. . 2)....” t‘ a 3...... .ix «R \ 15 a. . 1 : é . 5%.... vv. .341! wli,‘ . . . ‘ I A .r. fibril. .. .. L :3 \x [:53 . ih i ‘ .33.. ¢ .. r ; 3 . .w..i§..:.u. . f! of n . “v ".13.. a. : 1x}... .. . VI Itlénj slink” 12¢! '11.}...1 .x. . .a»: x i r ‘8}.1‘. 12.: 1| .. l g , on!“ .3, I)“ 5.1. \. 1.1- «.33.. $.31: A Wars 1! MICHIGAN STATEU :3: w: m llllunllll 4114098 This is to certify that the thesis entitled Sdonlsbq Angut'ssola'g, Sci" Wii'urc presented by SUM“ Marten Mcsko K01“. has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Madhzrj degree in A74 Haw-cry - 4 ’Joé—f ma Major professor MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution fifi- A ‘ >v -v--—~. ——-o.. 4.... A... LIBRARY Mlchlgan State 4 Unlverslty PLACE II RETURN BOX to romovo this checkout from your rooord. TO AVOID FINES Mum on or Moro duo duo. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE l ‘ A"? 2.5"?“ l ‘ l . A :maflll/IZ'DJII. . SOFONISBA AN GUIS SOLA'S SELF-PORTRAITURE By Susan Marie-Mosko Kozal A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Art 1995 ABSTRACT SOFONISBA AN GUISSOLA'S SELF-PORTRAITURE By Susan Marie-Mosko Kozal This thesis focuses on Sofonisba Anguissola's self-portraiture. Though she produced more self-portraits than any other artist between Durer and Rembrandt, no scholarly publication has solely examined this large aspect of her oeuvre. Consequently, this thesis fiilfills a perceived gap in research on Sofonisba. It examines all works previously considered self-portraits of the artist. Concerning their authenticity and chronology, four categories emerge: 1)those generally agreed to as authentic; 2)those accepted by some, not accepted by others, but here defended as authentic; 3)those refuted; 4)those produced by followers. To place the artist in her milieu , this thesis surveys Cinquecento feminine education to suggest how and why she became trained in the art of painting. Also, the self-portraits are analyzed in the context of contemporary portraiture. Finally, her self-portraiture and sixteenth-century ideas concerning ideal feminine beauty receive examination through a comparison of her work, with that of contemporary male artists and with contemporary literature. Following the essay, a catalogue raisonée provides for each self-portrait: illustrations, an analysis of technique and style, a citation of provenance and references. Copyright by Susan Marie-Mosko Kozal 1995 to dad, mom, & andy C\ the lesc am: f0! 3] Fr. Da ACIWOWLEDGERJENTS I extend my sincere thanks to Dr. Webster Smith whose persistent encouragement and continual assistance extended beyond the duties of a thesis adviser. As a result of his genuine interest in Sofonisba and her pursuit of the self-portrait, Dr. Smith ofl‘ered insightfitl queries to incite in me further considerations. Moreover, he, along with the other committee members, Dr. Linda Stanford and Dr. Eldon Van Liere, promoted my research both within the department and with the university as a whole. Their efforts led the Department of Art, the College of Arts and Letters, and the Graduate School of Michigan State University to jointly fimd a trip to the 1995 exhibition of Sofonisba's paintings to enable me to view many of the works firsthand. I extend many thanks to Marina Galvani, curatorial assistant for the 1995 exhibition at the Ktmsthistorisches Museum in Vienna, and Pierangelo Moretti, director of the Comitato Promotore Mostra Anguissola in Cremona, who collaborated to provide me the 1995 Italian catalog of this exhibition. I am grateful to Dr. Liana Cheney for discussing with me my objectives and research at an early stage, for her insightful suggestions, and for her shared intrigue in the artist. I thank the European painting curatorial stafl‘ at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts for allowing me access to their portrait and for enabling me to view its information file. Finally, I would like to recognize Dr. Janice Simpson for her continual support and Fr. David Van Horn whose mentorship inspired me to pursue the study of art history. VJ TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter LIST OF FIGURES . CHRONOLOGY INTRODUCTION I AUTHENTICITY AND CHRONOLOGY , II CINQUECENTO FEMININE EDUCATION AND SOFONISBA AN GUISSOLA. . III AN ANALYSIS OF SOFONISBA'S SELF-PORTRAITURE IN RELATION TO CONTEMPORARY PORTRAITURE IN GENERAL IV SOFONISBA'S SELF -PORTRAITURE AND CONTEMPORARY IDEAL FEMININE BEAUTY. V SUMMARY VI CATALOG ENTRIES BIBLIOGRAPHY Page 17 26 32 44 45 125 Fig Flgu Figure Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7. Figure 8. Figure 9. LIST OF FIGURES WW1, c. 1550-52. Oil on panel 18.5 x 23 cm In the private collection of erham Stirling. Inscription: Sophonisba Anguisciola Virgo cremonensis se ipsam pinxit. W, 1552. Oil on canvas. 34 7/8 x 27 3/8" (88.5 x 69 cm). Florence: Uflizi Inscription: SOFONISBA ANGUISCIOLA CREM. PICTRIX AETA SUE ANN XX. Selfillomait, c. 1552-53. Chalk sketch (black chalk on white/ blue paper). (351 x 264 mm). Florence: Ufizi, Gabinetto dei Desegni (inv. no. 13248F). . . W, 1554. Oil on panel 6 3/4 x 4 3/4" (17 x 12 cm) Vienna: Kunsthistoriches Museum, Gamaldegalerie, inv. no.285. Word, c.1555-56. Oil on canvas. 22 1/4 x 18 7/8" (56.5 x 48 cm) Naples: Museo Nazionale di Capodirnonte. W591, c.1558-9. Oil on canvas. 26 x 22 1/2" (66 x 57 cm). Lancut: Muzeum Zamek. mm, signed and dated 1558. Oil on panel Diameter 5 1/8" (13 cm). Paris: Fondation Custodia, Collection F. Lugt, Institut Neerlandais. . . . . . Self-Portrait, c.1559-61. Oil on card , miniature. 3-3/16 x 2 1/2" (8. 2 x 6. 3 cm). Boston: Museum of Fine Arts. Inscription: "SOPHONISBA ANGUSSOLA VIR[GO] IPSIU S EX [S]PECULO DEPICTAM CREMONAE".. . WW c.1558-59. Oil on canvas. 32 11/16 x 25 5/8" (83 x 65 cm). Althorp: Earl Spencer Collection. Inscribed lower lefi: SOPHONISBA ANGUIS SOLA vmoo SEIPSUM PINXIT JUSSU AM] [LCARIS] PATRIS 1561 [7]. . Page 46 49 52 56 61 65 68 72 78 Figure Figure 10. Figure 11. Figure 12. Figure 13. Figure 14. Figure 15. Figure 16. Figure 17. Figure 18. Figure 19. Figure 20. Figure 21. Page _- , ' ‘ ,~ ' ,.c 1558-59. Oilon canvas. 43 11/16 x 43 5/16" (111 x 110 cm). Siena: Pinacoteca Nazionale. . . . . . . . . 84 59115312111311, c.1561. Oil on canvas. 14-3/16 x 11 7/16" (28.5 x 24 cm). Milan: Pinacoteca di Brera. Inscription: (not very legible)"[...]OPONTSBA [...]ILCARIS [...]M[...]SIS L[...]XI". . 87 Self-Portrait, 1564. Chantilly: Muse'e Condé. . . . 91 Selfifiomait, c.1620. Oil on canvas. 38 5/8 x 30 11/16" (98 x 78 cm). Niva, Denmark: Nivaagaards Art Museum. . . . . 94 Giovanni Battista Trotti detto il Malosso. W Walla , c.1610. Oil on canvas. 94 x 75 cm Bern, Switzerland: Godfried Keller Collection. Inscription: "alla mMag.ca Sig.a.\ Catolica Barbova Angussol[a]". . . . . 98 W. Oilonpanel 35 x27. 5 cm. Milan: Private Collection. . 101 Attributed to Sofonisba Anguissola. 129W, c.1570-71. Oil on canvas. 72 x 65 cm. Rome: Galleria Doria walnut panel 4"(102cm)md1ameter Florence: Ufiizr Gallery. . 106 Mam c.1554-55. Chalk sketch (black chalk on white/ blue paper). 301 x 345 mm. Florence: Ufizi, Gabinetto deiDisegni, inv.n. 13936F. . . . . . . 109 Follower of Anguissola, possibly a sister. W miniature. Oil on unknown material, probably card or parchment. Vancouver: Vancouver Museum. . . . . 113 Follower of Anguissola, possibly a sister. Sewn miniamre. Oil on copper. 9.8 x 9.6 cm. London: Victoria and Albert Museum, cat. 103. . . . . . . . 115 Follower of Anguissola, possibly a sister. SofonishaAnguissglajtthe Figure Figure 22. Figure 23. Figure 24. Figure 25. Figure 26. Figure 27. Figure 28. Figure 29. Figure 30. Figure 31. Figure 32. Page Easel. Oil on canvas. 66 x 59 cm Mentena: collection of Federico Zeri. Inscription (written in all capital letters): MUSAS APELLEM A QVAVI SOPHONISBA PVELEE/ COLORIBVS FUN GENS CARMINIBVSQUE MEIS". . . . . . . 116 mm, c. 1554, Chalk sketch (black chalk on white/blue paper), 301 x 345mm. Florence: Uflizi. . . . 118 W, 1555. Poznan: Muzeum Nardowva. . . . 118 Titian. Selflfigmait, c.1562, oil on canvas. Madrid: Prado. . 119 Catarina van Hemmessen. Selfiflqmajt, 1548, oil on panel Basel: Oflenfliche Kunstammlung. . ». . . . . 119 Albrecht Durer. 52mm, Madrid: Prado. . . . 120 Titian. IsabellafifEste, c.1534-36, oil on canvas. Vienna: Kunsthistoriches Museum. . . . . . . 120 Parmigianino.Madana_with_the_1&:ng_N_e_ck, c. 1535. Florence: Uffizi. . . 121 Parmigianino. Antea, 1535-37. Naples: Pinacoteca del Museo Nazionale. . . . . . . . . 121 Lucia Anguissola. Selfifiqmajt, oil on canvas. Milan: Castello Sforzesco, inv. no. 562. . . . . . . 122 Anthony Van Dyck- WW, 1624 Turin: Galleria Sabauda. . 122 Anthony Van Dch- W 1624 Knole Kent: Lord Sackville Collection. . 123 cl: c 15 155 C15.‘ c155 c.155j c.1554 1556 c.1556 c.1555.- 1558 C1558 £15584; 6.1559 | 156] 15a 1530 1532 c.1535 c.1536-38 c.1539-41 0. 1542-44 c. 1545-46 1546-49 c.1550-51 0. 1550-52 1551 c.1552 c.1552-53 c. 1553-54 0. 1554 1554 1556 c.1556 c.1556-57 1558 c.1558 c.1558-59 c.1559 1561 1564 CHRONOLOGY Amilcare Anguissola and Bianca Ponzone marry. Sofonisba Anguissola born. Elena Anguissola born. Lucia Anguissola born. Minerva Anguissola born. Europa Anguissola born. Anna-Maria Anguissola born. Bernardino Campi trains Sofonisba and Elena. Sofonisba continues training under Bemardino Gatti. Elena enters convent Sterling W- Asdrubale Anguissola born. Ufi'lzi seam. Ufizi Self-mm drawing Utfizi WW drawing. Ufiizi WW drawing Vienna gamma Guilio Clovio visits Farncse family in Parma and Piaccnza. Nflples Wigwam meut Sslfllmit Ashbumham medallion. Sofonisba in Spain. Milan git-mm. Chantilly W Minerva dies. 1565 Lucia dies. 1573 Arnilcare dies. Sofonisba marries Don Fabrizio. 1578 Don Fabrizio dies. Sofonisba marries Orazio Lomellino. 1606 Rubens visits Sofonisba in Genoa. c.1610 Niva Self-Roman. c.1615 Sofonisba moves to Palermo. Sofonisba visited by Van Dyck. 1625 Sofonisba dies. SI CK H10 sore to v, SOfOII. 31113 5' )mt cxh 11 INTRODUCTION A sixteenth-century Cremonese artist of minor nobility, Sofonisba Anguissola was renowned for her portraiture. Diverse contemporary literary sources acknowledge her distinction in this genre. Literature regarding her life and art continued through subsequent centuries, and the influences of feminist art history fi'om the 1970's to the present have revitalized scholarly research about her and her paintings. As a result of this impetus, numerous art historians have been contributing articles about her in scholarly periodicals; the first monograph on Sofonisba appeared as recently as 1987. Flavio Caroli's WW (1987) examines Sofonisba's art and that of her sisters. It attempts to distinguish stylistic differences between the Anguissola sisters while providing critical historical documentation and an up-to-date bibliography. In 1992, Ilya Sandra Perlingieri published W W, which seeks to enhance the knowledge of Sofonisba's entire life, particularly her stay at the Spanish court. Reviewers have taken exception to both publications on various points, but overall these works have provided a more thorough understanding of the artist, as well as pertinent new information. 1994-1995 witnessed the first major exhibition, Sofonisba Anguissola e Ie sue sorelle, of this artist's and her sisters' works. The exhibition travelled fiom Cremona, Italy to Vienna, Austria and finally to Washington, DC, where it was downsized and renamed Sofonisba Anguissola: A Renaissance Woman.l It assembled a substantial portion of the artists’ oeuvre, and generated a voluminous catalog compiling numerous, innovative essays 1The exhibition produced its own catalog of the same name (See below, p. 126). l 2 on Sofonisba's life and career. This exhibition opened new avenues through which to investigate Sofonisba Anguissola, while provoking many questions. Written contemporaneously to this exhibition, this thesis focuses solely upon Sofonisba's self- portraiture, which constitutes the greatest portion of her work. Organized in the form of a monograph, the thesis contains an essay divided into four sections followed by a catalogue raisonée entry for each self-portrait. This format allows the primary objectives of this study to be readily addressed as well as several secondary objectives. The essay sections address the primary objectives: to deal with the authenticity and chronology of her self-portraits; to consider her education in the context of Cinquecento feminine education; to correlate her work with contemporary portraiture; to compare aspects of her self-portraits with contemporary notions of ideal feminine beauty. The catalog entries incorporate the secondary objectives: to produce a visual reference to all of Sofonisba's self-portraits and those once attributed to her; to provide a close analysis of each self-portrait concerning technique and physical and compositional characteristics; to furnish for each image as accurate a citation of provenance and literary references as possible. In a time in which interest in Sofonisba Anguissola's artistic career has intensified, I hope to contribute a comprehensive analysis of her pursuit of the self- portrait, and an up-to-date guide to the literature on this topic. 8‘. ML mid Asht TOUDO' DEPK ”Va 5,“ 4.1. p 1 R8041 AUTHENTICITY AND CHRONOLOGY Born to a family of Cremonese nobility, Sofonisba Anguissola was educated as a nobil donna. She studied music, literature, and the art of painting, achieving distinction in all three according to various contemporary sources. She is renowned especially for her self-portraits, yet several questions exist regarding them To begin with, the question of which works are authentic self-p ortraits must be addressed. Secondly, controversy concerning the chronology of these works remains. Besides these initial queries, several corollary questions require consideration. Why did Sofonisba produce this plethora of self-portraits? Why does a distinct disparity of physiognomical traits exist among them? Concerning the authenticity of these works, this thesis examines all of the images that are or have been considered self-portraits. First, it considers a group of works upon which scholars generally agree as to their authenticity. This core set comprises six examples: in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, the Lugt collection in Paris, the Muzeum Zamek in Lancut (Poland), the Siena Pinacoteca, the Ufizi, and the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna. One primary reason for this group's apparent authenticity derives from the evidence of inscriptions. The example fi'om the Lugt collection -- known as the Ashburnham medallion (fig.7)--is signed and dated, 1558.1 The inscription on the Boston roundel (fig. 8) states: SOPHONISBA ANGUSSOLA V1R[GO] IPSIUS EX [S]PECULO DEPICTAM CREMONAE. The Uflizi portrait (fig.2) bears this inscription: lllya Sandra Perilingieri, _.. Rimli, 1992), p. 109. in. \3 ['1’ 190. for 11 It is 1 citalo Below group i accwta I Ponrm d Painted p‘ 4 SOFONISBA ANGUISCIOLA CREM. PICTRIX AETA SUE ANN XX. In the Vienna portrait (fig.4), she appears holding an open book displaying an autobiographical inscription, which states: Sophonisba Anguissola Virgo se ipsam fecit 1554. Regarding the Siena portrait (fig. 10), Perilingieri notes that "close examination in 1983 and 1988 also revealed part of a faint, but still visible, signature. The word 'Virgo', as she often signed herself, and '. . . SSOLA' are evident in very pale yellow in the lower right-hand comer of the canvas. "2 Many scholars believe Sofonisba's inclusion of "Virgo" within her signature infers a conscious reference to Iaia of Kyzikos, a classical female painter (see below, p. 23). Rediscovered timing the preparation of the Sofonisba Anguissola e le sue sore/1e 1994 exhibition, the Lancut portrait's (fig.6) first published citation appears in the catalog for this exhibition. Only this painting, in this primary group, displays no visible inscription. It is possible that upon further research traces of an inscription may be formd, as the catalog makes no reference to any detailed analysis or radiographic studies taken of it. Below (pp. 28, 41, 66-68), the reasons for its inclusion within this primary, authentic group appear, on the basis of compositional and physiognomical characteristics. A second group comprises works that some scholars accept, and others do not accept, as authentic self-portraits of Sofonisba. This second collection includes the Althorp, Chantilly, Milan, Naples, Niva, and Sterling self-portraits as well as an early self:- portrait drawing in the Ufizi; I will argue in defense of their authenticity . Several of the painted portraits within this group bear inscriptions, or were known to have been inscribed ’Perlinsiefi, Wanda. p. 52. \it the rub Kelli 0011a Sofon 1 SUCh 3i Vallalic as two 1 LOHdOn' W Sta . 5 at one time. The Althorp portrait's (fig.9) signature and date, now nor entirely legrble, appear in the lower left. It reads: SOPHONISBA ANGUISSOLA VIRGO SE IPSUM PINXIT JESSU AMI [learis] PATRIS 156[1]. Debate persists regarding the 1561 dating of the piece (See below, p. 15 & 79-84). The Milan portrait (fig. 1 1) bears an inscription, on the right side just above the shoulder, that states (rather illegibly), [...]OPONISBA [...]ILCARIS [...]M[...]SIS L[...]XI. Again, questions arise regarding the dating of the work as 1561. The Sterling portrait (fig. 1) bears the inscription: Sophonisba Angusciola virgo cremonensis se ipsam pinxit. Works rejected as self-portraits comprise a third group: these are rejected here on the basis of physiognomical dissimilarities to one another as well as to those in the authentic collection. The five portraits included within this group are in the Godfiied Keller collection in ch, Switzerland; the Galleria Doria Pamphili; a Milanese private collection; and the Uflizi (which has two: the round miniature and the drawing Girlflh mfldflnman ). Finally, a fourth group assembles works previously attributed to Sofonisba as self-portraits. These will be demonstrated to be reproductions of her work, such as those the yormger Anguissola sisters frequently produced . This group includes a variation upon Sofonisba's Lancut composition, in the collection of Federico Zeri , as well as two variations on the Boston composition, one in the Victoria and Albert Museum in London, and the other in the Vancouver Museum. As to chronology, this paper offers suggestions towards modification and reinforcement of dates proposed by other scholars. The problem of dating Sofonisba's work starts with the scholarly debate regarding her parent's marriage date and her birth 6 year. Presently, various art historians support one or the other of two theories regarding these issues. The first theory, which this thesis supports, is founded on the research and assertions of Carlo Bonetti Basing his opinion on contemporary documents, Bonetti re- established the marriage date of her parents as 1530. The 132m catalog and Perlingieri advocate this theory, which their dating of her work reflects. Both the W aflirm the parents' marriage date as c.1533, and thus give correspondingly later birthdates of the children and to Sofonisba's paintings.3 This study rejects this assertion on the basis that neither publication provides contemporary documentation to support their proposed dating and their denial of Bonetti's findings. Bonetti's theory suggests Amilcare Anguissola, a Cremonese merchant of minor nobility, married Bianca Ponzone in 1530, following a previous marriage with no ofl‘spring. Amilcare's probable desire for progeny from this second marriage was most likely fulfilled soon. For this reason, the year 1532 appears quite probable for Sofonisba's birth, in my opinion, and in that of many contemporary scholars-although the catalogs of the 1994 and 1995 exhibitions suggest a later dating of c. 1533-1534.