it is strange to consider, what effects of piety, revwere largely occupied with matters of public policy, it was _ erence and religion, are stirred in men’s mindes, by meanes of

inevitable that they would be most interested in those this suitable comlinesse of apte proportion.”

forms of art that catered to their self-esteem and added to a ; - Any reference to ecclesiastical art is conspicuously absent the glory of the which they wereand the divinely ; cae yeas 95replaced - 38states fromofthis rendering, “Civile apdicipline” has

pointed representatives. ae, ; oeregard ae itculto divino! In this is illuminating to recall those pro- , i,

;that ; . _ associated The case of portraiture this substitution be an extreme instance nouncements withmay religious art. . .but ; . of how the sixteenth-century mind functioned, conWhile the opinion they express may sidered seemin exaggerated, it ; , the light of contemporary political trends even peinture de portrait en France au seiztéme siécle, 3 vols., Paris, outside of England, it cannot be called illogical. The mere 1924-1926, 1, p. 131. The collection was started before 1521 and

contained more than 240 panels. 39. Op. cit., p. 33: “Ora da la proportione ne seguono, e re-

31. Cf. Schwindrazheim, of. cit., pp. 269 ff. sultano infinite, e importanti effetti, de’ quali il principali é la 32. Cf. ibid., pp. 265 f. See also Friedrich Kenner, “Die maesta, e bellezza ne’ corpi da Vittruvio chiamata Eurithmia.. . .

Portritsammlung des Erzherzogs Ferdinand von Tirol,” JAHRB. Di quanta importanza sia poi questa bellezza, e maesta ne corpi, Kunstu. SAMML, AH. KAISERH., XIV, 1893, pp. 37 ff.; xv, 1894, pil che chiaramente si vede ne le cose appartenenti al culto divino, pp. 147 ff.; XviI, 1896, pp. 101 ff.; XviIl, 1897, pp. 135 ff.; xIx, si che de la maesta, e bellezza de le sacri imagini, in causata in loro

1898, pp. 6 ff. da questa Eurithmia, e symmetria maravigliosa cosa é quanto 33. Cf. Schwindrazheim, of. cit., p. 265. See also Venturi, s’accresca ne gl’animi nostri la pieta, la religione, e la riverenza

Storia, Milan, 1x®, 1933, p. 408. verso Dio, e i Santi suoi; come si legge Giove che scolpi Fidio in 34. Cf. Ernest Lavisse, Histoire de France, Paris, v7, 1911, Elide; . . . Per ilche conoscendo di quanta eccellenza, e dignita

p. 361. fosse questa proportione cosi grata al vedere, e cosi dolce dimostra35. Cf. Shakespeare’s England, 2 vols., Oxford, 1916, I, tice delle cose belle, Pantichissimo Zeusi persuase, % tutta la Grecia,

pp. 5-6. quando ella, pit fioriva, che la pitture in cui si scorgeva questa 36. For an inventory of the collection as it stood in 1582, cf. maesta fossero donate 4 Principe, e 4 sacri tempij, si come quelle Roblot-Delondre, “Argote de Molina et les tableaux du Pardo,” che non si potevano estimare con prezzo, per essere opere di quelli, Revue archéologique, xvi, ser. 4, 1910, pp. 52-70. See also Carl che come Dei fra gli huomini erano tenuti: poi che rappresentavano

Justi, “Verzeichnis der frither in Spanien befindlichen . . . Ge- quasi tutto quello che’! grande Iddio fabricato haveva, e di pit milde Tizians,” JAHRB. PREUSS. KUNSTSAMML., X, 1889, p. 1813 aggiungevano bellezza dove la natura havea mancato scegliendo

and Georg Gronau, Titian, London and New York, 1904, pp. sempre il fiore delle delitie visuale.” For further mention of the

148-149. statue of Zeus and its effect upon the morals of its beholders, cf., 37. Cf. Schwindrazheim, of. cit., p. 264. among others, Alberti, Della pittura, pp. 89-91, and Biondo,

38. For an interesting discussion of this matter, cf. A. S. To- Della nobilissima pittura, p. 17. mars, Introduction to the Sociology of Art, Mexico City, 1940, 40. Tracte Containing the Artes of Curious Paintinge, Carv-

pp. 330 ff. inge, and Buildinge, Oxford, 1598, p. 26.

THE STATE PORTRAIT 7 fact that it came to be made is extremely significant. It is | lows that the figure of the king could replace that of a meman unconscious — and therefore the more revealing — ad- __ ber of the heavenly hierarchy. Consequently, the number mission of the triumph of secular despotism over religious _— of portraits of the ruler will necessarily increase, and his

and even political sentiment, and for the portrait itcan be _ likeness will inevitably find its place in governmental seen to carry subtle implications. When the divine cult is _ buildings just as a holy figure is found in houses of worship. superseded by civil discipline, the concerns of the temporal _—In council chambers and resorts of public assembly, men

ruler may easily displace those of the spiritual—or at will look upon the portrait of the head of the state, seeing least make similar demands. For instance: if a beautiful _in it a symbol of that to which they owe their allegiance. sacred image can inspire reverence and piety, a well-con- _—“ This alone will create a demand for a type of work that ceived portrait should command a like respect, and it fol- _—-will distinguish the subject as more than human.

IV If the state-portrait is now considered from a purely _ portrait. Either by accident or design, the monuments cited stylistic point of view, it will be found that its requirements = above from mediaeval art also exhibit many of the features

could hardly have been satisfactorily met before the six- desired, a circumstance which has even caused them to be teenth century. Moreover, it should also become apparent _ called forerunners of the later European state-portrait.® that this very century was one in which the art of easel = All are monumental in conception if not in size, and the portraiture reached a stage of evolution where it was ex- _ official nature of the subject is made apparent by more than ceptionally well qualified to deal with the demands of this _ one device. The figures are decked with the regalia associ-

particular branch. ated with high office. They assume poses that are hieratic While it is to be admitted that the problems posed by —_ and compelling while their faces, perhaps for the very reathe state-portrait can be solved by methods other than those __ son that they are not realistic, add to the impression of alused by sixteenth-century painters, variations in approach _— most other-worldly grandeur.

and handling are not too numerous. The very act of trans- There is, however, no unbroken line of descent from forming the likeness of a given individual into a personifica- the great Roman state-portraits to those of the Renaissance.

tion of certain abstract concepts is such that some basic And although the artists of the sixteenth century were constants must be recognized no matter when or by whom ___ doubtless acquainted with the work of their classical fore-

the transformation is wrought. bears, there is little evidence that they relied on it to any To begin with, the official character of the state-portrait great extent for inspiration.” Nor is there anything to indirequires that it be grandly conceived. This will entail cate that the mediaeval works cited above played a part in monumentality in scale and design, thus making unde- _— forming the new tradition. The sixteenth-century statesirable the use of such simple arrangements as profile portrait emerged from the field of secular panel portraiture, views, or bust and even waist-length schemes for the body. — an art which did not make its appearance until the latter

In fact, it is easy to understand that the impressiveness of part of the fourteenth century, and one which, with the the image will be in direct proportion to the amount of the _ exception of the Westminster portrait of Richard II,** used

body that is revealed. The pose assumed by the figure the simplest formulas at the start and only slowly evolved should then be a very important concern, and only those —_—more elaborate usages.

attitudes that are calculated to enhance its dignity and grav- The earliest easel portrait extant happens to depict a ity will be suitable. At the same time the symbolic character _ reigning monarch. It is a likeness of John II of France of the work should exact a note of abstraction and impassivity in the rendering of the face of the sitter. Unless : ve ot Keller, Jaurp, Preuss. KUNSTSAMML., LVI, 1935, he be endowed with unusual beauty, a detailed study of his | 42. CE. Wegner, Die Herrscherbildnisse in Antoninischer Zeit,

features might necessitate the recording of physical defects pp. 7 f. Titian’s portrait of the Duke of Atri (Kassel) is one that detract from the purity desirable in a symbol, and the striking piece of evidence that the conventions of the Prima Porta

. ogee . type were known to the sixteenth century. But it is pertinent to re-

evocation of individual moods would tend to reveal just mark that Titian did not use them in the case of any other distinthose marks of personal feeling that stress the humanity of _—_ guished subject.

a man rather than the remoteness of a superior being. 43. As already indicated (text above and note 8), this work Due regard has been given to these considerations in Sry Sophisticated art of religious painting, ft exmnoe heciore be the Caesar statue as well as the sixteenth-century state- said to belong to the main tradition of secular panel portraiture.

8 THE STATE PORTRAIT (Paris) (Fig. 2), a work which dates from the ’fifties or | background. An artificial frame surrounds the composisixties of the fourteenth century.** In spite of the subject’s _ tion and forms a ledge upon which one hand is allowed to high station, however, the scale is small and the design __ rest. Probably the work of a Fleming, it incorporates elerudimentary. The painter has used what is perhaps the — ments which were in common use in the Netherlands from most archaic of all means of reproducing the essential traits the time of Hans Memling on.*° Much the same scheme, of a specific individual: a profile view of head and shoul- _ but without the naturalistic background, also serves for a

ders. Given such limitations, it is next to impossible to portrait of Henry VII of England (London, National achieve effects commensurate with the personal and spir- _— Portrait Gallery) (Fig. 4). It is attributed to Michel Sit-

itual importance of the subject. tow (1469-1525 )*’ and bears the date 1505. This means In the fifteenth century panel portraiture became an that it was executed at a time when the formula it incorincreasingly important art, and the facilities at its dis- | porates had become somewhat antiquated in the land of posal in the matter of pose, design, and technical dexterity _its origin. expanded accordingly. Yet neither the pace of the develop- In Spain, where the records show that Sittow and a cerment nor the demands of the patron were such as to en- _ tain Juan de Flandes (died 1519) were among the favorite courage work particularly suited to the needs of official _ court painters, there is little to show that the situation was secular symbolism. Literal exactitude in rendering the face _ any different. Cases in point are the simple busts of Joanna

remained a paramount concern thereby preventing any — the Mad and Philip the Fair in Vienna, which are attribwidespread attempts at idealization. Although three-quar- _—_ uted to Juan de Flandes,** and a kindred portrayal of ter views of head and body, waist-length figures, and elabo- | Catherine of Aragon (Vienna) (Fig. 5), which is probrate backgrounds had been introduced by the end of the _—_ ably the work of Sittow.*® In Germany the likenesses of century, these innovations in themselves were not suff- |§ Maximilian I are proof that even in the exalted circles of cient. Despite their greater variety and ingenuity, the re- — the Hapsburgs, it was the exception rather than the rule to sultant designs did not lend themselves to grandiose ef- | employ special conventions in panel portraits of the Holy

fects. Roman Emperor. So great was the accumulated prestige of | In addition, there does not seem to have been any inter- _fifteenth-century practices that as late as 1502, Ambrogio est in distinguishing differing ranks in the social and po- _—_ da Predis (ca. 1455-1522) used nothing more impressive

litical hierarchy by purely formal means. Even those con- than a profile bust (Vienna) when he depicted Maxiventions in common use were not regarded as exclusive,so = milian. Even Diirer’s (1471-1528) portrait (Vienna), that the same formulas served for prince and commoner _ which carries the date 1519, reveals the body only to the alike. Perhaps this was partially due to the fact that the — waist although showing it in three-quarter profile. In 1507 very rarity of the art conferred a distinction in itself. And = Bernhard Strigel (1460/61-——ca. 1528), who was the there is the additional circumstance that taste in such lead- |= Emperor’s favorite court portraitist, seems to have been ing centers as Florence and Flanders was dominated by a __ striving for something more ceremonious when he exemiddle-class society while methods emanating therefrom _ cuted the portrait which represents Maximilian in full reset the standards for lands where courts did hold sway. galia and seated on a throne with his body seen to below Jean Fouquet’s (ca. 1420-1477/81) likeness of the waist (Augsburg) (Fig. 6).°° But this work is excepCharles VII of France (Paris) (Fig. 3), which was tional for its author, because the bulk of Strigel’s produc- painted about 1450,*° is certainly a more impressive per- _ tion shows him to have been content with established conformance than the profile of John II. Painted curtains are — ventions. On the whole his output is but further evidence parted to reveal a life-size, frontally disposed figure which _ that general trends in portraiture during the period which

is seen to the waist. The hangings certainly add a distinctive note, but the pose as well as the costume of the 46. Cf. Charles R. Beard, “A Portrait of Louis XI,” The Conroyal sitter are closely paralleled in the contemporary Man —"o#sseur, LXXXVII, 1931, pp. 275-276. He dates the work ca. 1456-

with a Glass of Wine (Paris) which presumably depicts ee For a full discussion of this work and its author, cf. Gustav a commoner. A likeness of Charles’ successor, Louis XI, Gliick, “The Henry VII in the National Portrait Gallery,” Burt. in the National Gallery, London, consists of a lengthened MaG., LXIII, 1933, pp. 100 ff.; see also Paul Johanson, “Meister bust in three-quarter profile placed against a landscape Michel Sittow, Hofmaler der K6nigen Isabella von Kastilien und Birger von Reval,” JAHRB. PREUsS. KUNSTSAMML., LXI, 1941,

44. Charles Sterling, Les Primitifs, Paris, 1938, p. 25, dates it pp. 1-36. ca. 1360. Borenius and Tristram, English Mediaeval Painting, 48. Cf. Gliick, “Bildnisse von Juan de Flandes,” Pantheon, p- 24, place it ca. 1357. For an interesting discussion of the work, VIII, 1931, PP. 3137317. cf. Keller, Résmisches Jahrb. fiir Kunstgeschichte, 111, 1939) Pp» 344. 49. Cf. Gliick, Burt. Mac., LXIII, 1933, pp. 106 f. 45. Sterling, op. ctt., p. 75, dates it ca, 1444-1451; Trenchard 50. Cf. Ludwig Baldass, Der Kunstlerkreis Kaiser Maxtmilians, Cox, Jehan Foucquet, Native of Tours, London, 1931, pp. 49-50, Vienna, 1923, p. 37. Numerous copies were made to be used, most

thinks that it was not done earlier than 1451. probably, as gifts.

THE STATE PORTRAIT 9 encompasses the early Renaissance and late Gothic styles Indeed, in the light of what was happening at about the did not favor the creation of an art of monumental char- same time in Germany this would seem to be the most

acter and heroic intent. likely explanation for the unusual character of the images On the other hand, it would be remiss not to point out. under discussion. The wings of the Baumgartner altarthat the device of the standing full-length view, which was __ piece by Diirer (Munich), which likewise dates from to become a cherished usage in state-portraiture, seems to —_ around. 1500, are adorned with the single standing figures

have made its appearance toward the very end of this age. _ of its donors, Lucas and Stephen Baumgartner. The sub-

The formula is used for the single portraits of Philip the jects are supposed to impersonate Saints George and Fair and Joanna the Mad which formed the wings of the — Eustace, but this religious gloss is not very obvious, and altar of the Last Judgment from Zierickzee (Brussels) hence the portraits might be said to constitute another link (Figs. 7 and 8), a work that was done about 1500. The —_ with secular imagery. Perhaps they even acted as a signal, royal pair are depicted in the role of donors, but their like- —_ because it was not long before panels showing figures siminesses mark a sharp break with contemporary practice in _ larly disposed but stripped of any religious symbolism be-

the matter of donor portraits, which habitually repre- gin to appear in Germany, The earliest dated examples are sented the subjects in a kneeling position and accompanied __ portrayals of Henry the Pious (Fig. 10) and his wife

by patron saints. In such cases there is no chance of mis- Katherine (Dresden), which were painted by the elder taking the ecclesiastical intention, whereas, if the panels Cranach (1472-1553) in 1514.°* under discussion were removed from the altarpiece of With these compositions the use of the standing fullwhich they are a part, there would be no clues to indicate — length figure for secular portraiture became an accepted their former status. In short, they are so constituted that fact, but any potentialities it possessed as an emblem of they could serve equally well in a secular context, and be- _— sovereign majesty were far from realized. It is the blatancy

cause the standing full-length portrait was destined for of the Duke’s image that attracts notice rather than any just such a purpose, it would be illuminating to know what innate nobility. His body is frontally disposed with the inspired the artist — whom some think to have been a _ weight on one foot, but the pose is not assumed with digminor Fleming by the name of Jacques van Lathem (act. __ nity. Rather, it gives the effect of a swagger. For her part,

1493-1522)” — to have been so original. the Duchess stands with her hands folded over her stomach Apparently the earliest use of the formula for secular as if she were ill at ease. In both works the costumes are images is to be found in Jan van Eyck’s double portrait of — painted with minute attention to detail and constitute Giovanni Arnolfini and his wife, but there is little toshow rather fine passages in linear design, but Henry’s suit is so that this work had any influence on succeeding genera- = showy as to be erratic while Katherine’s dress so overtions of panel painters, and it is hardly likely that it was — whelms her that her natural lack of presence is pathetically known to an artist who was working for the Hapsburgs _ evident. The general impression is that of a rather garish toward the end of the century. But other alternatives sug- _— fashion plate on the one hand, and a rather dowdy one on gest themselves. The device was current for the fanciful the other.”® images of rulers that became increasingly common in the later Middle Ages on buildings as well as in tapestries and © (Ghent, University Library, Ms. 10), a manuscript dating ‘from “os between 1488 and 1508, may be of some interest: cf. zbid., p. 79 stained glass. It had also been used for courtly portraits in and pl. Lxviit, It shows an artist in his studio at work on a panel the field of book illumination, where, although the figures containing a single standing full-length figure. If taken at face

are usually part of a group, they sometimes appear singly value, the illumination might indicate that the full-length view (Fi ).°2 Moreover, solitary standing figures of saints was not unusual. But, as we have seen, extant production does not

8 9). . ” . . support this assumption. Moreover, it is quite possible that the artist

were often painted on the wings of just such altars asthe =; painting a female saint rather than a portrait. one containing the likenesses of Philip and Joanna. It is 54. Between these portraits and the Baumgartner altarpiece therefore possible that the artist may have done nothing there are also the likenesses of Claus Stalberg and his wife (Frank-

k ter { lic} to secular furt-am-Main) by Georg Ratgeb. Grete Ring, Beitrége =, Ge-

more than make a transfer from religious to secu schichte der niederlandischen Bildnismalerei im 15 und 16 Jahr-

imagery.”* hundert, Leipzig, 1913, p. 76, comments on the possible importance of these works as early examples of the standing full-length por51. For information about this painter and opinions concerning trait. But it should be added that there is some doubt as to whether

the authorship of the altar under discussion, cf. F. Winkler in they were not originally part of a religious composition. PreThieme-Becker, Kanstlerlextkhon, Leipzig, XX11, 1928, p. 418, and sumably, it is these portraits that are also mentioned by F. Burger,

Max J. Friedlander, Die altniederlandische Malerei, Berlin, 1v, H. Schmitz, and I. Beth, Die deutsche Malerei vom ausgehenden ' 1926, p. 117. Friedlinder is the authority for the date given here. Mittelalter bis zum Ende der Renaissance, 4 vols., Berlin, 191352. For precise details on two such manuscripts, cf. Paul Dur- 1919, II, p. 642. rieu, La Miniature flamande, Paris and Brussels, 1927, p. 66 and 55. Perhaps this is not pure coincidence. Costume plates were

pl. xi; p. 74. and pl. yvini. | very popular in Germany at this time, and even Diirer catered to 53- In this connection a page from La Rhétorique de Cicéron the taste as early as 1500. His sketches of Niirnberg ladies (Vienna,

Te) THE STATE PORTRAIT _ Furthermore, if Cranach was not able to make use of | monial value of many types of art.°° Apparently the forthe formula in such a way that its ceremonious and monu- — mula was not used in his case despite the fact that it was mental possibilities would be apparent, he also betrayed the = known to Bernhard Strigel, who employed it for a portrait fact that he was unconscious of its suitability asa means of | of the Augsburg patrician, Konrad Rehlingen (Munich).

honoring subjects whose rank demanded that they be | It would therefore seem that the chief convention treated differently from their fellow men. Henry the Pious — which the late Gothic age could transmit to the sixteenth-

was a nobleman, but beside such a man as the Elector century state-portraitist did not originate as a specifically Frederick the Wise, he was a person of minor importance. _ regal or perhaps even aristocratic affair. But although Yet Cranach portrayed the latter in a far simpler man- there was no inherited tradition of state-portraiture when ner. Nor was he alone in so doing, for it is noteworthy that the sixteenth century began, and a new respect for mohis compatriots and contemporaries were no more able narchic authority made it an increasingly desirable thing, than he to appreciate the inherent nobility of the formula _ the deficiency was soon made up. In certain centers the

which he had more or less established. normal course of stylistic evolution was such that a suitable This is particularly evident in view of the fact that the — body of principles and figural schemes soon began to standing full-length figure made its appearance in Ger- —_ emerge and take shape. The state-portrait was, in fact, part many during the lifetime of Maximilian I, who was deeply _— of a general refining process that affected all branches of imbued with dynastic pride and well aware of the cere- __ portraiture in the sixteenth century.

Vv In spite of the fact that conditions attendant on the rise maintain contact with one another, and artists were even of nationalism were partially responsible for its coming — dispatched to distant courts for the express purpose of reinto being, the sixteenth-century state-portrait in its final cording the features of beloved relatives.** By such means form was an international phenomenon. In those circles new devices and methods quickly spread from one land to from which it was to emerge, the very fact that nationalism —_ another, and certain poses and arrangements became interwas rampant generated forces which made this inevitable. _ national property.

As separate national states became stronger internally, However, the Italian wars, which were likewise an outrivalries between them did not abate, and one of the re- — come of national rivalries, were perhaps an even more cru-

sults was an increased tendency for royalty to marry po- cial force in the direction of internationalism. Not only tential foreign allies, so that the family ties of princes be- = was Italy fought over and pillaged by her transalpine came more and more international. Projected alliances neighbors, but by 1530 she had become for all practical were customarily preceded by an exchange of portraits of | purposes a province of the world empire of the Hapsburgs. the would-be contracting parties, and not infrequently court = After his coronation at Bologna in that year, Charles V painters were sent to foreign lands to record the features of opened the richest court in Europe to Italian artists. Titian possible matrimonial candidates.*’ In addition, since fami- became a favorite protégé of the Hapsburgs, in whose dolies were often irrevocably parted, the portrait furnished —= mains increasing numbers of his compatriots found em-

an excellent means by which scattered members could ployment. Nor did France, who was the principal loser in the contest, return empty-handed from the lists of Naples Albertina) give the same impression of ‘dressed-up” self-con- and the plains of Lombardy. French minds and senses were sciousness as the Duchess Katherine. Nor do the points of resem- stimulated by direct contact with the civilization of Renais-

blance end there. Diirer’s sketches show single standing full-length .

figures, some posed in exactly the same manner as Cranach’s distine S4NCE Italy, and returning warriors were spurred to emu-

guished subject. late and imitate all that they had known of it. In this man56. For a short and illuminating survey of the portraits of ner Italian artistic forms and practices penetrated the

Maximilian, cf. Baldass, op. cit. ;abound. i frontiers of all the major nations and materially changed5 57. Notable instances Titian’s armor portrait of Philip

II (Madrid) was sent to England in 1553 when the King of Spain the taste of transalpine Europe. Because of this fact Italy

; was seeking the hand of Mary Tudor: cf. August Mayer, “Tizianstudien,” MUFNCH. JAHRB., N.F., 11, 1925, p. 268. Moreover, at 58. Mor was sent to Portugal on just such a mission for Marabout the same time, Anthonis Mor was sent to England to paint garet of Hungary: cf. note 97 below. Armand Baschet, “Frans a likeness of Mary: cf. note 97 below. Concerning similar commis- Pourbus, peintre de portraits 4 la cour de Mantoue,” Gaz, DES sions given to Holbein, cf. Paul Ganz, Hans Holbein, Stuttgart, B-A., 18687, pp. 277-298 and 438-456, gives interesting docu-

1912, Pp. XXXIX. mentary material relative to a similar situation.

THE STATE PORTRAIT | 11 was a geographic center and disseminating point for the _ pursuits of the subject, or to indicate the associations that

state-portrait in the early stages of its evolution. conditioned his acts and thoughts. Some of these practices This was indeed fortunate, for atthe moment when she __ could have little direct effect on the state-portrait, because

came to assume her leadership in matters of taste, Italy | it demands a minimum of subjectivity. But their use does was at that stage in her artistic evolution where she could _—imply that the portraitist was seeking to depict the essential

best supply some of the features that are most appropriate character of his subject rather than mere externals, and « to the state-portrait. As never before her artists were aim- __ until he had learned to do this, he could hardly be expected

ing at the sublimation of nature while endeavoring to to produce a likeness that was at the same time a symbol. achieve monumental and calculated effects in the realm of ‘The appearance of these innovations can be traced step

abstract design. by step through the first two or three decades of the cenDuring the first two decades of the century, the results tury in such important centers as Florence,°° Rome, and were as evident In portraiture as they were in other forms _—- Venice. In many respects Leonardo’s Mona Lisa (Paris) of visual expression. The general desire to think in terms _ can be regarded as one of the earliest and most significant of an ideal type caused even the portraitist to deal gently = landmarks. The use of a half-length figure in contrapposto with the features of his sitter, so that the entire race seemed _is telling evidence that the body as well as the face of the to develop a new purity and nobility of countenance. Sepa- _ sitter was becoming an important consideration. Leonardo rate features became less noteworthy than the carriage of has brought into play all of his vast knowledge of anatomy the head, the general structure of the face, and the expres- and _three-dimensional form, and from his example there sion about mouth and eyes. There was also a noticeable in- —_ was no turning back. In painting the face he has sublimated crease in the care and thought devoted to the arrangement — what was before his eyes by making it conform to his perof the body of the sitter. It began to assume more expres- _ sonal conception of what constituted true beauty. As a resive attitudes, and the ability of a portraitist became com- __ sult, strict physical resemblance has been partially supmensurate with his skill in rendering the human form. Lit- _ pressed in the interests of an ideal. Perhaps this could be a tle or no limit was placed on the number of angles from _—_ dangerous precedent, but it inaugurates a procedure that is which a figure could be portrayed, and there wasa marked __ essential for the artist who desires to depict the subject not

tendency to increase the amount of it to be represented. _as he seems but as he should be.

The half-length became the rule rather than the excep- In the second decade of the century it appears to have tion, and in the second decade of the century the three- been Raphael (1483-1520) and Titian (1477-1576) quarter length was used more and more frequently. For |= who made the most original and progressive use of the new the purposes of this study in particular, it should also be = methods. During his stay in Rome Raphael endowed the noted that as the artist’s capacity grew, he instinctively felt formula of the half-length figure with even greater variety

the need for more space in which to exhibit his talentsasa and dignity than it possessed in its own right. By endesigner and constructor, There was a marked increase in _nobling the features and enlarging the proportions of his the dimensions of many canvases, with the result that the = models, he gave them a statuesque dignity that is gravely portrait became more monumental in scale as well as more _ impressive.

imposing in design and conception.”® Outstanding in this regard is the portrait of Julius IT Moreover, since the inclination to increase the impor- (Florence, Uffizi) (Fig. 11), which can hardly be later tance and beauty of any and every human countenance and than 1513. The seated figure of the Pontiff is life-size, and form probably arises in large part from humanistic respect in accordance with contemporary tendencies to concen-

for what they enshrine — namely the soul and intellect trate on the human form, it is seen against a simple green various means were developed to suggest the intangibles of | backdrop. The vertical formed by the body is accented by an individual’s inner life. By making faces more expressive __ the back of the chair, and the effect is so striking that one and mobile, some artists tried to introduce psychological _ has the impression of seeing more of it than is actually the

overtones, There is also evidence (which will be considered _case. Part of the secret lies in the fact that neither the arm : at greater length elsewhere) that certain poses and ges- _— of the chair nor the arms and hands of the sitter are altures came to be employed for much the same purpose. Fi- —_ lowed to interfere with the body or to disturb the broad nally, carefully chosen material accessories were often sup- —s masses of scarlet and white. Concern for something more plied to serve as clues to the intellectual and occupational than mere physical resemblance has produced a likeness that glorifies an office as well as its holder. 59. A comparison of the dimensions of some of the works of Raphael’s contributions were ably consummated in a the painters discussed below is alone illuminating. The Mona Lisa measures 53 by 77 centimeters, and the portrait of Maddalena 60. For a survey of developments in Florentine portraiture of Doni, 44 by 62, whereas the Donna Velata measures 60 by 82, the this period, cf. Jean Alazard, Le Portrait florentin de Botticelli a portrait of Castiglione, 67 by 82, and that of Julius II, 82 by 99. Bronzino, 2nd ed., Paris, 1938.