‘ The eldest of seven children, Sofonisba had five sisters, who were all educated in the arts of painting, and also a brother. Based on Bonetti's theory, Perlingieriproposed this succession for Sofonisba's siblings, which this thesis supports: Elena, born c.1535; ’Pp. 75-78, and pp. 27 a 32 respectively. ‘LQampi, p. 171 notes C.Bonetti (1928 p. 7, 1932 p.109) stating the date as 1531-32 or later; F.Zeri (1976 p. 427): 1535-40, G.Morclli (1290-93, 1897 ed p. 198): c.1539, about 1540 according to MHaruszti-Takacz (1968 p. 66). 7 Lucia, born c.1536-38; Minerva, born c. 1539-41; Europa, born c. 1542-44; Anna, born c. 1545-46; and Asdrubale, born 1551.5 The 1994 and 1995 catalogs suggest dates for Sofonisba's siblings presupposing a later marriage date of the parents, and thus do not correspond with those proposed here. Furthermore, the catalogs suggest Anna Maria as being born after Asdrubale, possibly as late as 1557. This thesis rejects this latter assertion because Sofonisba is thought to have trained her youngest three sisters in painting already dming the mid 1550's. A dating of Anna Maria's birth year to 1552-1557 seems unlikely as Sofonisba travelled extensively in the late 1550's, which would have left her left little time in which to train to train her sisters. Furthermore, Anna-Maria would have been too young to have been trained by Sofonisba in the mid 1550's. Vasari's account of Sofonisba's life inaccurately denotes her as a disciple of Guilio Campo, and subsequent biographers followed Vasari on this point, rmtil Bonetti corrected him.‘5 As Bonetti points out, Sofonisba, accompanied by her sister Elena, studied the art of painting 1mder Bernardino Campi, "who was already renowned in Cremona...He introduced her to the pleasures of art, sometimes correcting her without reproach, sometimes praising her without flattery, to which she responded with affection. The stay lasted several years. "7 Bonetti determined that Sofonisba and Elena's stay with Campi occurred between 1546 and 1549. In 1549, when Campi left Cremona for Milan, - vol.8 (Bastiano - Taddeo 7G .B . z . . . . . ‘ . . Cremona: Banco PopolarediCremona, 1976), p. 228, quotedinllya Sandra Perilingieri, Map. 29. ~ '1) (1774. Reprint. p2 8 Sofonisba continued her study of painting under Bernardino Gatti No extant documentation suggests, however, that Elena stayed on with Gatti. Elena's entrance into a convent, soon afterwards (c. 1550-51), accounts for Vasari's exclusion of her in his discussion of the Anguissola daughters. During this period of tutelage Sofonisba learned the technical aspects of oil painting as her proficiency in drawing increased.8 Perlingieri placed the two Uflizi drawings, believed by some to be self-portraits, during this period or possibly before.9 The LQampj exhibition catalog of 1985, on the other hand, proposes a correlation between these two drawings and a third "Sofonisba's WW (fig.22, Chalk sketch (black chalk on white/ blue paper), 301 x 345 mm Florence: Um)- -as members of a series. The notion that these three drawings constitute a series is based on documentary evidence: F. Baldinucci's citation of the inventory list of Leopoldo de' Medici's drawings. ‘° More recent scholars ignored this notion. Nevertheless, I would agree to it, if by the term "series" one can mean a group of works created within a close chronological proximity. No contemporary source mentions the two supposed self-portrait drawings; however, significant documentation exists for the W. In turn, this information assists in dating the former drawings as well as clarifying 8Ilya Sandra Perilingieri, W p. 42-3. Perilingieri provides a lengthy discussion of this process based on contemporary occurrences within artistic studios without documentation. ”mam p. 44. 01m p. 302. Further citations of this notation of the Medici inventory list are provided as well on this page. They include: L. Ragghianti Collobi, W2vfls (Florence, 1976), p. 116 andG. anmmimmmmaflmwnowam 1980) p 54 9 misconceptions concerning Sofonisba's training. Giorgio Vasari's Life of Sofonisba supplies reference to this drawing: Messer Tommaso Cavalieri, a Roman gentlemen, sent to the Lord Duke Cosimo (in addition to a drawing by the hand of the divine Michelangelo, wherein is a Cleopatra) another drawing by the hand of Sofonisba, containing a little girl laughing at a boy who is weeping because one of the crayfish out of a basket full of them, which she has placed in front of him, is biting his finger, and there is nothing more graceful to be seen than that drawing, or more true to nature." A letter of Cavalieri's written to Cosimo de' Medici on January 20, 1562 survives, which states: Asdrubale with another sister. In _ since I have one drawing done by the hand of a noblewoman of Cremona, named Sofonisba Angosciosa, today a lady of the Spanish court, I send it to you with this one (that of Michelangelo) and I believe that it may stand comparison with many other drawings, for it is not simply beautiful, but also exhibits considerable invention. And this is that the divine Michelangelo having seen a drawing done by her hand of a smiling girl, he said that he would have liked to see a weeping boy, as a subject more dificult to draw. After he wrote to her about it, she (Sofonisba) sent him this drawing which was a portrait of her brother, whom she has intentionally shown weeping Now, I send them such as they are, and I beg your excellency to consider me as a servant, which, in truth, I mi: The drawing, WW depicts Sofonisba's brother Kusche suggests that the sister depicted is "Minerva, who was an avid reader and may have contributed the fable from which the scene was taken. "’3 Since Asdrubale is known to have been born in 1551 and his physiognomical attributes indicate an age of about three years, the drawing can be dated c.1554. As Cavalieri's letter states, before receiving the WW Michelangelo had viewed another work of Sofonisba's, possibly WW (fig. 18, see below, p. 11). Michelangelo and Sofonisba 12Charles De Tolnay, ”Sofonisba Anguissola and her Relations with Michelangelo," W ”P. 40. Gallery 4 (1941), 117. Several other scholars cite this letter, including: Papini, p. 574-75; Lancetti, p. 258; Perlingieri, p. 72. This letter and the drawings were recech by Serristori, Cosimo 1's ambassador to the papal court. Several days atterthisletterwaswrittentheworksweresentontotheDuke Cosimolaccompaniedbyaletterfrom Serristorithat Perilingieri includes, also on p. 72. to of P1: c1 To Rev. lens thea , “her 00m lather Prom“ “thin 10 must, then, have made some kind of contact with one another at least as early as 1554. Fruther contemporary documentation confirms that Michelangelo and Sofonisba remained at least indirectly in touch with one another over the next few years. Two letters remain from Sofonisba's father, Amilcare, to Michelangelo from May 1557 and 1558. In the 1557 letter Amilcare validates the correspondence between the two stating: we are much obliged to have perceived the honorable and afl'able afl'cction that you have and show for Sofonisba; I speak of my daughter, the one whom I caused to begin to practice the most honorable virtue of painting I beg of you first since, by your innate courtesy and goodness, you deigned by your advice in the past to introduce her (to art), that you will conde sometime in the future to guide her again.“ These letters of Amilcare's and Tommaso de Cavalieri help to confirm a date of c. 1554‘ for the WW. Furthermore, the above quotation of De Tohray's translations assist in correcting some inaccuracies in Perlingieri's publication. Reviewing Perlirrgieri's book, several scholars noted her translation of the May 7, 1557 letter that states that Michelangelo, rather than her father, had "introduced" Sofonisba to the art of painting. This led Perlingieri to assert that Sofonisba had travelled to Rome, where she believed Sofonisba studied under Michelangelo in the mid 1550's. De Tolnay's correct translation indicates that the advice occurred through written correspondence rather than personal contact. Furthermore, correspondence between Amilcare and other prominent Italians in the mid-to-late 1550's aids in chronologically placing Sofonisba still within the region of Cremona at that time. Ifthe W dates c.1554, then the attributed Ufiizi self- portrait drawings-which Baldinucci cited together with itumight have been produced at arormd this same time. The Uflizi Salem (fig.3) drawing's authenticity as a work by "De Tolnay, p. 116. lts Sar. refe; l l Sofonisba goes unquestioned; however, some historians, including Caroli, believe it is, rather, a portrait of one her sisters-most likely Lucia. The catalog entry concerning this drawing (see below, pp. 52-55) considers its technical proficiency and the physiognomic characteristics of the portrayed individual Based on this evidence, I propose the date c.1552-53, which would make this work the earliest of the three. The drawing of the Manflldflmmn, believed by some to inchrde a self- portrait of Sofonisba, displays physiognomical traits more akin to her sister Lucia (See . below, p. 112- 13). I would point out a correlation in age and in physical characteristics between the girl in this drawing and Lucia in the Chessfiame of 1555 (fig.23, Poznan: Muzeum Nardowva). This thesis proposes a date of 0. 1553—54 for this drawing. Other scholars agree that this work precedes the Wafer example, Kusche, who states: the drawing dates earlier than the drawing of the Boy Bitten by a Crab, which should be dated 1554/1555 because of Asdrubale's age, in my opinion, the sister cannot be Europa, as Bora believes. Europa is considerably younger in the painting of the sisters playing chess. ‘5 Its dating adds support to the concept of a series-that is, a set of works nearly all of the same date-including the W of c. 1554. The few painted works bearing legrble signatures and dates provide important reference points about which other, comparable, portraits can be chronologically placed. The Umzi Waits (fig.2) inscription denotes that Sofonisba painted the work at the age of twenty; hence, the painting dates c.1552 based on Sofonisba's likely birthdate of c.1532. This accomplished work remains the earliest, undisputed painted Self-portrait by 16. sc‘r aho drai- paint with letter Comer ipparei 12 Sofonisba. The dating of this work as c.1552 places it earlier, also, than the drawings discussed above. The only other possible painting that could chronologically be placed contemporary to, or prior to, the Ufizi portrait is the Sterling W (fig. 1). This thesis dates it to c.1550-52 on the basis of physiognomical characteristics and technical proficiency (See below, p. 46-48). This dating differs from that of other scholars, including Caroli, who date the work as c.1554. Sofonisba produced the Vienna Samurai; (fig.4) in 1554, as its inscription, cited above states. Scholars note its compositional similarities to that of the Selfiflonrait (fig.3) drawing of c. 1553-4; some believe the drawing to be a preparatory work for the Vienna painting. '6 Vasari records seeing a self-portrait, which may be this one, in Piacenza, along with Sofonisba's portrait of Piacenza's Archdeacon. '7 Furthermore, Venturi discovered a letter written on March 17, 1556, by Amilcare to the Duke Ercole d'Este of Ferrara. Its content led him to suggest that Sofonisba sent this work to the Duke as a gilt.l8 Although it bears no inscription, the Naples W (fig.5) apparently follows the Vienna portrait in chronological succession. Scholars agree to a date c.1556 for this work, in view of the maturity of physiognomical traits and technical progression as compared with the previously addressed works and those yet to be discussed. The Lancut Wag] (fig.6) strongly resembles the Naples work l6Marie Kusche, Rev. of ”Sofonisba Anguissola. The First Great Woman Artist of the Renaissance,” by Ilya Sud“ Perlingieri. Brahman/Insane (Sept. 1993). p- 640- l7Giorgio Vasari, p. 46. niRossana Sacchi, We, ed. Paolo Bufl‘a (Milan, Electra, 1994), p. 188. 13 in physiognomy and compositional drama. Both works illustrate an intense self- scrutinization and technical polish not previously observed. The elaborate compositions illustrate the type of "active portraiture", which male artists were also engaged in by mid- century (See below, p. 26-28). For these reasons, I suggest the Lancut portrait dates c.1556-67. The Ashburnham medallion's (fig.7) inscription dates the work to 1558, making it the next portrait in the succession. Stylistic tendencies and a maturity of physiognomical traits support the inscribed date, as well I propose that the Boston 53mm (fig. 8) dates close to this work, c.1558-59. Though they differ slightly in some facial features, overall a strong resemblance exists between the two (See below, p. 39-41). The similarities extend to their size and shape. They are of miniature dimensions: the Boston work measures 3-3/16 x 2-1/2"; and the medallion is 5-1/8" in diameter. In 1556 the renowned miniaturist Guilio Clovio visited Parma and Piacenza, historians believe that Sofonisba met Clovio at this time or at the very least found justification to work in this technique from hearing of his work '9 Clovio's influence may well have led Sofonisba to experiment in the miniature technique, which is displayed in the production of these two works, the smallest of her extant paintings. A history of controversy surrounds the complex W W (fig. 10), in Siena, regarding its chronological placement. Flavio Caroli, in his book Wk, provided a substantial account of WWW ed P Bufl'a, p.196. The exhibition catalogmAnflLiMA WWMMW, whfletheofizingthatsheproducedthefigmjmflgufljgglgmatthe samctime, p. 43&46. De Pei on I sou anal C009 new 0 Pomair 14 the painting's provenance and of its attribution to various other artists; also, he cites Morelli's proper identification, in 1890-1893, of the two individuals portrayed. Caroli presents a historical account of scholarly disagreement concerning the date of the work. He mentions Robert Willer‘s afirmation that it must have been painted in the 1550's; also, Romanini's belief that it dates from the 1540's or 1550's, for stylistic reasons, and thus nearer to Sofonisba's apprenticeship to Campi. Cheney, Hamlisch and Perlingieri all disagree on the date of the painting. Perlingieri notes that "the date given for the painting by the museum is 1558. However, on the basis of the costume and Anguissola's own artistic style, an earlier date, c. 1550, would be more appropriate."20 The fullness of Sofonisba's face, the perhaps inaccurate anatomical rendering of both Campi's and her own hands, and her light hair coloring constitute the evidence for Perilingieri's early attribution. Hamlisch notes Morelli's dating of the work as 1558 "because Campi , born arormd 1522 looks to be in his forties here", which agrees with the museum's dating. Finally, Cheney relates this work to the Althorp and Galleria Pamphili portraits (figs.9 & 16) in view of their double portrait compositions. Cheney theorizes that in Sofonisba's "later portraits she prefers to use the double portrait image representing her status as an artist or as a wife. "2‘ Thus, she dates the painting 1559-60. This study dates this work as c.1558-59 on stylistic, technical, and ”P. 49. 21Liana Cheney, Rev. of "Sofonisba Anguissola The First Great Woman Artist of the Renaissance," by Ilya Sandra Perlingieri. W XXIV/4 (1993), 944. 1 5 physiognomical grounds, while taking into accormt some circumstantial evidence. In 1559 Sofonisba had already left Cremona for Milan where she prepared for her trip to Spain. Sofonisba stayed there during the latter portion of 1559. Kusche theorizes the work resulted from "a reunion with the nurch beloved old teacher, who had been living in Milan since he left Cremona. "22 The duration of the trip to Spain and probable inconveniences along the way would make the completion of the work then most 1mlikely, especially given its large size among Sofonisba's compositions, 43-11/16 x 43-5/ 16". The Althorp W (fig- 9) also bears a “Story Of disagreement regarding its chronological placement. The inscription on this portrait-- quoted above-includes a not quite legible date: " 156[1?]". Historians, since T. Martyn who cited this work in 1760 as inscribed as 1563, have debated between the dates of 1561 and 1563. Caroli cites a third date often considered, 1559, based on Sacchi's stylistic analysis. Upon comparing the work stylistically with those produced during her Spanish period, including the Milan and Chantilly self-portraits (figs. 11 & 12), this study agrees with Sacchi's placement of the work in the final segment of her Cremonese period, c.1559. Again, the period 1559-1560 a time of travel and relocation, appears improbable. The Wanna catalog recounts at length the debate over dating the Milan portrait (fig. 11). It notes the inscription, on the right side just above the shoulder, which states: (not very legibly)[...]OPONISBA [...]ILCARIS [...]M[...]SIS L[...]XI, as well as the varying interpretations of the date as 1559 and 1561. In view of the"XI" together with the noticeably heightened extravagance of her costume here and its pl her that with c161 Self-p l6 relation to fashions prevalent at the Spanish court at the time, I suggest the date of 1561 for this work For the same reasons, the Chantilly work (fig. 12) seems placeable within the Spanish period. The 59W catalog dates this work 1564; I have no reason to disagree. The final self-portrait under consideration is the Niva painting (fig. 13). Perlingieri promoted Harris' assertion of this work as a self-portrait of Sofonisba datable to 1620. The latest self-portrait painted by Sofonisba, it invites comparison with those portraits of her painted by Anthony Van Dyck several years later in 1624, at which point he reported that her eyesight had become greatly diminished (See below, p. 95-97). This study agrees with Harris, Perlingieri, and others in the assertion that it is indeed a late self-portrait, c.1620. Compositional and stylistic similarities shared between this image and her other self-portraits provide the foundation for this opinion (See below, p. 95-97). ’.NH’_‘. ‘ _ ,_ . CINQUECENTO FEMININE EDUCATION AND SOFONISBA AN GUISSOLA Before addressing the queries as to why Sofonisba produced this plethora of self- portraits, and why a distinct disparity of physiognomical traits exist among them, one must first ask what prompted her to produce these works at all. More directly, one must ask why Sofonisba and her sisters received an education that encompassed the art of painting no less than literature and nursic. One must briefly examine contemporary trends in the education of women at this time, contemporary literature concerning the education of women, as well as documented examples of other women renowned for their achievement in h'beral arts. Furthermore, the Anguissola's societal position within the Cremonese minor nobility requires consideration to provide an idea of the educational opportunities open to Sofonisba. I Ruth KCISO'S . 