‘

12 THE STATE PORTRAIT work which he may have designed, and which appears to _—iknees. The stately note thus struck is further enhanced by

have been painted about 1518.°' This is the portrait of the use of a standing rather than a seated position which is Joanna of Aragon (Paris) (Fig. 12), the wife of Prince —_in contrast to Romano-Florentine practice. Nor is the pose Ascanio Colonna, the constable of the viceroy of Naples. __ itself to be disregarded: one hand rests on a sword which As the representation of a person of such distinction, the _ hangs close to the body while the other is stretched out and lady’s likeness has much to recommend it. The panel itself placed on the mouth of a cannon. It is an attitude that was

is even larger than the one depicting Julius II, and the — to be repeated many times with but slight variation, and . figure is seen to below the knees. Although the back- this fact may be an indication of its essential rightness.**

: ground is not in Raphael’s tradition of understatement, Both this portrait and that of Joanna of Aragon emthe very fact that Joanna is seated in the great hall of a _ ploy formulas that lend themselves unconsciously to cerepalace is material evidence of her high station and thereby —smonial and even emblematic uses, and as the decade of the

reinforces the aristocratic flavor of the composition. twenties was ending, the time was ripe for the artists of The rise of an increasingly ceremonious type of por- —_ Venice and their colleagues to the south to be given greater traiture was not, however, confined to the Romano-Flor- _ scope for their maturing capacities. Happily events around entine school. While Raphael was in Rome and during the —- 1530 were such that they did not have long to wait. In years immediately following his death, Titian was also pro- that year Charles V came to Bologna for his coronation,

ducing various skillful and dignified versions of the half- | and the most powerful man in Europe was brought into length formula. It was, moreover, at this stage of his career _— direct contact with Italian art. A year later the Medici

that he met the first of his princely patrons, Alfonso — were reinstated as the rulers of Florence, and Cosimo I d’Este,°* with whom he was in close contact from 1516 to established an autocratic ducal state in Tuscany. 1523. The portrait of Alfonso now in the Metropolitan The latter event coincided with that phase of the Italian Museum in New York (Fig. 13) probably dates from _ stylistic evolution known as Mannerism, a movement to these years,°* and can be taken as an example of how which even its critics have had to accord distinction in porTitian first approached the problems inherent in the por- _traiture. By its very nature the portrait requires the artist to trayal of great people. At the same time it illustrates how _— pay some attention to the living model, and this necessity suitably contemporary trends lent themselves to the solu- _—_— often restrained the Mannerist from excesses of which he

tion of these problems. was frequently guilty in other types of painting. FurtherAs if in deference to the subject’s high station, Titian more, the motivating principles of Mannerism are such departs from the half-length view that he had been em- __ that they can be of positive advantage in official portraiture.

ploying for lesser men, and reveals the figure almost to the The Mannerist’s inclination to disregard reality made idealization extremely easy as regards both face and figure. 61. Vasari, Vite, v, p. 525, says that it was painted by Giulio The practice of treating the human form as if it were an Romano from a design by Raphael. The Louvre gives it to element in an arabesque encouraged the creation of stiff Raphael himself: cf. Louis Hourticq, 4 Guide to the Louvre, Paris, and calculated poses. Spontancit d 1923, p. 54. J. D. Passavant, Raphael of Urbino, London and ne ea cu a es pos .. pon ne} y an easy grace gave way New York, 1872, p. 277, states the opinion that Raphael painted to a studied rigidity which is awe-inspiring even though it the main portions while Giulio Romano added certain details. may not be appealing. Then as a complement to the efVenturi, Storia, Ix", 1926, pp. 447~448, says that Raphael was tact thus produced, the tendency to overlook the existence

probably responsible for the design but not for the execution. He .. dj suggests that the actual painting was done by a northern pupil or of muscles and joints resulted in a total absence of facial

follower of the master. expression as well as bodily movement. Faces became 62. Cf. Gronau, “Alfonso d’Este und Tizian,” JAHRB. KUNSTH. frozen masks, but unprovocative as these may be, their very

SAMML., N.F., U1, 1928, pp. 233-243. inscrutability 1s capable of exertin hypnoti 63. Titian’s portrait or portraits of Alfonso have been the sub- y P ° § an uncanny ypnotic ject of much study. It is known that one was given to Charles V power. Even the negation of all normal spatial concepts by Alfonso himself in 1533. This was sent to Spain where it ap- —_ tended to place the sitter in a world apart, and this very parently disappeared: cf. Gronau, Titian, pp. s1—52. In discussing i. ation accents his importance. The result has some of the

this work Gronau also mentions a portrait of Alfonso now in the _. ; _

Pitti Palace, which he believes to be copy of a replica made to re- qualities of an icon and therein may lie its strength. place the gift to the Emperor. Mayer, MUENCH. JAHRB., N.F., 1, Florence was one of the main centers of Mannerist ac1925, pp. 281 £., is, however, of the opinion that the picture in the tivity, and there its potentialities were developed to their

Pitti is a copy of an original painted ca. 1528, and therefore later hich tok . A ; . than the one that passed to Spain which he dates ca. 1520. Gronau, ighest point in portraiture. As early as the late ‘twenties or Jaurs. Kunstu. SAMML., N.F., 11, 1928, pp. 239 ff, now be- _ early ’thirties, Pontormo (1494-1557) was already setting lieves that the portrait in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, which

is cited here, is the original given to Charles V. He dates it ca. 64. Another portrait dating from this period is that of Fede1523. On the other hand, Mayer, of. cit., p. 283, considers this rigo Gonzaga of Mantua (Madrid), which was probably painted work to be a copy of an earlier portrait (ca. 1516) than the one ca, 1§23. It affords another pleasing instance of the use of a stand-

that belonged to the Emperor. ing figure seen almost to the knees: cf. Gronau, Titian, pp. 81-82.

THE STATE PORTRAIT 13 the pace with such works as the Halberdier (New York, _ is so completely inured to ceremonial bearing that he Stillman Coll.) and the Portrait of a Young Man knows nothing else. Asa result the marble column against (Lucca).°° Almost three-quarters of the figure is seen in which he stands is no more formidable than his own both cases, and they possess that added impressiveness that _ person. comes from use of a standing pose. Still more calculated ef- By now Bronzino’s art had become a glittering and imfects are, however, to be seen in the Portrait of a Lady®® __ personal instrument perfectly suited to the tastes of Cosimo

(Frankfurt-am-Main) (Fig. 14), which probably dates de’ Medici and his wife, Eleonora of Toledo. The bestfrom as late as the ’forties. In it the possibilities of the three- = known and most admired likeness of Cosimo exists in sev-

quarter-length formula are fully realized. The subject is eral versions,°*® of which that at Kassel (Fig. 17) is perseated, but she is no longer caught off-guard in an almost —_ haps the most splendid. Possibly painted in the same year

pensive attitude as was Joanna of Aragon. Rather she as the portrait of Stefano Colonna, it depicts the subholds herself stiffly erect and her gaze is one of haughty _—ject in armor. Although Cosimo did not lead his troops unconcern, so that the very austerity of her image has much into battle, he was their commander-in-chief, so that the

to do with its power. costume was well chosen to proclaim his supreme powers. Pontormo’s achievement was therefore notable, but his The figure itself is perhaps less majestically arranged than pupil Agnolo Bronzino (1503-1572) gave even better ex- _ that of the great Roman prince, but it has a similar rigidity, pression to Mannerist principles in portraiture, and thereby —_ and the face has some of the same calculated harshness. As produced some of the most satisfactory solutions known to _a whole the representation is rather repellent, but this was the official type. His earliest datable portrait is a likeness of | undoubtedly what was desired. Cosimo knew and pracGuidobaldo della Rovere, the Duke of Urbino (Florence, _ ticed all the arts of terror, and a portraitist whose methods

Pitti) (Fig. 15), which was apparently done in 1531 or — were naturally designed to accentuate the stern and even 1532."" The subject is standing and is seen in a three- _ cruel side of his nature was the most useful propagandist

quarter-length view. The attitude is both graceful and that he could obtain. , compelling with the head turned squarely to the front while But the full extent of Bronzino’s powers were of a more the body is at a slight angle. One hand is placed on a hel- _ subtle kind, and these he brought into play when he demet which rests on a table, and the other gently fondles a _picted the Spanish princess who was Cosimo’s duchess. Of large dog. The figure is clothed in a suit of priceless black the numerous portraits of Eleanora of Toledo which he and silver armor that is in itself a significant clue to the — executed, the one in the Uffizi (Fig. 18) showing her wearer’s commanding position. The background is formed — with her son Don Garcia is the most famous. The frontal by a green curtain which is perfectly calculated to enhance —_— pose and the three-quarter length formula applied to a

the subject’s importance by seeming to isolate him. seated figure are in themselves means of achieving both Yet in spite of its very real merits, this work lacks the breadth and dignity of effect. Even the presence of the austere dignity of Bronzino’s later portraits. It was to re- _—_ child is calculated. From a formal point of view the little quire a few more years of experimentation with the deco- _ prince’s body furnishes motivation for his mother’s arm, rative possibilities of the human figure before Bronzino was _ but it also proclaims the fact that Eleonora is not only the able to paint living beings as if they were exquisitely pol- _ wife of a ruler but the mother of others, so that her dynastic ished ivory or wax images, and to endow their faces with = importance is manifest. Both figures are projected against a the haughty reserve that suggests total absence of human _ curiously ambiguous background of icy blue which con-

- feeling. By 1546, however, the scheme employed in the _trasts and harmonizes with the Duchess’s magnificent likeness of Guidobaldo della Rovere had acquired a curi- — gown of heraldic design. The unnaturally smooth model- _ . ously frozen and autocratic quality as exemplified in the ling of hands and faces combined with ‘careful avoidance armor portrait of Stefano Colonna (Rome, Galleria Na- __ of life-like articulation completes an impression of immo-

zionale) (Fig. 16). The carriage of the body and the ex- .

peson ofthe face convey a fecing of almost brazen im- 60 fd pp. tts and stay Sine Covina wee th | placability, because every muscle and bone is held in rigid can hardly have been painted before that year. McComb places it tension. This is obviously the representation of aman who _ between 1546 and 1550. There are several versions of the portrait: three in Florence, one each in the Accademia, the Uffizi, and the 65. Alazard, op. cit., pp. 168-169, places these works between Pitti; others are in the Metropolitan Museum, New York, and the 1525 and 1535; Frederick Mortimer Clapp, Jacopo Carucci da Picture Gallery, Lucca. The example in New York shows the subPontormo, New Haven, 1916, pp. 159-160, dates the Lucca por- ject without the Order of the Golden Fleece, so that it may be the

trait about 1529-1530. earliest, dating from before 1546. With the possible exception of 66. Clapp, z#bid., p. 153, places it between 1534 and 1545; see the versions in Lucca and the Uffizi, all are probably from the hand

also Alazard, of. cit., p. 174. of Bronzino.

67. Arthur McComb, 4gnolo Bronzino, Cambridge, Mass., 69. McComb, #id., p. 30, dates it ca. 1552-1555. For a dis-

1928, pp. 5~6 and 57—58. cussion of the identity of the child cf. p. 62.

14 THE STATE PORTRAIT bility in both bearing and expression. There emerges a to place the initial conception in the years around 1533, startlingly resplendent but physically remote vision which = and the composition incorporates several motives of pose

is Bronzino’s major contribution in regal formalism. and accessories that were favored by Titian and were Decidedly his art was well suited to the needs of state- | destined through him to enjoy immense success. Charles is

portraiture, but his skill in this regard far outran the convincingly and fittingly depicted as an embodiment of power and influence of the court at which he worked. authority. The figure is a standing three-quarter length Though ruled by divine right, Florence had become aback- _and is turned slightly to the left. One hand is placed on water, and Bronzino’s achievement was not so well known __ the corresponding hip while the other grasps a commanas it deserved to be. An approach somewhat similar to that _—_ der’s baton, and a helmet rests on a table close by.

of the Florentine Mannerists was destined to find a wider The only extant original of Charles dating from the audience in the work of Anthonis Mor, but Mor’s accom- _ early period of his association with Titian 1s the painting plishment in its turn rested on a foundation laid by Titian. | now in Madrid (Fig. 20). It portrays the Emperor in a Ultimately it was from Venice that the most widely dif- | gala costume of white and gold, standing in an almost fused and favored formulas for the state-portrait were to _— frontal position before a curtain. Again one hand rests on

come, and Titian’s was the guiding hand in their creation. the hip, but the other clasps the collar of a hunting dog. For him, as for Bronzino, the ’thirties were years of deci- The figure is seen in full, the weight resting on one leg sion, Perhaps he was presented to Charles Vin Bologna in — while the other is slightly bent. This composition is the first

1530."° Certainly they met at the time of the Emperor’s standing full-length that Titian is known to have done, visit to Italy in 1532/33 with happy results. In May and, as such, it is the earliest of a small but select group of of the latter year Charles granted Titian a patent of no- his works which did much to determine the character of bility and proclaimed him a “‘second Apelles” while for- _ later state-portraiture. Although he continued to avail bidding any other painter to execute his portrait.” himself of other conventions for royal sitters, he gave inVasari and Ridolfi, who thought that Titian and Charles _ creasing proof in his use of the standing full-length that he met as early as 1530, state that an armor portrait of the — was fully aware of its inherently ceremonious character.

Emperor was painted on that occasion; leading modern From the evidence furnished by authentic works now excritics agree that Titian once executed such a work, but tant, it would appear that he made an effort to reserve it they prefer to date it from the meeting in 1532/1533.” for hereditary rulers and their representatives: with the exIn any case, its history is obscure, and it is apparently no __ ception of the slightly mock-heroic portrait of the daughlonger in existence: according to Gronau it was taken to __ ter of Roberto Strozzi (Berlin) and the male likeness now Spain in 1556 and subsequently “perished.””* However, _ in the Pitti Palace which may depict Diego de Mendoza, an armor portrait in the Fugger-Babenhausen Collection | only Charles V, Philip II, the Duke of Atri, and Christo-

. * 75 e

in Augsburg (Fig. 19), which is commonly held to re- foro Madruzzo are so portrayed. Nor is this evidence flect a lost original by Titian, may well be a copy of the | weakened by what is known about works that may now be painting in question."* The age of the subject would seem —_ lost: among these only the portrait of Mendoza is men70. The date of the first meeting between Charles and Titian is tioned as having been a full-length,” and he, like Maopen to dispute. Among earlier writers, Vasari, Vite, vu, p. 440, | druzzo, was one of the chief imperial ambassadors. Titian’s and Ridolfi, Le maraviglie, 1, p. 222, state that they met in 1530.

Among modern critics who are in agreement, the following can be 106. In this connection it can also be noted that Justi, Jaurs. cited: Gronau, Titian, p. 102, and W. Suida, Le Titien, French Preuss. KUNSTSAMML., X, 1889, p. 184, lists an armor portrait of ed., Paris, 1935, p. 45. On the other hand, Gustav Gliick, “Origi- Charles V among the paintings by Titian that were formerly in nal und Kopie,” Festschrift fir Julius Schlosser, Vienna, 1927, Spain. And he adds that Pantoja de la Cruz’ armor portrait of the pp. 238 f., says that Titian was unable to come to Bologna in 1530 same subject (Prado) (Fig. 37) is a copy of this work, a remark and hence did not see Charles in that year. See also Hans Tietze, that gives rise to interesting speculation. Pantoja portrays a fullTizian, Leben und Werk, 2 vols., Leipzig and Innsbruck, 1936, 1, length figure, which causes one to wonder whether Titian had like-

p. 164. wise done so. If such were the case, then the likeness of Charles

71. Gronau, of. cit., p. 103, is one authority for the meeting with his dog (see text below) may not constitute Titian’s first use of 1533. Tietze, loc. cit., is another. Concerning the patent of no- of the full-length view. Furthermore, if Pantoja’s composition 1s

bility, cf. Gronau, of. cit., pp. 105-106. A copy of the document compared with the Fugger-Babenhausen portrait, it will be seen is to be found in Ridolfi, of. cit., 1, pp. 234 ff.; he erroneously that although the latter is a three-quarter length, the arrangement

states that it was issued in 1553. of the body in both works is strikingly similar. So it is possible

72. Ridolfi, zbid., p. 222, describes an equestrian portrait. that both paintings are copies of the same original. Vasari, op. cit., p. 440, does not specify; Milanesi, however, ap- 75. Vasari is the authority in this case: cf. text and note 85 bepends a note, based on Crowe and Cavalcaselle, which seeks to low. As stated above in the text, the full-length male portrait in identify the work with the Mihlberg portrait of 1548: cf. oc. the Pitti is sometimes identified with this work, but Tietze, of. c#t., cit,, note 4. For the views of certain recent writers, cf. Gronau, pp. 183-184, disagrees. Suida, of. cit., pp. 80 ff., discusses Titian’s op. cit., p. 1033 Suida, op. cit., p. 46; and Tietze, of. c#t., p. 164. full-length portraits in some detail. The list that he furnishes con-

93. Loc. cit. tains certain attributions which should, however, be viewed with 74. Cf. Tietze, loc. cit.; see also Suida, of. cit., pp. 46, 79, and caution.

THE STATE PORTRAIT 15 example may therefore be a good instance of how certain given masterly evidence that his ability to command a conventions, later to be used and abused in other contexts, courtly manner was not diminishing. In particular the were once regarded as the prerogatives of royal or im- —_ armor portrait of Francesco Maria della Rovere, the Duke

perial office. of Urbino (Florence, Uffizi)," shows increasing feeling

Considering the course of Titian’s evolution as a por- _— for grandeur of form, dignity of pose, and aloofness of traitist, it is conceivable and even probable that he would expression. With such an achievement behind him, Titian have discovered the standing full-length view on his own —_ was well equipped to deal with the splendid company initiative. On the other hand, in spite of Italy’s preémi- —_ awaiting him. nence in the representational arts, the usage had remained The most noteworthy results of the visit were two por-

foreign to Italian practice until the period under discus- _ traits of Charles V himself. The first of these is the seated . sion. Only one other work that employs the formula seems _ full-length now in Munich. In contrast to the earlier to antedate this likeness of the German Emperor: the Por- — Madrid portrait, the subject is simply attired and assumes a

trait of a Gentleman in London by Moretto of Brescia is _ partially relaxed position while his face is less impersonal signed and dated 1526. But the motive had been common and mask-like. Because it therefore seems to show Charles for some time in South Germany and Austria, and recent _as he appeared to his intimates rather than to the world at research has shown that Titian’s use of it in this instance _ large, it hardly qualifies as a ceremonious state-portrait. was suggested by a model from North of the Alps. Gustav _—- Nevertheless, the formula of the seated full-length had Gliick has demonstrated that the portrait now under dis- _ great potentialities, and it was to enjoy no small amount of

cussion is a copy of one (Vienna) (Fig. 21) from the favor among the patrons of Rubens and Van Dyck. It was hand of an Austrian court painter named Jacob Seiseneg- —s never, however, to become a common type for official ruler

ger (1505-1567). portraits,

This man was a minor practitioner, but unlike his com- The other work in question is more heroic. This is the patriots Cranach and Strigel, he apparently realized that equestrian portrait (Madrid) depicting Charles on the batthe standing full-length view was particularly suited to _ tlefield of Miihlberg. The bodies of man and animal are in ceremonial portraiture. Between 1530 and 1532 he em- __ three-quarter profile, and the Emperor carries himself and ployed it for several likenesses of the Emperor, and it was _ handles his mount as if on parade. His gold-chased armor one of these that served Titian as a model.” Beyond this, _ proclaims his exalted rank, and the harsh expression on his however, Seisenegger’s influence does not extend. Titian pallid face is that of a determined commander. Although

so transformed the Austrian’s conception that he might be the equestrian portrait was no new thing in Titian’s day, said to have created it anew. Although he remained faith- _ credit is due him for having so successfully employed the ful to the pose and general design of the original composi- | formula in monumental easel painting. By so doing, he tion, he infused the whole with a new spirit. The figure = made history yet again, for the type is admirably adapted of the subject is more convincingly articulated, so that its to the purposes of official portraiture. Physical and psychobearing is more assured. The face is less minutely rendered —_ logical necessity combine with certain aesthetic and social and gains thereby a more aristocratic cast. The costume is considerations to make it one of the most impressive forms more pleasing, because it is treated asa unit rather thanasa __ of portraiture. The mere fact that a figure is mounted on a piece of design. In short, Titian has subjected the foreign _ horse increases its apparent size and dignity. Furthermore, original to a process that renders his copy more beautiful —_ according to sixteenth-century standards, good horseman-

as well as more monumental and regal. ship was a mark of aristocratic education, so that an equesAt last the most powerful ruler in Europe had been por- _ trian portrait automatically proclaimed the birth and breedtrayed in such a way that his eminence was plainly mani- _ ing of its subject. By successfully exploiting all of these fest. Perhaps this was the very work that caused Charlesto __ possibilities, Titian presented the Hapsburgs with an esproclaim that Titian was a “second Apelles.” But al- sentially grandiose conception. From this time forward the though the artist and the most august of his patrons met type enjoyed an unchallenged position, and it is hardly a again at Asti in 1536 and perhaps at Milan and Busseto in _— coincidence that some of the best examples have been the 1541 and 1543 respectively,”® it was not until 1548 that | work of artists who were able to frequent the collections of

they came together for a long period. In that year Titian the Spanish Hapsburgs. ’ made the first of his visits to Augsburg, where he worked 79. The correspondence of the Dukes of Urbino shows that it not only for the Emperor and his family but for many of was probably painted between 1536 and 1538: cf. Gronau, “Die the imperial retinue. In the meantime, however, he had Kunstbestrebungen der Herzége von Urbino,” JAHRB. PREUsS. KUNSTSAMML., XXV, 1904, Supplement, p. 18. It is possible that

76. For full particulars cf. Gliick, of. cit., pp. 224-242. this work was intended to be a full-length. Evidence in this con-

77. Ibid., p. 238. nection is supplied by a preparatory drawing in the Uffizi; cf. 78. Cf. Gronau, of. cit., pp. 107-108. Suida, of. cit., p. 81.

16 THE STATE PORTRAIT But although the rider portrait is ideally suited to cer- _ sive. In all three the body is seen from approximately the

: tain official purposes, it has not been so widely or so fre- | same angle, but in the Naples and Florence portraits, the quently employed as the standing full-length. It wastothis | general design leaves something to be desired. Such staformula that Titian returned in the forties and "fifties when __bilizing devices as the table and column do not appear in

he gave it its most enduring and satisfactory interpreta- the former, and only the column is used in the latter. In tions. The copy after Seisenegger is the only extant ex- _—_ addition, although the ‘figures are posed in much the same

ample of the type that he can be proved to have done of | manner as that in the Madrid picture, they have a less asCharles V, but more than one such likeness of Philip II is — sured quality. Possibly this is due to the disposition of the

associated with his name: the armor portrait in Madrid, arms, one of which hangs loosely at the side while the and the two in court dress in Naples and Florence (Pitti). | other clasps a dress sword. The bold gesture used in the Of these, the Madrid example (Fig. 22) is the most armor portrait is therefore lacking, and this detracts from important, because it alone is universally accepted as being __ the authority of the figure. Both paintings are ceremonious

by Titian himself. The others are more probably replicas and courtly in flavor, however, and although the scheme of lost originals.*° Then too, this work, which dates from __ that they embody was never to be as popular as that used in a second visit to Augsburg in 1550,” is the most arresting — the Madrid portrait, it was to share honors with it. In fact,

and satisfying in design, pose, and accessories. Philip is subject to slight variations the two arrangements were to dressed in a superb suit of black and gold armor, and stands dominate the state-portrait ever afterwards. before a table on which rest his helmet and gloves. When The three works just discussed seem to date from somecompared with the full-length portrait of Charles V, a | where between 1550 and 1551,°° and Titian never immarked advance is seen. The two canvases are the same _ proved on them. It was probably not until somewhat later size, but that depicting the son rather than the father is _ that the two oil sketches now in Cincinnati and Stockholm immeasurably more subtle and stimulating. While Philips (Hermann Rasch Coll.) were done. These show the body actually occupies a smaller proportionate area than Spanish King seated in a chair of state and wearing the does that of Charles, its natural dignity is greatly enhanced __ regalia of his office. The conception is most satisfactory, by the enlarged space which surrounds it and increases the _and it is interesting to notice how closely it follows the patdistance between image and spectator. The general design _ tern laid down in Strigel’s likeness of Maximilian I. But is strengthened and animated by the introduction of atable _ the importance of the two canvases is considerably lessened

and the base of a giant order, properties which also serve to by the fact that they were never completed.** Perhaps : magnify the subject’s worth — the column by echoing the _ Philip and his contemporaries were too well satisfied with vertical formed by the body and the table by furnishing a the earlier manner of presentation to desire change or boldly contrasting diagonal. In the treatment of the figure _variety. itself additional welcome innovations appear. Philip ad- In any case, the standing full-length and the equestrian heres to the, by now, time-honored custom of resting one __ portrait were to be the most universally popular types for hand on his hip while placing the other on an external ob- _all later forms of state-portraiture, and there is good reaject, but he turns slightly away from the observer, and his _son to believe that Titian’s interpretations were the greatest outstretched arm assumes a deliberately commanding ges- _ single influence on coming generations. In fact, his Italian ture as it touches such symbols of office as the helmet and —s contemporaries even believed him to have been the origimailed gloves. By abandoning the frontal pose there is less _— nator of the standing full-length formula. In speaking of

risk of monotony, but a full measure of royal dignity is the portrait of Diego de Mendoza, which Titian executed preserved. As always, however, Titian exercises his creative in the forties, Vasari says: “That most beautiful portrait is a

skill by dealing gently with human imperfections. By art- _ full-length, standing upright, and from that time Titian ful disposition of light and shade his subject’s face is probably rendered more pleasing than it was in life. On the jn the Galleria Nazionale, Rome, with these. He believes that all other hand, it is almost devoid of human feeling, and the three may ultimately derive from the same preliminary sketch, but

eye is veiled and impenetrable. not from the same finished painting. Only the Naples and Pitti

. . . pictures are copies of the same completed original.

The two pictures in Naples (Fig. 23) and Florence, 83. Cf. ibid., p. 272, and note 81 above.

which are almost identical, have certain features in com- 84. J. A. Crowe and G. G. Cavalcaselle, The Life and Times of mon with the Madrid portrait,®? but they are less impres- Titian, 2nd ed., 2 vols., London, 1881, II, pp. 205 f., thought that these were the sketches from which all of the portraits of Philip 80. Fora discussion of Titian’s portraits of Philip II, cf. Mayer, were made. Mayer, of. cit., pp. 269 and 272-273, does not agree,

op. cit., pp. 267 ff. and expresses the opinion that the sketches themselves go back to 81. Mayer, ibid., p. 267, says that this is the portrait to which a prototype done ca. 1553. In connection with the actual date of Philip refers in a letter written May 16, 1551. It was sent from execution of the sketches themselves, it should, however, be reAugsburg to the Netherlands in the baggage of the Duke of Alva. called that Philip did not assume his crown until 1556, and he 82. Mayer, ibid., p. 270, also places a three-quarter length now wears it in one of the works in question.