0 mm ‘ ‘ (1956 and 1978) and Ian Maclcan's WW (1980) consolidate a wealth of information concerning the education of women of Sofonisba's social status, and above it, drawn fiom contemporary literature. These critical resources provide the foundation for three works that study particular examples of renowned, educated Renaissance women. They are: King and Rabil's Henlmmaszulatefland (1983), Patricia Labalme's W (1980) and Whitney Chadwick's W (1990). Scholars agree that in the Cinquecento literature concerning women, authors deemed it necessary to examine the woman's place within the universe before discussing her education. What was a Renaissance woman's place within the universe? To firmish an answer to this first question, Kelso and Maclean examine Renaissance humanist literature 17 18 bearing in mind its reverence for ancient authorities such as Plato and Aristotle. Kelso notes that by the sixteenth century literature on this subject and the vituperation of women by men had reached an extreme, amounting to a declaration of a "war of the sexes". This led to "recognized traducers and champions charg[ing] and counter-charg [ing], often changing sides and even fighting on both sides at once,"23 thus providing material to determine what place in the scheme of things the lady was assigned by Renaissance opinion. "In Renaissance theory woman's place in the scheme of things depends primarily upon the qualificatitiiis seen in her or assigned to her....Well, what are the traits that Renaissance writers praised most frequently on constituting perfection for women?," Kelso inquires. She continues: First of all, beauty will have to be assumed, the chief good of the body, requisite for perfect happiness and all other perfection, moral and intellectual...the greatest concern here must be with moral qualities, listed with variation by almost every defender of women. [All agree women must have] humility, sweetness, simplicity, peaceablencss, kindness, piety, temperance, obedience, \/ patience, charitableness, and the like" with elregfiy rating the highest particularly for women of nobility, which would include the Anguissola daughters. Granted her theoretical importance, what of her position in society? The institution of marriage constituted her primary social firnction, although many exceptions occurred for the sake of religious vocations. Maclean states that: woman's protected and conservative role in the household and in society is justified by arguments from naturally preordained fimction , as is the institution of marriage itself. These structures of thought make changes in the realm of moral philosophy very dificult without dislocations of a fundamental nature. Such dislocations do occur: they are caused by changes in/society such as the z“Ruth Kelso, WWW (Urbano: University of Illinois Press. 1956 and 1978), p. 5-6. 2‘1’, 23-24. per 19 activities of queens, queens regents and court ladies, and the emergence of a class of women possessing leisure and the aspiration to fill it profitably. Claims that women have equal virtue and mental powers and an equal right to education become more strident throughout Europe after the middle of the sixteenth country,” and such claims may have found expression in the education of Sofonisba herself. The contemporary literature on marriage and the woman's expected roles within that institution, offer plenty of argument for the education of women. Kelso observes: It was also argued that prospects for marriage improved with increase of learning, even in the case of girls of lower parentage....lf parents are of high birth and position and their daughters show promise, a careful education may bring about many commendable results. Young maidens well trained are soon sought in honorable matches because their qualities will correspond to their state, and theirwisdom promises help in procuring the common good of the house not to speak of 'what fi'ute the common weale may rcape, by such witts so wortlrily advanced'?‘s This point pertaining to education as a means to essential ends, a desirable marriage and perhaps a lower dowry, is important to the discussion of Sofonisba's education, as well as her sisters'. Perlingieri said as much in her 1992 WWW Wee, although without offering documentation or examples. The above quotation from Kelso substantiates Perilingieri's idea that Amilcare educated his daughters to increase their virtues, and to improve his chances of diminishing the potential financial burden of providing dowries for six daughters. (The Sofonisba WWW catalog discusses the financial situation of the family at greater length) Already established ill the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the Renaissance trend toward education for women of nobility flourished in the mid-to-late sixteenth 2slan Maclcan, WW (Cambridge: Cambridge university Press; 1980), p. 66. “a, 65. 20 century. King and Rabil's WW studies three generations of educated Italian women noted for their Humanist writing. This examination exposes similarities among the histories of these women: All of them were from substantial , most from aristocratic families in the urban centers of Northern Italy. All came fi'om homes in which learning was/valued; in many cases the learning of young girls was strongly supported by their fathers. In at least two cases the h@yere the principal if not the only teachers; in other cases the fathers chose tutors who taught the young women, perhaps alongside their brothers. In every case the women, as young girls, were encouraged and strongly supported in their studies. gay were recognized by their families, by male humanists, and by their cities as prodigies. Though this reference refers to female writers rather than female artists, this thesis suggests a plausible correlation between Amilcare's interest in the education of his daughters and that of the fathers discussed by King and Rabil In W Renaissaneeflpman, Kusche substantiates such an assertion while noting Amilcare's fiiendship with the scholar Marco Gerolamo Vida. She theorizes that "in their intellectual circle the topic of education, especially that of yomlg girls, was a subject of discussion. Amilcare must have resolved to set theOry into practice with his own children. m The Anguissola family's social position as a farrrily of @grnobility has previously been mentioned in passing. Perlingieri provides a substantial amormt of information regarding the family's history and social ranking that extends far beyond the purpose of this study. I note here only several of her points. First, the Anguissola's attempt to trace their lineage back to antiquity, indeed to Carthiginian history and Hanm’bal himself. She ”Margaret King & Albert Rubin. eds. Henlmmasulsteflsniminshamptoni Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies, 1983), p. 25. ”927.1(useherecommenasv1da's 1... ' . . - ...- - . ~ W (Cremona, 1550) and Valero Guazzoni' 8 "Donna, pittrice e gentildonna: La irascita di un mito femminile de Cinquecento" MW (Cremona. 1994) P 57 2 l recormts the history of Hanm'bal's family , with particular emphasis on thelegends of his niece Sofonisba, and then the Anguissola genealogy and their choice of namesakes fi'om the ancient Carthiginian family: Lazaro Anguissola named his son Annibale (probably after Hannibal), who, in turn, named his son Amilcare (probably after Hamilcare Barca). When Amilcare and Bianca Anguissola had their seven children, they continued the family tradition and also added their own penchant for mythological names. 29 Both Sofonisba and Asdrubale's names derive from this family tradition. The attempt by noble families to connect their family histories to renowned families/ef/lllltiquity became a common occurrence during the Renaissance. The Medici family's effort to trace their genealogy back to Charlemagne, and Michelangelo's to the "counts of Canossa", fiunish extreme examples. The Anguissola sisters acquired distinction also by their learning ill the arts of painting, music, and embroidery, as well as ill becoming literate. As previously suggested their educations ennllated those of the women writers that King and Rabil discuss ill Hg Welland. Their father, Amilcare, made sure that his daughters received reco I' 'on for their accomplishments. His professional relationships with Bemardino Campi and Bemardino Gatti led to his choosing these men as painting tutors for Sofonisba. He directly involved himselfin the promotion of Sofonisba's art. His letters to Michelangelo and Duke Ercole d'Este of Ferrara attest to his role of 8946 involvement in Sofonisba's career; Ferino-Pagden even suggests his fi'equent letters led her to become an "international" name.3o Amilcare was known to have sent one of Sofonisba's self-portraits W p. 28-29. ”P. 12 also to So Clem norm Tenors 22 to Pope Julius III, as well, which today is believed to be the Uflizi Selfifiomm of 1552 (fig.2).3‘ Obviously Sofonisba received encouragement and support from her family, and also fi'om renowned male artists, including Michelangelo, Campi and Gatti Vasari attests to Sofonisba's talents as well as her sisters', noting also their renown in thcgcity of Cremona. The nearby city of Bologna, meanwhile, offered an example of a reputable female artist: Prop ' de' Rossi. Although perceived as dificult, and deviating from the social norm, de' Rossi set a precedent for female artists' receiving commissions and achieving renown. Vasari recounted de' Rossi's success in the art of sculpture: while assuring his readers of her beauty , musical accomplishment, and household skills, also relat[ing] that she was persecuted by a jealous painter until she was finally paid a very low price for her work and, discouraged, turned to engraving on copper.” The first writer to make a connection between the achievements of de' Rossi and Anguisso , Vasari included his first, brief accolmt of Sofonisba at the end of his accormt of de‘izs'si Concerned as always about social position, Amilcare and his daughters would most likely not have looked so much to the example of Properzia de' Rossi as to the justification of the woman-as-artist offered by reputable writers, both ancient and contemporary: Pliny, Boccaccio, Alberti and Castiglione. Pliny cites the case of Iii/onyzikos: who remained single all her life, worked at Rome in the youth of Marcus Varrn, both with the brush 31Anne Sutherland Harris & Linda Nochlin, WW (Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum, 1976), p. 29-30. 32Whitney Chadwichflmmm (London: Thames andHudson, 1990). P. 83. 23 and with the cestrum of ivory. She painted chiefly po\rtraits of women,and also a large picture of an old woman at Naples, and a portrait of herself, executed with the help of a mirror. No artist worked more rapidly than she did, and her pictures had such merit that they sold for higher prices than those of Sopolis and Dionysios, well-known contemporary painters, whose works fill our galleries. 33 This account of Iaia of Kyzikos (sometime identified as Laia or Lala of Cizicus) yields validation of not only the production of portraiture and self-portraiture, but its production by a female artist. Sofonisba's use of the word 'Virgo' within her signature was briefly mentioned above. Several of Sofonisba' s sisters also followed this convention. Contemporary scholars believe inchlsion of thrs word represents a conscious reference to the clgsélcal female artist. Iaia was called" a perpetua virgo, who renounced physical pleasure to dedicate herselffully to the arts"”; such a reference by Sofonisba would indicate similar personal convictions and career aspirations. Within her self-portraiture, Sofonisba's incorporation of iconography symbolic/o/f her career aspirafions/afirmations recurs, e.g. the Lancut and Uflizi paintings (figs.6 & 2). The Boston portrait's (fig. 8) inscription which denotes the artist's utilization of a mirror also suggests 8 refer cc to Iaia. Thus, the notion of Sofonisba's use of the word 'Virgo' to convey classical reference or career afirmation correlates with other iconographic conventions incorporated into her work. Sofonisba's knowledge of Pliny's reference to Iaia could have been acquired through various contemporary sources considered acceptable for her education. VB/occnccids Wallis Alberti's QnPaintina and Vasari's lines all cite Pliny ”x. Jeri-Blake. WWW (ChioagOI Argonaut. Inc. 1968). p. 1mm. 34SykviaFerino-Pagden, ' . ' ' Wm: . r. p. 16. AlsonotedinSchweikart 1992, p. 115 andby Ghirardiinexhibition catalog Bologna 1994, p. 39. llUr huh 10 81' ‘pr regar both ; 24 the Elder, although discrepancies occur among their presentations of Pliny's information. Boccaccio misconstrues Iaia of Cyzicus as Marcia, daughter of Varro and he turns Iaia/Marcia into a moral example, indicating she painted women only because of "her chaste modesty". In antiquity, he explains, "figures were for the greater part represented . nude or halfnudc, and it seemed to her necessary either to make men imperfect, or, by making them perfect, forget maidenly modesty. To avoid these things, it seemed better to her to abstain fi'om both. "3‘ Like Boccacio, Alberti utilizes the reference to Pliny's mention of female painters to emphasize his own objective, which differed from Pliny's. His reference to Pliny appears ill Book II of his anlaintjng, where he cites a multitude of classical examples regarding the nobility of the pursuit of painting. After noting the interest in painting by both learned and rmlearned individuals, Alberti goes on to say that: indeed the skill of painting was a mar f honour also in women. Martia, Varro's daughter, is celebrated by writers for her painting The art was held in such high esteem and honour that it was forbidden by law among the Greeks for slaves to learn to paint?6 Following Boccaccio, he confuses Iaia with Marcia. Alberti afirms painting's nobility as well as its appropriateness as a pursuit by women--the latter point being expressed here for the first time. In his MW published ill April, 1528, Castiglione called for the court lady to "be knowledgeable about literature and painting, to know how to dance and play games, adding a discreet modesty and the ability to give a good impression of herself “ 35Anne Sutherland Harris & Linda Nochlin, p. 23. 3"Leon Battista Alberti, mg, trans. Cecil Grayson (New York: Penguin Books, 1972 a 1991), p. 63. 216. 25 to the other principles that have been taught of the courticr."37 Following Castiglione's lead, subsequent sixteenth century texts confirm that a woman of nobility should indeed have knowledge of literature, music , and painting. Inchlded among these texts are: Giovanni Michele Bruto's Q instifltione di una tancuilla nata nobilmente (1555) and Vivcs' 2e img’gug‘gne [eminae (hisfiame (1538). Sofonisba depicts herself clothed in black and white in all of her self-portraits. Particularly within those produced during her Cremonese period, her clothes appear quite stark and unadomed ill comparison with other portraits of women at this time. The organizers of the 1995 Sofonisba Anguissola: A Renaissance Woman exhibition theorized that her rationale for doing this might have been influenced by Castiglione's writing, although his writing concerns the cgurtier primarily, not the courtlady. They said: In an age when women were noted for their flamboyant apparel, she depicted herself as dignified and serious, wearing black jackets and high-necked white collars with little or no jewelry. It is possible that the artist may have drawn on the model recommended in Baldasser Castiglione's Book of the 22191191: (1528), which suggests that male coustiers wear dark clothing and maintain a formal appearance. Anguissola likely shaped her image to avoid the fatal association with beauty, thereby allowing her artwork to stand on its own merit 8 Whether or not her choice of clothing was an attempt to avoid associations with beauty, various aspects of her self-portrayals are discussed below (pp. 32-43) for their apparent compliance with contemporary notions as to what constitutes beauty ill a woman. ”Barlow Castiglione, We. trans. George Bull. (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1967), p. 3"will label. AN ANALYSIS OF SOFONISBA'S SELF-PORTRAITURE IN RELATION TO CONTEMPORARY PORTRAITURE IN GENERAL Any study of self-portraiture in the Renaissance cannot be undertaken without considering portraiture ill general. A brief discussion of the development of portraiture within the Renaissance must be addressed in order to elucidate the tradition of which Sofonisba's self-portraiture is a part. Sir John Pope-Henncssy stated that "it is sometimes said that the Renaissance vision of man's self-sufficient nature marks the beginning of the modern world. Undoubtedly it marks the beginning of the modern portrait."39 Already, achievements in portraiture had reached a high point in the early sixteenth century. Artists such as Leonardo, Raphael and Titian created not only physical resemblances but also revelations of personality and states of mind. This paper addresses Sofonisba Anguissola's self- portraiture in the light of these innovations. The portrait by Sofonisba entitled Bolfleing W511 (fig.22), of c. 1554, portrays two different individuals in a juxtaposition of two human emotions. Within this image Sofonisba demonstrates her ability to act as "an interpreter whose habit is to probe into the mind and for whom inspection connotes analysis. "‘0 Leonardo da Vinci initiated portraiture's objective of illustrating the "motions of the mind" through emotional expression. Subsequently, Raphael embraced this objective which "by 1512 gave rise to a new type of active portrait. "“ ”Sir John Pope-Hemcssy, W (New York: Bolligen Foundation, 1966), p. 3. ‘°P. 3.4. “P. 117. 