THE STATE PORTRAIT 17 began the custom, since become so very frequent of paint- Thus, within a comparatively short time the painters of

ing portraits at full-length.”* at least two great schools were in possession of models that Not only were his solutions almost beyond reproach, but _ remain to this day unexcelled specimens of their class. Chief

his work, either in the original version or in copies, found among the contents of this collection were the equestrian its way into almost every court in Europe. The two tripsto portrait of Charles V and the armor portrait of his son,*’ Augsburg were in themselves of untold importance as re- —_ which, incidentally, was sent to England for a short time gards the dissemination of his methods. On both occasions _in 1553." During its sojourn in that land, it must have the assembled company contained some of the most dis- | made a deep impression, because contemporary replicas of

tinguished people in Europe. There he painted the like- it are now at Chatsworth and in the Northwick collecnesses of the Austrian and Spanish Hapsburgs, the German __ tion.”

electors, and such renowned imperial servants as the Duke By its very excellence Titian’s example compelled uniof Alva and the Granvellas. Maria of Hungary, the sister versal acclaim, and therefore had much to do with the later of Charles V and his regent in the Netherlands, ordered _ international character of the state-portrait. But to underand owned twenty-four portraits of members of her house _ stand the full measure of his influence as well as to trace and its branches, which she took to Brussels where they re- _— the further history of the state-portrait, we must turn to a

mained until 1556,°° when they were removed to Spain. _ consideration of work north of the Alps.

The evolution of the state-portrait outside of Italy can consistently courtly conventions. In format, pose, and best be studied by starting with a consideration of develop- _ treatment their likenesses of great people are of a piece ments in the Low Countries. These territories had long — with other contemporary production (Figs. 24 and 25). been a flourishing center of portraiture, and in the six- In accord with current practice figures are limited to bust teenth century they were likewise a stronghold of Haps- _ or waist-length views. Generally, too, they are depicted in burg power. Ruled by viceroys who were often recruited © momentary action and give an impression of agitation from the family itself, they naturally offered excellent op- _ rather than poise. Finally, forms are rendered with such portunities for the court portraitist. However, in spite of | extreme plasticity that they seem to burst from the conwhat would seem to have been propitious conditions, a _ fines of the frame thereby striking a note of intimacy clearly official type of portrait does not appear until around _ rather than aloofness.

the middle of the century, and then it can be observed that Despite these handicaps, however, the generation that the influence of Italian models and specifically those from arose after Van Orley and his contemporaries produced

the hand of Titian counted for much. one painter whose talents in the field of state-portraiture In the first half of the century the prevailing style in | were such that he came to rival Titian and in some reportraiture was accomplished,®° but it was hardly calcu- — spects to outstrip him. This was Anthonis Mor (1517/

lated to add special luster to distinguished sitters. Even 20—1576/77), whose life was largely spent in court Bernard van Orley (ca. 1491-1542), Jan Gossart (ca. circles, and who, like Rubens, was an accomplished cour-

1478—1533/36), and Joos van Cleve (act. 151140), who were perhaps the most favored recipients of as 1515: Friedlinder, Die altniederlandische Malerei, vit, 1930, Hapsburg patronage,” made no effort to develop or adopt _p. 80, Although the records show that he painted many portraits of

the members of the house of Hapsburg, he does not seem to Have

85. Vite, vil, p. 445. He gives the date as 1541. signed them: ibid., pp. 100-101. Gossart was working for the 86. Cf. Justi, JAHRB. PREUSS. KUNSTSAMML.,, X, 1889, p. 1815 Hapsburgs as early as the second decade of the century: ¢bid., p. 60.

see also Gronau, Titian, pp. 148-149. Joos van Cleve’s activities are difficult to chronicle. Cf. sbid., 1x, 87. Cf. Gronau, ibid., p. 303, and Justi, op. c#t., p. 185. 1931, pp. 20f., for a discussion of his chronology. But his fin88. There exists a letter confirming this: cf. Mayer, of. cit, ished works show that he probably had even wider contacts with p. 268, and Crowe and Cavalcaselle, of. cit., 11, p. 209. royalty than either Van Orley or Gossart. He not only painted the 89. Cf. Crowe and Cavalcaselle, ibid., pp. 209-210. Emperor Maximilian (ibid., p. 50) and other members of his famgo. For a discussion of general tendencies cf. Grete Ring, ily, but the rulers of France and England as well. His first assoBeitrage zur Geschichte der niederlandischen Bildnismaleret im 15. ciation with the Hapsburgs must date from about the same time as

und 16. Jahrhundert, Leipzig, 1913. those of his colleagues, for he was admitted to the Antwerp guild g1. Wan Orley entered the service of Margaret of Savoy in in 1gtt: ibid., p. 22. By 1530 he had an international reputation, 1518, and after she resigned in 1530, he continued to work for her because it was then that Francis I called him to France: ¢béd., successor. He had, however, received commissions from her as early p. 23.

18 THE STATE PORTRAIT tier as well as an able painter. Even a partial list of his © Oskar Fischel includes it among the authentic works of subjects constitutes a roster of the politically great of Eu- Titian, the attribution does not appear to be generally acrope: Philip II, the regents Maria of Hungary and Mar- __ cepted.°*® But it is conceivable that it reflects some comgaret of Parma, the imperial counsellors Granvella and __ position by the master, and Mor’s portrait of the same Alva, their opponent William of Orange, the members of | subject (New York, Hispanic Society) (Fig. 29) is very the reigning house of Portugal, the future Emperor and close in design and accessories. On the other hand, there Empress, Maximilian and Maria, and at least three of the —_ are other works associated with the name of Titian which wives of Philip II, Mary Tudor, Elizabeth of Valois, and could have inspired the Dutch artist. Although the figure

Anne of Austria. in Mor’s painting is cut short at the hips, it is disposed like But it was not until he had broken with certain prac- that of Charles V in the great equestrian portrait of 1548,

tices current among his immediate predecessors that he was_— which was part of the collection of Maria of Hungary. In

able to do justice to such patrons, and a glance at his two general arrangement as well as accessories, the canvas is earliest dated works shows that the example of Titian also reminiscent of the Fugger-Babenhausen likeness of the helped him make the necessary break. The first of these, | Emperor, and it is tempting to wonder whether the original the Portrait of Two Pilgrims (Berlin) (Fig. 26), which of that painting could have been in Brussels at some time is signed and dated 1544, clearly belongs to the forthright — before it was sent to Spain in 1556.°° In any case, the inand realistic tradition of the first half of the century. The fluence of Titian again seems indicated, and as Mor’s tal-

second is a likeness of the younger Granvella (Vienna) ents ripened and his horizons broadened, it continued to (Fig. 27), which was executed in Brussels in 1549.°° It is | act as a powerful determinant. so different in spirit and structure as to seem at first glance By 1550 he had entered the service of Maria of Hunto be from another hand, and the reason for the change is = gary, who sent him on an extended trip which included not obscure. Granvella had been one of the splendid com- _—_sojourns in Rome, Lisbon, and perhaps Spain.” It was pany that sat to Titian at Augsburg in 1548, and the like- — probably in Rome that he executed the portraits of the ness of him which is now in Kansas City (Fig. 28) 1S 95. Fischel, Tizzan, Des Meisters Gemalde, Stuttgart and Ber-

os ; . . . is th i i t i

probably the result.°* This work bears so close a resem- lin, 1911, p. 129. Tietze and Gronau, among others, do not men-

blance to Mor’s portrait that there can be little question of tion it. mere coincidence. Although the subject faces in opposite 96. Gronau, who is the authority for its removal to Spain, does

——- ; -. ; ; not state where it had been previous to that time: cf. op. cit.,

directions in each instance, the compositions are identical _p, 103, as well as p. 14 and note 73 above. But the date itself is as to dress, accessories, and pose. Mor has followed Titian significant, for it was in 1556 that the collection of Maria of exactly in employing the formula of a standing half-length Hungary was taken from Brussels to Spain. It is also interesting to

6gure eh hand bl d her h ag b note that Suida, Tzzian, German ed., 1933, pl. CXXXIV a, gives the with one hand on a table and the other hanging be- Fugger-Babenhausen portrait to an artist in the circle of Mor. side the body. He likewise reflects his Italian model in plac- The equestrian portrait of Charles is known to have been in Brusing the table so that it will not cut the body, and although __ sels: cf. Gronau, op. cit., P. 303.

. . paints . . 97. From theprecision, serviceheof Granvella, he passed he_still a face withHungary. great is careful ; ; Maria of As early asto ;the summer of

directly to that of 1550, the former

give it an expression of consciously imposed calm rather writes that the vicereine had sent Mor to Portugal to paint the por-

than deliberate animation. traits of her relatives there: Marlier, of. cit., p. 12, and FriedThis achievement must have met with approval, be- lander, op. cit., Leyden, x111, 1936, pp. 120-121. It seems that he

. i. visited Italy en route, and spent a good portion of the years 1550

cause its author was promptly commissioned to paint the and 1551 in Rome. There is some confusion about this part of the Duke of Alva, who had also been portrayed by Titian in trip, however. Bertoletti, Artisti belgi ed olandesi 4 Roma, cited by 1548." Apparently the original of this latter work is now Friedlander, z:d., p. 121, is the authority for his presence there in

lost hat jt is ; b] 1] whether it ‘ded April, 1550 and November, 1551; see also Marlier, of. ci¢., pp.

ost, so t at it 18 Impossl e to te w ether it too provi c 11-13. Only after the Italian sojourn did he proceed to Portugal,

Mor with a model. In this connection, however, it would and from there he appears to have gone to Spain for at least a brief be inadvisable to overlook a likeness of Alva belonging to _ visit: Marlier, zbid., pp. 15-17, and Friedlander, loc. cit. From

the Duke of Huescar in Madrid. Despite the fact that this time forward his relations with the court of Spain appear to

have been close. Friedlander, loc. cit., says that he was back in Utrecht by the beginning of 1554, but Philip sent him to England

92. This work is signed and dated. By this time Mor had left to paint the portrait of Mary Tudor before his marriage to her on Antwerp, where he had been working, and was living in Brussels July 24 of that year. Both Friedlinder, ibid., p. 122 and Marlier,

under the protection of the younger Granvella: G. Marlier, op. cit., p. 23, state that he may have remained there for about a

Anthonis Mor van Dashorst, Brussels, 1934, p. 10. year. Thereafter, for some time, he lived and worked in the 93. Cf. Tietze, Tizian, 1, p. 183 and J, p. 291; see also Gronau, Netherlands although the bulk of his energies was devoted to royal

Titian, pp. 148 and 152-153. patrons. In 1559 he returned to Spain with Philip, but his stay was 94. Mor’s portrait is signed and dated. In regard to Titian’s, cf. short, for he was again in his native land before the close of 1560: Gronau, 7bid., p. 155. Since it was probably painted toward the Friedlinder, op. cit., p. 123. With the possible exception of a secend of 1548, in Milan rather than Augsburg, it is possible that ond visit to England in 1568 (zbid., p. 124), he continued to re-

Mor knew it. side there until his death.

THE STATE PORTRAIT 19 Archduke Maximilian and his wife Maria (Madrid) At the same time, the works under discussion show that (Figs. 30 and 31),°° which set the pattern for much of | Mor had become an accomplished and mature practitioner his later production. For the first time in his career Mor __ in his own right. Of the two, the portrait of Maria has a employs standing full-length figures, and again it is tempt- |§ more ceremonious and impressive flavor, and it is thereing to divine the influence of Titian. However, since the fore the more significant and satisfying. Her costume alone usage was known to other painters in the circles of the strikes a note of solemnity that is lacking in the likeness of Hapsburgs, it is quite possible in this instance that Mor re- _her consort. She wears an austerely formal gown of black | ceived his inspiration from another source. An artist work- _ velvet, and there is a studied precision about the arrangeing for a member of the imperial family must have been __ ment of her carefully chosen jewels. Although she rests her familiar with at least some of the Hapsburg collections. elbow on a table, she holds herself rigidly at attention inUndoubtedly Mor knew the contents of the one in Brus- __ stead of standing at ease in the attitude favored by her hussels, and if he took the much-frequented route from Brus- _ band as well as many of Titian’s subjects. The column in

sels to Rome that led through the Rhineland to Niirn- the background accents the unbending vertical formed by berg,” he may even have seen those at Augsburg and her body, and the larger space in which she stands en-

Innsbruck. hances the majesty of her presence.

Nevertheless, the likenesses of Maria and Maximilian The conception is a splendid one, and in essentials Mor exhibit several features that point directly to Titian as a = was seldom to vary it. Except in the case of Mary Tudor most likely source. The pose that was used for Granvella (Madrid) his finished portraits of royal personages invari-

also serves for the Archduchess, while the attitude as- ably show them in a standing position although lesser sumed by her husband is much the same as that of Charles _ people are not always so portrayed. Like Titian before him, V in the Fugger-Babenhausen picture or of Philip II inthe he held the standing full-length view in special esteem, and Madrid armor portrait. Furthermore, other compositions _— generally reserved it for his mightiest subjects. The likeby Titian furnish very obvious parallels for the accessories nesses of Sir Henry Sidney and his wife together with that

that accompany the archducal pair. Of these the table was of the dwarf Pejereon (another instance of the mocka favorite motif of the Venetian painter and was already heroic! ) seem to constitute the only exceptions to this known to Mor. The giant order and curtain which form __rule.*®* In any case, he never used anything shorter than a a background for the figure of Maria are also to be found _ three-quarter length for royalty, and whether the figure in the armor portrait of Philip II, and the helmet that rests | appears in its entirety or not, its disposition shows few variabeside Maximilian supplies an additional reminder of that tions. He habitually places the body in an almost frontal work. It is improbable, however, that Mor was acquainted _ position although he gives it a slight swing to right or left

with this masterpiece when he came to paint the future as did Titian. In arranging hands and arms he employs Emperor and Empress. He is known to have been in Rome __ but two alternatives, both of which were probably sugas early as the spring of 1550,’ and Titian probably did —_ gested by Titian’s example. He is particularly fond of the not start proceedings for the picture of Philip before No- —_— motif used in the portraits of Maximilian and Maria, in vember of that year.*°* But the objects enumerated also ap- = which one arm or hand rests on an external object while pear in other portraits from the hand of Titian, so that it the other hangs beside the body. ‘This is the scheme that is can at least be assumed that Mor’s travels did not lead him = followed with only minor divergencies in such notable

away from the great Venetian’s example but rather served portraits among others as those of Anne of Austria to strengthen it as the younger man became increasingly (Vienna) (Fig. 32), Elizabeth of Valois (Eindhoven,

proficient in his art.*° Philips Coll.),*°* and Margaret of Parma (Berlin). The

7 second alternative in the matter of gesture closely resem98. Friedlinder, ibid., p. 121, and Marlier, of. c#t., p. 14, are bles that used by Titian in the portraits of Philip IT in of this opinion. But see also Henri Hymans, Antonio Moro, son Naples and Florence. Mor uses this arrangement in an

of Meximilicm, 7 eet thar at Media. rei are dated: that armor portrait of the same subject now in the Escorial 99. This was the route taken by his master, Jan van Scorel: cf.

Friedlander, of. cit., Leyden, X11, 1935, p. 122. well as the accessories that accompany them are sufficiently alike

100. Cf. note 97 for particulars. for this to have been possible. And in this connection it is perhaps

101. Cf. Mayer, MUENCH. JAHRB., N.F., 11, p. 267. Doubtless pertinent to recall that the original composition by Titian may

Mor had an opportunity to see it at a later date, for, as Mayer have portrayed a full-length figure: cf. note 74 above. If such points out, it was sent to Maria of Hungary in 1551, so that it be- were the case, then it is not unlikely that Mor’s use of the full-

came part of the collection she assembled in Brussels. length view is directly traceable to the example of Titian. 102. If the original of the Fugger-Babenhausen portrait of 103. For the Sidney portraits, which are attributed works, cf. Charles V—or another copy of that original — was known to Hymans, of. c#t., p. 174, and Marlier, op. cit., pp. 104-105. Mor, it might have been the very work that served as inspiration 104. This is an attributed work, but it is accepted by Marlier, for the likeness of Maximilian. The poses of uncle and nephew as tbid., p. 104, and Friedlinder, of. céf., XIII, p. 175.

20 THE STATE PORTRAIT (Fig. 33).°> Both arms are kept close to the body, al- _ idealized his sitters, but he had done so by partially obscurthough one hand usually carries some symbol of office or _ ing them in light and shade, a method that flattered them accessory of costume. It has already been observed, how- __ while it did not deprive them of the illusion of reality. As a ever, that this formula does not result in as forceful an at- __ result, although it is difficult to imagine people more estitude as the other, and this may explain why the artist was _ sentially noble than those whom the great Venetian por-

_ not so partial to it. trayed, they are never as frigid and inaccessible as those While Mor seems to derive his designs as well as the © whom the Dutchman painted. general disposition of his figures from Titian, his subjects Furthermore, the hands of Mor’s sitters are as subtly invariably carry themselves with greater solemnity and aristocratic as their countenances. Long and thin, they less easy grace. It is as though they had been frozen in seem to possess an almost brittle delicacy of touch. They their places, and their very rigidity tends to repel the spec- _—sinvariably hold either a handkerchief or glove, articles that

tator while it inspires awe and respect. Hence his state- | were somewhat rare in the sixteenth century, and thereportraits seem to combine the monumental schemes of _ fore telling marks of the owner’s high station.**® It was inTitian with an austerity that is reminiscent of Bronzino, deed in the matter of costume that Mor gained some of his with whose production there is no direct evidence that he — most precious effects. His subjects are always clothed in was acquainted. Yet this haunting spiritual kinship with the | garments of superb cut, but in most cases they are dark in

Florentine painter may have a logical explanation. Be- color. Then too, in an age when it was the fashion at many cause of the very fact that Mor sought his inspiration in _ courts to load oneself with a profusion of jewels, his sitters certain matters from another, he was in principle using a | wear comparatively few. They appear to be above such method of procedure which closely paralleled that of the © human vanity as extravagant outward display, and this

Florentine Mannerists. For all their grandeur, Titian’s fact in itself is a mark of their inherent nobility. No conceptions are instinct with that vitality which is inherent | work can show this better than the portrait of Dofia in all original creative work, but Mor’s have that precious Juana (Madrid) (Fig. 34), the sister of Philip II. Dressed and rarefied quality that comes from inbreeding and re- _ in the deepest mourning, she stands beside a chair against a working. His compositions may owe much to Titian, but —_ neutral background. She is not beautiful, but the rigid digthey give the impression of having been subjected toa dis- _ nity of her carriage and the complete self-assurance of her tilling process that has eliminated the human and tangible _ glance establish and proclaim her rank and character. She

elements while it has intensified the more abstract. In needs no ermine robes or display of regalia to place her short, where pose and design are concerned, Mor carried _ apart, for her very presence is sufficient to create the inTitian’s style into a manneristic phase, and it is precisely _ visible barrier her rank demands. because of this that his work made a definite contribution. Mor’s art was as severe as the iron-clad etiquette that As we have already pointed out, the state-portrait isa form governed to the minutest detail the conduct of the people of art in which Mannerist principles can be used to positive he portrayed, and in some cases he was even more success-

advantage, because it is one of the few in which the man- _ful in enforcing its rigid rules than were the court menner of presentation takes precedence over the matter. tors. As seen through his eyes, even the witty and vivacious Mor’s success was not, however, solely dependent on _— Elizabeth of Valois becomes a model of Spanish decorum his formalized interpretation of conceptions that originated and sobriety. And it was undoubtedly this ability to transwith Titian. His calculated effects are heightened by some _— form his subject into the ideal courtly type which atquite individual devices of approach and handling. Despite tracted his august patrons. ‘The haughty reserve with which the fact that he was by nature a more literal recorder than he endowed his subjects so endeared him to the Spanish the average Italian, he invariably casts the faces of his sub- _ taste that he ended not only in rivaling Titian, but in sup-

jects into a long oval-shaped mold which endows them planting him as the favorite portraitist of the Spanish with distinction even if it does not always render them = Hapsburgs. In 1582, Argote de Molina made an inventory beautiful, and this procedure entailed a form of abstraction _ of their portrait collection.°’ Among the forty-five works that was most useful to the state-portrait. It drained the | enumerated, eleven were by Titian while fifteen were by face of spontaneity and mobility, and thereby contributed a = Mor. Since the former’s association with the family lasted desirable effect of austere impenetrability. Titian, too, had from 1530 or 1533 until his death in 1576, and the lat105. Friedlinder, ibid., p. 172, places it ca. 1557. Other por- ter’s did not start until about 1550 and ended about the traits of Philip which are given to Mor are the one in Lord Spen- — same time, this record speaks for itself.

cer’s collection at Althorp, and that formerly belonging to Lord Nor was the acclaim of Mor’s own generation the ultiDillon at Ditchley House (sold at Sotheby’s in 1933): cf. Marlier,

op. cit, pp. 55 f. and 104. Both are three-quarter lengths, and 106. Gloves, in particular, were a mark of aristocratic distincMarlier pronounces the latter to be the most Italianate of Mor’s tion in the sixteenth century: cf. Hymans, of. cit., p. 75.

productions. 107. Cf, note 36 above.

THE STATE PORTRAIT 21 mate measure of his achievement. Until the time of Goya __ in the library of the Escorial depicting Philip IT in his old

the likenesses of members of the Spanish royal house fur- age (Fig. 37). In the main it is modelled almost exactly nish a test case of the uniformity that has characterized so on Mor’s likeness of Dofia Juana. Sentenach calls it the much official portraiture since the sixteenth century. Un- —_— most symbolic of all the portraits of Philip'?* — a signifi-

doubtedly the presence in Spain of a large collection of cant statement, for the image is neither appealing nor originals by ‘Titian contributed to this phenomenon, but __ heroic. Certainly it is an embodiment of that ideal of cold there is ample evidence that Mor was something more __ reserve which enfolded that Spanish monarch, and which

than a connecting link between the great Italian and later seemed to arise as a result of the heavy burden of world portraitists. The works of Alonso Sanchez Coello (1531/ dominion. It is therefore of minor importance that the de-

32-1588), Pantoja de la Cruz (1551-1608), and sign is not an original conception, for the portrayal wholly Bartolomé Gonzalez (1564-1627), Mor’s immediate achieves its purpose in impressing the beholder in exactly successors as the favored court portraitists, could almost be — the way Philip wished him to be impressed.

labelled “School of Anthonis Mor’ if they were anony- By the time that Bartolomé Gonzalez entered the serv-

mous. ice of Philip III in 1617 the formulas already laid down In addition to copying the work of both Titian and had gained an almost esoteric significance,'* and with Mor’ Coello so closely followed the style of the latter him a discussion that is limited to the sixteenth century that in some cases the work of the two men has been con- _legitimately ends. But in the case of Spain a postscript must

fused. The Prado portrait of a Hapsburg lady in a white __ be allowed. It was in 1623, just four years before Gongown (Fig. 35) is quite possibly frem Coello’s hand.’ It = zalez died, that Diego Velazquez came to the court of may depict Anne of Austria, the fourth wife of Philip II, Philip IV. If ever the bonds of convention were to be - and is merely another version of Mor’s likeness of her. broken, Velazquez might seem to have been the man for The only difference lies in her costume. Coello paints her the task. Yet no one uses the hieratic schemes evolved by in white, while Mor shows her in black. The portrait of | Titian and crystallized by Mor with greater precision and Dofia Juana with a page boy (Brussels) is another case in _‘ to more evident advantage. His technique is certainly more point. It is accepted by Valerian von Loga**® and others as __illusionistic than that of his predecessors, but the undertypical of Coello, but in design it is strongly reminiscent of _ lying structure of his designs and the feeling of inborn Mor. Sometimes the Spaniard’s production may seem a __ nobility with which he endows his subjects are wholly tralittle mechanical and his modelling not so subtly fine as _ ditional. Even such features as the chair or table, the handthat of his northern colleague, but he uses the same for- _ kerchief, fan or glove, the baton or public document, are mulas with almost geometric exactitude and his canvases —_ reproduced with ritualistic care. In real life some of his sit-

are imbued with the same coldly formal spirit. ters — notably Philip IV himself — were mean or pa- : Coello was merely perpetuating a tradition that was al- _ thetic specimens, but in spite of his love of actuality, Velaz- . ready well established, and much the same role can be as- | quez casts them into the time-honored molds, and they signed to Pantoja de la Cruz.*** One of his most notable | emerge transcendently noble creatures. By implication, it achievements is an armor portrait of Charles V (Madrid) — seems safe to conclude that he continued to employ the (Fig. 36) which has so many features in common with the _ established formulas, because of an unconscious realization Fugger-Babenhausen picture that one is tempted to regard = that they were more fitting and proper for official uses. it as a replica of the original from which that painting was |§ However blue-blooded the subjects of Rubens and Van made.** Pantoja’s finest work, however, is a portrait now | Dyck may appear, they are too glowingly worldly to serve 108. Cf. August Mayer in Thieme-Becker, Kuinstlerlexikon, as symbols of abstract political concepts. Velazquez! sue XXIX, 19355 pp. 379 f. Mayer, MuENCcH. JauRn., N.F., 1, 1925, ©¢S8 28 4 Court portraitist therefore depends in large meas-

p. 270, attributes to him a portrait of Philip II (Madrid), which ure on the fact that he remained true to certain standards is a copy of the original of the likeness in the Galleria Nazionale and procedures established in the sixteenth century. Be(ex sort Niven Gustin . Ler spanischon Me lerei, 2 vols. cause of this he Is one of the greatest of the heirs of Titian, Leipzig, 1913, 1, p. 228, appears to refer to it. Marlier, of. cit, 2nd this alone is sufficient justification for giving promiPp. 73, gives it to Mor himself, and calls the subject Elizabeth of nence to Hispano-Flemish developments. vino. Die Meleret in Spanien vom XIV. bis XVIII. Jahrhundert, __ 1. #1an and Mor were, however, more closely associated

Berlin, 1923, pp. 132 f. See also Hymans, of. cit., pp. 65 f. with the Hapsburgs than with any other patrons, and the 111. He, too, did his stint of copying: cf. Mayer in ThiemeBecker, of. cit., XXVI, 1932, p. 205. See also tdem, MUENCH. 113. Los grandes retratistas en Espatia, Madrid, 1914, p. 33.

Jaurs., N.F., 1, 1925, pp. 270-272, where another version of the 114. For a good account of Gonzalez as a court painter cf. portrait of Philip II in Rome (Munich, dealer) is attributed to J. Moreno Villa and F. J. Sanchez Canton, “Noventa y siete re-

Pantoja. tratos de la familia de Felipe III por Bartolomé Gonzalez,” 112. Cf. note 74 above. Archivo espatiol de arte y arqueologia, x11, 1937, pp. 127 ff.

22 THE STATE PORTRAIT greatest single collections of their works belonged to mem- _ test of the essential rightness of their formulas is the fact bers of that family. Given their admitted ability, it is not that they were gradually accepted and applied in countries

strange that their influence should dominate other artists like France and England which were not so narrowly who worked for the Hapsburgs. Perhaps a more significant — within the sphere of Hapsburg influence.

While the Spanish and Austrian Hapsburgs were en- their outlet in England which was rapidly becoming a joying the ministrations of Titian and Mor in the matter — world power.

of portraiture, their lesser Germanic satellites were not In reviewing the history of the state-portrait in England faring so well. Although the Germans seem to have been __in the sixteenth century, it must be clearly understood that responsible for the introduction of the standing full-length outside of the field of miniature painting, a native pictorial figure into the more polished circles of Italy, their own ap- _ school can hardly be said to have existed. The scene was proach to the state-portrait betrays a lack of understanding |§ dominated by foreigners who, with few exceptions, were of some of its prime essentials. More often than not an al- =men of limited capacity. The exceptions were Holbein, most neurotic love of pure pattern, which characterized the © Mor, and Federigo Zuccaro (1542 /43-1609),'** and

school from 1525 on, combines with a tendency toward of these only Holbein became an established resident.” flatness in the treatment of all naturally plastic forms’*’ to | At the most Mor spent about a year on the island when he | produce effects that are superficially similar to those of | was sent there to paint the portrait of Mary Tudor before Italian Mannerism, but whose final results are structurally | her marriage to Philip II in 1554, and if he made a second rather different. The divergence probably arises from the __ trip at a later date, he did not tarry long. Zuccaro’s visit in

ability of the average Italian to organize and construct a 1574 was likewise short, and there is nothing extant to inlarge-scale design and the general inability of the average — dicate that he practiced his art to any effect during the German to do so. In addition, even if he bea Mannerist,an = sojourn. Yet the state-portrait found in England a hosItalian who has been raised in a humanistic and monu- __ pitable environment in which to develop and expand.

mental tradition will think in those terms, and conse- Until Holbein received his court appointment in 1536, quently the framework of his designs will be based on what —_—showever, no portraitist (except perhaps the author of the

is the noblest of all models — man. The German, on the |= Westminster panel) had made a considered or sustained other hand, is more interested in minutiae than in abstract effort to cater to English official taste. Few earlier likestructure, and the human form attracts him less than dode- _ nesses of Henry VIII exist,***® and of these the one by Joos tails of features, richly patterned costumes, and heraldically | van Cleve (Windsor) is certainly the best; but although it schematized backgrounds. As a result, despite its brilliancy shows great technical dexterity, it is of a piece with the rest

as pure decoration, his work lacks unity and grandeur. _ of that artist’s production. Poses are frequently wanting in dignity and poise while the Holbein’s style can be compared on purely formal lines

forms themselves are reduced to two-dimensional entities. .

Thereh was, G Eth -ad who d 116. Cf. note 97 above and text below. Zuccaro’s visit occurred however, one German of the period w ° nee in 1574, and many contemporary portraits of English subjects are

served and won international fame as a State-portraitist. attributed to him: cf. Hermann Voss, Die Malerei der SpatrenaisThis was, of course, Hans Holbein the Younger (1497/ sance in Rom und Florenz, 2 vols., Berlin, 1920, 11, p. 458; and

) h ‘ations moreoncosmopolitan Storia, 1932, pp.for 891such f. None is signedcf. andR.there 99543), whosewere associa ; ; ° P seemsVenturi, to be very little1x°, foundation attributions: H. than those of most of his compatriots, for his talents found Wilenski, English Painting, Boston and New York, 1933, pp. 270271; and C, H. Collins Baker and W. G. Constable, English Paint-

115. For a discussion of this phase of German portraiture, cf. ing of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, New York and Niels von Holst, Die deutsche Bildnismalerei zur Zeit des Manieris- Florence, 1930, p. 29.

mus, Strassburg, 1930. The elder Cranach’s portrait of Henry the 117. Holbein first went to England in 1526 and stayed until Pious (Dresden) exemplifies these traits without exaggerating 1528. During this time he did not attract the notice of royalty. He them. More typical are such works by his son as the half-length of returned in 1532 to remain until his death. For a discussion of his the Elector Joachim (Berlin, Schloss), which was done in 1556, earliest dealings with Henry VIII, cf., among others, Ganz, Holand the companion full-lengths of Moritz of Saxony and his wife, bein, p. xxxviii, and idem, “Henry VII and His Court Painter, which were executed three years later. In the portrait of Joachim Hans Holbein,” Burt, Mac., Lx, 1933, p. 146. His name does the sheer massiveness of the silhouette imbues the design with some not actually appear in the royal accounts until 1538.

power, but in the others even the box-like void behind the figures 118. Cf. Lionel Cust, “Notes on Pictures in the Royal Colleccannot prevent them from looking like paper-dolls rather than tions: On the Portraits of Henry VIII,” Bury. Mac., XxxI, 1917,

exalted symbols of official dignity. pp. 217 f.

THE STATE PORTRAIT 23 with that of his Flemish contemporaries, but he was funda- _—_ formed by the figure. This attitude may not be as graceful mentally a greater artist. His designs and his handling of _ as any of those used by Titian, but in the hands of Holbein

the human form are more expert and his approach is more _it 1s achieved without the ungracious swagger that is apobjective. Even before he had entered the service of roy- —s parent in native German production. Although the cosalty, he had shown in such works as the portraits of the — tume is minutely rendered and both floor and background Sieur de Morette (Dresden) and of George Gisze (Ber- _ are patterned, a balance is maintained between linear and lin) a capacity for portraying his subject in such a way plastic values. The figure is clearly the dominant element that he became a symbol of his class. He was not, there- = and the treatment of costume and setting serves only to fore, without the means of solving new problems when he __ establish that measure of abstraction desirable in a portrait came to court. Some of his solutions are better than others, that glorifies a principle while remaining a recognizable and while they did not enjoy the international acclaim ac- _ likeness. In its turn, the objectivity of the artist’s approach corded those of Titian and Mor, they are clearly the re- _ renders the face suitably impenetrable, so that the result is sult of a desire to employ only formulas that are stately = nat only an adequate but rather a splendid vision of the

and commanding. “King’s Majesty.”**°

Although Holbein painted several of the wives of Henry Cartoons and replicas or derivatives do not, however, VIII, and was dispatched to foreign lands at the royal be- _— constitute the only extant evidence of Holbein’s ability as a

hest,’?® it was upon the King that he must have lavished his _state-portraitist. The likeness of Christina of Denmark best efforts. A few originals and a host of copies or deriva- | (London) (Fig. 40), which was painted in Brussels in tive works have linked his name and that of Henry for all 1538, is as impressive as the work just under discussion time. Some of the most famous likenesses of the English and even more subtle. Although the image is curiously

ruler center about the now-destroyed wall-painting by alive, it could hardly be more stately. The frontal fullHolbein that formerly adorned the Privy Council Room at _ length figure is austerely clad and placed against a neutral Whitehall.??° Apparently done in 1537,’ it was undoubt- _ background. Its relationship to the canvas is such that the edly intended to be a piece of dynastic propaganda, for it | subject seems more remote than in the Chatsworth picture. depicted not only Henry and his current wife, Jane Sey- _— In design and handling it is splendid evidence that Holmour, but also Henry VII and Elizabeth of York. All are _ bein appreciated the uses of reticence as well as display, and seen full-length, and the work as a whole must have pos- _ like Mor was capable of dramatizing it.

sessed considerable formal dignity. The cartoon (Fig. 38) Of course, it can be argued that Holbein did not always for the figure of Henry is preserved at Chatsworth, and _— maintain the same high level in all of his representations of

when it is compared with certain easel portraits of the royal sitters. The portraits of Jane Seymour (Vienna) and King, it seems obvious that the Whitehall conception met Anne of Cleves (Paris) in particular are sometimes cited with approval. Several life-size full-length paintings of as being little more than fine costume pieces. But there is Henry are in existence, and although none of them seemsto room for a counterargument: the inflexibility of pose and be from the hand of Holbein,’** they must ultimately de- handling which they betray has an element of hieratic ab-

rive from the wall-painting or its cartoon. straction that constrains the spectator to admit the “idea of The best of the derivatives in question is likewise at status’ if nothing else. Chatsworth (Fig. 39), and it is a compelling and au- On the whole it must be admitted that Holbein built thoritative work even if it was not executed by the master —_ well. The Whitehall-Chatsworth conception represents a himself. The body assumes the frontal pose favored by con- __ high point in purely northern accomplishment in the field

temporary German painters. The legs are spread into an __ of state-portraiture, and certainly he was responsible for inverted “V,” and the arms remain within the outlines the original inspiration that it embodies. Perhaps Holbein

himself did at least one such panel portrait during the 119. Cf. Ganz, Holbein, p. xxxix, and Hans Reinhardt, Hol- —_ years of his association with Henry VIII.'** The existence bein, New York, 1938, p. 13.

120. It perished by fire in 1697, but the original disposition and 123. Very similar to this work, but apparently deriving from design are known from a small copy made at the order of Charles another preliminary cartoon, is the half-length in the Galleria II (1667) by R. van Leemput and engraved by Vertue: cf. Ganz, Nazionale (ex-Corsini), Rome. An inscription states that it was

Bur, Mac., LX111, 1933, p. 14.6. done when the King was forty-nine years old, so that it must date

121. Ganz, loc. cit., is of the opinion that the order was given from 1540. Ganz, of. céf., p. 149, declares it to be a contemporary after the completion of the bust now in Lord Spencer’s collection copy. Cust, /oc. cit., gives it to Holbein himself, and adds that it at Althorp. This is generally held to be the first likeness that Hol- was probably made from a drawing now in Munich. He also menbein painted of the King, and is usually dated 1536. See also Cust, tions that three other variants are known: two at Windsor, and one

op. cit., p. 223. which is the property of the Municipality of Bath.

122. Cf. Cust, Joc. cit. He adds that versions are to be found at 124. Karel Van Mander appears to be describing such a work in St. James’s Palace, Chatsworth, Ditchley, Petworth, and Trinity the Schilderboeck, Amsterdam, 1604, although it is a little difh-

College, Cambridge. The last is signed by Hans Eworth. cult to be certain that he is not referring to the wall-painting it-

24 THE STATE PORTRAIT of a number of very similar representations of the King more than sumptuous costume pieces with only a certain does nothing to dispel this assumption. And the perpetua- _ heraldic distinction. Yet to condemn the representations of tion of the general scheme in anonymous works like the —_ the Queen on this score is to show a lamentable ignorance

Welbeck portrait of Edward VI (Fig. 41) as well asin of her character and considered policy.*?” She could not those of Sir Thomas Gresham (London, Mercers’ Hall)’*° compel by reason of her physical beauty and her subjects and Lord de la Warr (London) might be taken as addi- _—_— could not read her mind, nor always witness her often mas-

tional evidence to this effect. In any case, English por- _ terly handling of their destiny. If she were to establish a traiture continued to be characterized by a marked prefer- _ strong personal appeal, something fairly direct was necesence for frontal poses as well as full-length figures. In- _ sary. Viewed in this light, her love of gorgeous array was deed, the alacrity with which the latter usage was accepted _ not a foible, but an extremely effective means of propaand even popularized is noteworthy. As early as the forties | ganda. In real life the sheer splendor of her attire must and before Titian had fully realized its potentialities, it was have exerted an almost hypnotic influence. If, therefore,

being employed among the English for nobility as well as her portraits were to present her “‘in character,” it was

royalty. desirable that they should make a bold and glittering disHolbein’s example did not stand alone, however. Some ~- play of external finery, and a preoccupation with outward

of the subtle and commanding devices favored by Titian adornment on the part of the artist was in itself an adand Mor were introduced. An arm or hand came to rest _—vantage. on a table or chair thus lending breadth and variety to the Nor was a certain lack of technical dexterity always a composition, and English subjects assumed gestures al-- drawback to the Elizabethan court painter. Native tendmost identical to those current on the Continent. Un- _ encies in favor of linear forms, which the English share doubtedly Mary Tudor’s marriage to Philip II of Spain _—_ with the Germans, helped to produce a seemingly archaic furthered this process of internationalization. It will be re- formalism whose effects are almost non-human. It is incalled that when this event was under consideration, the —_ deed possible that where likenesses of Elizabeth herself are Madrid portrait of Philip was sent to England, and copies _—_ concerned, this mannerism was intentional, because, ac-

now extant in the British Isles would seem to indicate that cording to Nicolas Hilliard she objected to the use of interest in it was not limited to iconographic details. In shadow in her portraits.'?* In any case, the features invariaddition, Mor’s visit to the Tudor court no doubt fostered ably become abstract in outline and the plasticity and aresteem for his work. The portrait that he painted of Mary __ ticulation of the figure are reduced to a minimum. Conse(Madrid) herself is a seated three-quarter length, but cer- _— quently, in spite of, or perhaps because of, a return to the

tain likenesses of Philip now in English collections are primitive approach, the Elizabethan state-portrait rivals good examples of his official manner.’** If they were in that and sometimes surpasses the work of Bronzino and Mor in

some attention. image.

country in the sixteenth century, they should have attracted turning the likeness of a human being into an icon-like

This mingling of influences, combined with the fact that But the right of the Queen’s own portraits to be conthe state-portrait often benefits from usages that might be _ sidered in a survey of international developments is also disadvantageous in other forms of art, goes far to explain _—due to the fact that, together with the archaisms and prowhy some such satisfactory state-portraits were produced in _vincialisms, they depend at least remotely on the monuElizabethan times. If it is judged by the canons most com- _ mental conceptions of truly great artists. Consider, for in-

monly invoked in the West, English painting under the stance, the Cobham Hall and Dillon portraits in the Nalate Tudors was not an outstanding affair, yet some of the _ tional Portrait Gallery, those at Welbeck, Hardwick Hall, official portraits of Elizabeth herself have much to recom- _— and Hatfield House, as well as that in the Accademia di

mend them. Belli Arti in Siena.**? As a group they present a good crossThe favorite charge to be brought against them as well ay. CE. Freeman O’Donoshue. 4 Deserise 2 Classified as most contemporary English works is that they are little Catalogue of the Portraits of Queen Elizabeth, London, I S04, Op. vii ff.; see also J. Neale, Queen Elizabeth, New York, 1934, pp.

self: cf. Dutch and Flemish Painters, trans. Constant van de 59-60.

Wall, New York, 1936, p. 88. 128. A Treatise on the Art of Limning, quoted in Sir Richard 125. Edward died in 1553; the portrait of Sir Thomas bears the Holmes, “English Miniature Painters: Nicolas Hilliard,” Burt.

date 1544. Mac., Vl, 1906, pp. 229-230. O'Donoghue, of. cit., p. viii, is of 126. Cf. note 105 above. Marlier, Anthonis Mor, pp. 55 f., ex- the opinion that Elizabeth favored this procedure, because she presses the opinion that the portrait that belonged to Lord Dillon realized that diffused light was more flattering to her naturally

was probably done in England at the time of the marriage. He harsh features. also mentions that there is a copy of the Althorp picture in Buck- 129. James Milner, “A Portrait of Queen Elizabeth for the Naingham Palace. In this connection the portraits of Sir Henry Sid- tional Portrait Gallery,” Burt. Mac., XLVI, 1925, pp. 167-171, ney and his wife should not be overlooked: cf. note 103 above. believes that the Cobham Hall portrait may be the work of John de

THE STATE PORTRAIT 25 section of the purely formal features of pose and design al- _ vigilance, wisdom, and omnipotence**? — and incidentally,

ready discussed. With the exception of the Welbeck pic- the very symbols that Cesare Ripa advocates for a perture, all are life-size. In every case the subject is depicted — sonification of dominio.*** In addition this work is often in a standing position, and is seen in either a full or three- _referred to as ““The Rainbow Portrait,” because the subquarter-length view.” In the arrangement of the figure —_—ject holds a rainbow in her hand, and there is an inscripand related objects, the Cobham Hall portrait (Fig. 42) is _ tion that reads 207 sine sole iris, “no rainbow without sun.”

particularly reminiscent of Mor, while the Dillon portrait It is true that Titian and Mor obtained their effects by (Fig. 43) seems closer to Holbein. Both the Welbeck and _ simpler means, but the use of conceits is typical of ElizaHardwick Hall (Figs. 44 and 45) likenesses show her bethan taste and Elizabeth’s own popularity indicates that squarely facing the spectator but resting her hand on a che was in tune with the likes and dislikes of her time.!** chair or table, thus combining the favorite poses of Hol- A considered judgment of the portraits of Elizabeth bein and ‘Titian. In most cases there is enough space about _ therefore leads to the conclusion that although they issue

the figure to create the proper barrier between the ruler from an artistic backwater, they constitute a positive conand her admirer. ‘The background vistas in the Welbeck tribution in the field of state-portraiture. Judged on purely and Siena (Fig. 46) portraits are so erratic as to suggest formal grounds, they share important features with the that the space in which the Queen stands is not subject to compositions of Titian and Mor, while they reveal a love natural laws, a circumstance that enhances the aloof and of allusion combined with abstract stylization that makes remote character of the image and is strongly reminiscent them as enigmatic as the woman they portray. As a politi-

i rt “+1 . re

of the effects produced by the Italian Mannerists. cal phenomenon they are therefore a clear and often fine On the other hand, while these works make use of and expression of the dignity and power of a ruler.

a ane practices surrent elsewhere in Sstate-por- The Elizabethan portrait stands at the beginning of a ae We wey ne ves t am ae not he eke long and often brilliant line of formal official likenesses that

. ng in blatant allegory they make a ,; ; , .

use. WV EOUE mneulging Loy pory cy have characterized English art ever since. Although in deliberate and often cryptic display of external symbols of England more than elsewhere, the state-portrait was to power. At timesthe these are objects commonly associated . ;and ian ;in. ; merge society portrait, its main purpose with rulers:with the crown and scepter, a chair-of-state, a sword ;;

Lo. B l d tention have never been forgotten. The purely official type subtle devices are employed. Perhaps unique is the use in ; ; “+ of ‘ y tE 7 d 4 th d usages of the sixteenth century. For all his love of the sensuof justice, or a coat-of-arms, But frequently other and more has continued to flourish and to preserve many of the best

the Dillon portrait of the map of Eng/and as the ground on ous and merely elegant, Van Dyck almost invariably pre-

which the figure is placed. What could be more telling for nan _. h , = P h -aded h jj ferred formulas originating with Titian when he painted

aofaimee antl Charles andwedlock Henrietta and Maria. And even theatwentieth “the unc pledge of this Imy marriage toinmy a” kingdom” ?*! There is the olive branch held so daintily by cennry variations on the nein. schemes are still the ones

the figure in the Welbeck painting: considering Elizabeth’s a ree , eh y successtu . laved ; remarkable penchant for undeclared war, its political im- ; sting a ore and ate sean eC a -" th aed

.°**3°

re etua onorable on, it also furthere

plications are obvious. In the Hatfield House picture the P on ’

Queen’s gown is worked with eyes and ears and her left _ the spread of that tradition to other lands. Undoubtedly

sleeve is embroidered with a serpent, all emblematic of her the painted images that served as the king’s alter ego in the Critz. Lional Cust, “Marcus Gheeraerts II,” The Walpole Society, 132. Cf. J. Nichols, The Progresses and Public Processions of

. II], 1913-1914, pp. 24-25,here, catalogues this painting, as ca. hha1561as the133. Queen onan, 3ed.vores ondon, P. _ oo others mentioned under Marcus Gheeraerts iconotogia, Venice, 1645,182 pp. 31; 164-165: uomo con 1635/36). Baker and Constable, op. cit., p. 29, say that it cannot nobile, e ricco vestimento, havera cinto il capo da un serpe, e con be attributed to any painter with certainty. They, however, give the la sinistra mano tenghi un Scettro, in cima delquale visia un’occhio,

Welbeck picture to Gheeraerts: zbid., p. 32.attributed its tignedtoM-G.F. ee quelli e - “iteche indice destrae mano disteso, come The Hatfield Hall portrait is one ofcf. those so often oghiono.far hannopaar dominio, commandano. Zuccaro: cf. note 116 above. The work in Siena was formerly “Gli ci cinge il capo 4 guisa di cosena con il serpe, perchioche

wrongly attributed to Cornelis Ketel: cf. Rudolf Oldenbourg, . . . € segna notabile di Dominio . . . perche un Signore per “Beitrige zu Cornelis Ketel,” Monatshefte fiir Kunstwissenschaft, regere bene la Scettro del suo Dominio deve esser vigilante e aprire

Vil, PP. ° eo me works men- bene I? aeof “onal of th «euch tionedrae (with the173-175. exception ofFor that descriptions in Siena), cf. onoghue, of. 134. fin additional example the use he of such devices is tod te cit., pp. 4, 12, 17, 19, and 21. found in another portrait of Elizabeth, which is at Woburn Abbey. 130. And these generalizations will hold for an even larger It depicts a half-length standing figure. One hand rests on a globe number of extant portraits of Elizabeth. Read the descriptions in instead of an orb. The background is formed by curtains which are

O'Donoghue, tbid., passim. parted to reveal a series of tapestries representing the battle with 131. Milton Waldman, England’s Elizabeth, New York and the Spanish Armada: cf. Cust, The Walpole Society, 111, 1913Boston, 1933, p. 66. 1914, pl, Iv.

26 ) THE STATE PORTRAIT assembly chambers of the colonies are responsible for the even resorted to fabrication to reproduce them in the case fact that the basic sixteenth-century formulas came to be — of people who had not been so photographed in the flesh. used for chief executives and other worthies in the United | Such, for instance, is a well-known likeness of Lincoln States. In particular the full-length type with one arm or _—_ (Fig. 48), which was made by putting the head of Linhand resting on a piece of furniture became as common for __ coln on the body of John C. Calhoun.”*® If this appears to

the American official portrait as it was for the European. be a piece of lése majesté where Titian is concerned, it

The “Lansdowne Portrait” of Washington by Gilbert must be stressed that it is likewise a very sincere com-

Stuart (Fig. 47),°°* and Copley’s likeness of John Han- __ pliment.

cock (Harvard University) are cases in point. In pose and We can therefore add two other countries to the intergesture they are closely allied with the Madrid portrait of | national structure founded by Titian and Mor, the serPhilip II or with such a less remote intermediary as the — vants of the imperial Hapsburgs. To keep her throne ElizaHardwick Hall picture of Queen Elizabeth. Nor were beth was forced to be the enemy of Catholic Spain, but the Washington and Hancock the last of their countrymen to _ court art of the continent was accepted in England, bebe so represented. Sargent painted Theodore Roosevelt ac- _ cause it so perfectly suited official needs. Eventually, when

cording to the time-honored formula, standing with his the descendants of the Elizabethans could no longer see

left hand clasping a newel-post. eye to eye, they split apart; but in the matter of official In this connection mention may also be made of the __ portraiture, the newly enfranchised branch showed no denineteenth-century “heroic” photograph. The early prac- sire to break with established authority, and by this tacit titioners in this new trade paid tribute to the old formulas _—_act the dominance of Titian’s original invention was again

by employing them to glorify distinguished subjects. They confirmed.

A stylistic survey of state-portraiture in the sixteenth ian influence in France, was primarily of a decorative nacentury quite logically ends with France, for that country ture, and it constituted an undertaking quite unconcerned was the last of the great powers to adopt a definitely off- _—_ with portraiture.*** Moreover, although portraits by dis-

cial form of portrait for great people. At first glance this _ tinguished Italian artists found their way to France, they backwardness seems somewhat puzzling. Even in the six- —_ do not seem to have attracted French patrons except as a teenth century France was making her bid for supremacy __ novelty. Nor is there any clear evidence that the royal colin the field of painting, and portraiture was the art most _lections contained works that could be classed as orthodox favored by the greatest number of patrons.’*” Indeed, with _state-portraits in the Titian-Mor tradition.**

the exception of Rosso and Primaticcio, the most famous The leading professionals, Jean Clouet (act. 1516— names in French painting were those of professional por- 1540) and Corneille de Lyon (act. 1534-1574), favored traitists. But during the first half of the century, there ap- _ the realistic and rather bourgeois style of the Netherlands pears to have been a strange dichotomy in French taste. Although Italianism was rampant in most branches of 138. Primaticcio and Rosso do not seem to have executed por-

oe . . . traits, and if lesser members of their entourage did so, it was only

painting, the native style, which was closely allied to the dentally

late Gothic art of the Low Countries, long remained in the 139. Dimier, La Peinture de portrait au XVI sidcle, 1, p. 43, ascendant so far as the portrait was concerned. The work gives what appears to be a fairly full list of portraits by Italian of the foreigners an d Italianate natives at Fontainebleau, artists which were in the possession of the Valois as well as some of

: ‘ . 1 their compatriots. Particularly notable were Leonardo’s Mona

which constituted the most important single source of Ital- Lisa, a likeness of the Dauphin Francis by Andrea del Sarto, and Titian’s portrait of Francis I. In his Le Primatice, Paris, 1900, 135. There are several versions of this work; for further infor- p. 575 he also mentions Sebastiano del Piombo’s portrait of Cardimation cf. Cuthbert Lee, Early American Portrait Painters, New nal Giulio Gonzaga, and Salviati’s likeness of Aretino as being in

Haven, 1929, p. 29. France. It is certain, too, that Raphael’s portrait of Joanna of 136. Cf. Curtis D. MacDougall, Hoaxes, New York, 1940, Aragon was in the royal collections in the time of Henry IV: cf.

p. 80. - ibid., p. 281. And in all probability it had belonged to Francis I:

137. Here as elsewhere a good gage of popularity was the preva- cf. Passavant, Raphael, p. 277. Finally, Dimier lists a portrait catalence of collections. Although these ran to drawings rather than logued as that of Gaston de Foix by Pontormo. Since the French paintings, they abounded: cf. Dimier, La Peinture de portrait au hero died in 1512, it is hardly likely that Pontormo painted him XVI siécle, passim; and idem, French Painting in the Sixteenth from life, but it is not improbable that work from his hand was

Century, London and New York, 1904, pp. 25 ff. known in France in the time of Catherine de’ Medici.

THE STATE PORTRAIT 27 from which they came. But, although they were the con- _and is the earliest recorded composition of the type by a temporaries of such men as Van Orley and Joos van Cleve, French artist.*” Some of its features are characteristically they were not possessed of equal skill and inventiveness; | northern — notably the frontal pose, a tendency to crowd and as court portraitists they could not even remotely ap- _ the front plane, and such a detail as a tiled floor. Louis proach the satisfactory conceptions of Holbein. Thus, de- | Dimier is even of the opinion that the employment of a spite the fact that the Valois were more discerning patrons _ full-length figure might have been suggested by such than the Tudors, the likenesses of Francis I fall far short | works as Holbein’s likeness of Christina of Denmark or

of those of Henry VIII. The Ambassadors (London ).*** However, there is no reaThis is clearly demonstrated by those representations of son to believe that the former was widely known on the the French ruler that are associated with the name of Jean Continent. The latter, moreover, despite its presence in Clouet. The little bust now in the Louvre, which dates _ France,**® is a conversation piece consisting of two figures, from about 1526,"*° is merely a piece of exact documenta- _—_and_ thus embodies a conception that has little relationship

tion. The equestrian portrait in the Uffizi’*’ is likewise so _to the international state-portrait of the type to which the

small that even the innate nobility of the formula em- picture of Henry belongs. On the other hand, as early as ployed fails to carry conviction. In addition, the pose is 1550, Coligny was trying to acquire a likeness of Henry wooden and the handling betrays too much preoccupation _—-VIIT,”*° and it is possible that he may have obtained some

with details. The nearest approach to a monumental and _ version of the Whitehall-Chatsworth painting.

formal portrayal of Francis is the life-size, waist-length However, in the last analysis, the portrait under discusfigure clothed in cream-colored satin and black velvet sion represents a mingling of influences with an Italian (Paris) (Fig. 49). Although perhaps not from the hand _ strain well in evidence. The rather ambiguous arrangeof Jean Clouet,"** it appears to have been made from the —_—_ ment of the space which serves to isolate the figure could

same preparatory drawing as the bust just mentioned.’** __ be the result of Mannerist influences from one of a numThe general effect is one of some magnificence, for the ber of sources: Italy, Fontainebleau, or perhaps even the scale is impressive and the sitter is richly clad. Actually, | Netherlands. But against the tiled floor can be placed the however, there is nothing in the conception that is not in | enframing hangings which also help to keep the figure

accord with contemporary northern practice for less dis- | aloof, and these are definitely Italian in origin. Still tinguished subjects. In fact, it differs very little in essen- more significant is the fact that the northern tendency tials from Fouquet’s portrait of Charles VII which dates toward frontality in the arrangement of the figure is com-:

from the previous century. bined with gestures that are almost identical to those of

It was not until Jean’s son, Francois (ca. 1522-1572), | Philip II in the Florence portrait. Furthermore, the artist succeeded to his father’s post as a court painter around _ handles the body of his subject with subtlety and authority, 1540°** that a change made itself felt. Although his style so that the total impression is one of dignity and monuderived in part from the same sources, he was a more ac- _ mentality. Decidedly, then, the spirit of this work as well as complished craftsman than Jean, and some of his works __ the disposition of the figure argues for knowledge on the show that he was capable of moving with the times even _ part of its author of compositions in the tradition of Titian to the extent of adopting certain foreign innovations.‘*° | and Mor.