26 the: equ. aSpe chap' anhu heufi Rum in, bi ponrahf lheSUHl ‘theno .W 9P} )J5'3C-1 t 70196.ch: 27 Meanwhile, Titian introduced a new approach to portraiture as distinct fi'om Giorgione's. Pope-Hennessy explains: in Venice in the early 16th century two views of the function of the portrait were permissible. Should it portray the sitter, as Giorgione does in a state of emotional involvement which shows up one aspect of the personality as a beam of light shows up the face, or should it represent the whole man, stripped of local contingencies and outside time, for the inspection of mankind? No sooner was Giorgione dead than this second view of portraiture found its exposition in Titian Titian did not, like Giorgione, see the human personality through a haze of literary romance. For him the portrait was a panegyric, but a panegyric rooted in veracity.42 Trained by Campi and Gatti, often said to imitate Moroni, Sofonisba inherited these trends of representation fiom her Venetian predecessors. Her portraiture cannot be equated directly either with that of Giorgione or that of Titian, but rather incorporates aspects of both. Sofonisba's conventionalization of features (addressed below, in the last chapter) might somewhat recall the vein of Giorgione. Her avoidance of a romantic attitude recalls Titian. In his self-portraits Titian depicted himselfnot in an analytic mood, but rather "as he wished to appear before posterity", as Sofonisba was to do ill her portraits.43 His Self; 29mm (fig.24, c.1562, oil on canvas. Madrid: Prado), a typical example, illustrates his social position and vocation through his garments, the gold chain, as well as the brush held in his hand. Painted late in his career, it offers an intcgcsting comparison with Sofonisba's portraits that include accoutrcments of her vocation. The Uffizi work (fig.2), painted at the start of her career, particularly invites comparison for its similar objectives. Charles Hope noted that Titian's representation of himself in this self-portrait "conforms to the 42P. 135-36. “Pope-Hennessy, p. 193. pallen pubhc. particul .Kunssa potentla compans Suflhngj in the act CNRCpos Ofpaintlng Ikflnne&%. mfiiwm dc Hemme. donut. hlar I mi“ directly doubts that 3 28 pattern of Titian's portraiture in general In his life and work Titian always presented a public facade.“4 In many respects the same can be stated of Sofonisba's self-portraiture, particularly those appearing to be more conventionalized. Catarina van Hemessen's Sclfipgmait (fig.25, 1548. Basel: Ofi‘entliche Klmstsammhmg. Oil on panel 12-3/16 x 9-13/ 16") fillnishcs a fillther example of the potential use of the self-portrait as a vehicle for career/social statement, as well as a comparison with a work of this kind by another female artist. Like the Lancut and Sterling portraits (figs.6 & 1), dc Hemmessen's image portrays the artist as though caught in the act of painting. Both works demonstrate the artists' social and vocational position. Quite possibly Castiglione's mm, which promotes the nobility of the art of painting as a pursuit acceptable for women, would have been known to van Hemmessen, as it had been to Sofonisba (see above, pp. 22, 24-25). Stylistically the two artists' works difi‘cr; Sofonisba's representation bears a life-like animation not apparent in do Hemessen's work Furthermore, the physical proportions, particularly ill the bodice, depicted by Sofonisba are also more/flue. Maria Kusche noted the similarities between the two artists' portraits, yet believed Sofonisba's works to be "influenced by the works of Caterina van Hemessen [Yet, she acknowledges] it is not known whether she was familiar with the work of the Flemish artist directly or through prints, or whether she had only heard of her. "‘5 This study doubts that Sofonisba would have known of; the comparatively obscure, van Hemessen or “ Charles Hope, 1am (London: Jupiter Books, 1980), p. 144. ofher ponra of tho: life. ”"‘ comm: ponrair Pliny th (c1370 Classical r “fihout j (1112mm Nonhem e‘(Ceeded death. It selfiponraj 29 of her work Deeply intertwined with the pursuits of contemporary humanism, Renaissance portraiture reflects upon "human motives and human character, the resurgent recognition of those factors which make human beings individual; that lay at the center of Renaissance life. ”‘6 Like most Renaissance pursuits, portraiture received substantiation from Classical commentary concerning the nobility of the art of painting and the famous examples of portraiture by the ancient masters. Many humanist authors made specific reference to Pliny the Elder's (AD 23/24-79) Historic: Naturalist. Boccaccio's mm (c.1370), Alberti's Qn£ainting (1440/1441), and Vasari's mm (1568) all cite this classical source. Sofonisba's concentration on self-portraiture was unique in its time, and nearly without precedent. Certainly, many male artists' produced selllportraits; however, the quantity of self-portraits Sofonisba created had some precedent only in the work of the Northern European artist, Albrecht Durer, whose concentration upon the theme she exceeded. Diirer's investigation into self-portraiture is only one among many aspects of his art. Sofonisba's career and her renown began with her self-portraiture and might be said to end with it, in the Niva portrait (fig. 13) painted perhaps within five years of her death. It is unlikely, moreover, that Sofonisba was aware of Diirer’s innovations in the selfiportraiture, even indirectly. Still, intriguing similarities occur between the two artists and their self-portrayals at similar periods of their lives. The most relevant afinity occurs “Pope-Hennessy, p. 3. 30 between Sofonisba's (1552)Ufiizi 8:13an (fig.2) and Dfirer‘s (1498) Selim (fig.26, Madrid: Prado). Sofonisba's Uflizi Sci-Lorna depicts herself, as announced in her inscription, at the age of twenty. She holds within her hand the attributes of a painter in a declaration that carries several meanings. First, the inclusion of the artistic accoutrements announces her status as an artist in a declaration of a career, at a time when most females of her age were already married or shortly to be married. Secondly, the inclusion of the inscription in bold capital letters and roman numerals, along with the painting tools presents to the viewer several indications of her status within society. The fact that she is obviously literate, as well as educated in the art of painting denotes her upper-level social position. Likewise, Di'rrer’s Sci-119mm, painted when he was twenty- eight, declares his independence as an artist as well as his recently advanced social status. "This is Diirer as the successful businessman as well as the proud artist," James Snyder writes. "Upon his return to Nuremberg, Diirer was elevated to a status rivaling that of the upper social circles of the city, the Ehrbaren, or wealth merchants. "‘7 The fine clothing he portrays himselfin reinforces the effect of his afiluence. The production of this portrait followed Di‘rrer’s first trip to Italy, after his apprenticeships, as. evidenced by the Italian landscape shown through the window. The inchrsion of the landscape, as well as his clothing, functions for Di‘rrer as the painting accouterments had for Sofonisba, as a statement of artistic progress and career aflirmation. Yet as previously indicated, Sofonisba gleaned from male artists' explorations of portraiture, conceptual ideals which York: Abrams, 1985), p. 323, pl. 361. 31 she encompassed in her self-portraits, as well as her portraits of others. Lorne Campbell asserts that "by paying close attention to the practicalities of portraiture, [it is possible] to make reasoned deductions about the painters intentions and to describe those small distortions by which, instinctively or consciously, they individualized and characterized their sitters. "‘8 This thesis follows this assertion in its analysis, below, of the disparities among Sofonisba's self-portraits. -_ “Lone e,’Campbell - ..-- (NewHaven: YaleUniversityPress, l990),.p X SOFONISBA'S SELF-PORTRAITURE AND CONTEMPORARY IDEAL FEMININE BEAUTY In 1933 Adolfo Venturi professed that the Naples WW "shows the yotmg Sofonisba where it calls to better attention her superficial but delicate pictorial qualities. "‘9 Other scholars have noted this conventionalization, or stylization, of features within Sofonisba's self-portraiture, yet the possible correlation of this process with contemporary, conventional notions of feminine beauty has yet to be discussed. This thesis ofl‘ers suggestions as to how Sofonisba's conventionalization of physiognomic attributes within her self-portraits appears to correspond to Cinquecento notions of ideal beauty. Particular physiognomic attributes repeatedly occur in her self-portraiture: a 3/4 facial pOrtrayal, in which shading envelops half the face; the hair centrally parted and arranged in a braid that wraps about the crown of the head; the forehead comprising a third of the face; the eyebrows appearing highly arched and delineated; the large, wide eyes of a blue-green hue with a dark pupil and ring around the iris; the pronounced upper and lower eyelids; the long nose gently sloping to a rounded tip with the faintly shaded indication of a nostril; the pronormced indentation beneath the nose; the delicate, light vermillion lips curved into a slight smile with the lower lip casting a shadow onto the chin; the chin bearing a slight indentation in the center; the full, slightly flushed cheeks of a lighter shade of vermillion than the ear or lips; and when shown, elongated hands and ”Perlingieri, WMguissola, p. 213. (Milan: Ulrico I-Ioepli, 1933), p. 92930. 32 33 fingers. All or most of these physiognomic traits appear together in each of her self- portraits, although Sofonisba accentuated, or otherwise varied, some of them moderately from work to work. Within her self-portraiture two categories of deviations concerning facial attributes occur. The first category comprises subtle variation of traits that appear to conform to contemporary ideals of feminine beauty. Numerous male artists incorporated such idealizations in their portrayals of the woman; Parmigianino consistently idealized female attributes. Sofonisba sometimes did and sometimes did not. Scholars accept as authentic all of those conforming to such an idealized mode: the Ashburnham medallion, the Boston miniature, the Vienna and the Siena paintings, and also (to some extant) the one in the Ufizi Scholars do not unanimously agree, on the other hand, upon those portraits of the second category which bear less conventionalized features, such as the Althorp, Lancut, Naples, and Sterling portraits. These works differ from the Ashburnham, Boston, Vienna, Siena, and Ufizi portraits, moreover, not only in their degree of realism but also in their more activated poses. In these the artist seems to take a more aggressive approach to her self-portrayal, and achieves a sharpened sense of self-scrutiny. This seemingly inconsistent approach to her self-portraiture recalls the potentially opposite theoretical ideals of contemporary Italian art: idealization vs. naturalism and active vs. passive. Sofonisba's pursuit of these conventionalizing and also non-conventionalizing possibilities resists classification into a strict timefi'ame. Several comparisons between physiognomical features present in various portraits, formd below, illustrate Sofonisba's varying use of these conventions throughout her Cremonese period. The Milan and 34 Chantilly self-portraits, through their lack of stylization, would suggest that Sofonisba discontinued her conventionalization of features within her self-portraiture once in Spain. However, as the only extant examples of self-portraiture from her Spanish period, this cannot be definitively proven. Her portraiture of members of the court would suggest she continued utilizing such idealizing tendencies, particularly in the 1576 portrait of Don Carlos now lost. Maria Kusche says as much in her discussion of this painting: The prince liked it so much that he ordered thirteen copies from and six additional versions from another artist No wonder the prince preferred this portrait to the highly realistic ones by the court painter. The magnificent garment, already praised by Ribera and exactly described in Sinchez Coello's bills, hides the physical defects that the degenerate, hunchbacked prince suffered Sofonisba transformed him into an acceptable successor to the throne, and he reciprocated with an acknowledgement of gratitude and a valuable ring ’° Lorne Campbell notes Italian artists, in particular, as "encumbered by an artistic theory that was based on classical texts and that exalted both naturalism and idealization."51 Inherent aspects of portraiture perpetuate this duality of naturalism and idealization, though it affects other genres as well Three famous works, preceding Sofonisba's are especially effective as examples of idealization of female features: Titian's portrait of Wm (fig.27, c. 1534-36, oil on canvas, Vienna: Krmsthistorisches Museum), Parmigianino's WWW (fig.28, c.1535. Florence: Uflizi), and his Antes (fig.29, 153 5-37. Naples: Pinacoteca del Museo Nazionale). Titian's WE: demonstrates perhaps an extreme case. He painted it as a copy of a portrait by Francia, which itself was not rendered directly from her features. She had not sat for it; Francia based his likeness of her on second-hand verbal information ”P. 68. "P. 228. 260. 35 and possibly an earlier portrait. Titian's portrait, in turn, pleased his 62-year old patron, who said: "We doubt whether, at the age at which he represents us, we were as beautiful as the picture. "’2 Parmigianino's Madgnnaflthjhgfingflegk (fig.28) epitomizes the lengths to which such idealization could extend. Freedberg notes that "no sixteenth-century work of art goes farther than this in its arbitrary reformation of humanity into images of artificial grace, grand yet precious, and of an improbable and quasi-abstract beauty. "’3 Not only are the Madonna's facial attributes idealized within a perfect oval cormtenance, but the elongated neck, hand, torso, and legs take the conventionalization to its limits. Together these attributes constitute an ideal female type incorporated by the artist into both religious and portrait compositions. Parmigianino's Amen (fig.29) illustrates his use of this idealizing approach in portraiture. Like the WW Antea's face is a perfect oval with an elongated, narrow, sloping nose and delicate lips. Moreover, Antea's head appears disproportionally smaller than the exaggerated frame of her body. Freedberg mentions this modification which suits Parmigianino's arbitrary canon of proportions, while noting that "the structure of her face must in reality have much resembled that of [his] invented female type. So easy was its translation into ideal terms that he in fact used it, or at least a face most closely modeled to it, in the group attendant upon the [Madonna with the Long ”P. 190. ”Sydney I. Freedberg. WW2 (Cmbridge: Harvard University Press, 195011). 36 Neck] in her ideal realm "’4 Such artistic conventionalization of feminine features corresponding to ideal notions of feminine beauty parallels an analogous pursuit by contemporary writers. Numerous sixteenth century treatises present these notions and allude to examples shown in contemporary painting. Mary Rogers analyzes three such works: Giangiorgio Trissino's mm (Rome, 1524), Agnolo Firenzuola's W W (Florence, 1548), and Frederigo Luigini's LiQLQ gig bella dgnne Venice, 1554). She presents a thorough discussion of contemporary philosophical notions as the formdation for such theories, which extends beyond the parameters of this thesis. While each work discusses aspects of feminine beauty and its manifestation in art, Firenzuola's study contributes ideal qualities for each physiognomic attribute that shares the strongest afinity with the considerations required by an artist. Written for the citizens of Prato, Firenzuola's dialogue embodies the Italian- Renaissance belief in a correlation of physical beauty with the beauty of the soul. Firenzuola's statement that "a beautiful woman is the most beautifirl object one can admire, and beauty is the greatest gift God bestowed on His human creatures. And so, through her virtue we direct our souls to contemplation, and through contemplation to the desire of heavenly things,“s illustrates the affinity between the physical and the spiritual embodied by contemporary Neoplatonic philosophy. His Second Dialogue in this work provides a discussion of individual physiognonrical traits of a woman and their “P. 118-119. ”Agnolo Firenzuola, WWomen, trans. and ed Konrad Eisenbichler and Jacqueline Murray. (Philadelphia' University ofPennsylvania, 1992), p. 11. 37 corresponding ideal attributes. Seemingly aware of such notions of ideal beauty, Sofonisba would seem to have incorporated them into some, even all, of her self-portraits as the variations inherent in them fit within this standard. In 1976, Elizabeth Cropper initiated the consideration of apparent correlations between Firenzuola's dialogue on ideal feminine beauty and sixteenth century paintings by men, particularly Parmigianino's WWW. Cropper's correlation led, in turn, to subsequent studies, such as Rogers', relating to male depictions of the female. Below, this study discusses Sofonisba's conventionalization in her self-portraiture as it corresponds to contemporary theories of ideal feminine beauty. Consider, for a moment a comparison of the Vienna (fig.4) and Ashburnham medallion (fig.7) portraits as examples of Sofonisba's rendering of facial attributes in apparent conformity with standards of ideal beauty. In spite of physiognomical differences between them, they both seem to observe such standards. The Vienna portrait promotes a stylized representation of the prominent facial features. Contemplate the highly articulated arch of the eyebrows that through intense shading adjoin with the pronounced, elongated nose into a seemingly single element. The dominate, widely-opened eyes seem almost disproportionally exaggerated. On the other hand, the Ashburnham medallion offers a substantially different interpretation of the same face. In this image, the eyes and nose dominate less. The eyebrows, though still pronounced, receive less emphasis than in the Vienna portrait. At the same time, the Ashburnham medallion introduces other pleasing facial attributes. Notice the clefi of the chin, the slight dirnpling at the corners of the mouth, and the pronounced extra curvation of flesh apparent just above the earlobe. 38 Furthermore, the facial coloration and skin surface seem truer to life than does the extremely pale complexion set ofl‘ by dark vermillion lips in the Vienna portrait. Both of these portraits might be used, in spite of their diflerences, to illustrate Agnolo Firenzuola's discussion of the ideals for each particular facial component. Firenzuola writes: there is no scarcity to those who praise blue eyes that tend toward the color of fire sky, and it is written by very trustworthy authors that beautiful Venus had them like that. Eyes must be large and full, neither concave or hollow, for hollowness makes for a proud gaze, whereas fullness makes for a beautiful and modest gaze. Wanting to praise Juno's eyes, Homer said they were like those of an ox, meaning they were round, full, and large.