Outstanding in this connection is a portrait of Henry IT It is, however, difficult to determine how Clouet came (Florence, Uffizi) (Fig. 50) which was painted in by such models. As stated above, there is no positive proof 1559.” It depicts a life-size, standing full-length figure, | that there were any orthodox examples of the international type of state-portrait in France prior to 1559. 140. Cf. Dimier, La Peinture de portrait au XVI siécle, u1, Catherine de’ Medici started a portrait gallery in 1550

Pp. 33. which may have contained some such works. There is also r41. Cf. ibid, p. 34. Dimier once attributed it to Francois the possibility that specimens were owned by Marie of vou but later decided in favor of Jean. He dates the work ca. Luxembourg, who, before her death in 1 552, ha d assem142. Dimier does not mention it among the works that he gives bled a notable group of portraits that included several of

to143.Jean. the Hapsburgs.*** But the design and origin of the works The drawing in question is at Chantilly, no. 52, box 1: cf. zbid., p. 13.

144. Cf, zbid., 1, p. 30. His earliest known work dates, however, 14.7. Cf. tbid., 1, p. 53.

from ca. 1550: cf, ibid., p. 50. 14.8. Ibid., p. 54.

14.5. In addition to the works to be discussed here, reference can 149. It was at the Chateau-de-Polisy, near Bar-sur-Seine.

be made to the group portrait of Diane de Poitiers (?) (Rich- 150. Dimier, of. cit., p. 63. mond, Cook Coll.), in which the background motive reflects Vene- 151. Dimier, zbid., p. 96, suggests that this motive was perhaps

tian influence, and the portrait of Pierre Cutte (Paris). learned from Paris Bordone, who visited France in 1559.

146. Cf. Dimier, of. cit., 1, p. 125. 152. Cf. zbid., p. 63.

28 THE STATE PORTRAIT in these collections are not known, so that their contents ranged according to his favorite formula, one hanging at cannot be cited as evidence on one side or the other. her side, the other resting on a table. Except for an obvious At the same time there is little to show that the Italians _— difference in quality, the composition might have been at Fontainebleau could have supplied a likely channel of in- conceived by Mor, so exactly does it correspond to the one

fluence. Primaticcio was not a portraitist, and although that he most commonly favored. Niccolo dell’ Abbate is reported to have painted the King Much the same description might be given of what is and Queen in 1552,'” extant portraits from his hand probably the next example of the international state-porwould not indicate that he was acquainted with the full- _ trait in France. This is the life-size full-length of Charles length formula. At first glance the case of one Nicolas IX (Vienna) (Fig. 52). According to Dimier it was Belin or Niccolé da Modena, who was working at Fon- _ painted in 1566,*°* and again it is from the hand of Frantainebleau in 1533, might seem more rewarding. On __ cois Clouet, who by now seems to have been fully conJanuary I, 1552, this painter presented a full-length por- _—vinced of the soundness of the formulas originating with trait of Henry ITI of France, which was presumably his ‘Titian and Mor. Apparently he also planned to do a very own work, to Edward VI of England,*® but it would be _ similar likeness of the Duke of Anjou who was to reign as inadvisable to conclude that it was executed in France. Henry III. At least there is a drawing in the Cabinet des Belin’s name disappears from the French accounts after | Estampes, Paris (Fig. 53), which might have served in 1534, and it never reappears. On the other hand, he is fre- — preparing such a work.**® Judging from this sketch it quently mentioned in English records from 1538 to would have been a fine example of its type. The figure is 1553.” It is therefore likely that the gift to Edward was dressed in armor and a helmet rests on a table beside it, so not painted from life but fabricated in the British Isles,in _ that one is reminded of ‘Titian’s great portrait of Philip IT.

which case its author could hardly have introduced the Finally, it might be mentioned in this connection that

full-length figure into French portraiture. there is an anonymous painted full-length of Henry ITI at In the end one is forced to predicate that Clouet had Versailles (Fig. 54). Although of inferior workmanship, access to models of which there is now no record. Certain the pose of the figure and the accessories — a table and events of the year 1559 make it quite possible that a por- — curtain —- make it yet another example of the use of inter-

trait by Titian or Mor, or a good version of such a work, __ national formulas. It is therefore further evidence that was actually in France about that time. This was the year these were appealing to others than Francois Clouet.’*° in which an alliance was arranged between Philip II and Still, it was not until the seventeenth century that works Elizabeth of Valois, the daughter of Henry II, and it will = of the type under consideration were produced in any be recalled that such undertakings were usually accom- = quantity in France,*** and even then, the methods and panied by an exchange of portraits. Although there is no — schemes they embodied remained largely a royal and offi-

evidence that Mor made a visit to the court of France as __ cial prerogative. At the very beginning of the century he had done on a like occasion to that of England, it is al- = there was the work of Jacques Bunel,**? who executed

together probable that a portrait of Philip from his hand or .

we 1 . 158. Ibid., p. 90; see also ibid. 11, pp. 108-109 and p. 126.

that of Titian was actually sent to the young princess. There is a small replica in the Louvre. Further evidence that Clouet’s model came from such a 159. Cf. ibid., 1, pp. 96-97.

source rather than a work by Holbein is furnished by a por- 160. In addition to the works cited in the text, there is evidence

. . ) ss eT oe . that at least a few other people were depicted in full-length por-

trait of Catherine de’ Medici which is likewise in the Uffizi traits. Pierre Dumoiitier has left a drawing of Sully (Paris, Cab. (Fig. 51). This is also a full-length, and it has every mark des Estampes), which was probably a sketch for a painting: cf. of being a copy of a companion piece to the portrait of her ibid., p. 173. The attitude of the subject, who rests one elbow on an husband.** The arrangement of the curtains and the in- architectural base, resembles that of Stefano Colonna in the por-

_ _ trait by Bronzino, so that it too appears to derive from the great

scriptions above the heads of both figures are too similar Italian tradition. It was probably done ca. 1592. Also worthy of to leave much doubt on this point. In the likeness of the notice is a group portrait of Catherine de’ Medici and her children Queen, however, the pose of the figure and the disposi- formerly at Castle Howard: cf. thid., 11, p. 361. Finally, there is a

. . drawing by Marc Duval showing the three brothers Coligny (Paris,

tion of the arms are even closer to Mor than they were in Cab. des Estampes). According to Dimier, ibid., p. 186, it was the King’s portrait: Catherine’s arms and hands are ar- _—made for an engraving and dates from ca. 1572. Maurice Roy,

“Francois Coligny d’Andelot,” Gaz. DES B-A., 19317, pp. 78-93,

153. Ibid., p. 186. publishes a painting now at The Hague, which also appears to have 154. Dimier, Le Primatice, p. 257, cites 2 document to this ef- been made from this drawing. Although, with the exception of the

fect from the royal accounts. likeness of Sully, none of these works pretends to be an official 155. Cf. zdem, La Peinture de portrait au XVI stécle, 1, p. 44. portrait in the formal sense, they are worth mentioning, because See also Baker and Constable, English Painting of the Sixteenth there are so few examples of the use of the full-length view in

and Seventeenth Centuries, p. 14. French portraiture of the sixteenth century. 156. Cf. Dimier, loc. cit., for full particulars. 161. Cf. Dimier, of. cit., 1, pp. 187 f.

157. Cf. tbid., p. 54. 162. Cf. ibid., pp. 142 and 188 f. It would seem that the work

THE STATE PORTRAIT 29 twenty-two full-length portraits for the petite gallerie of and less severe than their predecessors of the sixteenth centhe Louvre.*** Bunel was little more than a copyist, but he — tury, but they retain the traditional poses and continue to had studied in Italy and had visited the Spanish royal col- _— reveal a noble and stately spirit. With Pourbus the interlections. He must therefore have been in possession of national state-portrait became well established in France, sound formal designs that could be used to good effect in and thereafter French painters showed themselves fully

giving prominence to international patterns. capable of carrying on. When divested of their Baroque Nor was Bunel alone during these years. Between 1606 _ trappings, Rigaud’s portraits of Louis XIV (Paris) (Fig. and 1610, Frans Pourbus the Younger (1569-1622) en- 56) and Louis XV (Versailles) are mainly derived from tered the service of Henry IV.*** Raised in Antwerp where earlier procedure, and even as late as the early nineteenth Mor had once worked, he had travelled widely, and had al- _—_— century, Ingres was faithful to tradition when he painted

ready served the Este family of Mantua. In addition, he = Napoleon as First Consul (Fig. 57). was the son of a portraitist, and he had both skill and talent. Thus, throughout Western Europe certain formalized If the compositions in the petite gallerte were not sufficient arrangements became so well entrenched that the passage to create a taste for grandiose full-lengths, Pourbus’ work _ of centuries did little to alter their fundamental character. alone would have supplied a strong impetus, for he was _‘ Fashions of dress might change, concepts of space might likewise partial to them. Notable examples of his methods _ vary from the erratic arrangements of Mannerism to the are to be found in the portraits of Henry IV and Maria de’ _superreality of the Baroque, and finally to the stony preciMedici in the Louvre,*® and those of the same lady (Fig. sion of Neo-classicism, but the few simple and command-

55) and her daughter-in-law, Anne of Austria, in the ing poses of the sixteenth century continued to prevail and Prado. All of these works are somewhat more elaborate to dominate all transitory factors.

Although they were admirably calculated to meet the | queror so admired Apelles that he gave the painter his misneeds of the state-portrait, stylistic trends in sixteenth- _ tress Campaspe as a token of his gratitude; *®° and it is furcentury art were hardly the sole determinants of its char- _ ther related that he forbade any other painter to execute acter. Inherent in the philosophy and manners of the pe- _his portrait.*®”

riod were certain ideas concerning aesthetics on the one The moral of these tales was in turn reinforced by citing hand, and personal decorum on the other, which likewise | contemporary example. Francisco de Hollanda and Carel helped to facilitate a satisfactory solution of the problems van Mander credit Maximilian I with observing that he

confronting the official portraitist. could create a nobleman but God alone could make an “‘exIn the first place, it is highly probable that the conduct _ cellent painter.”*°* The Dutch writer also puts substanand appearance of the people portrayed in state-portraits _ tially the same words into the mouth of Henry VIII,** played a part in guiding the artist’s hand and coloring the _—_and the regard which Francis I entertained for Leonardo spirit of his work. It is noteworthy that the period under _ caused a legend to arise that the great Florentine had died discussion witnessed the establishment of what were fre- in the arms of the French ruler.*”° Even Philip IT evoked quently quite intimate relations between princely patron and artist. Writers are eager to recount stories illustrating 166. Dolce, dretino, p. 375 R. Borghini, Il Riposo, 1584, p. 34. the esteem in which the painter was held by the great and Gyappers on the History of Art, p. 125. mighty. Two of the most popular were culled from classi- 167. Cf. Ridolfi, Le maraviglie, 1, p. 270, and Castiglione,

. . . See also, Castiglione, The Book of the Courtier, p. 68; and Pliny,

cal sources and concern Alexander the Great and Apelles. loc. cit, we h 1 that th 168. Hollanda, Tractato de pintura antigua, 1548; Four Dia-

Dolce, Borghini, and others tell us that the young con- logues on Painting, trans. Aubrey F. G. Bell, London, 1928, p. 153

e Van Mander, Dutch and Flemish Painters, p. 37.

in the petite gallerie dates from between 1600 and 1603. Another 169. Ibid., p. 88. Ridolfi, of. cit., p. 239, quotes Charles V as portraitist of the early part of the seventeenth century who seems saying that he could make “many princes” but not a Titian. The to have favored the full-length view was Jean Wayenbourg: cf. same writer also tells how Charles once retrieved a brush that

thid., pp. 170-171. Titian had dropped, remarking that the painter was worthy of be163. These were part of the most important collection of por- ing served by an emperor: ibid., p. 233. Another interesting extraits ever assembled in France: cf. sbid., pp. 142 and 188 f. ample of reverence shown for an artist is the statement by Vasari,

164. The date is not fixed: cf. ibid., p. 198. Vite, VII, p. 260, that Francesco de’ Medici, the son of Cosimo I, 165. Cf. Werner Weisbach, Franzésische Maleret des XVII. took off his hat to Michelangelo.

Jahrhunderts, Berlin, 1932, pp. 243 £. 170. Cf. Dolce, op. cét., p. 45.

30 THE STATE PORTRAIT comment from his courtiers because of the familiarity with _ this privilege was a distinct advantage to him. The general

which he allowed himself to be treated by Mor.?” appearance as well as the taste and manners of his subjects The relationship existing between Charles V and Titian are known to us from other sources than those furnished can be cited asa further case in point. Charles quite literally by the artist, for in a society that held it to be as significant followed the lead of Alexander when he issued the decree _as the tangible adjuncts of rank and power, behavior was comparing Titian to Apelles, and stated that he had de- __ rigidly prescribed and even codified by writers.

cided to emulate Alexander and Octavian in making the A comparison of some of the precepts enunciated by Venetian his chief painter. Alexander sat to Apelles and __ these arbiters with certain devices and formulas employed

Octavian only allowed the best artists to portray him, so _ by the court portraitist suggests that the latter may have that “his glory should not be tarnished by inexperienced learned much from honest observation of his models. What draughtmanship.” Charles thereupon made Titian a count __ is revealed in Baldassare Castiglione’s Book of the Courtier

Palatine, and raised his descendants to the rank of nobles of | is most rewarding in this connection. It will be recalled the Empire."’? And the Emperor’s sagacity was rewarded _ that this work, which first appeared in 1528, received ima century later when Ridolfi wrote that he had “gained — mediate and widespread acclaim. Not only was it popular

eternity” at Titian’s hands rather than as a result of his _in Italy, but translations followed thick and fast else-

conquests.*7° where.*”” The very abundance of these versions in other In the course of time the mutual attraction between _ languages is sufficient proof that a common interest in beartist and ruler became so strong that the painter and havior knew no frontiers. Moreover, if one considers that sculptor who did not frequent court circles was a rarity. | Castiglione’s book was the prototype for other works of a Ridolfi was to observe: “Fortunate are painters, who arein _like nature,*”* it becomes plain that its precepts must have

the service of liberal princes, for they have the means of _ had a profound influence on taste and conduct in Euro-

exercising their creative talents.”*’* Similar sentiments pean court circles. ° were also expressed by Carducci, who asks: ““What greater Castiglione was, of course, primarily concerned with the qualification can one have than the approbation of so great _— courtier, for so great was his respect for reigning princes

. a king?”’*’® With the prevalence of such opinions, the best that he would not have presumed to give them too many talents naturally gravitated toward the mightiest patrons. | directions on conduct. Nevertheless, his rules of behavior In the sixteenth century the names of Titian, Mor, Hol- _are often as applicable to those whom the courtier served bein, the Clouets, and Bronzino are inextricably linked _as to himself. In a literal sense the ruler was the “first genwith those of Charles V, Philip II, Henry VITI, FrancisI, — tleman of the land,” and it was a foregone conclusion that and Cosimo I. By the seventeenth matters were such that what was pleasing to him in others would also be worthy of

Poussin was regarded with some wonder because he re- = emulation. The prince was, in fact, the model for lesser fused to remain at court; and conversely, Bernini is quoted § men, and Castiglione states that he “ought not only to be as saying that he “had such esteem for Louis XIV that had — good, but also to make others good, like that square used he been king thirty years earlier, he [Bernini] would cer- _ by architects, which not only is straight and true itself, but tainly have come to serve him.”*"° Finally, the art of such _— also makes straight and true all things to which it is apmen as Rubens, Van Dyck, and Velazquez is unthinkable __ plied.”**® Although this remark was made with statecraft

isolated from the atmosphere of courts. in mind, it lends itself to a broader interpretation. CerUnder these conditions an artist who was required to _ tainly the rulers who were Castiglione’s contemporaries did execute portraits of great people could study their aspect _ not consider his instructions beneath their notice. Charles V and habits at close range, and there can be little doubt that —_is known to have read and enjoyed them.’® They must also 171. Cf. Van Mander, of. cit., pp. 143-144. Coello was an- 177. Jacques Colin, the reader and almoner of Francis I, was other painter who was greatly favored by Philip II: cf. William responsible for the first French edition published in 1537. A betStirling-Maxwell, The Annals of the Artists of Spain, 4 vols., ter rendering by Gabriel Chappuys appeared in 1580, but not until

London, 1891, 1, pp. 278 ff. the Colin version had run through several editions. The first Span172. Cf. note 71 above. ish translation was the work of Boscan, and came out in 1542. Sir 173. Of. ctt., p. 270. In this connection it should be added that Thomas Hoby published an English version in 1561. There were Dolce, of. c#t., pp. 41-45, lauds Charles V for his treatment of also two sixteenth-century German editions: one by Lorenz KratzTitian as well as for what he did for the cause of painting in gen- ner (1566) and the other by J. E. Noyse (1593). eral, In addition, he gives praise to Francis I and the dukes of 178. Such as: Stefano Guazzo, La civile conversatione, Brescia,

Milan for their activities as patrons. 1§743 Giovanni della Casa, I Galateo, Venice, 1558; Pierre de

174. OP. cit., p. 224: “Fortunati pittori, che sortano il servire a Dampmartin, Le Bonheur de la cour, Antwerp, 1592; Antonio Principi liberali, onde han materia di esercitare Pingegno loro.” Guevara, duiso de privados y doctrina de cortesanos, 1539. This 175. Didlogos, p. 362: “Que calificacion puede haber mayor, last was translated into English by Sir Thomas North as The Diall

que una aprobacion de un tan grande Monarca?” of Princes, London, 1557. 176. Fréart de Chantelou, Journal du voyage en France du 179. OP. cit., p. 262.

Chevalier Bernin, ed. G. Charensol, Paris, 1930, p. 138. 180, Cf. Alfred Morel-Fatio, Historiographie de Charles-

THE STATE PORTRAIT 31 have been held in esteem by Francis I, because the first century preferred dark garments while the women loved French version of them was the work of his reader and _ fabrics of subtly indeterminate hue. This tendency accords

almoner, Jacques Colin. well with Castiglione’s frequent injunctions against exagCastiglione’s requirements for the man of rank are well _—_geration and garish display, but it did not preclude eleknown. In addition to military science and the sports of — gance or even magnificence. hunting, riding, and jousting, he should be conversant with It is significant that Charles V habitually wore black or music, dancing, literature, and art. But in order that his brown except on the greatest occasions. Even during his birth and education could be revealed to full advantage, a _— stay in Bologna in 1530, he appeared only once in regal nobleman should have still other endowments, and it isin garments of cloth of gold, and this was on the occasion of the discussion of these that Castiglione furnishes informa- _ the coronation ceremony itself.’** Hence Titian’s portrait tion most useful to the student of state-portraiture. Al- in Munich is probably a clear reflection of the Emperor’s though holding that becoming conduct was as essential for _— preferences in the matter of dress, for the subject is clad in

great people as high birth and education, he did not dis- a simple dark brown suit. On the other hand, the garregard the importance of externals, for it was he who ments worn in the Madrid portrait answer the description

said that “things external often bear witness to things of the coronation raiment. | within.”?** Some of his most pertinent remarks are there- A like sobriety governed the taste of Philip IT. Indeed, fore concerned with the question of proper wearing ap- _ he was in most respects a more striking exemplification of

; , Book of t tier ha “s

parel: Castiglione’s ideal than his father, for the author of The . . » he ought to consider how he wishes to seem and of what of he Court d also demanded that a man be

sort he wishes to be esteemed, and to dress accordingly and con- —- Meat and dainty throughout in his dress, and have a certain trive that his attire shall aid him to be so regarded even by those alr of modest elegance.’”*** While Charles was not fastidi-

who neither hear him speak nor witness any act of his... . 1 ous about his person or his appointments, Philip seems to do not say . . that fixed opinions of men’s worth are tobe — have been an exquisite at heart. Soriano, the Venetian amformed only in this way, or that they are not better known by bassador, describes him as dressing “with such taste and

their words and acts than by their dress: but I do say that dress dj h id ; , thi

is no bad index of the wearer’s fancy, although it may be some- iscernment that one could not magne anyening suo

times wrong; and not only this, but all ways and manners as well _—per fect, and Badoaro uses the words “handsome” and as acts and words, are an indication of the qualitiesof the manin “‘elegant” in referring to him.’*’ The truth of such re-

whom they are seen.**? ports is attested by the image that appears in so many porCastiglione’s specific directions in regard to costume are traits, and which helped to make those by Titian among ,simple, _ the but finest their type ever painted. Inparallel the Madrid canvas theyofare most significant, for they the —_ ;;” . . ; , Philip is depicted in black armor relieved only by gold inmarked change that was effected in Italian fashions during - aes 1 : crustations andthe white satin hose, while the Naples his lifetime. In describing proper garb for the courtier, aoa ; portrait . he savs: shows a figure clothed in white silk shot with gold. In the

ys: : great full-length by Pantoja de la Cruz, Philip wears black

. » « Lalways like them to tend a little towards the anes and —_ which he seems to have favored as did his father.3® Among

sober rather than the gay. Thus I think black is more suita e for other outstanding representations the one by Anthonis Mor garments than any other colour is; and if it is not black, let itat —., Lord Spencer’s collection js exceotional. b the sub

least be somewhat dark. And this I say of ordinary attire, for in ° P . 5 collection Is €XCep ronal, ecause © subthere is no doubt that bright and cheerful colours are more _—ject is clothed in a purple doublet. Even in this case, howsuitable over armour, and for gala use also dress may be fringed, | ever, the funereal associations might be said to persist. showy and magnificent, likewise on public occasions, such as Thus, even for what Castiglione called “gala use,” Philip’s

i in liveli iety and that accord wy . , — with arms sport. festivals, shows, masquerades and the rae For such garments taste was never riotous.

cay with them a corm in liveliness and gatety . Now Charles and Philip represented the greatest powers in Europe, and ones which were becoming increas-

This passage reflects a taste that is not only “grave” but bel P T S the cj h b y . fifteenth 184. Cf. J. A. Symonds, The Renaissance in Italy, Mod. Lib.

subtle. io the cinquecento, the exuberance o eenth- ed., 2 vols, New York, 11, pp. 533 and 536. century fashions, especially where color was concerned, 185. Of. cit., p. 104. seemed a little childish and hence undignified. For in- 186. As quoted in L. P. Gachard, Relations des ambassadeurs

. . vénitiens sur Charles-Quint et Philippe II, Brussels, 1856, p. 124:

stance, as so many portraits show, the men of the sixteenth “, . . et il shabille avec tant de gofit et de discernement qu’on ne saurait imaginer rien de plus parfait.”

Quint, Paris, 1913, p. 154. In this connection it is interesting to 187. As quoted in Marlier, Anthonis Mor, p. 55: “De belle note that Guevara was one of the associates of the Emperor. prestence, élégant, et généreux. . . .”

181. Of. cit., p. 103. 188. William H. Prescott, History of the Reign of Philip II,

182. [bid., pp. 104-105. 2nd ed., 3 vols., Philadelphia, 1874, 1, pp. 104-105, describes 183. Jbid., p. 103. Philip as arriving in England dressed in black velvet “as usual.”

32 THE STATE PORTRAIT | ingly dominant in Italian affairs. _It may even have been This stress on one of the most indefinable of all aspects political bias that caused Castiglione to conclude the para- of movement and gesture is a clear indication that the pregraph quoted above with the remark that “for the rest I _ cepts controlling behavior and those governing the artist would have our courtier’s dress display that sobriety which —_ were often interchangeable. As Anthony Blunt has pointed

the Spanish nation greatly affect.”**” His admiration of out, Vasari makes a great point of insisting that the painter Spanish manners and fashions does not, however, mean _and the sculptor imbue their works with grazia, and his

that all Europe followed his directions in this particular. chief complaint against most of the production of the The great enemies of Spain, Francis I, Henry VIII, and —quattrocento was that it lacked the indescribable qualities Elizabeth, showed an abounding love of lavish and color- _ that arise from “a grace exceeding measurements.”?®® It ful attire. In other respects, however, these rulers met the __ is even probable that Castiglione had discussed the nature tests set by Castiglione, for he speaks with warmth and of the quality with an artist. He finds it difficult to analyze, admiration of the sovereigns of both France and Eng- _ because for him it was “oftentimes the gift of nature and of

land,**° heaven.””**° He does, however, discover ‘‘nonchalance”’ to Nor did Castiglione stand alone, for his ideas were ac- __ be one of its elements, and consequently it can be said that cepted in principle by other writers. Giovanni della Casa, he held naturalness and ease of movement and gesture to whose Galateo was intended for the middle classes, is in be foundation stones of polite behavior. Affectation must complete agreement when he says: ““Wee must then havea _ be avoided in all things, for “‘we may affirm that to be true care, that our apparell be not onely wel made for the bodie, —_ art which does not appear to be art; nor to anything must

but that it be meete for our calling.”?** In England Philip we give greater care than to conceal art, for if it is discovStubbes, who wrote his Anatomie of Abuses to combat ex- __ ered, it quite destroys our credit and brings us small concessive outward display, made an exception when it wasa __cern.””?®"

question of those in high places: From the foregoing it is easy to see where Castiglione’s The nobilitye . . . and the gentrie . . . may use a rich and advice might lead the artist whose life is spent in the cirpreciouse kynd of apparell . . . to innoble, garnishe, and set cles of those who based their conduct on his writings. If art

forth their byrthes, dignities, functions, and callings.?® for art’s sake is theoretically banished from the deportment of great people, then it should find small place in the

And perhaps it was just such injunctions as this that were nt. of the painter who portrays them. If a man can proreflected in the wardrobe of unparalleled splendor that was aim his station by his bearing and his apparel, artistic

assembled by Queen Elizabeth. elaboration is unnecessary. The painter has merely to preNevertheless, in spite of the importance that he attached gent hig subject as he appears before the world, and he will to outward adornment, Castiglione recognized that bear- gost nate the scene by the simple dignity of his presence. ing and manners were even more telling indices of rank. Certainly the best sixteenth-century portraits furnish exThe man who would give the impression of being a truly cellent examples of the truth of this principle. Compare noble person “must accompany his actions, gestures, habits, = T4345 ¢ posthumous likeness of Isabella of Portugal (Ma-

in short his every movement, with grace,” which is de- drid) with the non-Italian original (Florence, Private Colscribed as “fan universal seasoning without which all other lection) from which it was “copied” (Figs. 58 and 59). properties and good qualities are of little worth.”"** Among Ty the Jatter work the Empress’s rank is clearly manifested

the requisites for proper deportment, grace was then the by the presence of the imperial crown in a conspicuous most essential. Its importance is summarized in a passage place beside her.*®® Titian depicts her with no outward

in which the writer says that: symbol of power, but the ease of her bearing as well as the Besides his noble birth, then, I would have the Courtier fa- _ felicity of the design are sufficient to proclaim the sitter

voured in this regard also, and endowed by nature not only a very great lady. Contrast also Titian’s full-length of with talent and beauty of person and feature, but with a certain = Charles V with an allegorical portrait from the hand of grace and (as we say) air that shall make him at first sight pleas- Parmigianino (Richmond, Cook Collection) (Fig. 60). ing and agreeable to all who see him 5 and I would have this tos It is the noble simplicity of the solitary figure which makes the former a more compelling representation than the latter. Holbein’s conceptions are masterpieces of their kind,

ornament that would dispose and unite all his actions. . . . ; } 189. O%. cit., p. 103. 190. Cf, zbid., pp. 57 and 276.

191. Galateo of Manners and Behaviour, trans. Robert Peter- 195. Cf. Anthony Blunt, Artistic Theory in Italy, Oxford, 1940,

son, 1576, re-edited, Boston, 1914, p. 106. pp. 93 f.

192. Originally published in 1583; ed. New Shakespeare So- 196. Of. cit., p. 33.

ciety, Series VI, 1877-1882, p. 33. 197. OP. cit., p. 35. 193. OP. cit., p. 33. 198. Cf. Gronau, “Titian’s Portrait of the Empress Isabella,”

194. Ibid., p. 23. Bury. Maa., 1, 1903, pp. 281-285.

THE STATE PORTRAIT 33 because the subject is infused with a poise that comes only |= Brant6me admired the majesty apparent in the bearing of from instinct and habit. Doubtless Bronzino’s exceptional | Catherine de’ Medici,?** and its absence was remarked with

ability as a portraitist is partially due to the fact that he hidden sarcasm by a lady at the court of Henry IV,*°* who , abandoned many of the affectations of contemporary nar- _ said that she had seen the King and had not seen His Majrative painting when he came to depict his great patrons. —_ esty. But strangely enough it must not have been evident It is a far cry from his Harrowing of Hell—an extreme __ in the deportment of Charles V, for it is not generally meninstance of art for art’s sake — to his likeness of Eleonora __ tioned as one of his characteristics. His son, Philip, howof Toledo where the remote image of a high-born lady is _ ever, must have been endowed toa marked degree. Guazzo the sole concern. Severity of pose lends this work a formal- _ says of him:

ity isexample, inherently regal. -of ty y ” . ;that ; Behold for the reverent and redoubted majestie Of course, Castiglione was writing with an ideal in the King of Spain, whereby filling men’s heartes with the revermind, but either because they were deeply influenced by ence of him, he is as it were adored like an Idole of Princes and such teachings as his, or because they were animated by like — Potentates. . . .”°°

tastes, enough men of rankwas subscribed to his views for themajesty “yey . of 5 ,be , ,worth Philip himself undoubtedly aware that fact, to recording. The respect in which the sixJ. . - , bearing was a concrete means of inspiring respect and even

teenth century held such qualities gracethatand majesty cult:;; oa ae awe. There is abundantas evidence he deliberately shows that he was not alone in thinking that considered , . . vated a special manner and aspect designed for public conbearing and conduct could produce an almost magic ef. . Daeg . _ sumption. Byappraisal nature he seems to haveIbeen a worded man of simfect. Castiglione’s own of Francis is so i ,, can. yy ple and appears even retiring tastes.been Prescott quotes Marino Cavalli that “loftiness” to have the essence of the . ; oy as saying that he preferred to be alone as much as possible,

King’s greatness: ; .

and although he gave frequent audiences, he did not enjoy . . . and it seemed to me that besides the grace of his per- —_ doing so.”°’ With his intimates he seems to have been inson and the beauty of his face, he had in his aspect such lofti- — qulgent and kind. He was noted for his exemplary treat-

ness, joined however with a .certain gracious that the . . . none of whom 199 ment of each ofhumanity, his four successive wives,

realm of France must always seem small for him. . . . he had married for love. His letters to his daughters are so

In this twentieth-century translation “‘loftiness” is used for | remarkable for their tenderness, wit, and understandthe Italian grandezza. The Elizabethan English transla- —_ing?®® that it is difficult to see how they could have been tion employs the word “‘majestie,”*°’ which in some re-written by one who was not both affectionate and lovable. spects constitutes a better choice, because it was one of the _It is also noteworthy that Badoaro remarks on his being terms most frequently used by sixteenth-century writers in both gay and witty when in private.”*° Yet despite such inpraising the demeanor of kings and princes. Moreover, as _clinations and capacities, Philip both submitted to the dewe shall see, it is the quality that the theorist Lomazzo is — mands of public ceremonial and presented a forbidding and most anxious for the painter to incorporate into portraits of | even arrogant face to the world. When his father decided

rulers. that it would be politically expedient, he obediently adopted

Bacon says of Queen Elizabeth that “she had likewise the ancient and arduous ritual of the court of Burgundy, her outward embellishments; a tall stature, a graceful which required him to spend much of his existence in the shape and make, a most majestic aspect.”*** Edward Bo- _ public eye.””°

hun states that “her whole body was well made and her Considered in the light of these revelations, he appears face was adorned with a wonderful and sweet beauty and to have assumed a studied aloofness of manner for purmajesty,”°°? while according to George Puttenham, she _ poses of display. Prescott follows Cabrera in stating that his

was “the very image of majesty and magnificence.””°* | “‘deportment was marked by a seriousness that to some might seem to savor of melancholy. He was self-possessed, 199. Of. cit., p. 57. Another interesting description of Francis I appears in a report of 1546 written by a Venetian ambassador and 204. Pierre de Bourdeille, Abbé de Brantome, Mémoires, 1665—

quoted in Ernest Lavisse, Histoire de France, Paris, v', 1903, 1666; ed. Trozs vies illustres, Paris, 1930, pp. 88-89. p. 188: “. . . son aspect est tout 4 fait royal, en sorte que sans 205. Tallement de Réaux, Historiettes, quoted in M. Magendie, avoir jamais vu sa figure ni son portrait, 4 le regarder seulement, La Politesse mondaine, 2 vols., Paris, 1925, 1, p. 2: “J’ai vu le roi, on dirait aussitot: c’est le Roi. Tous ses mouvements sont si nobles et je n’ai pas vu Sa Majesté.”

et majestueux que nul prince ne saurait ]’égaler.” 206. The Civile Conversatione, 1, p. 200. 200. Sir Thomas Hoby, The Book of the Courtier, 15613; ed. 207. History of the Reign of Philip II, 1, pp. 57-58. Everyman’s Library, London and New York, 1928 and 1937, p. 68. 208. Cf. L. P. Gachard, Les Lettres de Philippe HI a ses filles, 201. The Moral and Historical Works of Lord Bacon, p. 485. Paris, 1884. 202. The Character of Queen Elizabeth, 1693, quoted in 209. Cf. idem, Relations des ambassadeurs vénitiens sur Charles-

O'Donoghue, of. cit., p. xvii. Quint et Philippe II, p. 38.

203. The Art of Poesie, 1589, quoted in ibid., p. xviil. 210. Cf. Prescott, of. cit., pp. 42 f.

34 THE STATE PORTRAIT so that even as a boy, he was rarely off his guard.”*"* —‘ France. This witness remarks that the King received him Soriano observes that during his trip to Italy, Germany, standing “‘at his bed’s feete,” and he uses the same expres-and the Netherlands, he left the impression of being a sion in describing the Queen whom he visited immediately “severe and intractable spirit.”*** Apparently this was the —_ upon leaving the presence of her husband.”*® Thus, while

demeanor that was expected of a monarch. Badoaro praises _ stylistic trends encouraged the full-length figure in porPhilip for his “haughty air” and “Spanish manners,”?’* _ traiture, its frequent use for royalty in particular may have while Soriano remarks that although “‘he puts into his ac- —_ been stimulated by prescribed rules of protocol. Still antions the royal dignity and gravity, which are natural and _ other example is therefore supplied as to how actuality may habitual to him, this does not make him the less pleasing: have served the portraitist who was in the service of great on the contrary his courtesy toward the world appears all _ people.

the greater.”?# Certainly in the very crucial case of Philip ITI, the artist

_ The way in which he conducted an audience furnishes was not forced to draw solely on his imagination in order still another revealing instance of his studied deportment. _ to imbue his subject with those qualities which were deemed In the diary of Camillo Borghese, which reports a papal _— necessary for a ruler. The person of the King of Spain furmission to the court of Madrid in 1594, one finds the fol- _—nished him with a flesh and blood model. Philip’s outward

lowing description: demeanor plus Titian’s genius were enough to produce in great armor portrait a work whose effects are so perWhen I entered, Hiscalculated Majesty that wasthe inbeen a chair of black ;. ; , ; fectly it seated has never excelled, and given

velvet, and as soon as Monsignor was in the room, he raised him-~ bi ist like M self to his feet, close to a table covered in black velvet, . . .71° such a su ject, much of the art of a portraitist like Mor follows inevitably.

Here are not only the favorite properties of countless state- On the other hand, it could often happen that a particuportraits, but also the standing image that greets the spec- _lar prince or sovereign did not exemplify the desired ideal tator as it greeted the pope’s ambassador. It is perhaps sig- _in his outward bearing and appearance. If the artist’s asso-

nificant that Philip assumed an upright position the mo- __ciations had taught him what these should be, he would ment the interview began. And it is not improbable that in _find it less difficult to supply the necessary qualities that certain instances this was a prescribed custom among six- _ were lacking. Moreover, such was the aesthetic temper of

teenth-century rulers. Further evidence to that effect is the age that it, too, could be of assistance to him in such supplied by an English envoy to the court of Henry III of cases.

The views of sixteenth-century theorists of art are well = meaning they may have had for the portraitist. And in this known,”"" so that it is hardly our object to discuss them in _ special case a paradoxical situation will be revealed: while

211. Ibid., p. 30. . . .

detail. Rather it is our intention to discover what specific the artist found that his patrons were increasingly inter- , ested in the portrait, the chief aesthetic doctrines of the pe-

212. Quoted in ibid., p. 61, note 29: “danimo severo et in- Tod tended to discourage or even outlaw it as a field of

trattabile.” See also Gachard, op. cit., pp. 122-123. endeavor.

213. Quoted in ibid., p. 36. In the main the student of art theory derived his ideas

214. Quoted in zbid., p. 124. f classical Th ‘al hetic of classici 215. Relation du voyage en Espagne de Camillo Borghese en rom Classical SOUrCES, € typical aesthetic of Classicism

1584, in Alfred Morel-Fatio, L’Espagne au XVI° et.au XVII’ advocated that the artist imitate nature, but because nature siécles, Paris and Madrid, 1878, p. 175: “Quando entrassimo, Sua _—ig_ often imperfect, it further charged him to use as his

Maiesta era a sedere in uno sedia di velluto negro, et subbito che del only th hich b ‘ful in th Id Monsignore fu in camera levdssi im piedi, appogiato ad un tavo- mode! only that which was most beautiful in the wor

lino coperto di velluto parimente nero, sotto il baldacchino.” about him. The stock illustration of this precept Is con216. Nichols, Progresses of Queen Elizabeth, 1, pp. 430-431. _ tained in a story concerning Zeuxis:7"* when that painter

For examples of similar procedure at the courts of both England and Spain at a slightly later date, cf. Sir John Finett, Some Chotce Observations . . . Touching the Reception, and Precedence, the Anthony Blunt, Artistic Theory in Italy; and Rensselaer W. Lee,

Treatment and Audtence,. . . of Forren Ambassadors in England, “Ut Pictura Poesis: the Humanistic Theory of Painting,” Art London, 1656, pp. 27, 52, §5, and 176; and Francois Bertaut, BUL., XXII, 1940, pp. 197-269. “Journal du Voyage d’Espagne,” Revue hispanique, XLVII, 1919, 218. Among ancient writers Pliny can be cited as a source: cf.

pp. 29-30 and 194. Chapters on the History of Art, p. 109. It was later repeated by

217. Cf, particularly Erwin Panofsky, “Idea,” Leipzig, 1924; such writers as Alberti, Della pittura, pp. 151-153; Dolce, Aretino,

THE STATE PORTRAIT 35 was commissioned to depict a goddess, he chose as his mod- =‘“‘copy of a copy” upon which Plato had set the seal of his

els the five most beautiful young women he could find. _ disapproval. Then he combined the best features of*each maiden to In many respects it can be said that by the sixteenth cenproduce his figure of the divinity. Such teachings therefore tury certain main tenets of the typical aesthetic of classienjoined a selective and corrective approach, and it must —__cism had become a basic part of Italian theory and pracbe immediately obvious that they hardly encouraged com- _ tice so far as the representational arts are concerned.?”* plete and exact documentation. Here again methods of — Alberti*** had done much to help codify them, and many

procedure are suggested by an oft-repeated story: when artists of succeeding generations continued in a general Apelles painted the portrait of Antigonus, he used a pro- _ way to follow his lead. Even Leonardo’s abounding interfile view*’® in order to disguise the fact that his subject had __est in all forms of natural life did not always prevent him

one bad eye. from feeling that only the beautiful aspects of nature However, a philosophy that counselled an idealized ver- _—_ should be stressed by the artist.”*° In his projected treatise

sion of reality was not the only one currentin the classical _—he stated that “painting is the sole imitator of all visible world. According to the Neoplatonist, the existence of an _— works of nature,””** but he once qualified this by saying:

object on earth presupposes its more perfect existence in It seems to me to be no small charm in a painter when he the mind of the Supreme Being, a premise requiring the gives his figures a pleasing air . . .: Look about you and take artist to seek his model in that realm of experience which the best parts of many beautiful faces of which the beauty is is closest to God, namely the intellect. He is adjured not — confirmed rather by public fame than by your own judgement.

to draw upon his sense perceptions, but to “withdraw” - 2° select beauties as I tell you, and fix them in your into himself where he can “first rise to intelligence, and mind, he will there contemplate beauty, and declare that all this = Such a procedure is admittedly close to that followed by beauty resides in the Ideas.’”’*** In other words the artist’s Zeuxis, and in this regard Raphael’s famous if apocryphal model should be an “inner vision” that closely approxi- _ letter to Castiglione is also pertinent: “To paint a figure mates the Platonic Jdea. It was said that this approach was truly beautiful, I should see many beautiful forms, with followed by Phidias, who, when he executed a statue of the further provision that you yourself be present to choose Zeus, did not go to nature but turned rather to his own _ the most beautiful.””??* In Venice Lodovico Dolce held that

mind, where, in the words of Cicero, “there dwelt a sur- painting was surely based on the imitation of nature,? passing vision of beauty; at this he gazed and all intent on _ but he was also of the opinion that “the painter must not this he guided his artist’s hand to produce the likeness of only imitate, he must surpass nature,”?°° for there one

the god.””*** meets perfection but one time in a thousand. To a certain Now if this example were rigorously followed, the por- _ extent Vasari also reflects this point of view. Although he is

trait would get short shrift. So long as an artist based his procedure upon the less drastic precepts outlined in the first 223. ae Studer Mae nowevens Be well advised to reckon meth instance and refrained from reproducing the more obvious TF eecexeh century the ease of Alberti ie instructive: cf. Nesca A. defects of his subject’s person, he could fulfill the role of Robb, Neoplatonism of the Italian Renaissance, London, 1935, pp. portraitist. But for the Neoplatonist matters would not be 61 f., and Blunt, of. cit., chap. 1. Lomazzo, who lived a century

so simple, a fact that becomes very plain if one recalls later, is placed in both camps: cf. ibid., p. 142, and Lee, of. cit., . Plotinus’ opinion of portraiture. Porphyry reports that: P. nak Cf. Blunt, of. cit., pp. 18 £. He [Plotinus] never would permit anybody to perpetuate te 2 5. Blunt ibid., p. 25, points out the influence of Aristotle on him in a portrait or statue. One day that Aemilius begged him 226. Jean Paul Richter, The Literary Works of Leonardo da to allow a painting to be made of him, he said, “It is not enough Vinci, 2 vols., London and New York, 1939, 1, p. 38.

for me to carry about this image in which nature has enclosed 227. Ibid., pp. 342-343. us? Must I besides transmit to posterity the image of this image 228. Passavant, Raphael, p. 145. For the original Italian see

as worthy of attention? ”*?? Vilhelm Wanscher, Rafaello Santi da Urbino, London, 1926, p. 147. For comments cf. ibid., p. 148, Panofsky, of. cit., pp. 32 f.,

In short, perhaps more than almost any other form of rep- _and Lee, of. cit., p. 207.

resentational art, the documentary portrait constituted that 229. Aretino, pp. 24 and 27. — .

230. Ibid., pp. 7o~71: “Deve adunque il pittore procacciar non

p. 71; G. P. Bellori, Le Vite de’ pittori . . ., 1672; 2nd ed., solo d’imitare, ma di superar la natura, Dico superar Ja natura in Rome, 1728, p. 9. See also Panofsky, op. ctt., pp. 24-25. una parte: ché nel resto é miracoloso non pur se vi arriva, ma 219. Cf, Lomazzo, of. cit., p. 433; and see also Alberti, of. quando vi si avvicina. Questo é in dimostrar col mezzo dell’arte in

cit., p. 119. un corpo solo tutta quella perfezion di bellezza che la natura non 220. Plotinus First Ennead. vi; Complete Works, 1, p. 54. suol dimostrare a pena in mille. Perché non si trova un corpo 221. Orator. ii. 9; trans. G. L. Hendrickson, London, 1939, umano cosi perfettamente bello, che non gli manchi alcuna parte.”

p. 311. See also Panofsky, of. cé#t., pp. 8-10. It is in connection with this statement that Dolce recounts the story

222. Plotinus, of. cit., 1, p. 5 (introduction). of Zeuxis and the maidens.

36 THE STATE PORTRAIT constantly praising works of art for being “‘lifelike,” he by study is not supplanted, but it often shares honors with a believed that nature was often “coarse,”’*** and therefore _ purely intellectual creation.

must be improved by the artist. To achieve perfection one In spite, however, of their abstract and often metamust supply “rule, order, proportion, design, and man- physical character, the precepts of the sixteenth-century ner.”?** Special emphasis is laid on design, which is de- _ Italian writers found widespread acceptance abroad as well

fined as “the imitation of the most beautiful parts of na- as at home. The most important non-Italian writer of ture in all figures,” and manner, which is stated to come = _Lomazzo’s generation was Carel van Mander (1548“from the practice of frequently copying the most beauti- 1606). Although he was heir to a tradition of almost litful objects, and of afterwards combining the most per- eral realism, his precepts are largely a restatement of those

fect,”??53 current in Italy. For instance, he stresses the fact that perIt is therefore evident that even the more empirical fection should be the artist’s goal and points out that it is minds did not advocate the wholesale mirroring of na- met but once in a hundred times in nature;?°7 Dolce had ture, but placed on the artist the heavy assignment of or- _ said once in a thousand, but the principle is the same. dering, correcting, and idealizing it. This alone implies a The reorientation of Flemish art that Van Mander depredilection for the abstract; and with the advance of the sired to effect was not, of course, as sudden as it might century this bent is reinforced and sometimes redirected seem from a study of his writings. He was not the first of by the enunciation of almost mystic precepts derived from _ his countrymen to be impressed by the grandeur and monu-

Neoplatonic sources. As time passes some of the most noted mentality of Italian design. Others before him (Mor was theorists reflect an approach that is farther and farther re- of the previous generation) had made the journey South moved from concern with actuality. Very frequently they and had returned imbued with a new vision, but the very

. .)22236 . . . .. . :.

hold that the artist’s ability to distinguish and represent the fact that he was hailed as the “Vasari of the North” shows beautiful is solely dependent on an inner vision or model — __ that idealism was becoming an international phenomenon.

the smmagin dentro of Michelangelo. From the foregoing discussion it is clear that since the ‘The leading critic of the second half of the century, the aesthetic of the sixteenth century did not favor realism, the

Milanese, Giovanni Paolo Lomazzo (1538-1600) art of portraiture would find few advocates among phi-

.cc*. 234 . * ° . . . . . . . . . ‘ 93235 . . .

was firmly convinced of the superiority of this inner vision. losophers of art. When discussing portraiture Vasari reHis two great works, the T’rattato dell’ arte and the Idea, served his highest praise for those examples that are “‘like appearing in 1584 and 1590 respectively, are textbooks of —_Jife” or “seem to breathe.” However, it was precisely a highly speculative nature.""" Advice to the artist is based this belief that portraits must be literal copies of nature on the fundamental assumption that by the practice of his = which probably caused him to write in his own auto-

,;t

art, “he is working in his mind and his intellect,”*** and biography that: “I avoided painting them whenever I that “intellectual power is the cause of the invention of all gould do 50.22 This attitude is even more fully revealed in

the fine arts and sciences. And when Lomazzo uses hig biography of Michelangelo, whom he admired above the term “‘ntellect’”’ he is comprehending something that —_aj] other men. There he states that:

partakes in a measure of divine wisdom. It is on this note -chelangelo al de th of M 7 that the century which saw the rise and fall of Mannerism Miche ange’ also made tne Portrait of esser ommaso ds. The visual j - apl db d d (de’ Cavalieri) in a cartoon the size of life; he who never ends. ine visual image Implanted by nature and correcte painted the likeness of anyone either before or after, seeing that he hated to take anything from the life, unless it represented

231. Cf. Vite, Iv, p. 9. the very perfection of beauty.?*° 232. I[bid., p. 7. For English text see Lives of the Most Emi-

nent Painters, 11, p. 357. Obviously the average human countenance does not supply 233. Op. cit. p. 8. For English text cf. Lives of the Most Emi- — such a model, so this last statement is the crux of the prob-

nent Painters, p. 358. At moments, however, Vasari’s strictures are 1 A . ho holds that h t t aT

more abstract. Consider, for instance, his statements regarding em. “in artist who holds that he mus SuEp Ass nature Wi “judgment” and “grace,” which are discussed by Blunt, op. cit, | not be attracted to those forms of subject matter that re-

. Cf. P c . cit., pp. . or oo .

chap. Vil. eek P quire him to make documentary records, for by thus sub234. Ci. Panoksky, op. cit, pp. 53 mitting he would relinquish control of his own talents. 235. Trattato, p. 8. See also note 257 below. 236. Ibid., p. 2: “Et finalemente conoscendo che di tutte le Hence there arose a body of thought that held the por-

cose create era un creatore, rettore, e governatore di tutto il mondo

e ultimo fine de Phuomo, comincié ad eccitare la volunta nostra ad 237. Cf. Schilderboeck; Das Lehrgedicht des Karel van Man-

. amarlo e desiderarlo. Essendo dunque stato questa potenza intel- der, ed. R. Hoecker, The Hague, 1916, p. 21. lettuale causa de l’inventione di tante belle arti e scienze; e essendo 238. For specific instances cf. Vite, 1v, pp. 39 f., and 338; VI, instromento per il quale l’anima nostra si unifice in questa vita al Pp. 442. suo ultimo fine per gratia, e ne l’altra per gloria; resta chiarissimo 239. Ibid., Vu, p. 688. For English translation cf. op. cit., v,

quel che proposi da principio, ch’ella e fra tutti gDaltri doni p. 538.

d’Iddio, dono nobilissimo, e segnalatissimo.” 240. Of. cit., pp. 271~272. For translation cf. of. cit., p. 336.

THE STATE PORTRAIT 37 trait in low esteem. Strong in Italy where it would be most _traiture. The most notable of these was for the bronze

natural to find it, it spread to other countries and became statue of Julius II. Since the order came when even

inherent in the academic tradition. Michelangelo dared not disobey the Pontiff, it is, however, Van Mander spoke of portraiture in terms as slighting —_ permissible to assume that he felt himself under some comas those used by Vasari. In his biography of Miereveldt, he _ pulsion. Indeed, he said that he had a rope around his neck

deplored the fact that his countrymen were compelled at the time.*** Although the exact appearance of the re“most of the time . . . to paint portraits from life,” and sultant work is not known, the Pope made a remark which there follows a passage that might have come from the suggests that similitude was not one of its most striking

pen of an Italian: features. It is normal when viewing a portrait to deter-

Most artists are attracted by a sweet profit, and, as they have mune whether 7 resembles the subject, but " is said that to support themselves, they take this by-path in art — the paint- when Julius first saw his statue he exclaimed: “That ing of portraits from life, Artists travel along this road without statue of yours, is it blessing or cursing? nas Evidently His delight, in time to seek the main road — the painting of com- Holiness was not impressed by the likeness, but by somepositions with human figures, the road that leads to the highest thing far more subtle: the emotional expression of the fig-

in art. Many fine, splendid talents have remained unproductive, ; ar and this is regrettable.2" ure as a whole, a fact which may indicate that when com-

pelled to do a portrait, Michelangelo instinctively evaded In other words, the leading theorist of the land that had __ the issue of resemblance.

been one of the greatest strongholds of the portrait con- Certain aspects of “the tragedy of the tomb” are also sidered it inimical to the cause of true art. When such ~~ worth recording in this connection. Statues of Julius II opinions can be expressed by a Fleming, the results of the were twice commissioned for his burial monument, the dissemination of theories of abstract idealism are indeed first in 1505 and the second in 1513."*° It would seem, profound, and they became so deeply ingrained that we however, that one was not even started while the other was hear sharp echoes into the seventeenth century. Carducci _ never entirely completed. Apparently the effigy of the de-

places the final seal of academic disapproval on the art ceased, which had been such an important part of most when he says that “great and eminent painters are not por- _ tombs, was of little concern to the sculptor. What occurred traitists, for those who have portraits to do must subject —_in the case of the Medici tombs is likewise relevant. Figthemselves to the imitation of the object whether good or ures of both Leo X and Clement VII were ordered for the bad.’’*** These words may seem to constitute a reductio ad chapel in San Lorenzo, but Michelangelo never troubled

absurdum, but they reflect an attitude that is not illogical to obtain marble for them. In their turn, the statues that

given the theories under discussion. surmount the sepulchers of Giuliano, Duke of Nemours, Admittedly, theory and practice are not alwaysinagree- and Lorenzo, Duke of Urbino, do not purport to represent ment: Carducci was a contemporary and even acolleague _ the deceased, but are merely token effigies which bear no of Diego Velazquez, and Bellori, the dean of seventeenth- _ resemblance to the subjects. Designed to serve as symbols

century academic theorists, was an admirer of Van of the active and contemplative life, they are actually not Dyck.*** Nevertheless, it is perhaps not without signifi- even emblematic of the characters of the men in question. cance that Michelangelo, who was the outstanding ex- — Giuliano, noted in a chaotic age for his love of the arts of ponent of the Neoplatonic ideal in art, seems consciously or peace, is represented by an armored warrior, while Lounconsciously to have avoided direct portraiture whenever —_ renzo, who was in no sense an intellectual, is dignified by

possible. His example is so conspicuous that no survey of the figure of the penseroso. opinion prejudicial to portraiture can be complete without It would therefore appear that the most fertile creative

citing his record. mind of the sixteenth century was averse to executing

As we have seen, Vasari says that he did but one portrait documentary likenesses. And considering that he was — that of Tommaso de’ Cavalieri. The factual accuracy deeply imbued with Neoplatonism, it is not illogical to see of this statement could be contested, but it is impossible tos 4, example the extreme to which its teachings can lead deny that it is true in spirit. The factsare that Michelangelo yy, representational artist. It must nevertheless be adreceived and executed commissions that involved por244. Cf. J. A. Symonds, The Life of Michelangelo Buonarroti,

241. Dutch and Flemish Painters, p. 352. 2 vols., London and New York, 1901, I, p. 187. 242. Didlogos, p. 127: “Y esta la causa, sin duba, por qué los 245. Loc. cit. grandes y eminentes Pintores no fuéron retradores, pues el que lo ha 246. Cf. Jacob Hess, “Michelangelo and Cordier,”” BURL. Mac., de ser, se ha de sujetar 4 la imitacion del objeto malo, 6 bueno, sin LXXXII, 1943, pp. 55 ff. See also Panofsky, “The First Two Proj-

"mas discurrir, ni saber... .” ects of Michelangelo’s Tomb of Julius II,” Arr BUL., xIx, 1937,

243. Cf. Vite de’ pittori, pp. 151 ff. PP. 563-564.

38 THE STATE PORTRAIT _ mitted that Michelangelo was not as other men, and his _ choose the commissions that he accepted, was a prolific and record is more symptomatic than typical. Because of nor- —_— powerful recorder from life.

mal human instincts which could be neatly rationalized by Nevertheless, these men were faced with a problem that quoting classical sources, the portrait was a necessary con- _is easily recognizable. To please their patrons they were cern of the patron, and therefore of many artists. As are- —s required to produce works that were good likenesses (the sult, whether all of his mentors approved or not, the artist people of Florence had been perplexed by the “effigies” on was commissioned to execute more portraits than ever be- — the Medici tombs),”*" and they had to do so in an age when fore. The sixteenth century saw men of high ability aban- _—idealization was increasingly favored. In actual practice,

doning other types of subject matter to specialize in por- = however, the difficulty thus presented was not so much a

traiture. Mor, Moroni, Holbein, Coello and the Clouets hindrance as a stimulus to new and broader interpretawere professionals in the field to an extent hitherto un- __ tions. In particular, the aesthetic tenets of the age fostered known. The care with which they approached their task, = methods of approach and handling that could be of special their essential “style,” shows conclusively that for them the value in solving the problem of how to paint the particular portrait was not the “‘by-path in art” that Van Mander — without abandoning the ideal. And of all forms, the stateheld it to be. Bronzino, who combined painting with the _ portrait probably had the most to gain from the use of such writing of poetry in a Neoplatonic vein, is remembered by — methods, for it was concerned with the portrayal of beings posterity as one of the most stimulating portraitists of all | whose position demanded that they be projected into the

time. Even Titian, whose fame was such that he could _ realm of the ideal and the perfect.