“ Sofonisba's conventionalization of the eyes in the Vienna portrait, by making them proportionally exaggerated, causes them to become the focal point of the composition. As Firenzuola denoted, "the fulhress makes for a beautiful and modest gaze". By making this correlation, I do not deny the Ashburnham medallion's possession of this emphasis, but would point out its heightened degree of significance in the Vienna portrait. The Ashburnham medallion, likewise, seems to correspond to a greater degree with Firenzuola's idealized specifications for the chin and mouth. Particularly, the cleft in the chin, represented in this image, is noted by him as a "sign of beauty". ' . .= depicts The Siena painting . ‘.. : Sofonisba turned to her right as she is in the Vienna portrait. The two share certain physiognomic aflinities particularly in the rendering of the hair, forehead, eyebrows, and ear. The eyebrows in each form stylized arches. The eyebrows in the Siena portrait illustrate, even more than the Vienna portrait, Firenzuola's idealizing specifications: “Firenzuola, p. 51, 53. 39 "they grow gently thinner from their middle to their extremities, on the side up to the hollow or socket of the eye, toward the nose, and on the other toward the part that is near the ear, and there they end. "57 Sofonisba rendered her forehead, hair, and ear in both works in a more painterly manner than in the Boston and Ashburnham portraits. The use of sfilmato creates a softer impression of these traits. At the same time, the coloration of her complexion her conforms more to that seen in the Ashburnham and Boston portraits. Likewise, the Boston Selfiflomifis physiognomical attributes bear a striking resemblance to those in the Ashburnham medallion. As in the previous comparisons, certain facial aspects difl‘er, particularly the lack of a cleft markation and intensified coloration of the lips, cheeks, and chin to a richer vermillion in the Boston image. Their slightly differing facial features and similarities in size and shape were mentioned above, and yet still a strong resemblance exists between the two. The aflinities mentioned between these works continue in their correspondence to Firenzuola's idealized preferences. The Boston works heightened accent on the coloration of the cheeks, chin and lips finds justification in Firenzuola's writing which states: As the cheeks swell they become fleshy-pink until, on their summit, they deepen into that reddish hue the sun leaves behind itself when it departs from our hemisphere in fine weather, and you know nothing else but fairness shaded with vermillion The lips should not be too thin, nor overly thick, but such that their vermillion may show against the flesh-pink that surrounds them The chin is round and colored in a light vermillion, a little brighter on its rioe.‘8 Except for the Siena painting, those works conforming to a great extent with contemporary ideals of feminine beauty tend towards rather minute dimensions. Their ”P. 51. ”P. 57-59. 40 small size made them readily transportable; thus, they were very likely used as tokens or gills. The diverse recipients of these works have been discussed above; and, Kusche notes, "Sofonisba's portraits soon became collector‘s items. "’9 Tommaso de' Cavalieri's comments, quoted above, along with other contemporary sources, indicate the reason for her works being considered "collector’s items". As a portrait of a woman, the work was considered an object of beauty; yet, as an art object produced by a woman, the work was considered a marve1--an exception to the norm. Such a work would fit well in contemporary collections of rare objects of beauty. So, too, in another sense, might the Siena portrait, in its elaborate contrivance, its poetical "conceit"--which has been discussed by others. The Medici's collection of curiosities, of which Sofonisba‘s drawing became a part, received international renown. (Frederika Jacobs article"Woman's Capacity to Create: The Unusual Case of Sofonisba Anguissola" analyzes her at length as a curiosity of the time.) All of the portraits discussed to this point conformed in many aspects to contemporary notions of ideal beauty. Likewise, they all portray the artist in a very traditional, ever passive, attitude with little or no indication within the compositions of the artist's psyche or her talents. But then her other portraits (the Althorp, Lancut, Naples, and Sterling examples) also produced in her Cremonese period, depict her quite differently-4n an active pose, showing her engaged in a particular activity--yet afinities exist physiognomically between all the portraits as they represent variant depictions of the same face. ”P. 40. 41 Both the Ashburnham medallion and the Boston miniature resemble the Lancut W in Sofonisba's characteristic physiognomical attributes, but the Lancut image bears an even stronger aflinity to the Naples WM. Although the Lancut and Naples portraits facial features conform to some of the ideal standards of feminine beauty, overall their heightened sense of self-scrutiny represents contemporary theoretical ideals associated with naturalism rather than idealization. Furthermore, the compositions illustrate an attempt at "active" portraiture (See above for an expanded discussion, pp. 26 & 28). The Naples painting acts as a compositional prototype for Sofonisba's Althorp WM which also attempts a composition stressing naturalistic detail and psychologically and physically "active" drama. The facial maturity and technical proficiency evident upon comparison of the works attests to the Althorp's later production. Historically the physiognomic differences between those works conforming to notions of ideal beauty (e. g. the Ashburnham, the Boston, the Siena, the Uffizi, and the Vienna) and those relying more on nature (e. g. the Althorp, the Lancut, the Naples, and Stirling) have posed problems for art historians. Some scholars have considered the difl‘erences between these groups to be such drastic disparities that they in turn have questioned the authenticity and chronology of the second, more natural category. In the context of Cinquecento feminine portraiture produced by male artists, the renown of such painters as Parmigianino and Titian indicates the pursuits ofnaturalism and of idealism were approved and expected at that time. In this examination of Sofonisba's pursuit of both idealism and naturalism in her self-portraiture, I would suggest 42 that she was consciously aiming at both qualities throughout her Cremonese period. Perhaps the finest illustration of the potential disparity of approach among her self- portraits at this time can be fmmd in looking at her latest Cremonese works in this genre: the Siena portrait of ' -z. and the Althorp WM. Produced almost contemporaneously to one another, each could be said to demonstrate Sofonisba's technical progression, artistic innovation, and also further disparities among her self-portrayals. They give very different impressions. The Althorp portrait appears the most precisely rendered work yet considered; whereas, the Siena portrait exhibits a mellifluous handling of the paint in a sfumato effect that fades fi'om clarity, in the hands as well as in the face. Perlingieri alluded to the depiction of the hand in the Siena portrait--less precise, perhaps rubbery--as sign of technical deficiency; however, I cormter this proposition by suggesting that this comparatively sofl rendering typifies the whole difference between this painting and the Althorp portrait, as well as her idealized vs. her realistic portrait styles. Recently, scholars have questioned Sofonisba's accomplishments, particularly in compositional invenzione. Yet, contemporary scholars wrote of Sofonisba's pursuit of both invenzione and realistic portrait styles, although the modes never appear to be compared by these authors. Tommaso de' Cavalieri regarded Sofonisba's drawings as "truly inventive creations, invenzione. [Kusche notes] he thereby awarded the young Sofonisba the highest praise for an independent artist of the time."‘° Lorne Campbell believes: 6"P. 40. the great attraction to portraiture is its power to falsify: if portrait-painters wish, or if they are compelled, they can not only flatter their sitters, dress them in expensive clothes, place them in grand settings and give them misleading indications of their ranks, tastes and interests, but also invent for them psychological traits that they do not naturally possess.61 Such considerations, whether conscious or unconscious, can not escape the artist's thoughts, especially in the realm of self-portraiture. It comes as little surprise, then, that in painting herself Sofonisba should have aimed at more than just a physical resemblance. Her self-portraits also promote her social position and reputation for attainments in painting and other arts. How such aims might be accomplished would certainly vary depending on the purpose of this or that self-portrait. Sofonisba's exploration of the theoretical ideals of idealization, naturalism, the active, and the passive resulted in a collection of self-portraits which bear differing physiognomic attributes and demonstrate portraiture's power to transcend mere resemblance. “P. 36. 43 SUMMARY This study attempted to provide a thorough analysis of Sofonisba Anguissola's pursuit of the self-portrait. Suggestions were made for four primary objectives: proposing authenticity and chronology; examining Cinquecento feminine education to suggest how and why she became trained in the art of painting; analyzing her self-portraits in the context of contemporary portraiture; and surveying sixteenth-century ideas concerning ideal feminine beauty through a comparison of her work, with that of contemporary male artists and with contemporary literature. While these concerns were met further considerations, primarily relating to Renaissance portraiture in general and contemporary notions of ideal feminine beauty, arose that extended beyond its parameters. In researching this subject, I found bits of information regarding artists' self- portraits scattered throughout the sources concerning Renaissance portraiture and I wished for a source that would have discussed this topic at greater length and more broadly. The question as to how a female artist such as Sofonisba might utilize conventions of feminine beauty in contrast with how male artists might also utilize such 1IOtiorrs within their depictions of women again deserves firrther consideration. CATALOG ENTRIES AUTHENTIC SELF-PORTRAITS The portraits included within this first category--authentic self-portraitsnrepresent those works upon which scholars generally agree to their authenticity as well as some about which debate remains. The previous discussion noted that many of these works include inscriptions that confirm their authenticity, and that these secure examples offer a standard on which one might determine the authenticity of still disputed works. This studt also proposed dates based on inscriptions and contemporary references. The arrangement of the portraits in this section reflect my opinion as to their chronological progression. For each portrait the following information is provided : 1.) all known titles and physical information; 2.) provenance; 3.) exhibition history; 4.) physical description. The fourth section offers support to the proposed sequential ordering of the works through a comparison of their physiognomic attributes and technical qualities with those of Sofonisba's other self-portraits. 45 46 Fig.1: W, c.1550-52. Oil on panel. 18.5 x 23 cm In the private 9011ection of William Stirling. Inscription: Sophonisba Anguisciola virgo cremonensis se IPsalm pinxit. W811, c.1550-52. Oil on panel. 18.5 x 23 cm. In the private collection of William Stirling. Inscription: Sophonisba Anguisciola virgo cremonensis se ipsam pinxit. Provenance: Unknown. Literature: C.F. Waagen, easu es 0 ' at Brita' : e' a Accounto the Chief Collec' ' ' Drawin Scul tures Illuminated Manuscri ts etc. etc. 3 vols.,1854-57; F. Sacchi, Weremonesmmz B.Berenson, North lt_a_ljen 2am ters of the Renaismce, 1907, p.163, B.Berenson, a terso the enaissance: a ta an d 0 Se 00$ 3 vols, 1968; F. Caroth Sofonisba Angeissolae le sue sorelle, 1987, p.106, pl.;8 P. Bufl‘aed, We, 1994, p.,23-4 39,67,198, 200, fig5, S. Ferino-Pagden &M. Kusche WM 1995 P 22 This composition would seem to be the prototype for the Lancut portrait (fig.6). Subtle physiognomical differences occur between the two portraits apparently as a result of the physical maturing of the artist in the interim between the works. In the Stirling portrait, which is the earlier version, her cheeks retain a greater firllness indicative of youth. Outside of this feature the rest of Sofonisba's characteristic features correqrond to her better known portraits (see the general description above, pp. 32-33). Sofonisba's garb varies fi'om the one composition to the other. In the Stirling portrait, the collar of the dress flares. The white chemise rmdergarment also has a flaring collar, which ruflles at the edge, and a thin tie in a bow at the neck similar to that seen in the Boston image(fig.8). The Juliet-style shoulders confine the ballooned effect between two pleated rufles, which difl'ers from the corresponding feature in the Lancut portrait. The ruflled-edged cufi‘s of the chemise protrude from the dress in both images. In this painting, a smock covers the lap of her dress. Additional, trivial, dissimilarities occur between the compositions of the two paintings. This picture depicts Sofonisba in torso-length; the Lancut is bust-length. The 47 48 increased scope of this painting incorporates more of the easel (all three legs appear) and additional background space. In both works identical painting accoutrcments lie on the ledge of the easel, though their placement diflers. The Stirling's palette lies within the dimensions of the portrayed painting; the Lancut palette extends beyond it. The mahlstick in this portrait tilts at a greater angle, though the hand placement is the same in both portraits. The smaller brush suspended in mid-motion touches the canvas on the Madonna's drapery in this work The brush in the other portrait touches the Christ child's forearm. Her inconsistent paint application in this image renders certain areas loosely, e. g. the smock folds and hand holding the mahlstick, and other areas tightly, e.g. the face and portrayed Madonna and Child. Crackling occurs in Sofonisba's face primarily in the forehead, chin and left cheek Both the WW catalog and Caroli discuss this work minimally, stating its date as c.1554; however, this work appears less technically evolved than the Uflizi seems of 1552. Based on the indication of her physical youth and technical progression, this study dates the portrait c.1550-52, earlier than other scholars have proposed. 49 Fig.2: 8211229131111, 1552. Oil on canvas. 34 7/8 x 27 3/8" (88.5 x 69 cm). Florence: Uflizi Inscription: SOFONTSBA ANGUISCIOLA CREM. PICTRIX AETA SUE ANN XX. Selfifloztmjt, 1552. Oil on canvas. 34 7/8 x 27 3/8" (88.5 x 69 cm). Florence: Uflizi Inscription: SOFONISBA AN GUISCIOLA CREM. PICTRD( AETA SUE ANN XX. Provenance: G. Vasari in his Xixee VII, p. 133 notes a portrait being sent to Pope Julius III by her father, Amilcare, which may be this work which was bought by the Uflizi in Rome in l666.‘ Caroli counters this information noting the Uflizi acquired it on the 27th of October, 1682 from the Grand Duke Cosimo 111.2 Literature: Fournier-Sarloveze, "Sofonisba Anguissola et ses soeurs" La revue c_le l'art V, 1899, p.324; W. Prinz, "Die Sammmlung der Selstbildnisse in den Uflizien" I, Geschichte der Sammlung, Berlin, 1971, p.176, document 39; A. Sutherland Harris & L. Nochlin, Woman Artists: 1550-1950, 1976, p.29-30, F. Caroli, Sofonisba Anguissola e le sue sorelle, 1987, p. 94-5, pl. 2; LS. Perilingieri, Sefenigba Mggissola. The First Great Woman Artist of the Renaissgrce, 1992, p.60-l, pl.3 l; P. Bufl'a, ed., Sofonisba Anguissola e le sue sorelle, 1994, p.23,43,196, tav.2; F. Jacobs, "Woman's Capacity to Create: The Unusual Case of Sofonisba Anguissola" mm 47, 1994, p. 74-5, S. Ferino-Pagden & M. Kusche, Sofonisba Mggissola: A Renaissance ngg, 1995, p.66. This painting depicts Sofonisba at the age of twenty, as indicated in the inscription on the upper lefl side of the painting. Perlingieri suggests that this work has not appeared in scholarly research "perhaps because it is located in the vast labyrinthian [sic] Vasari Corridor (named afler its architect), which the museum keeps closed“, although Caroli previously addressed it briefly . Since 1992, several scholarly publications included it in their discussions, as indicated above. The figure assumes a nearly frontal pose, and gazes directly at the viewer in self- assurance. Here, as is customary of her self-portraits, the artist depicts herself with her hair braided, parted in the center and wrapped about the crown of her head. The addition 1A Sutherland Harris and L. Nochlin. WW (Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum, 1976), p. 107-108, footnote no.20. See W. Prinz "Die Sammmlung der Selstbildnisse in den Ufizien" I, W Berlin. 1971. P-176. document 39. 2P. 94. 3P. 60. 50 51 of a black velvet band is atypical The artist wears a white chemise which ruflles at the collar and cuffs; however, the collar lacks a tie to close the blouse at the neck, which most of her self-portraits inchrde. Over the blouse, the artist wears a black dress with a flared high collar open in a V-shape at the neck. Its shoulders pufl‘ slightly. She holds a rolled piece of paper, or parchment in her right hand. The fingers are elongated and tapered. Considered a trademark of her instructor, Bemardino Campi, this slenderization and tapering of the hands is in fact representative of the period. The lefi hand, holding two paint brushes, hovers above a palette with three additional paint brushes. The background, rendered a varying tonal range of brown hues, sets a precedent for a number of her subsequent self-portraits: the Chantilly, the Lancut, the Milan, the Naples, the Niva, and the Siena. The artist's countenance displays the characteristically highly arched, well delineated eyebrows enhanced by shadowing and long nose rounded at the end and also pronounced by shading. Typically the eyes are wide-open, the coloration appears to be of bhre-green hue. The lips are the tiniest feature: delicate and lightly rounded painted in a slight smile common for the time. The cheeks are of the usual firllness obliterating the cheekbone definition, while the chin bears a slight indentation in the center. 52 Fig.3: Selfiltomflt, c.1552-53. Chalk sketch (black chalk on white/ blue paper). (351 x 264 mm). Florence: Uflizi, Gabinetto dei Desegni (inv. no. 13248F). Inscription: (written along the left border, almost illegible): Anguissola Cremonese. Selfihflmit, c.1552-53. Chalk sketch (black chalk on white/ blue paper). (351 x 264 mm). Florence: Ufizi, Gabinetto dei Desegni (inv. no. 13248F). Inscription: (written along the lefi border, almost illegible): Anguissola Cremonese. Provenance: Noted by Baldinucci to have been in the collection of Leopoldo de' Medici in the Sixteenth century, as stated in a drawing inventory. From this collection, it has transferred to its current location. Exhibitions: Sefem’ ha Anguissola e 1e sue sorelle, Cremona, Vienna,1994 & 1995 respectively. literature: C. Pirovano, ed. WW 1985.1).301-302, pl.2. 