XI Of the art critics who tried to reconcile theories of ab- addition to being a faithful resemblance, is beautiful also, then stract beauty with the requirements of portraiture, Vasari such works deserve to be called extraordinary, and masters who and Lomazzo were perhaps the most important.4* Their execute them merit the reputation of excellence.?*°

goal seems to have been the same, namely, to raise the por- The argument is simple, particularly if it is interpreted trait to a creative level, but their means were divergent. against the background of contemporary reverence for the On the whole Lomazzo furnished the soundest advice, but ideal as well as Vasari’s own production. As already indiVasari’s cannot be ignored, because the comparative fail- cated, he believed that nature should and could be cor-

ure of his methods is in itself revealing. rected, This would naturally lead him to stress his sitter’s : In his biography of Antonio Ceraiuolo, Vasari, while best points while attempting to minimize those that were making an effort to remain consistent, offers one solution —_less good; and he sometimes went even farther than this in

to the problem of how to combine the necessary factual the actual practice of his art. A good case in point is his realism with izvenzione. He starts by admitting that it is | posthumous portrait of Lorenzo the Magnificent (Flornot essential to be a great artist in order to paint satisfac- | ence, Uffizi). In this work the head and body of the subtory portraits from life. But he follows this statement with ject are but part of an intricate pattern formed by a vase, another which shows that his views were not as extreme as inscribed tablets, masks, and other articles symbolizing the

those later to be held by Carducci. He remarks that: triumph of Virtue over Vice. Parmigianino (1503-1540), a contemporary for whom Now it is a truth, that he who takes portraits should labor, = Vasari had great respect, proceeded in much the same fashnot so much with reference to what is demanded by a perfect iy when he did the portrait of Charles V described in the

figure, as with the determination to make his works resemble 950 oo

those for whom they are intended; but when the portrait, tn Vite and referred to above. The Emperor, clad in armor, is being crowned by Fame, while an infant Her-

a cules presents him with a globe. The image of Charles

>. 4 Cf. Panofsky, Studies in Iconology, New York, 1939 therefore shares honors with a figure from classical mythol248. Van Mander, of. cit., p. 352, might be mentioned as still | Ogy, a personification, and various objects emblematic of

another. After giving his opinion of portraiture in his biography of his power.””

Miereveldt, he nevertheless admits that: “I say therefore, that something very good can be made of the portrait; the face, the 249. Vite, Iv, pp. 462~463; for English text cf. Lives of the most lovely part of the human body, has a great variety of inter- Most Eminent Painters, 111, pp. 94-95. esting expressions, and an artist by translating one of these expres- 250. V; p. 239.

sions may reveal the virtues and expressive powers of art.” 251. The original of this portrait is probably lost: cf. L. Froe-

THE STATE PORTRAIT 39 In such works as these the sitter’s features, although — qualities of his greatness, these are suggested by symbolic somewhat idealized, are accurately rendered, but his por- —_ objects whose presence is merely distracting. Furthermore,

trait is transformed into an allegory. Disdain for por- since the court portraitist received his best orders from the

traiture has not carried Vasari and Parmigianino to the great rulers of the period, some of his most influential point reached by Michelangelo, but the results they obtain —_— patrons were northerners who came from regions that had are far removed from the unadorned objectivity of a Van — always shown a more pronounced liking for realistic por-

Eyck or a Ghirlandaio. The use of allegorical elements _traiture than had the Italians. Even in an Italianate age implies and requires intellectual activity above and beyond — such men would logically prefer less involved formulas

° that demanded by the purely documentary record of a face. _ than those offered by the allegorical portrait. It is perhaps The painter has allowed himself scope to air his own erudi- _ revealing that when Parmigianino presented his likeness of tion, and the spectator must interpret the meaning of the — Charles V to its subject, nothing came of it.?**

attributes much as he interprets the action of a narrative Even more pertinent, however, is the consideration that

scene or the hidden theme of a devotional picture. these men were interested in art for its official uses. They The standards of the time were such that the use of al- _— doubtless realized that erudite symbolism had little or no legorical or symbolical matter furnished a logical and legiti- = meaning for the average spectator, and would not be suitmate means of raising the portrait to the level of creative _—_able to place before him. Official portraits may, in fact, be art. Nevertheless, neither resort to pure symbolism nor the — compared to religious works that are intended for places introduction of allegorical overtones met with noticeable — of public worship, where it is customary to employ subfavor in official circles. ‘The reasons for this lie in part with —_ jects that are immediately comprehensible while reserving the artist and in part with the patron. The artist’s case will | mystic themes for private devotion. Now if due regard be become clear when we examine some of the ideas ex- __ paid to analogous considerations where the state-portrait is pressed by Lomazzo, but the patron’s case can best be given _—_ concerned, the popular and appropriate formula should be

here. one that presents the sitter with all possible clarity. In or-

The effigies on the Medici tombs furnish an extreme in- _der to do this and yet remain true to certain conceptions of stance of deliberate avoidance of realistic portraiture. It is ideal beauty, the artist is well advised to adopt other means said that when Michelangelo was asked why the statues of _ than those offered by the allegorical portrait.

the Dukes of Nemours and Urbino did not resemble their Lomazzo’s Trattato dell’arte goes far to indicate what subjects, he replied that in a thousand years no one would’ __ these might be. Although it was not published until 1584 know what they looked like.*** So far as he was concerned, _and therefore post-dates the great practical achievements of this answer was sufficient, but in actuality the average man _— Titian and Mor, it is a work of unique importance for the is interested in the exact appearance of great people whether _ purposes of this study. Perhaps for the very reason that it they be alive or long since dead; and as we have seen, the did not appear until relatively late in the century, it repre-

popularity of portrait collections in the sixteenth century sents, in some measure, a codification of certain earlier attests that this interest was unusually acute at that time. methods of procedure. Its author not only admired the Furthermore, the average man wants his own portrait to works of Titian, Mor, and Coello?®> and recommended be a recognizable likeness, not an “immortalized soul.”?** —_— their example, but he also devoted no less than three chap-

It is therefore obvious that Michelangelo’s approach would _ ters to the problems of portraiture alone — more than is to

| not have been generally acceptable. be found in any other contemporary work of its kind. In On the other hand, one can only venture a guess as to _fact, the author seems so convinced of the dignity of this why the resemblance with allegorical connotations was not _art that he sometimes uses the portrait as an exact instance more widely favored. Perhaps others beside Castiglione of how to apply his strictures concerning ideal beauty.

felt that too much “art”? was displeasing. Certainly por- Lomazzo’s entire approach was, moreover, perfectly traiture of this type frequently begs the issue, for the the- _ suited to the special needs of the state-portrait. Two facts matic element is little more than a veneer. Instead of in- immediately strike the student who uses the Trattato as a fusing the face and figure of the subject with the essential guide to contemporary practice in the art of portraiture. In

; tao.Unpublished the first place,Portraits the author isParmigianino,” especially concerned with the lich-Bum, “Some by BuRL. . ; MaG., XLVI, 1925, p. 88. She has discovered a portrait that an- portrayal of the great and high-born. The quotations that

himself.

swers Vasari’s description, but she considers it to be an old copy. It follow reveal that almost everything he had to say about the

is in the Cook Collection, Richmond, and is the work illustrated portrait is applied first and most specifically to the porhere. Venturi, Storia, 1x*, 1926, pp. 641 f., gives it to Parmigianino

252. Cf. Ludwig Goldscheider, The Sculptures of Michel- 254. That is, if Vasari, loc. cit., was correct in stating that the

angelo, New York and London, 1940 (?), p. 18. artist took it away with him and never received payment.

253. Panofsky, of. cét., p. 208. 255. Cf. Trattato, pp. 434-435.

40 THE STATE PORTRAIT trayal of such people. Resounding titles appear constantly in . This concern with the higher spiritual essence is doubthis text, and it will be seen that he actually believed the art less a reflection of Neoplatonic doctrines, and as the reader to have been invented “for the memory of Kings.’ Sec- _ proceeds, he will discover that so far as the portrait is conondly, because his mind is more preoccupied with the ab- _—_ cerned, Lomazzo’s teachings constitute a mingling of these

stract than the concrete, he was, like Castiglione, fully | with elements culled from the more orthodox classical aware that externals do not suffice to reveal a man’s true _ aesthetic. Often it is difficult to disentangle them, but the

nature. net result is a theory of portraiture that counsels the pracThe section of the Trattato that deals exclusively with _ titioner to seek intellectual as well as visual perfection.

portraiture opens with a statement to the effect that the To this end Lomazzo continues by advising the artist e portrait is an “image of men that resembles them,”*** a to depict only those people whose memory deserves to be definition which aligns Lomazzo with those who de- _ perpetuated.**” He commends the usage of antiquity, when manded a recognizable likeness. Yet there is ample evi- “images or portraits in relief or painting were first made dence elsewhere in his treatise that resemblance as he un- _— for the memory of Kings.”’*®° He likewise points out that derstood it was not solely comprehended by painting asthe | among the Greeks only princes were allowed the honor of

eye sees. In the prologue he says: having their likenesses recorded, and that among the Ro-

lf hat 2 ine vives himself 3 mans the custom was reserved for those who had gained

ou say that apa king gives nimseli over to historical a painter and toa oe oeend . ° ,in‘ .a nosyou 87and 56 .both distinction.*** These sidelights sculptor, make a portrait of him, there is no doubt ; ;;; that one and the other will have the same idea and form of the _ talgic complaint to the effect that in the author’s own day, King in his mind, and will proceed in his mind with the same the art of portraiture had declined to a point where even discourse of reason and of art; and in the end they will have bandits had their features immortalized.”

ne Kine PrP Ose ae ob} ect to make the portrait as much like Now it 1s obvious why this latter-day practice of indis. Be ANG as Posstole. criminate representation would be deplored in the six-

. . . . 29263

It is significant that without denying the need for re- teenth century. Lomazzo says that it is dangerous to the semblance, the artist is here assumed to be working from _— artist, because “if his material is bad, the good painter an “idea,” which, since it is described as residing in his | rarely expresses his concetto, without which it is imposmind, must partake in some measure of the Platonic Idea. _ sible for a good thing to succeed.’”*™* The reader can sup-

. oo ¢ b]

‘Therefore Loma2zzo did not regard the visual image as ply still another reason by recalling that in the sixteenth alone sufficient to the portraitist’s purposes. Rather he de- mente alcuno s’inprime consiste nell’havere una grandissima avversired to see the artist infuse his sitter with those qualities tenza di conoscere se stesso, e quello che la sua mente desidera, e which were the essence of his character and station, an end con facilité, e gratia esprimerla fuori in opera, eleggendo quello

th ld only b hieved by th . f the intell di bello e di buono che ne gl altri vede.” at cou only be achieved by the action of the intel ect. 259. Ibid., pp. 430 ff.

..°°6°I[..*°

And this recommendation is reinforced in an additional 260. Ibid., p. 430; see also note 27 above. passage which occurs in the chapters devoted to portraiture. 261. I ne PP. 430-431.

Here, while admittingvce that; ;all263. do not qualify as such,“Per Lo- 2026 Pedi 431 « , il; ;buon Ibid., pp. 432-433: questaCelery cagione rado mazzo praises what he calls “intellectual portraits, which pittore esprime il suo concetto, senza cui non é possible che alcuna

issuing from the hands of the maker appear as material buona cosa riesca, tanto pil a pittori gossi e materiali. Si che in form to the eyes expressing the concept of his mind or vece di ritratti si veggono come a dire metamorfosi. Cid non

. y058 y P ostante ho tuttavia voluto io raccogliere qua alcune cose necessarie

idea. alla vera compositione del far ritratti, accid che in parte vengano & conoscere quelli che non fanno, in quanto errore si trovino, 256. Ibid., p. 430: “L’uso del ritrarre dal naturale cioé di far ritrando over facendosi ritrarre. Primieramente adunque bisogna le imagini de gl’ huomini simili 4 loro. . . .” For more of this considerare la qualita di colui che si ha da ritrarre, e secondo

passage in the original cf. note 27 above. quella dargli il suo particolare segno, che lo dia 4 conoscere, come 257. Ibid., p. 8: “Percioche poniamo ch’un Ré commetta ad un sarebbe ad uno Imperatore la corona di lauro, come si vede osserpittore, e ad un scultore, che tutti due facciano di lui un ritratto, vato nelle statoue antiche, e come guidiciosamente ha osservato non é dubbio che l’uno e altro havera nel suo intelletto la mede- Titiano ne? Cesari ch’egli dipinse al Duca de Mantoua con lauri sima idea e forma di quel Ré, e procedera ne la sua mente co’l appresso, e con bastoni in mano che denotano il suo dominio, come medesimo discorso de la ragione e de Parte; e in somma havera il lo denota ancora lo scettro, e le armi all’anticha; ma con certa medesimo proponimenti e scopo di fare il ritratto quanto pit si discrettezza per levar Ja bruttezza de habito, accid che sempre il possa simile 4 la persona del Re. I mezzi ancora saranno i mede- ritratto resti bello. Per laqual cagione gl’antichi Imperatori volsimi, perche tutti due si sforzeranno d’imitare la persona del Ré, sero nelle statoue, e figure essere rappresentati cosi armati. . . . servando la medesima quantita geometrica de lui. . . . Talche Secondariamente |’Imperatore sopra tutto si come ogni Ré, e Prinprocedono questi due artifici per la medesima arte ne la loro cipe, vuol maesta, e haver un’aria 4 tanto grado conforme, si che

mente, e intelletto.” spiri nobilita, e gravita; ancora che naturalmente non fosse tale.

258. Ibid., p. 437: “Benche molti maggiori sono i ritratti in- Consciosia che al pittore conviene che sempre accresca nelle faccie tellettuali, iquali dalle mani de gl’artifici sono poste in forme na- grandezza, e maesta, coprendo il diffeto del naturale, e come si vede turali all’occhio, esprimendo il concetto della sua mente over’idea. che hanno fatto gl’antichi pittori, iquali solevano sempre dissumu-

. . . Ma tutta la forza di questo ritrarre quello che nella Jare, e anco nascondere le imperfettione naturali con Parte; .. .”

THE STATE PORTRAIT I 4.

century, the portrait was supposed to serve as an inspiration _—_‘ the most highly evolved and satisfying works of its class,

as well as a memorial. And these considerations combined while the equestrian portrait of Charles V and the canvas with the political temper of the age would go far to create depicting Francesco Maria della Rovere are almost equally an attitude that was particularly favorable to royal por- _ outstanding. Bronzino began his career as a portraitist by traiture, for what could be more worthy of the talents of | painting Guidobaldo II della Rovere in a suit of armor the artist than the portrayal of those who were “‘little less | which was procured at great effort for the occasion, and the

)gy

than God”? majority of likenesses of Cosimo I de’ Medici show him in To return to Lomazzo’s directions, it can be noted that __ the guise of a military leader.

after the subject is chosen, the artist is told that “‘first it is Nor was Lomazzo the only theorist to stress the uses of

necessary to give him the particular marks that will make — apparel. Van Mander held similar views*®* and corre- ,; him known.”*** ‘To achieve this end Lomazzo, like Casti- _ sponding opinions were to be expressed by later writers. It

?....

glione, was willing to admit that clothing and certain was the seventeenth-century French theorist, Charles Alaccessories served a useful purpose. In order to proclaim the —_ phonse du Fresnoy, who so well described the sentiments of

sitter’s rank and position, he therefore advocates the use of _ his kind when he wrote:

baton ers, and eve ical ar- * ; .

pieces of laurel, Ons; scep ters, an n classic To different ranks adopt their proper robe,

mor, articles which are in no way hard to interpret. In a With ample pall let monarchs sweep the globe, later passage he also insists that the subject of a portrait be In garb succinct and coarse array the swain.?®®

dressed as befits his rank. In treating the important ques- oo

tion of attire, he is not, however, as explicit as one might Discriminating choice of costume therefore constitutes one desire There are as many prohibitions as recommenda. °f the most self-evident means of proclaiming the social tions. The artist must not, for example, depict an em- and official character of the subject, but for Lomazzo it was

; _ . the least of the instruments at the artist’s command. Hence,

peror in a cap, because it makes him look like a tradesman. h ds with ; ! he eff hat: “E

On the other hand, armor is most fitting for rulers, be- © proceeds wit instructions tot “© ect that: ihm-

cause it was used by the Romans, and nothing is better de- P°*"S above all other Kings and Princes should be ene

signed to add dignity and the appearance of authority. cowed with ici , and ae a noble and grave i ve Titian and Michelangelo are praised for having used it in ‘0?/0T™S ro ere ee, o2r0 ye + + even though they 7 their portraits of Charles V and Giuliano de’ Medici re- not naturally so in life. To so render them the artist

spectively.?°° must hide the defects of nature, and do all in his power to This partiality for armor is particularly interesting, be- bring out their good points. In making this statement Locause it shows that Lomazzo’s precepts are often in accord 4220 Says that this was the method followed by the artists with practices that had been evolved long before he came of antiquity, “who dissimulated and hid natural imperfec-

o . t¢ e e * LJ

: . ° 22271

to write. It is also an example of the faithfulness with which 0 with Fenton L - in addition to accompanying “his almost never took off his gloves? And there were very few who _—‘ greatness with a familiar gentleness . . . always preserv-

perceived his cunning. Moreover I think I have read that Julius § ing, however, the majesty suited to his rank.”*** In his Caesar liked to wear the laurel wreath to hide his baldness. But manners Charles appears to have mingled gravity and seriin all these matters it is needful to be very cautious and to use ousness with modesty and kindness,?** but Sansovino suggests that he was the reverse of generous.”*’ The modern biographer Armstrong supports this view by mentioning

good judgment, in order not to go beyond bounds. . . .?78 285 273. Loc. cit.; he may have derived the story from Pliny: cf.

Chapters on the History of Art, p. 127. 279. Calendar of State Papers . . . Existing in the Archives 274. Loc. cit.: “Con tal arte si vengono gentilmente 4 dissimo- . . . of Venice, London, V, 1873, p. §32. See also, H. F. M. Preslare, e ricoprire le imperfettioni, e i mancamenti della natura, e cott, A Spanish Tudor, New York, 1940, p. 218. accrescere, e ampliare le buone parti, e le bellezze. Lequali parti 280. Cf. O'Donoghue, of. cit., pp. vill and 20. non osservo l’antico pittor Demetrio, che ft pit curioso di rappre- 281. Cf. A. F. Pollard, Henry VIII, London, 1913, p. 39. For sentar la simiglianza che la bellezza.” In this connection see also Charles V see text below. Alberti, of. c#t., pp. 119 and 151. The story of Alexander limiting 282. Cf. Edward Armstrong, The Emperor Charles V, 2 vols., the number of artists who were permitted to portray him is told by London, 1910, I, p. 22.

more ‘than one classical writer: in particular cf. Horace Epistles. 283. Of. cit., p. 273.

II. 1. See also p. 43 and note 292 below. 284. For a general appraisal of Charles’ character cf. Arm275. Castiglione, of. cit., p. 68; Dolce, Aretino, p. 37. strong, op. cit., I, pp. 369-387. See also W. Bradford, Corre-

276. Cf, note 71 above. spondence of the Emperor Charles V, London, 1850, p. 436, who 277. Cf. Nichols, Progresses of Queen Elizabeth, 1, pp. xii ff. follows Navagiero. Morel-Fatio, Historiographie de Charles-

beth, pp. ix—x. effect. 278. Of. cit., p. 118. 285. Francesco Sansovino, I? simolacro di Carlo Quinto im-

See also O'Donoghue, Catalogue of the Portraits of Queen Eliza- Quint, p. 136, quotes another contemporary to much the same ‘

THE STATE PORTRAIT 43 that he was even known to appear in shabby clothes.** _ trait (Berlin) (Fig. 61), which was painted when Charles Nor was he interested in conducting his household on truly —_ was thirty-two years old. Amberger was one of the rank-

regal lines. Navagiero reports that: “In his dress, his table, | ing German portraitists of his day, and he was not unfurniture and equipages, and the chase, he affects rather the skilled, but his rendering of the features of his ruler has state of a moderate prince, than of a great Emperor.”?** some of the qualities of a caricature. He has accented rather It is also well known that Charles was not endowed by — than minimized facial defects, and the extreme prominature with many compensating physical attractions. Al- —_ nence of the lower jaw is so abnormal as to seem monthough he had a well-proportioned body of medium height ___ strous.

and blue eyes “‘full of manly modesty,”°** these were the It was in this same year that Seisenegger painted the por-

extent of his redeeming external traits. In his case the trait that was to serve Titian as a model. True to native ‘“‘“Hapsburg jaw’ was so pronounced as to constitute a | German tradition, he recorded the details of face, cosphysical deformity: like certain bulldogs, his lower teeth — tume, and body with painstaking care. In so doing he not extended so far beyond the upper ones that he was unable _ only obscured the commanding dignity inherent in a fullto speak distinctly or to chew his food.”°® This resulted in length view, but he in no way mitigated the unpleasant his swallowing it whole, a practice which may have been _ appearance of his subject’s protruding teeth. Although it is partly responsible for the gastric disorders which in turn impossible to say that ‘Titian materially altered the face in affected his complexion.””° Yet this was the man whom his version of this work, his broader handling so minimizes Titian portrayed in such a manner as to establish a univer- _— the deformity of the Jaw as to make it appear perfectly

sal formula for the state-portrait. normal. The listless, almost foolish features of the man in The early likenesses of Charles were the work of Flem- —_ some of the earlier portraits seem to belong to another per-

ish and German painters working in the northern tradi- son. ‘Titian has given an impression rather than a docution of literal reproduction of nature. In almost every case = mented record; and a clipping from a newspaper of July the figure is limited to a bust in full or three-quarter pro- 1942 will show (Fig. 62) that it was his conception of file, arrangements that accentuate the unsightliness of the | Charles which was destined to appeal to the popular imEmperor’s jaw. Probably the most skilful of these is the | agination and to live on. work of Bernard van Orley. The formula used is that of However, any hack can flatter a sitter by making his the near profile bust. This means that the subject’s body, face more beautiful than it is in reality. The power of which was his best feature, is not seen while full promi- _— Titian’s portrait does not lie in the correction of physical nence is given to his unsightly mouth. Van Orley certainly | defects alone. Perhaps the most striking features of the attempted some sort of compromise in rendering the jaw, | composition are the easy carriage and graceful proportions for the lips seem almost to meet, but the slightly upward — of the body which suggest those qualities of majesty and tilt of the head neutralizes any advantage thus obtained. _—_ courtly dignity that were so admired in the sixteenth cenAs a result, although Charles is splendidly attired in this tury. It is as much by these effects as by “dissimulation” of case, his appearance arouses neither admiration nor awe. ugly features that Titian has given embodiment to the con-

Other portraits by Francisco de Hollanda (Florence, cept of the Emperor rather than the man. He has porUffizi), Bernhard Strigel (Rome, Borghese Gallery), and — trayed Charles as he should have been, and not as he was.

Hans Maler (Vienna) not only fail to flatter him but even One is reminded here of what Plutarch said when he remake him look like a simpleton.”*? This undesirable im- counted his version of the story of Alexander restricting the

pression is likewise given by Christoph Amberger’s por- number of artists who were allowed to portray him. Ac-

. cording to the Greek writer only Lysippus was accorded peradore, Venice, 1567, quoted in Morel-Fatio, op. cit, p. 153. this honor See also P. Gachard, Relations des ambassadeurs vénitiens sur

Charles oe Philippe II, p. 24. because he alone expressed in brass the vigor of his mind, and

286. op. cityinP-Bradford, 381. . . in his represented lustre of his while 287.CI. Quoted of. lineaments cit., p. 438. See alsothe Sansovino . . virtue; .

. , . others, strove to imitate the turning neck quoted inwho Morel-Fatio, loc. cit.of his ‘oh £ and hi softness .. 288. The expression is in Paolo Giovio, Natura di Carlo and brig tness of his cyess failed to observe the manliness and Quinto, quoted in Morel-Fatio, of. cit., p. 136. See also ibid., lion-like fierceness of his countenance.”

p. 135 for further remarks on Charles’ appearance. Armstrong, op. cit., 1, pp. 9 and 22, comments on his eyes and figure particu- surprised on meeting Charles in the flesh to find that he had “much

larly. more, however, at the back of his head than he carries in his face.” — 289. Cf. Morel-Fatio, of. cit., p. 136; Gachard, of. cit., p. 19; 292. Of the Fortune of Alexander the Great (and oration) ;

and Armstrong, of. cit., p. 9. Plutarch’s Works, trans. William W. Goodwin, 5 vols., Boston, 290. Cf, ibid., 11, p. 380. See also Morel-Fatio, loc. cét. 1898, I, p. 495. Plutarch also refers to the matter in his Life of 291. It is nevertheless interesting to observe that Armstrong, Alexander; Plutarch’s Lives, trans. Bernadotte Perrin, 11 vols., op. cit., 1, p. 69, suggests that Charles may sometimes have con- London and New York, 1919, VII, pp. 231-232. See also Pliny, veyed this impression in real life. He quotes Aleander, who was op. cit., p. 125.

44 THE STATE PORTRAIT The moral is obvious: the essential character of a sitter is be personifications of the subject’s most pronounced traits more important that his physical appearance, and this does _ of character. He illustrates this injunction by saying that a not necessarily depend on the rendition of anything of a portrait of Pythagoras should typify “penetration,” while

tangible nature. one of Caesar should be the embodiment of “‘majesty,”?”*

Of course, Lomazzo was in perfect agreement with this and later he praises Mor and Coello because their works premise. Consider, for further evidence, what he hasto say _ breathe grandezza e gravita.”®* On the other hand, acting

about “artificial dignity” in the chapter on Proportion: on the assumption that such qualities are necessary to the

esp ge ee , , - ader is entitled to ask how by other

Artificial dignity is to be seen when a prudent painter in de- state-portrait, the re risen ; y

picting an Emperor or a King makes the likeness grave and ful] § ™eans than the correction of obvious physical defects these

of majesty, although he (the subject) may not naturally be so -— are to be implemented in a visual art like painting. The in life; or when in painting a soldier, he shows him more full second and third of the chapters dealing with portraiture of fury and disdain than he was in reality. . . . Many good are helpful in this regard, for they contain remarks on the painters have correctly observed that it is the duty of art to repre- significance of certain gestures and poses, but additional

sent the Pope, the Emperor, the soldier and any other person, d verh ful inf Lo. be found el

with the dignity that reason demands that he should have; and =” per aps More usetu n ormation is to be Found cise herein lies the painter’s skill in his art to represent not the acts | Wherein the Trattato. In his exposition of the theory of the which by chance a certain Pope or Emperor did, but those that passions, Lomazzo has the following to say about movehe should have done, in accordance with his majesty, and the ment: dignity of his estate. And this is the wise and prudent order and

method, which one ought to observe in all other things, to aid The diligent artist ought to observe how much one humor and make up for the defects of nature with artistry.?%° abounds in the body in order that he may represent movements

; which accord with the passions, and conform to that humor

Although this passage seems to have been written with — which predominates. By doing this he will never (make the historical painting in mind, the writer points out that its — mistake of) depicting a great soldier with actions, which would strictures should be followed in “all other things as well.” be better suited to a pauper or penitent . . ., nor the Pope or If then it is applied to portraiture, it becomes immediately Emperor with restrained, rude, barbarous, or fierce actions, -

. °cee33, 1 *| 7s. ..2.s.s . . . , _, which accompany sad, base and guilty passions.

obvious that the artist who is called upon to depict a ruler as

he should be, “in accordance with his majesty and the dig- —_AJthough again the advice is directed specifically to the his-

nity of his estate,” will be required to do something more torical painter, it so closely parallels that furnished the porthan correct the defects of yature. Hereditary estate is not trattict as to apply with equal cogency: determine the true a physical entity, and the majesty and dignity that should nature of the man you are to portray, and then suggest by

make it manifest are states of being, not tangible sub- hi, movements (which can be taken to include pose and stances. Thus Lomazzo, too, would advocate the use of gesture) the aspect of his character that seems dominant. methods that imply something above and beyond not only At this juncture it is necessary to consider what kind of

a factual but also a corrected record of visual reality. movements will best express majesty and its attendant Accor dingly » in the fir st of the chapters devoted to por- qualities, for as we have seen, these traits must of necessity

traiture, he directs the painter to follow the example of be present in the spirits and actions of great people. The those artists of antiquity whose portraits were designed tog, ot ics to be found in a part of the Trattato that tells 293. Op. cit., pp. 30-31: “II decoro artificiale, é che quando il © how to represent various abstract concepts. Under the prudente pittore dipingendo uno Imperatore, 6 un Ré, fa il ritratto heading “Majesty,” Lomazzo says: loro grave, e pieno di maesta, ancora che per aventura, egli natu-

ralmente non Vhabbia: 6 dipingendo un soldato, lo mostra pieno The movements of majesty are proper to those of honor, nodi furore, e di sdegno pit di quello, ch’egli veramente non fu ne bility, magnanimity, liberality, and excellency, all of which

| la scaramuccia. I che hanno osservato molti valenti pittori, con united would be represented in the Pope, and the Emperor, grandissima ragione, essendo questo il debito_ de Parte, rappre- especially when they are seated on their thrones and tribunals; sentare il Papa, l’Imperatore, il Soldato, e ciascheduna persona co’l decoro, che la ragione commanda ch’ella habbia, e in cio si

dimostra il pittore perito, ne l’arte sua, rappresentando non l’atto 294. Ibid., p. 433. che faceva per aventura quel Papa, 6 quell’Imperatore, ma quello 295. Ilbid., p. 435.

che doveva fare, rispetto 4 la maesta, e decoro del suo stato. Et 296. [bid.. pp. 116-117: “Hora quiui il diligente motista, questo é il metodo, e l’ordine di prudenza, ilquale non solo si deve havera d’avvertire, tanto quanto conoscera soprabondare in un osservare in questa parte, m4 in tutte quante le altre, cioé ne la corpo alcuno humore, di fargli fare i moti corrispondenti alla proportione, aiutando, e supplendo i difetti de la Natura con passione, secondo la conformita che tiene con l’istesso humore che l’Arte. Onde s’uno Imperatore é sproportionato, non deve i] pit- soprabonda. IIche osservando non fara nel magnanimo soldato i tore esprimere tutta quella sproportione nel ritratto: e se fara moti pigri, humili, e deboli che si convengono 4 paurosi, e penitroppo scolorito, ha d’aiutarlo con un poco di vivacita di colore; tenti: ne manco nel santissimo Pontifice, overo nel sacro Imperama di tal modo e con tal temperamento, che’] ritratto non perda tore, i moti ristretti, rozzi, orridi, e apri, convenienti 4 tristi, vili e similitudine e che’l difetto de la Natura si cuopra accortamente con nocenti, e generalmente in tutti glaltri quelli che non se gli

co’l velo de V’arte.” appartengono per modo alcuno.”

THE STATE PORTRAIT 45 as also Kings and other great people, to whom pertain the chief From proportion there follows and results infinite and im-

places and degrees.??" portant effects, of which the principal ones are majesty and oo beauty of the body, called by Vitruvius, “Eurythmy” (har-

Although the specific movements which signify the condi- mony) .3

tion of majesty are not enumerated at length, their nature is indicated. Presumably majesty is inherent in those posi- This passage clearly reflects a belief that a close casual contions and gestures naturally associated with the duties of | Nection exists between the quality of majesty and certain high office. These the reader can more or less visualize for '4¢ally determined dimensions for different parts of the himself. In the main, they should be grave and stately, and body. Aesthetically the emotions aroused by harmony are not over-dramatic. Writing in 1589, George Puttenham of an abstract nature, but in the sixteenth century theorists laid down a good rule when he said that “in a prince it is and practitioners had worked out and to some extent even decent to go slowly and to march with leisure, and with a standardized certain ideal quantitative relations between certain grandity. . . .” As an illustration of this precept the separate members of the human form.*™* In this regard he gave the example afforded by Queen Elizabeth, who it Is interesting to note that measurements of some of the

“,

bd 3

}

conducted herself according to these principles except Portraits already discussed indicate that Titian, Mor and “when she walketh apace for her pleasure, or to catch her Frangois Clouet constructed figures according to more or a heat in the cold mornings.”*°* Lomazzo, himself, sug- less fixed and subjectively determined rules. gests that the figure might be seated as on a throne. It will Naturally it would be too much to assume that they or be recalled that this arrangement had been used during 99Y other artists applied such synthetic canons only in the the Middle Ages as well as in such a notable Jater work as 9 °° of royal or noble subjects. But if beautiful propor-

1 . : 202

Titian’s sketch of Philip II. tions are in themselves suggestive of those qualities that

Still it has already been seen that it was the standing Were deemed most appropriate to the state-portrait, it is figure, preferably seen in its entirety, which became al- reasonable to assume that they would be at special pains to most canonical for the state-portrait. However, if it was | '"Corporate them into such works. And in order to do so, actually customary in many cases for a ruler to stand when what could be better than an arrangement in which the holding audience, this formula may be a literal reflection 5o¢Y 18 not only fully revealed but is posed so that there is of an attitude associated with those “to whom pertain the 2° Dr eak in the relation of part to part!

chief places and degrees.” Indeed the custom itself may In this instance as in many others Lomazzo therefore have arisen from unconscious realization that an erect fig- reinforces and clarifies the several forces, political and so-

ure immediately suggests those qualities that Lomazzo and cial, stylistic and aesthetic, that combined to bring the his contemporaries deemed necessary for great people. In _State-portrait into being in the sixteenth century and to deCesare Ripa’s Iconologia the emblem of dominio consists tT ™n€ Its conventions. When analyzed, the approach he

of a full-length standing image, and it is significant that recommends produces an art that is far above mere imita-

this writer further advocates the gesture of an out- tion, and desirable as this may be in any form of porstretched hand as rightfully belonging to those who have traiture, it 1s essential for one that aims to be symbolic as “dominion and command.”?** This is exactly the attitude well as documentary. In consequence, it can be concluded assumed by Philip II in the Madrid portrait, and it is the that the underlying character of sixteenth-century aesthetic one that has met with the greatest favor since the state- thought was not the least of the forces that contributed in portrait was first evolved. Although Ripa wrote somewhat that age to one of the most successful solutions of the problater than Titian worked, he was probably reflecting the lems of the state-portrait that has yet been known. same human reactions to certain stances and gestures, and 300. Op. cit, p. 33, or see note 39 above. his use of the formula merely confirms its essential right- 301. But individual writers and artists were not agreed on any

ness. single canon. Measurements vary: cf., for instance, Vasari on Tech, At the same time, however, Lomazzo himself may un- 724% {rans. Louisa A. Macklehose, London, 1907, p. 146;

oo ? Vasari, Vite, 1, pp. 150-151; and Lomazzo, of. cit., pp. 40 ff.

consciously furnish another clue to the frequent use of the 302. Titian uses approximately the following proportions in the

standing full-length figure when he says that: works named below: the portrait of Charles V (Madrid), seven heads; the portrait of Madruzzo, six and one-half heads; the por297. Ibid., p. 133: “GVatti della maesta, convengono con quelli trait (so-called) of Mendoza, six and one-quarter heads; the pordell’honore, della nobilita, della magnanimita, della liberalita, e traits of Philip If (Madrid and Naples), six and one-half heads. dell’eccellenza; iquali tutti insieme uniti si vogliono rappresentare Mor uses the following: the portrait of the Archduke Maximilian, ne’Papi, né gl’Imperatori massimé sopra sedie, e Tribunali, e cosi about seven heads; the portrait of the Archduchess Maria, six and ne’Ré, e altri gran personaggi, 4 quali a’aspetta il primo grado fra one-half heads; the Escorial portrait of Philip II, six and one-half

gli altri.” heads; the portrait of Dofia Juana, under seven heads. Francois 298. Art of Poesie, 1559, quoted in O’Donoghue, of. cit., Clouet: the portrait of Charles IX, six heads; the portrait of p. XVvili. Henry II, six and one-half heads; the group portrait of the brothers 299. Cf. note 133 above. Coligny, six heads.

46 THE STATE PORTRAIT AIT Such, then, were the trends and beliefs determining the self produce more inspiring images, the demand for conform and handling of the sixteenth-century state-portrait, | formity to an established ideal is only logical. In fact, ethiand which made of it something so satisfying that it set the cal concerns alone will justify an approach that might

pattern for all succeeding generations. This very uni- otherwise be challenged as insincere. formity has not, however, helped to advance the artistic Finally, the very process of repeating predetermined claims of the type. The very strictness of the code under "rules and designs will drain faces and figures of vitality, which the state-portrait came to operate imposes certain and the natural result will be effects that are increasingly limitations which contain the seeds of decadence. It has — schematic and abstract. If it is remembered, however, that therefore had detractors who have held that it puts too — the state-portrait is intended to symbolize an immaterial heavy a premium on venal flattery and mechanical repeti- _ entity like the State, this can hardly be called a fault. It is tion, and their case has been ably presented by Thackeray only fitting that a concept be made visual by other than in a satiric sketch allegedly showing the process by which __ realistic means. Certainly the sixteenth century was not the

Rigaud fashioned his portrait of Louis XIV (Fig. 63). first period in history when political absolutism and abstracBut although there may be justification for such a point __ tion in official portraiture went hand in hand. Qualities of of view, particularly where some latter-day works are con- _ abstraction and isolation are observable in the portraiture of

cerned, it does not hold for the finest productions. In fail- the Far East. They also appeared in the West following ing to take account of the conditions under which the — Diocletian’s assumption of power, when, with barely original conventions and procedures were formulated, it enough time to form a transition, the imperial portrait ignores or disregards the fact that the state-portrait isa po- | changed from an over-personal and illusionistic study into

litical and social as well as a stylistic phenomenon, and a _ transcendental mask whose complete lack of any huhence cannot be judged by purely artistic standards. For = manizing qualities is at once magnificent and repelling. this reason there is perhaps no better way of concluding Therefore, although the state-portrait sometimes seems this study than by answering the critics of the state-portrait. to end in a backwater of mechanical schematization, it genIt is true that few types of representational art show __ erally remains capable of evoking interest and respect even greater uniformity in approach and design. Even before __ in the hands of mediocre artists. Consider Joos van Cleve’s the end of the sixteenth century, the subjects of most state- _— portrait of Henry VIII and any of the likenesses of Queen portraits appear more often than not to have issued from _—_ Elizabeth. As evidence of observation and technical skill common molds. Yet if majesty is inherent in certain ideal _in reproducing reality, the first is by far the more proficient

canons of proportion, these will almost inevitably be sub- work, but it is suggested that the aggressive plasticity of stituted for the more varied but often less pleasing meas- _—_ the image of Henry actually defeats the purposes for which

urements of reality. Moreover, when it is necessary that the state-portrait is intended. The subject is too deliberposes and gestures communicate a few very specialized ately of this world while the representation of Elizabeth, and closely related qualities like majesty and grandeur, the _ by its very lack of appeal to the senses, seems to remove and

artist’s field of invention and selection is perforce limited. elevate the subject into a sphere of her own. It is not the He will soon learn what positions and movements are best _— portrait of a flesh-and-blood creature but something far calculated to give the desired effect, and if he be wise, he | grander: the embodiment of an other-worldly being; and will seldom deviate from them. Every person that he de- _as. a portrayal of someone who was “little less than God,” picts in an official character will then be posed in approxi- _it is the more effective work.

mately the same way, and the attitude alone will become a Perhaps herein resides a prime essential of the statesymbol of the qualities to be expressed. Indeed, such a __ portrait: it must not be too literal or realistic. Even in the process may explain the characteristics of Ripa’s emblem- _ seventeenth century this truth was realized in spite of the atic figure of dominio referred to above. The immutability resurgence of sensory appeal and factualism. The success of certain formulas therefore arises from the fact that they | of Van Dyck did not depend on the fact that he depicted

are the ones best suited to their purpose. the noble families of Genoa and the royalty and aristocracy It is also impossible to deny that the state-portraitist is of the British Isles as they appeared in the cold light of regiven to flattering his subjects. But idealization was an ac- _ ality. It lay far more in his ability to present them as they cepted and honored procedure in most art of the sixteenth ought to have appeared. He was the heir to the sixteenthcentury, and if the correction of physical defects will of it- | century tradition, which itself constituted a reaffirmation

THE STATE PORTRAIT 47 of the maxim attributed to Lysippus:** that a good portrait principle is an old one, but it continues to be repeated, bedepicts men not as they are, but as they should be. This cause it is so essentially right. As Napoleon is supposed to have remarked to Jacques-Louis David: “Ressemblant!

b ha ° *

303. Cf. among others Wilhelm Waetzoldt, Die Kunst des Personne ne s informe si les Portraits des grands hommes

Portrats, Leipzig, 1908, p. 77. sont ressemblants; il suffit que leur génie y vive.”

¢

8

s

‘

e Ye

,ya

j eg THE TROWLIORIEV RODE PON ae ea V3 ss SPORES OM LSE ee OR * ms re 85gq vt‘lien aeis,ee4 "eles 7 HiRRP oe i” FPaes Ae yseek ru YFPai at ;oy freeAa | yn aa PAS WY NT IDILV OCT ins eae

7.toe,ee ea ohm 186% hontipn mee pA5,ge - ta \gs \ NOK .‘f rm Se Poh ch ‘4eae eh \ NN ty. ds heeK) A ood BS a» I + ORS ane i Po“Ra aeinun 4a: fr | j | , | : raeo> ya ‘+f we;yes ,\ &We i Px FSsale ds,i}ua 4Whe 4 ~? AD et i, :; Eye b Rstema ; f)a

7 4 | j rt ¥ ; — yy Pe! on a ee. iy }aepe wn eee, Sy RE ee es ; } le ae Ree ee UA Oe ae. ce i wae PD ON rey mais Cae! eee I att er ef SQ Pe ee es ee ae i ie7,’/. Tey thy \ a Be i) ee ff ONS Migiare ! eu | . Fi Se LAS ; a evo Hx PLB By ee i :: eeOS \ :PB ; RAY!

Duca SE i fon YeWA te atte ai : #43 at ey, MME MARS Thy ee ait ne pee i f+ ayat ey * ¥; 4; jtt" }“Tn yy PbBi aay) ; Wear ‘ a wae yw ue.M Ae er * . ;| * *My Ne bins

a ZZ ‘vig NOE : i ie A | Ce iy

yeo - te cS \\ | le A aae piety? 4 ;| 4ety yy ms Ny es 2 aes me: Bh Be ha Ss a 1 . + m | Wh oie Se BO A ae fe ae p», : ia 5s 7] \ } > \ CME eli, A he A > OF eae Eye : “h) r AN e SS papa ’ ey An Hh Dp Sc > 1B rij $ ey; aD \ / +4) * . ye 4 Cyt | vt . x t 1 ; & meee 25 2. aa. ; ¥ : } i = toe~ Vid - - ee rf : Attn en HB Ys . éFides iy rey Ve Wh iad

mi, SDE.

| Siew — se: SOM ¢ Gee 4 ; TOA Lian eee aRr ARe OO eee iy-| ae WS ©, 3 eh ee i Me oiesfA =aieAt Qae.* fmM Fy +6 Ptyaon = ay im, 4BA: fairie\ oe ge Lae te . &% Aas ee \ che, y t % ‘ a oA & 7 ae ‘A i “Gs Phy nek z, oe 7 ae Sa Ce Pes “ ee ™" x e's “

ee ee RRs 1 s

4 ? Re L's, . 2 Sy ey i af eh , » ' ‘

a éYo PS ee . j{A+-* SitHt ‘| .Oe ?; ;5ee .m4 ,||Secs “a s r.;-3;&» ft .at - ”Z3 ve si AE, ae \a ':aa

|:y|i‘k:ies : 4 4 i ie eaten —— °4 Pe , ‘ ¢ % es ~ . & Soke :4 /-,4©5;”Pg wale :\:4:e’Az . é nal : : . / csri M it?|| aie | ahh aels eedai Ree ' ,f' ;toy < es 20 e. geae (4 yr |‘ ' 3 "‘

d4f,4.Ba 2 A " Ps t ¥ & ™, br SS ? “f M aw Uy _; 4ui reés

4 ‘yiv:aah 449 gn? “i \ \ {+ §“ag ~.* Ee ~-es.Ssé. ’ 4;5wal

Fic. 7. Portrait of Philip the Fic. 8. Portrait of Joanna of Fair, Brussels, Musée Royale Aragon, Brussels, Musée Royale

} vg di r be aad EAS Labatt ee ala y oy ) .

4 Ys eT Cie Ie pf .; ae ZL aa SG wv aed | a ‘ AT)’: ARN y3 ot 1,ASK eteee) xv 7 >tue Nee ; OH iASS) ve ~GN ih ie ‘aNNSA): WY Py)! NS\~

XAH (¢MaPv24/23QDANE ° leet~y fb) ,‘ .NR yA SX “ OS Ae RAN | \| hey MN xyateyWD ! nTODAY SA ed Pfe: Tam) \ / ie 4k IY Ae \ SF = 2 lek } ss ONY | TT ¥ MA be \F Be i Oe i , ph MOY : ; ad i XX ii wer er Sige yw,As tayZ2ren stele q aN Pity SO 4 Li4, }~AS

VE x|) 1)oN, VTS , '*\ |Wo Za’fiee1 eR EID, OT“yp a. om ge #} ® YX iat } ak Topp Be pete "se 5 ae | | _ Pie iis (ei Oe .»eee ; LI RsOF, jf

. |taa eee PUNY FREES (Ay — \ih: / Fe : iit OG» Summed? a Od f. ; ah — NM Ba. a 7) ar ah a © Ae en i i,NAN Aisi nme ens Pc/jZ il(/ (ge Wee” (Cedi ‘4“4 owAé\ 4N PW (yl! ) . Poof 31 , {1 ae , a fn — 6 | \ ? td L fy ison 4 Wehy oe a) fa ‘\t f eee Ny : : ‘ { ( (¢ } ine Ni ‘Y \ » dit ten & # ae «° j 4 Weg , ; j » v oe, VG BR) ray BLN \ N 4h

OMA _casa) a sha cnc fg ae MA me Tie A XS3ame VR abe—ySm oe wre y am ry as BO ae | cae heumeninil aw ———— ae maou | “s cotter euler aaa tr i } y ~~ < x II, ais ae a ‘ ‘e | Fic. 11. Raphael, Portrait of Pope Julius Fic. 9. Portrait of Charles the Bold, Lon- ms. & Florence, Galleria Uffizi

“..aa

don, British Museum, Ms. Harley 6199 {st ); Sa cs CN 4

Fic. 10. Cranach the Elder, Portrait of Henry the Pious, Dresden, Staatliche Gemialdegalerie

Cc ee eee

Bg Sh) CORE SRC Ene Se Oe eee age gt * x eae a rad .BN ‘Soa es ‘eS id

. 4(ge ae $ bessa| -ig z#; S a}ry 4‘ge % E re ee y

y“ ¢we } ' -! iy eh " | te § a, “2 , en * Te % ag ' ~ : - :

Re aed

Ne

Fic. 12. Portrait of Joanna of Aragon, Paris, Fic. 13. Titian, Portrait of Alfonso d’Este,

Musée du Louvre New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art

i,, ye ae Ree ok ae eeimenage eee eee i... {jaa he Tae eo Beae Saeiuacagy {8 Ai) ris ee Bh Og ps a os } Pte fae : ee Chane ae % eect Bint aie ee ae se

BT Bs a RE RC or

2 a oe oe) Sane ?5:Ny sieKi? OhPnGed Saepae wy a | zh z opeeyy, Frankfurt-am-Main, “es Sik Rsht SR a>) Sir { ;Stadelinstitut Aki; aeeti . we fj Pea i a Fic. 14. Pontormo, Portrait of a Lady, a } Wa: Ma "RE chs

PLP ae 1 Tay ei Er cee i 3 (la rea bone saps speae fis) tars ots Mea Sonah ‘saat er nidic nee ay te = Re ae : Roly ay St meh aan Pe Beers, : ’ wef fist Ih it vs Peres buh) iis «Ri viaNaar eaei?) Y i fan i} /-\“fj Jer LA Fats Pete r4 j ; Pye Eh \ \ \ . 43 oh OF okt * ei WS } / A, Ns Ra © * r : 5 4 Pi agg > ‘ fj 4 i f i | Y/, \ eam ys ey seg f° we ENS < | PAPE NaN ay" , ¥ . 4 ‘oy 4. A bee Cael ge eRea,

|Vv « wink, an:we f. is JSeah itd ¥> : .my 4 . Acs} ‘ tas t3t /¢rN. eat Me 4 BS alSSi ‘ ‘ x iSI. ‘ ' ‘ee = he ‘aeri‘ oS * =) aeé ¥e. ai’ Jt aerica NN TeBaers pore,

& ‘ Ss, Weeen, CoB Women . . TAG RE Be / " ea? SS Cia ae \" Ee ef = . > bangs eink esr ee ie ROY QV 7 aR ei” % aah NG i. Ca , i.” eae “eee, Ve SS 44 ‘ eee “r,t :\ Pe 1% SO yy .eWet it Rad¥ ne ee = By M TCS eeSen na Mae Weeic )\ A | , Om NGa ‘nae

.—sOtSoe , \ by ryurd Naeee. ay Pat > tJ| ;, A. NS)

Ah On BS KY * ‘| ta. C f|’A y ve } 3 . \ hae Gee NIA :T iki ie 5aN = . ‘.SS oh :nm, : t P~~ 4 ie 7 ¢ ?» ) | pore

ary w) WF ‘’sae ' ; I| j ; ' . a¥, OTe tin 7 * ‘; >f ;~~)ee

, ; r. § ms ve “ pr: = | as£Ss} aaa Syeee Rea ee ey| otI ee ee ee .

; it fed a . ing . 3 ‘ ¢ am ‘ »

te et , a eats o ae “a? x , 8 . te “Se “ftte2yen i % iShar * BS tine = /tts : ra ™ % f re Wa capt i ae Ree ON stn.) [AA ESF pTLAa_i Wealfsie Pet ike Bt Be UN oweSh Ss a 7 ine) ‘ Ae DLs - -

eo). \ oe RLS BN \ a eg , a Wak Be” Spee cue | ey a tg aA. | A . |

ie eyeee NLS ee ae!emer 1 eg 54)bin a‘yDor WY KS cise 3 pAaly TNeS mee, aM “* , . Ma ire‘ Pi Le eet ke aay hata O65 os-asie ‘ ee eee | Ve. Gat TSG ir OS } 7 / nA ; : pase, : 4oy\ pty \ A afe| ,“ys RN © i "oy a on8 hee '- -«éa Sa oe. «c‘ ‘ae ; i" naan i, ee ‘ Boe "ad * y 4 % a Pai Us Ls aie. m/s =) atZ‘ is¥ny . ei) JiFBe yng et > | rr Ne. ‘ ay‘d ™..° : , ¢ol EGE M4 Oh iesRs en $ Figo ViRRameme tsbel 9k aa eR SY PPS ES,NS :\) eet oS eR oe is a ” » tthe f t : ts. ag bal ame we ak 8 : ‘ A tt aie aD he Napa a ue Pant.) we . ei |Ae Raeaaiken amch See eesaa JA \-. fs pan \ Sd YES a‘jig TAA cyBares oii CisBika} 9ee 21ge aaa teme x| 1ae RAE Recta Maser aacs| ;ae fie | g 'seta ey otal Oat , E g: Caras OP a ile Hier aie aa oe |S es a rae Zs ; 7 ¥1” oa io Se ANE eae ae Dn | “See ES : as le 2 APT honePS bane “ Pye ‘eoee rae #e Re aee oFAY ae Cet 2 =eeSE es=|he Bee eegeftSa )

s d >» eet | ae ?>f”Museum | 8ry] hen P : we — .. she “ee ;&ror P Ey wit.oy: -if5eat, : . erareres e.* . os cs ERG

rs ie 4 4A fae Sta 4, iS/¢. ees Veh A‘ iss \ : i|a

3

i

‘ Fic. 54. Portrait of Henry III, Versailles,

OL 2i|'Fic. the Younger, Portrait of aie! ema) Marie Medici, Madrid, Museo Prado ommees Bote Aas 55. .de’ " ’Pourbus — x ae Ae ae" N del gees .Bowes . Ray tole: mee 2D _.rote, * - a oan :

E

i Fa -

wihMay4mat y eR iN \ te ee : Be Tres : ‘e : oy yj Gate are 7 B: ee pase ey Ce eke y “ fe Wi sones . Nae : ee a=Os a Waa) (PREY ais asoY ge. 5gPF : .7}of ‘-.es >ty y Bons fe eal Be Ses Ui oh 4 ys uip + 7 :sdaltaVW ft “7A bea? ms ‘ ip Vi N\ s jp bom NS1Ee Q He

SL’ ® ie ad J . ‘

\ ‘ ;, » q. ae te bs \ Aa —ig=kRetin OFS>" % j s “4$ ba . ¥}t ef, A »Zan - “ Oe

| RY Ap .\ Ses Toy PRLSUY, oe:ou? ) \ , i 0} “ es :Ba he 4h - ‘ BsarEiLA y | 1As ' —" i scones

aeWere X&aoh aA ess: aSehus i4)| e fe S7Pte. ih=|Meme 8 om Ja£7 aw. aN (FI - hh > =a } pier ks pie 6%, . + eer ; ~ q“Re: : iS aa> Wy : ’’Bec by \ Ber? vue EE Ya ed = \\ > : ay Poa Yat ‘ P € 4 “24 \\ “2 semen oN >: \‘ s| ay Sane, nets i‘eae oe yy irk %, ) ad ; & leo! Ee wi,‘ At 4 v EAA) LEOead) : “gy . 4 4 ’aS) % --_Wh} iN

fe wie eureaeiN3a ; ()' ® FO 4 an a x gk ; . | ~ os ~) : | : j yt , x . : : : ro Fe : DS ayat a bs

;~ : Ade ie Pa . °a” yj. ‘* in bese ie 4 ‘ , Ip { 7oe a he,i zfja re

L?)’ eo ~ ct / ; 6

Fic. 56. Rigaud, Portrait of Louis XIV, Paris, Musée Fic. 57. Ingres, Portrait of Napoleon du Louvre

ia oe m ; x ™ eel ies ‘

ey ees eae | :i ¢.Ff a € eg “ ~ Seats ns \] aa * A : . ae . x 4 . ‘9

Mae, . ;; aor iy. snit ae ae ss SEC

| ; get CO4, Siete .—_ Mee : , a4 2 4 ae ee Af7Lily Pt Fy \ al=: ‘ 4 ®i4 éabi hy ‘ a fo \ yf A aS) ; pt 1 oe \ we . | fs * a} :er ;Sb 5,,hg Pe> . .om ».ee)ie dle of aa "i GF ™.

ge : : Bi pee

Tf MK o | PE eS? sie i $f yPP keepists A f iASet —~ ;> f ;;¥& ;; AY en J > " az Cj2UZ ‘0 ie oa a ee f VN 4AA) \ 1 , \\ % ‘ *. fa Soa

:a$3Vv A ebeties ®t R \ ja i KY pages MALL al Yala f pil > esoe ¥a if() .iSTae ae VEE eeXe! a IAYt rBiig am.\.\|* \Le Seer CS >? S ae ?ac .:. “y\ Re \ © Z Fic. 63. Thackeray, Lodovicus Rex