12.3; F. Caroli, Sejonjsba @gujssola e 1e sue sorelle, 1987, p.17; I.S. Perilingieri, "Sofonisba Anguissola's early sketches" Woman's A11 J oumal (F all-Winter, 1988-89), p. 1 1-2; Sefmg be flggissola. The Eg’ st Great Woman Artist of the Renaissance, 1992, p.44-5, pl. 18; P. Bufia, ed., Sofonisba flggissela e le sue sogefle, 1994, p.278-79, pl40; M. Garrard, "Here's Looking at Me: Sofonisba Anguissola and the Problem of the Woman Artist" MW, Fall 1994, p 597,- fig20. This portrait shows Sofonisba in a 3/4 length pose holding a book from which she has looked up to connect her gaze with that of the observer. Liana Cheney notes: this self-portrait is carefully drawn as one observes the details in the treatment of the hair, hands, facial expression, and garments, as well as technical rendering such as shading the viewer, as well as herself - the painter - are the audience who have interrupted the sitters concentration. The artist has depicted herself as an educated woman - a nobil donna- no accoutrcments of her profession as painter are visible in this drawing It is interesting to observe that there are many drawings of male self-portraits fiom the sixteenth century and it would appear that artists of this time were exploring observations of the self with all kinds of media including drawings.‘ Contemporary male artists' self-portraits also typically avoid showing their artists' accoutrcments, opting instead to focus on personahty traits and social status (see above, pp. 27-28, 29-31). Baldinucci cites the drawing, which he considered a member of a series, in the Medici drawing collection; its technical qualities share affinities with her other two drawings also residing in the Uflizi collection. While Perilingieri supposed this work to date c.1548 fi'om Sofonisba's period of training with Bemardino Campi, it is more likely ‘Chcncy, p. 945-946. 53 54 that she drew it c.1552-53 as the earliest remaining work in the set. Although carefully rendered, the technical proficiency of this work, when compared with that of the two other drawings, appears less accomplished. The proposed date of 1552-53 takes this into consideration as the latter two drawings, reflecting a heightened proficiency, receive correspondingly later dates. What was the purpose of the drawing? Its inscription "Anguissola Cremonese" leads one to believe that it may have been produced not as a mere sketch for her own use, but to have been sent on to someone else as an example of her work, or as a present. Similar inscriptions appear on her other self-portraits known to have been given to or commissioned by individuals outside of Cremona. The Boston miniature (fig.8) provides an example of this type of inscription and is known to have been produced while she was away fiom Cremona, to be sent back to her family. Some historians have questioned whether the figure represents Sofonisba or rather one of her sisters. Included among these historians are: the editors of the I_Qampj catalog, Flavio Caroli, Mary Garrard, and the editors of the WWW catalog, who believe it to be a portrait of Lucia Anguissola. Following Perilingieri and others, this study supports the notion of it as a self-portrait of Sofonisba. The basis for this assertion stems fi‘om a comparison of physiognomical characteristics of this figure with corresponding features in the authentic, painted self-portraits of Sofonisba. Included among these attributes are: the 3/4 facial portrayal, in which shading envelops half the face; the hair centrally parted and arranged in a braid that wraps about the crown of the head; the forehead comprising a third of the face; the eyebrows appearing highly arched; 55 the large, wide eyes with a dark pupil and ring around the iris; the pronounced upper and lower eyelids; the long nose gently sloping to a rounded tip with faintly shaded indications of a nostril; the pronounced indentation beneath the nose; the lips curved into a slight smile with the lower lip casting a shadow onto the chin; the chin bearing a slight indentation in the center; the firll cheeks ; and the elongated hands and fingers (as also stated above, pp. 32-33). Perilingieri notes that "her left eye is disproportionately larger than her right" in this drawing, as perhaps a result of her seeing herselfin a mirror? This characteristic occurs in several, perhaps all, of the painted self-portraits, particularly the Ashburnham medallion and Vienna portraits. Lucia Anguissola, while bearing a strong family resemblance, brings out in her own Selfiflonmit (fig. 30, Milan: Castello Sforzesco, inv. no. 562. Oil on canvas) several quite different traits. The two of primary importance are the shape of the ear and the ‘ indentation of the chin. Lucia's outer contour of her ear is a smooth, mellifluous curve while Sofonisba's ear bears a slight lmdulation of extra flesh just above the lobe. This drawing reveals this feature, which her painted self-portraits also depict - such as the Ufizi portrait of 1552 (fig.2). With regards to the chin indentation: Sofonisba bore a more pronounced indentation than Lucia; this feature is hardly present in Lucia's self- portrait. Finally, Sofonisba's eyes as depicted in this drawing and the Uflizi painting are wide, almost oval shaped, whereas, Lucia's eyes are more almond shaped with a straighter lower lid as apparent in her Milan Selfifiomit and Sofonisba's Chem. For further comparative observations refer to the entry for the W (pp. 110-12). ’P. 44. 56 Fig.4: Seltzllqnnjt, 1554. Oil on panel 6 3/4 x 4 3/4" (17 x 12 cm) Vienna: Kunst- historiches Museum, Gemaldegalerie, inv. no.285. Wait, 1554. Oil on panel 6 3/4 x 4 3/ " (17 x 12 cm) Vienna: Kunst- historiches Museum, Gemaldegalerie, inv. no.285. Provenance: Probably in the collection of the Duke of Ferrara in 1556, known to have been in the Viennese Imperial collection by, at the latest, 1606 (information expanded upon below). Exhibitions: SerenELae Anguissola e 1e sue sorelle ,Cremona, Vienna,l994 & 1995 respectively, Wham—twain Washington D 01995 Literature: R. Soprani, er 't tec_le' pittog', §c_olt0ri et architetj genovesi e de' forastim'ch e1n' Genova eper mo con alcunj ritratti de gli stessi, 1674, Chretien de Mechel, 1784, p. 146; V. Lancetti, Bjegmfie gemenese. Ossia gizionano stonico delle famiglie e nersone p_er gualsivogh'a mole memerabm ' e cbiare epettanti alla citta di Cremona dai tempi piu remoti fino all’eta nostra I, 1819, p.257; F. Sacchi, Not1z1' 'e pittorjche cremonesi, 1872; E. Engerth, Katalogder K. K. Gen1alde Queue 1n' Belgedgge zu Wien, 1884, p. 14—5; A Venturi, "Zur Geschichte der Kunstsammlungen Kaiser Rudolf II" Repertog‘um fer Kunstwissenschaft VIII, 1885, p. 1-23; F. Sacchi, "Sofonisba Anguissola" La flovincia, Corriere di Cremona, 1888, n.97; G. Morelli, W 1897, p.197; Fournier-Sarloveze, "Sofonisba Anguissola et ses soeurs" La [evue de Part V, 1899, p.319; C.E. Clement, Women 111 me Fine Arts, 1904, p.15; I-l Posse, "Sofonisba Anguissola" Thieme- Becker, Eunstler-Lexikon I, (1907), p.524-25', Vienna Catalogue, 1907, p.30; E. Benezit, WWW 1. 1911, p.185; H. Cook. "More portraits by Sophonisba Angussola" MW XXVI, 1915, p. 82; G. Nicodemi, "Commemorazione di artisti minori" Eomporium LXVI 1927, p. 225 (reproduction); N. Tarchiani, Ll ' 'ta ' 0 da Ca ava 0 a 0,,1927 p.175; C. Bonetti, "Pittori Cremonesi, Sofonisba Anguissola" Eoflettm 0 storico eremonese IeI, 1932, p.111; A.Venturi, Stggja dell'arte italiga IX, 1933, p.931, fig 573; AM. Romanini, "Sofonisba Anguissola" WW III, 1961, p. 321- 24; I. Kuhnel-Kunze, "Zur Bildniskunst der Sofonisba und Lucia Anguisciola" ween“, 1962, p. 89, B. Berensen, Italian Eictures of Lhe Renaissgce, Central Iglig ens! MIMI, III, 1968, p.14; Berensen Arch. n. 47; M. Haraszti-Taekacs, "New Facts of the life and work of Sofonisba Anguissola" Bulletin of the Budapest Musenm of Ejne Afl§ 7000, 1968, p.63, fig. 39, E. Tufts, "Sofonisba Anguissola Renaissance Woman" M Eews L700, 1972, p. 53; A. Sutherland Harris & L. Nochlin, Women mete: 1550- 1950, 1976, p.13, 27, 106-07, fig2; C. Pirovano, ed., 1 Q amni e In culturel art1'e_tjca cremoneg del Cm‘ guec_ent0, 1985,p.171; F. Caroli, o 'sba isso a e e sue so e,,1987 p. 98, pl. 4; I. S. Perlingieri,Som1'sbe WW 1992 P- 73 P143 P Bufla, ed WW, 1994, p. 19,71 ,,188-89,202,216 pl. 2; M. Garrard, "Here' s Looking at Me: Sofonisba Anguissola and the Problem of the Woman Artist" W11. Fall 1994, p558, fig2., S. Ferino-Pagden&M. Kusche, . m 1995, p. 15-6, 40, pl. 12. This composition portrays Sofonisba on a close-to-nriniature-sized panel on about the same scale as the Boston oval miniature. The Ashburnham medallion, the Boston miniature and this work all share a similar shade of a khaki green unvarying hue as the backgrormd. This work shows Sofonisba in bust-length with her upper torso 3/4 to the lefi and head slightly turned to confiont the viewer. Sofonisba's hair styling follows her 57 58 characteristic depiction: centrally parted with braids wrapped around the back crown of the head. Over the back of the head, covering the braid, is a black haimet that can also be formd in the Lancut portrait. Sofonisba wears a black dress with burgundy-brown sleeves which is closed at the neck and down the bodice by small material buttons. Sofonisba depicts herselfwearing the same dress in the Lancut portrait (fig.6) and possrhly the Naples portrait (fig.5) as well (the dark tone of the canvas makes intricate details indiscerm'ble). Its narrow collar folds tightly over. Four buttons are visible within the work, between the first two a small gap allows the chemise to show through. Its shoulders gather in two pleated omamentations which also appears in the Boston portrait. Again, Sofonisba's white chemise shows at the collar and the visible right cuff The highlighting on the milling forms a stylized curving line; rich shading produces strong contrasts. The fluid handling of the chemise collar and cufl' recalls that of the Stirling portrait (fig. 1). At the same time, it contrasts with the handling of the Umzi, Naples, and Lancut portraits (figs.2, 5, 6) in all of which the depiction of the chemise cloth appears more naturalistic than the painterly application here. The prominent eyebrow curving down into the nose almost describes an are, a highly stylized line. The fullness of the lips exceeds her characteristic representations, but remain the most delicate facial feature. The coloration in the lower portions of the cheeks indicates, for the first time, evidence of the cheek bone structure; conversely, the chin indentation does not appear. In Sofonisba's right hand she holds a small red book that is opened midway, held 59 forward to the viewer in order that it may be read. In it is written an autobiographical inscription: Sophonisba Anguissola virgo se ipsam fecit 1554. One of her few signed and dated works, the painting functions as a chronological reference point. Her thumb divides the float pages and the forefinger supports the binding around which the other fingers are placed. Perlingieri specifies this U-shape as a decisive characteristic indication of Sophonisba's work although in many cases it appears to be anatomically appropriate to the pose, as in this work. In the Uflizi portrait the depiction of an open book seems indicative of yet another talent pertaining to her social status. When compared to the Uflizi 52W, where Sofonisba again holds an open book, this portrait does not convey the sense of interrupting her from reading. On the contrary, this portrait utilizes the open book merely to convey the inscribed information, a convention utilized by other artists within the Renaissance. A particularly poignant example of this type of display (although on a card rather than a book) appears in Giovanni Battista Trotti's (called i1 Malosso) We WWW (fig. 14) believed by some to be a self-portrait of Sofonisba. This inscription confirms the authenticity of this work Recorded as a work in the Viennese Imperial collection fiom at the latest, 1606, subsequent documentation exists fi'om the late Eighteenth century work of Chretien de Mechel (1784) onwards. Numerous subsequent publications exist have supported one or the other of two conjectural theories on how the work found itselfin the Viennese Imperial collection. The variant theories stem from Sacchi's 1872 publication and Bonetti's of 1932. In 1973, Hamlisch noted that: 60 Sacchi recorded a tradition that the painting was a gift to the Infanta Isabella Clara Eugenia of Spain, when Sofonisba was her governess (1566-1576). Isabella supposedly took the painting with her when she married the Archduke to Ambras Castle, it passed to the Imperial collection of the Emperor Leapold. Bonnetti thought that the painting might be one of the two self-portraits of the artist sent by Amilcare to Messier Ieronimo Somenzo, in the service of the Duke of F errara in 1556. Cardinal Alessandro d'Este gave the paintings to Rudolf II, in 1606.6 The 1994 exhibition catalog WWW offers some clarification to these arguments. First, it notes that Federico Sacchi "hastily interpreted" the documentation of this works provenance from an earlier source, Raflael Soprani's work of 1674. To further clarify, the catalog lists Adolfo Venturi's publication as 1885 as the source upon which Bonnetti's 1932 theory was to be based upon. Venturi's publication quoted a letter of March 17, 1556 from Amilcare Anguissola to the Duke of Ferrara which would have accompanied the 55211311931511 as a gift, after which the Cardinal d'Este brought the work along with others already in property of the Imperial collection to Emperor Rudolfo 11 between 1603-1604, not 1606 as Bonnetti suggested. This theory receives support as the more probable of the two, but remains unprovable as an inventory of the works no longer exists. 7 ‘P. 58. m ’aocanna Sacchi, WW ed Paolo Bufl'a (Milan: Leonardo Arte, 1994), p. 61 Fig.5: Wm, c.1555-56. Oil on canvas. 22 1/4 x 18 7/8" (56.5 x 48 cm) Naples: Museo Nazionale di Capodimonte. Wand, c. 1555-56. Oil on canvas. 22 1/4 x 18 7/8" (56.5 x 48 cm) Naples: Museo Nazionale di Capodimonte. Provenance: Palazzo Famese de Roma a1 Palzzo del Giardino di Parma in 1662, Palazzo di Napoli, and finally to its present location in 1838. Exhibitions: §0fgn1E he Anguissola e le sue sorefle, Cremona, Vienna,l994 & 1995 respectively. Literature: H. Cook, " More Portraits by Sofonisba Anguissola" W XXVI, 1915, p. 228, fig D, pl. 111; A Ventrui, Storia dell' arte ital' v0 . . La ' 8 del Cin to 1933, p.929-30; S.J. Freedberg, Painting in Italy: 1500- IQQQ, 1971, p.591; C. Peruvian, ed., LCemmeE 911111118 ggisfica crgnonese del C1'nguecento, 1985, p. 172,174, pl. 1.16.1; F. Caroli, Sofenisba Anguissola e le sue serene, 1987, p. 100-01, pl.5.; I.S. Perilingieri, Sofonisba Mggissola. Ihe Em Great Wemg Mist of me Renaissance, 1992, p.76, 78-9, 87, p144; P. Buffs, ed, Sefenjshe Angnjssola e 1e sue sorefle, 1994, p. 190,196,198202-03, 212, pl9; S. Ferino-Pagden & M. Kusche, Sofm'sba Angnjssola: A Renaissance Wemen, 1995, p.20,22,28,40. Although compositionally more complex than the Uflizi portrait (fig.2), this portrayal bears many resemblances to it. The artist again portrays herself in a torso-length pose, although now the upper torso is turned 3/4 to the left while the head turns slightly so the artist may still gaze intently at the viewer. The face in this work receives increased shading on its left portion, and thus further stresses the characteristic facial features of the outlined eyebrows and nose, the wide eyes, delicate lips and cleft chin. Perlingieri provides a detailed account of her clothing and hair style:"Her reddish brown hair is tied a bit differently, with a large, twisted chignon crowning the back of her head Her black velvet bodice has dark brown sleeves with small, scalloped firllness at the shoulder. She wears a linen chemise with a ruffled edging at the collar and cuffs. "8 Like the Siena portrait , the chemise bears a tie at the neck which in this work is fastened closing the neck of the chemise. The rufling both around the collar and cufl‘s share a greater aflinity with the Siena (fig. 10) depiction than with the Uflizi work, in that they t‘P. 78. 62 63 have received increased modelling through heightened contrast of highlighted and shaded recesses giving additional vohrme. As previously mentioned, the collar of both the chemise and the dress recall the Vienna and Lancut portraits (figs.4 & 6) although whether this dress is the same can not be definitively stated due to the obscurity of the dress's details. Typically elongated and well defined, the artist's right hand appears caught in the mid-motion at the clavichord. The clavichord "is placed on a bright green velvet-covered table with a key nearby...this painting was poorly restored in 1959 and consequently, her left hand is now a chalky white and has completely lost its realism "9 This painting received significant discussion in both Caroli 's and Perlingieri's publications as well as the 1994 and 1955 catalogs, although their focus on the information differs. Perlingieri continues her discussion by amending the previous rnislabeling as Selfifiemmfinine; by presenting the structural differences between a clavichord and a spinet.10 The 1994 and 1995 catalogs, the only scholarly publications to mention the portrait since 1992, disregard Perlingieri's identifcation of the musical instrument as a clavichord rather than a spinet. Finally, Perlingieri addresses Adolfo Venturi's 1933 statement regarding this portrait as following the style of Moroni: ’Perlineiensoteniahamiaania p. 78. 10P. 213. "The clavichord originated m the 15th century and the 'earliest existing specimens are generally Italiananddatefi'omthefirsthalfofthe 16th century.' The 'caseisoblongandthe strings arehorizontally soasto cross the back ends of the keys' with a range of four octaves. See, Eric Bloom, ed,§rex_e_'sI21etjenery_ef_MesJ§_gne Meejeme, 5th ed (New York: St Martin's Press 1970), vol. 1, p. 336. The spinet, however, is 'a winged-shaped instrument typically of English make, with a compass of four to five octaves.‘ Bloom, v01. 2., p. 7. 30. 64 The self-portrait, in the Museum in Naples, shows the young Sofonisba where it calls to better attention her superficial but delicate pictorial qualities. Here, the image is also presented in action with the painter's hands, large, like those large hands of Campi's as they touch the spinet's keys. The thoughtful face is turned to the viewer... There is something childish, youthful, in the round cheeks, in the delicate features, and the lightness of the hair. The shadows soften the flesh, undoing the antiquated stiffness, and signify a gentleness of spirit. The rough draft of Campi's influence, always superficial and weak, becomes polished in the grand portrait style of G. B. Moroni.” Whether or not this composition is directly influenced by Moroni or result of heightened self-observation by Sofonisba, this discussion leads into several further points. First, the use of the word "superficia " by Venturi suggests that Sofonisba may be stylizing some of her features to adhere to notions of ideal feminine beauty present in Late Italian Renaissance culture at the time as evident in Firenzuola's anhefieamyefflemen (see above, p. 32). Second, the association with Moroni ties into, as does Perlingieri's discussion, Anguissola's portrayal of the Walter's Gallery mm, the third marchese of Soncino, 1577 and similar compositional arrangements by Moroni "in many of his portraits, including Wm (National Gallery, London) and Wm (Prado Museum, Madrid). "‘2 Caroli's discussion of the work traces its provenance from the Palazzo Famese, Rome, to the Palazzo del Giardino, Parma, in 1662 through multiple collection and inventory publications. He cites previous attributions of the work to other artists, such as the School of Carraci He also expresses doubt that it is a self-portrait, and oflers the suggestion that it may be a portrait of her sister Lucia instead.13 “P. 213. (Milan: Ulrico Hoepli, 1933), pp. 929- 12P. 79. ”Carolin 100-101. 65 Sofonisba's depiction of herself as a woman with the ability to play a nnrsical instrument illustrates not only one of her many other talents, but her place in Italian society, (see above, pp. 17, 21). 66 Fig.6: W, c.1558-9. Oil on canvas. 26 x 22 l/2"(66 x 57 cm). Lancut: Muzeum Zamek. Weed, c. 1556-57. Oil on canvas. 26 x 22 1/2"(66 x 57 cm). Lancut: Muzeum Zamek. Provenance: Unknown. Exhibitions: Sofonisba Angnissola e 1e sue soggelle, 1994. Literature: M. Wallis, "Autoportret Sofonisby Anguisciola, Lancucie, W. Muzeum i Tworka"; P. Bufla, ed, Sefems' be Angejssole e 1e sue sorelle, 1994, p. 196,202,212, cover illustration;S. Ferino-Pagden & M. Kusche, So 0 ’sba ‘sso a: a'ss ce W , 1995, p.22-3,40, cover illustration, pl.4. The SefenishnAngnieeQIaeIemeseLehe catalog presents the first discussion of this work within any scholarly publication on Sofonisba, as previously stated, perhaps because of its fairly 1mfami1iar location: Lancut, Poland. (The Wallis article was unknown to most Anguissola scholars until this publication.) Compositionally, it essentially repeats the Stirling self-portrait of 0. 1550-52. Further precise correlations appear above in the discussion of that work (see above, pp. 47-48). This work shares physiognomical aflinities with the Cremona works of the mid 1550's including the Vienna and Naples pieces (figs. 4 & 5); thus, it has been dated to c.1556-57, prior to her departure for Spain. The dress and chemise bear striking likenesses to those depicted in the Naples and Althorp (fig. 9) compositions. More so than the Naples portrait, this work aspires to a distinct precision in detail not seen prior to this time. The face, the hands, and the portrayed canvas receive particular attention in this work Here the highlighting within the braiding wrapped about the crown of her head is described in each twist and individual hair. The eyes have tightly rendered irises of the light blue- green hue, which as in the Chantilly portrait (fig. 12), show some of the white beneath the iris. Again the upper and lower lids appear extremely pronounced. The hands, like those of the Althorp composition, depict 67 68 the fingers and fingernails with such precision that even the cuticles of the nails can be discerned. The portrayed canvas rendering the Madonna and Child is identical with that in the Stirling portrait except that here it has become more precisely rendered. The faces of the Madonna and Child have extremely pronounced features. The Madonna's ear provides a case in point as the individual folds may be followed exactly, curving into the inner ear. Both the 1994 and 1995 catalogs theorize that the portrayed image probably existed. In light of Sofonisba's other religious paintings, all incorporating the Madonna, they continue: As a painter of Madonna portraits Sofonisba also may have identified with her mythical predecessor Timarete, or Thamar, who, according to Pliny had created a painting of Diana of Ephesus and, according to Boccaccio, also a famous work depicting the Madonna Sofonisba also presents herself here as the female counterpart to the Evangelist Luke, who was the archetypal Madonna painter or Christian artist“ ¥ 1 4R 41. reference to 1994 catalog p. 24. 69 Fig.7: 5111;203:811, signed and dated 1558. Oil on panel Diameter 5 1/8" (13 cm). Paris: Fondation Custodia, Collection F. Lugt, Institut Neerlandais. Selfil’emajt, signed and dated 1558. Oil on panel. Diameter 5 1/8" (13 cm). Paris: Fondation Custodia, Collection F. Lugt, Institut Neerlandais. Provenance: Prior to 1953; in the collection of Lord Ashburnham; sold at Sotheby's of London on June 23, 1953 to Frits Lugt Literature: F. Sacchi, Eotizie nittoriche cremonesj, 1872, p.10; Fournier-Sarloveze, "Sofonisba Anguissola et ses soeurs" La revue de l'art V, 1899, p. 181', 1-1. Cook, "More portraits by Sophonisba Angussola" Bntlm' gton Magazine XXVI, 1915, p.228, fig. E, pl. 111; G. Catalano, "Sofonisba Anguissola" Annuario 13.1 Magistrale, e1925, G. Nicoderni, "Commemorazione di artisti minori" Empefinm LXVI, 1927, p.225: AVeirturi, _S_______toria dell'arte italiana IX, 1933, p. 932 (note); B. Berensen,1ta11an Eictutes ot the Renaissance, Central Italian and None 1: a11en Schoolel, III, 1968, p 13, 1974, Berensen Arch. n. 26., F. Caroli, Sofonisba Angnissolae 1e sue sorelle, 1987, p. 118- 19, pl. 16; IS. Perlingieri, Sofonisba Mgnissola. The First Great Woman Artist of the Maissang, 1992, p. 108-09, pl68; P. Bufla, ed., §etonieba Angnjssola e le sue sorelle, 1994, p.196, 218, 231, 286, 290, tav.1; S. Ferino—Pagden & M. Kusche, So 0 isba An issola: aissa ce W , 1995, p.46. Perilingieri notes this work as being signed and dated (1558), as well as its common name of the Ashburnham medallion. The 1995 catalog dates it 1556 (a misprint, perhaps?) This roundel of again almost miniature size invites compositional and physiognomical comparison with the Boston and Vienna pictures (figs. 8 & 4). Tonally, the background appears again of the singular green coloration found in the previously mentioned works, yet varies in gradation from light on the right side to darker on the left. The portrait is a bust-length image with the upper torso in a frontal positioning, while the head is turned slightly to the right of the panel allowing for a single characteristic ear to show as in all previously mentioned works. Characteristically, Sofonisba depicts her hair centrally parted with the braiding wrapped around the back portion of the crown of her head with no additional adornment. The facial placement allows for significant comparison with the Boston portrait, which Perlingieri notes to show "great consistency in the shape of Anguissola's face, right ear, 70 71 and eyes--note the slight droop of the eyelid. "‘5 This comparison can indeed be furthered to incorporate the eyebrow and nasal bone structure raised to the attention of the viewer by increased shading that lines these area's protrusions, as well as the delicate handling of the lips and slight dimpling at the very lefi comer where the lips end. Sofonisba's garb in this portrait and the Boston painting share distinct aflinities. The dress appears to be black material with a flared collar that is indistinguishable in its edging; in the reproduction in Caroli's publication it appears a straight seam. On the contrary, the reproduction in Perlingieri's publication shows, on the right side, slight curving indicating ruflling at the far back corner on the right side nearest to her face; the Boston image shows the scallop distinctly by additional highlighting. This differentiation occurs as a result of dramatic craquelure in the painted surface. Severe cracking appears variously across the entire composition. On Sofonisba's face the intensity of the cracking becomes more dominant, with small, intricate areas across both cheeks as well as the throat. The chemise in both images appear identical as it flares with the supportive backing of the dress collar outlined by a single ruflle and restrained by a tie tied in a bow at the Adam's apple. The roundel of the Boston miniature prevents comparing the dress any further, whereas, this image shows the neck opting to continue to a V-shape over which the ends of the chemise ties dangle naturally. Caroli and Hamlisch cite the provenance that justifies the name Ashburnham in the title of the work It was acquired from Lord Ashburnham by Frits Lugt through Sotheby's 15P. 109. 72 of London on June 23, 1953, and since then it has resided in the Paris collection. Also, Caroli relates it to a work of Lucia at the Pinacoteca Tosio Martinengo of Brescia. It must be noted that Caroli titles this work a portrait of her sister Minerva Anguissola with a question mark, citing as reference Sacchi and Berensen, "ritratto di una delle piu giovani sorelle.”5 However, the characteristic similarities to her other self-portraits makes this identification unlikely. 1‘P. 118. 73 Fig.8: Wait, c.1559-61. Oil on card , miniature. 3-3/16 x 2 1/2" (8.2 x 6.3 cm). Boston: Museum of Fine Arts. Inscription: "SOPHONISBA ANGUSSOLA VIR[GO] IPSIUS EX [S]PECULO DEPICTAM CREMONAE". Sci-Lemma, c.1559-61. Oil on card , miniature. 3-3/ 16 x 2 1/2" (8.2 x 6.3 cm). Boston: Museum of Fine Arts. Inscription: "SOPHONISBA ANGUSSOLA VIR[GO] IPSIUS EX [S]PECULO DEPICTAM CREMONAE". Provenance: Mr. R Gough, London, 1801; H. D. Seymour, Ashridge, England before 1862; J. M. Seymour, Knoyle, Wiltshire, 1912-1928; Auctioned at Sotherby's in London on May 9, 1928 and November 9, 1959; Emma F. Monroe Fund Purchase, 1960 (Kleinberger and Co, Inc.) Exhibition: Setem'sb aAngnissola e 1e sue soreue, Cremona, Vienna,l994 & 1995 respectively, SofenEba Angn'nseele: A Renaissance Woman, 1995. Literature: We London, 81, pt. 2, (October 1801) p.97-8, pl. 2; Pilkington, G_ene1_a_l Dictioneg 01 Painters, (1824, p. 22?) 1840, p.13: Catalogne of the Special Works of Art 01 me Mgieval Renaissance and Mom Recent Pgiods on Lean at the South Kensington, London, 1862, (pts. 1, 2, and 3), set 2, p 234, no. 2592,1863 (revised same); Thieme-Becker, Runstlet- Lexiken, (1907), v. 1, p.525; Carlo Bonnetti, Sophonisba Angnisciola, p.145, no. 25 - this publication not available in Boston or Lansing areas (This may be: "Sofonisba Anguissola 1531-1625', Mime W11, pp. 109-52); A Sutherland Harris and L. Nochlin, WEI—SM l976,p.27, fig. 3; R Simon. "The Identity of Sofonisba Anguissola's Young Man", [he Journal ef the Weltefis M Galleg 44 (1986), p. 117, fig 4; F. Caroli, Sofonisba Mgnissola e 1e sue sorelle, 1987, p.27, 96, no.3; I. S. Perilingieri, "Strokes of Genius", Me (1988), p.54; "Lady in waiting: rediscovering the forgotten brilliance of an illustrious Renaissance painter", Ag & Ann'gnee (1988), p.67; M. Kusche, "Sofonisba Anguissola en Espana: etratista en la corte de Felipe II Junto a AlonzoSanehez Coello y Jorge de la Rua”, Atchivo Esnane] de Me 248 (1989), p.395, n.24; A. Ghirardi, "Una ricerca iconografica nel cenacolo delle Anguissola: iritratti di Minerva" Regimen, 1992, n.509-511, p.35-43; I. S. Perilingieri, ofo 'sba isso a. e ' st eat W ' theRemieeenee, 1992, p.60-4, pl. 33, 34; P. Bufla, ed., Sotonisba Angnissola e le sue soreue, 1994, p. 196-97, 218, pl. 6; M. Garrard, "Here' s Looking at Me. Sofonisba Anguissola and the Problem of the Woman Artist" RenetseeneeQneQefly, Fall 1994, p. 604, 606, fig25, S. Ferino-Pagden & M Kusche, ., :. -,. - tit:._t,l995,.,p20-146,..p113 This Selfinemnit housed at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts depicts Sofonisba half-length and posed frontally except for her head, which is turned to a 3/4 pose. Characteristically, this 3/4 view presents Sofonisba with her hair centrally parted with braiding wrapped about the crown of the head displaying only the lefl. Delicate, nrinuscule brushstrokes are evident in her hair particularly on the left side and left braiding that allows individual strands to glisten in contrast to the darker right half, a solid hue of indistinguishable shadings. The contrast continues in the facial features as the right side reveals increased emphasis while her left side recedes into semi-darkness. Again, the 74 75 depiction of her facial features is typical: large eyes, emphatically arched brows, delicately sloped nose with only a short division between the nose and the delicate upper lip, the lower, firller lip casting a heavy shadow on the chin, which in turn receives some highlighted definition in its slight cleft. The heightened tonal qualities evident on the right side of the face reveals copious details such as the light blue green color of the iris, the precise upper and lower eyelids. Untypically, the ruddy complexion of the cheek allows the cheekbone structure to be detectable, a characteristic only seen previously in the Vienna portrait (fig.4). Upon close inspection of the piece, cracking appears over the face particularly over the upper left cheek and nose. It should be noted that the Museum during one of its preliminary examinations of the work noted small amormts of crackling throughout the ground, paint,qand surface film Sofonisba wears a black dress with flared scalloped collar underneath which is the white chemise also with a flaring ruffled edged collar fastened together by a slim bow. Only the shoulders, portions of the arms and hands appear with the bodice hidden behind the rolmdel The portions evident bear a striking resemblance to the garments Sofonisba depicted on herselfin the 1558 roundel SelfiRertmit in the Paris Institut Neerlandais (fig. 7). The backgron is a solid hue of green. Upon the rormdel's edge an inscription reads: Sofonisba Anguissola V1r[go] Ipsius Manu Ex Speculo Depictam Cremonae. Perlingieri translates this as, "The maiden Sofonisba Anguissola painted this from a mirror by her own hand, Cremona" and adds this comment: Interestingly, in both this and the Ufizi W dating the same year, she spells her name Sophonisba, which she generally did not do in her other paintings In side the circle of the miniature 76 are a series of intertwining letters: E, R, A, C, R, Y, M. The pattern of intertwined letters was a Renaissance device which played upon double entendre. Monograms, emblems, and riddles all were popular with Renaissance intellectuals who delighted in hidden meanings. ' Emblems were popular, and books on the subject were fashionable in France and England in the second half of the sixteenth century. Frequently, there were Latin inscriptions, as in this miniature, or mottos that could have double meanings." The W catalog interprets the letters within the rormdel as A C E I L M R, which form the name of her father Amilcare. Either interpretation indicates a direct connection with this work's purpose and Sofonisba's family. The notes it does not "account for the K" on the right. Around the letters, leaves and - t t H =_! catalog acknowledges this but grapevines can be found, which form a connection, within the backgrormd space surrormding the letters, with each other visually that could be interpreted to be wreath-like in character, which was an ancient symbol of honor. The wreath is an ancient symbol of honor, and might be related here to the Anguissola family tradition of connecting themselves with the Carthiginian history of Hanm'bal. In discussing the significance of the roundel and its inscription, the Sefonisha AnarrissolaiAchaissancefloman catalog notes the inscription: around the outside of the medallion explains that Sofonisba painted her portrait with the help of a mirror, as her famous predecessor from Antiquity had done [Iaia]...The shield reminds Schwiekhart (1992, 120) of representations of Prudentia, who had a mirror as one of her attributes and was represented in the late Medieval manuscripts with similarly inscribed shields. Sofonisba may have wanted to allude to an aspect of virtue that she herself strove to attain. This is all the more likely, since the mirror also carried negative connotations, especially that of vanity.m The W catalog recounts the different dates for this work by various scholars, including: Caroli's assertion of pre- 1 554; Ilya Sandra ”Perlingieri. WM p.63. 18Sylvia F erino-Pagden, 77 Perlingieri's dating of 1552; and Maria Kusche's 1555 attribution. This catalog notes the true miniature format that the work is produced in and correlates that with Giulio Clovio's 1556 visit to Piacenza/Parma. The correspondence of these facts led the catalog to suggest that the work could have been produced after 1556, but at the same time cautions against this chronological placement stating "in autoritratti presentano infatti compenenti piu complesse di quelle utilizzale nel 'ritratte dal naturale', concorddendovi necessita di idealizzazione (per restituire il be] volto della virtuosa) e anche di vingovanirnento (per suscitare ancora maggior meraviglia nell'osservatore)."‘9 (For firrther discussion, see above, p. 13) In reference to Sofonisba's unique spelling of her name, the meaning behind the letters within the written emblem, and the relationship of the rormdel to Sofonisba, Perilingieri presents some conjectures. In 1983, during an examination prior to loaning the work for an exhibition, the glass upon the piece was damaged in the lower right corner. In Perilingieri's book the illustration of the portrait appears with the damaged glass, as though it were the work itself; rather than the glass, that had been spoiled in that area. Perilingieri does not mention this occurrence. The Semshnmnmhmmemfle exhibition catalog also includes this defective illustration, although it does make reference to the damage. The authenticity of the Boston miniature has never been doubted as an original work by Sofonisba Anguissola. The miniature's provenance can be traced no further back than 1801, when it was first recorded as in the collection of Mr. R. Gough. The initial publication of this work dates to October of the same year, when the Gentleman: 19Rosanna Sacchi, WWW ed Paolo Bufia (Milan: Electra,l994), p. 196. 78 Magazine of London produced a two page illustrated article upon the piece. Prior to 1862, the work was transferred to the collection of HD. Seymour of Ashridge, England, after which it was documented in a WWW __ . Caroli notes the catalog material (n.2592) as mentioning "degli oggetti d'arte coll‘l raccolti per ordine cronologico."20 Within the period of 1912-1928 the work belonged to the collection of J.M. Seymour of Knoyle, Wiltshire, after which the provenance remains in question 1mtil the Boston Museum of Art's purchase of the work in 1960 from the Kleinberger and Company, Inc. Extensive scholarly commentary on the portrait began only afler its inchrsion in A Sutherland Harris and Linda Nochlin's WW, 1976. 2"P. 96. 79 Fig.9: WM, c.1558—59. Oil on canvas. 32 11/16 x 25 5/8" (83 x 65 cm). Althorp: Earl Spencer Collection. Inscribed lower left: SOPHONISBA ANGUISSOIA VIRGO SEIPSUM PINXIT JUSSU AMI [LCARIS] PATRIS 1561 [7]. Weighted, c.1558-59. Oil on canvas. 32 11/16 x 25 5/8" (83 x 65 cm). Althorp: Earl Spencer Collection. Inscribed lower left: SOPHONISBA ANGUISSOLA VIRGO SEIPSUM PINXIT JUSSU AMI [LCARIS] PATRIS 1561 [7]. Provenance: Earl Cadogan; Earl Cadogan Sale, February 14-22, 1726, 2nd day, lot 83, bought by the Duchess of Marlborough for L140; by descent to the present owner. Exhibitions: M :lfreasutes, Manchester, 1857; Women's exhibition, Earl's Court, London, 1900; Mfllflé Apt Ileasutes, Birmingham, 1934, no.456; Between Renaissance and Berogue, catalog by F. G. Grossman, City Art Gallery, Manchester, 1965, no.9. Literature: F .G. Waagen, Treasutes of Art in Great Britanl' 111, London, 1854, p.456; M. Fournier- Sarloveze, "Sofonisba Anguissola et ses soeurs" Revue de l'art ancien et moderne V, 1899, part 11, p.383, 388; H. Cook, "More Portraits by Sofonisba Anguissola" Burlington Magazine XVI, 1915, p.228, pl.III E; B. Berenson, ltalian painters of the Renaissance, A List of the principal mete end lheng' Works with an Index of Places, 1932, p.23; C.Bonetti, Sofonisba Angnissola, 1932, p.145; A Venturi, Sterie dell' arte italiana, vol. 9. La pittura del C111' guecento , 1933, p.923, 932, pl.D(; I. Kuhnel-Kunze, "Zur Bildniskunst der Sofonisba und Lucia Anguisciola" Pentheon 70(, 1962, p.86, fig5; M. Haraszti-Takacs, "Nouvelles donees relatives a la vie et a l'oeuvre de Sofonisba Anguissola" Bnllet1n' du Musee Hongtois des Beam-Am 7000, 1968, p.60; B. Berenson, Italian Painters 91 me Renaissance: Central Italien and Nofll Italian Senools, 3 vols., 1968, p. 14, pl]; Tufts, "Sofonisba Anguissola, Renaissance Woman" M News L700, 1972, p.50; A Sutherland Harris & L. Nochlin, Wemen Aitists: 1550-1950, 1976 107- 08, 340, pl.;3 C. Pirovano, ed, ICampiela culntte WW 1985 P 172 F Caroli W112, 1987, p. 130-31, pl 23 IS Perlingieri, Befenieb eAngnissola. The E'net geat Womfl Anist of me Renew, 1992, p. 116, 138-39, pl. 82; P. Bufla, ed., Sofonisba Angnissola e 1e sue sorelle, 1994, p. 27, 190, 202, 212, 222, 224, tav. 3, M. Garrard, "Here'sLooking at Me Sofonisba Anguissola and the Problem ofthe Woman Artist" Reneiseeneeflneitetm, Fall 1994, p.589, 592, fig. 14, S. Ferino- Plsden & M Kusche Waltzing 1995 P 28 Being the second composition with a clavichord, this work naturally invites comparison with that previously addressed from Naples (fig.5). It must be noted, again, that Perlingieri denoted this work as a clavichord, although, subsequent publications addressing this work appear to have ignored this point. Compositionally, the Althorp portrait demonstrates a heightened level of complexity and accomplishment as compared with the single portrait of Naples. As in the Siena portrait (fig. 10), within this depiction the artist portrays herself together with someone else. (The early sketch by her in the Uflizi, fig.3, provides a third instance, again containing an older woman believed to be a 80 8 l servant.) Upon comparing the Chessfiaine (fig.23) by her hand in the Polish museum in Poznan, the Museum Narodowe, one immediately recognizes this older woman servant to be one and the same, which indicates a significant relationship between herself and this woman as it is the only person outside the immediate Anguissola family to appear in portrait paintings of the Anguissola family more than once. As previously stated this comparison certainly could stake a claim as one of the most complex and accomplished works discussed up to this point. In it Sofonisba is portrayed slightly of f the central vertical axis of the painting, as in the Naples composition, with her body turned 3/4 towards the lefi, while the head is slightly turned to the right enabling Sofonisba to encounter the gaze of the viewer directly, demanding the viewer's recognition. It must be noted that the Sofonisba's image is a 3/4 torso-length, unlike that of Naples. This format occurs in two other portraits: the Sterling and the Siena portraits (figsl & 10). Stylistically, this rivals the Lancut portrait (fig.6) as the most precise rendition of Sofonisba thus far noted. Her hair is again characteristically parted in the middle with braiding wrapping around the back crown of the head. However, the intricacy of the rendition of the hair stands alone, as the additional highlighting provides the necessary contrast to denote individual strands, braid sections, and areas uner any of her previous works. Furthermore, the black bow wrapped behind the ear about the top of the head appears only here. In this work Sofonisba abandoned the facial stylization seen in previous works. The eyebrow and nose, while pronounced, do not run together in a single stylized 82 curvation as in the past works. The eyes are well defined with the lower lid indicated by increased highlighting. At this point it is necessary to address Perlingieri's discussion of her eyes in this work as in relation to the others: In many of her self-portraits, her eyes are pink, pufly, and sometimes without eyelashes. This may indicate the presence, even et this date, of the ophthalmic problems that Van Dyck would describe after visiting Anguissola when she was in her nineties. ophthalmologist Milton Lincofl‘ has looked at numerous enlargements of Anguissola's self-portraits and said that the way she painted her eyes shows great anatomical accuracy. According to Dr. Lincofl’, Anguissola possibly was sufl'ering fi'om blepharitis, an inflammation of the eyelids, in her teens and twenties. It could have been due to ganulated eyelids, which in severe cases can ease eyelashes to fall out, or possibly some kind of allergy. Despite what appear to be large eyes, they are still 'within the normal range of the eye size'." Continuing in the discussion of her facial features, her lips also receive increased delineation making them appear 11111 though still delicate with the dimple at the left comer further indented. The indentation again appears in her chin as it has previously, while the full cheeks obliterate any cheekbone structure. The portrayal of the right ear demonstrates the most detailed modelling seen thus far. The black/ brown dress (the sleeves appear brown beneath the shoulder pufls) also receives a more intimate detailing than her previous works. The collar flares with beading or scalloping about its edges leading down to a V-shape opening. The fiont of the dress is fastened with embroidering that appear to have cloth buttons at the central seam. Five of these embroidered button fasteners occur; the top one is rmfastened and interwoven with the chemise ties. The shoulder seams lead to intricately puffed juliet upper sleeves that are pleated with scalloping upon each pleat, underneath the pufl the sleeving narrows to follow the shape of the arm Although unseen due to the bend of her right arm, the skirting appears pleated and seamed at the waist as the folds would indicate. Underneath 2‘P. 138. 83 the dress is again a white chemise with ruflling at the collar and wrist cuffs. The collar receives additional precision in its rendition due to increased contrast in the ruflling 1mdulation. Two ties appear at the neck; the one on the top remains untied, while the lower is tied in a bow of which the bow ties have tassels at their ends. The cuffs are less clearly delineated, however, for the first time some of the sleeving of the chemise protrudes in a soft pufl‘ from the dress sleeves. Sofonisba's hands, like those in the Naples work, appear caught in mid-motion at the clavichord. The elongation and tapering of the fingers previously present is not so pronounced here, and even each fingernail is now exactly described. The clavichord also received additional precision of rendering as it is portrayed in a more overhead view than that of the Naples piece. The diagonal formed by the clavichord starting at the center of the bottom side leads the viewer's eye back into the older woman in the shadows. Furthermore, the background coloration moves the viewer's eye from right of Sofonisba to the left to the old woman by gradating from light to dark. Within the light portion on the right multiple colors appear visibly merged as the brushwork of Sofonisba can be discerned in stark contrast to the tight linear rendition of the rest of the composition. The older woman in the shadowing receives distinct highlight upon the protruding facial features that indicate a severely straight nose and tight thin lips. Wrinkles appear on the forehead and about the dark eyes. The right side of the face recedes into the shading. Her hair acts as a flat gray plane about which is a white cap with a seam in the center that ties in a bow underneath her chin. Her dress appears a matte gray tone without detailing, though with a white chemise beneath the boat neck. 84 Both Caroli and Perlingieri note that this work is signed and dated although its aging has caused fading making some areas indistinct. Caroli erqrands on its provenance and the bibliographical references which address the work particularly in regards to its signature. Caroli titles this work a W again with a question mark, yet again the characteristic similarities to her other self-portraits truly denotes this as a self-portrait of Sofonisba. The W catalog discusses this work as a self-portrait though it was not in that exhibition. The W ARenfissancefleman catalog agrees with this study's refutation of Caroli's belief in the work as a portrait of Lucia. The catalog utilizes Lucia's self-portrait (fig.30) and Sofonisba's Cheeegnme (fig.23) to mention the difference in features which this study noted above (see p.54-55). Finally, the catalog states that in "1766 Sophonisba Anguisciola virgo se ipsum pinxit iussu Ami... patris..., could be deciphered, but in 1872 evidently only Sophonisba Anguisciola iussu patris."22 22P28. 85 Fig-10: WWW 01558-59. Oil on canvas. 43 11/16 x 43 5/ 16" (111 x 110 cm). Siena: Pinacoteca Nazionale. Bemardinofiamnlllaintinafiofnnishannarusmla, c.1558-59. Oil on canvas. 43 11/16 x 43 5/ 16" (111 x 110 cm). Siena: Pinacoteca Nazionale. Provenance: Noted in 1852 in the atalo 0 de a Ga ' dell’ stituto di e e ' of Siena, since then it has been in the presnt collection. Exhibitions: Sofonisba Angnissola e le sue sorelle, Cremona, Vienna,l994. Literature: G. Greer, flfne Obstacle Race, 1979, p. 181; C. Pirovano, ed., 1 Ca_1np1' e la cult_u_1a etnet1' 'ca monese del Cm’ guecento, 1985, p.176, pl. 1. 16.6; F. Caroli, Sofonisba Angnissola e le sue sorelle, 1987, p. 102-03, pl.6.', I.S. Perilingieri, Sotonisba _A_ngn1'ssola. The First Great Woman Artist of the Renejeeeng, 1992, p.49, 52, pl.24; P. Bufla, ed., Sofonisba Angnissola e 1e sue sorelle, 1994, p.34, 216-17, 220, pl. 16', M. Garrard, "Here's Looking at Me: Sofonisba Anguissola and the Problem of the Woman Artist" Renaissance Qnarterly, Fall 1994, p 556-58, fig.I., S. Ferino-Pagden & M. Kusche, So 0 isba isso : aissa ce W0 :1 , 1995, p.54. (For debate regarding the date of this piece in Sofonisba's oeuvre see above, p. ). Perilingieri notes that "close examination in 1983 and 1988... revealed part of a faint, but still visible, signature. The word 'Virgo', as she often signed herself, and '...SSOIA' are evident in very pale yellow in the lower right-hand comer of the canvas. "23 Several scholars agree to the terrible need of restoration to this work, noting that many details are obscured and that "the surface is warped so that the paint has puckered and is peeling obviously in certain passages of the background"." The work sufl‘ers, besides, under the accumulation of several hundred years of dirt. The background is very dark and only highlights irrdictate any of Campi's hair or clothing. Campi's face appears obscured but remains distinct in its facial delineation especially on the lefl side of the face. Campi's hand does not appear anatomically incorrect (Unpublished, MA Thesis: University of Michigan, August, 1973), p. 71. i h 86 87 so much as 1mdefined. Whereas, Sofonisba's left hand, which holds a pair of gloves, depicts the fore and middle fingers bent and splayed unnaturally (see above for firrther discussion of this feature, p. 42). The easel and wood framing around the portrayed canvas are barely distinguishable. Sofonisba's facial features are well delineated, indicating a fullness that would suggest a younger age. (See above for further discussion of her facial features, p. 32-33). The compositional complexity of this work and its obscure psychological implications have stimulated much scholarly commentary on this piece in the past several years. The recent 1994 and 1995 catalogs offered new insight into when it may have been produced and whether Campi sat for the portrait (see above, p. 15). Other interpretations of this image have considered its composition to imply an undermining of her predecessor or at least as a declaration of independence from his influence. Only Kusche has considered it rather as a representation of the closeness between the two. What meanings lie within the painting will no doubt be the impetus for further scholarly debate. 88 Fig.1]: Selfifienmit, c.1561. Oil on canvas. 14-3/16 x117/16"(28.5 x 24 cm). Milan: Pinacoteca di Brera. Inscription: (not very legible)"[...]OPONTSBA [...]ILCARIS [...]M[...]SIS L[...]XI". Wait, c.1561. Oil on canvas. 14-3/16 x 11 7/16" (28.5 x 24 cm). Milan: Pinacoteca di Brera. Inscription: (not very legible)"[...]OPONISBA [...]ILCARIS [...]M[...]SIS L[...]XI". Provenance: Pinacoteca di Brera acquired from a private collection, 1911. The Brera has kept the work within storage until its recent showing in the Betonisba Angelssola e le go eetelle exhibition. Literature: F. Caroli, Sofonisbe Angnissola e le sue sorell e, 1987, p. 134-35, pl. 25, S Bandera Bisoletti, Bingegee eiBrera.Scuolelo1nbarda, lignre e pieniontese 1535-1729, 1989, pp. 130-31; M. Kusche, "Sofonisba Anguissola en Espana retratista en la corte de Felipe II junto a Alonso Sanchez Coello y Jorge de la Rua" fichivo Espagnol de Arte LXII, 1989, n.248, pp.391-420; A Ghilardi, "Una ricera iconografica nel cenaon delle Anguissola; i ritratti di Minerva" Reeeggne, 1992, p. 35- 43; M. Kusche, "La Antgua Galeria de Retratos del Prado: su impotancia para la obra de Ticiano, Moro, Sanchez Coello y Sofonisba Anguissola y su significado para Felipe ll, su fundador" Aim EepegneLdeArte LXV, 1992,n. 257, p. 1-36; I. S. Perlingieri, isba An issola. e First Wm 1992, p. 139, pl. 83; P. Built. ed. serene, 1994, p.216, 222, 223- 24, 226, 288, 340, pl.20, S. Ferino-Pagden & M. Kusche, BefenisLe Angnissola: A Renaissance Woman, 1995, p.44. This portrait, like that of the Althorp collection (fig.9), received a greater amount of attention to detail than Sofonisba's earlier works. Compositionally the artist portrays herself over much of the canvas surface leaving a very minimal amount of background which is a solid black/ brown hue into which the clothing fades. This self-portrait depicts Sofonisba frontally with her head turned slightly to the right so as the characteriaic portion of the hair braid can be seen. As in the Althorp piece, Sofonisba's hair contains elaborate contrasting tonal ranges resulting in realistic highlighted areas that appear as individual strands. While her hair retains the traditional central part with braiding around the crown of the head, within the braiding magnificent ornamentation of pearl clusters set in gold have been added. Sofonisba's facial depiction appears to be the most meticulous rendition of her features yet discussed. The left half of the face stands in high contrast to the right portion which recedes into the shadows. This dramatic use of Chiaroscuro, only previously 89 9O witnessed in the Naples self-portrait (fig.5), accentuates the heightened precision of the facial features. The right eye recedes into the darkness as the normally light shade of the artist's eye is completely enveloped into a solid dark mass with only a minuscule reflection in the upper left portion. The right eye, also quite dark, retains a glimpse of its light coloration in a crescent shape in the lower right portion. Both eyes are delineated with lines around the interior of the upper and lower eyelids that cause the white of the eye, as well as the highlighted areas of the lids to become emphasized. Likewise the other facial features receive a richer tonal variation than her previous self-portraits making the face appear more volumetric and lifelike. Even the eyebrows illustrate this intricacy as individual hairs are now discermhle as distinct from the shading. Sofonisba has abandoned the previously modest frocks for an elaborately embroidered gown, on which the embroidery highlighted by gold and white pigment, is the only section distinguishable fi'om the backgrormd. The sensuous white fur lined dress collar adds significant textural attributes that produce an interesting contrast to the delicate lace chemise. Perlingieri provides a detailed description of Sofonisba's garments in this portrait noting, for the first time, that the "painting is known to have been signed: "[S]ophonisba [Angu]issola [Am]ilcaris filia [?]ML70‘ (Sofonisba, daughter of Amilcare [illegible] 1561. However, none of this is now visible. "2’ The W catalog expands upon this further noting the inscription's placement above the right shoulder that is now indistinguishable from the highlights upon the embroidery. 2‘P. 139. 91 Perilingieri also addresses the facial illustration with particular focus on the eyes saying "the bulging of the eye closest to the viewer seen in many of her self-portraits (including those at Boston and Paris) is due to the distortion of having viewed herself through a mirror "2" However, in my opinion, the eye does not appear as conspicuously disproportionate as this would indicate. Typically, Caroli provides more bibliographical information concerning the provenance of this painting. Again, he questions whether it is Sofonisba, herself; entitling it instead WW3. He notes that the Brera acquired the work in 1909. 1“Pp.138-39. 92 : Musée Condé. 1564. Chantilly Fig.12: Wit, 1564. Chantilly: Musee Condé. Provenance: Unknown. Exhibitions: Sofonisba Angissola e le sue sorelle, Cremona, Vienna,l994 & 1995 respectively. Literature: P. Bufl'a, ed., Sofonisba Angnissola e le sue sorelle, 1994, p.29 ,40,218, 224, 340. tav.5, S. Ferino-Pagden & M. Kusche, Sofonisba Angnissola: A Renaissance Woman, 1995, p.66,67. The Chantilly Self-Benign; depicts Sofonisba in the most ornate costume of all her self-portraits, surpassing even the Milan painting (fig. 1 1). The image portrays Sofonisba in a bust length composition, with the face shown in a typical, 3/4 pose turned to the left. Characteristically, only one ear comes into view, but this time adorned with an caning. The earring appears to be a gold hoop from which a pearl shaped bobble hangs. No longer can the hair be distinguished as centrally parted, though it is arranged in a braid that wraps about the crown of the head. Within the braiding pearls are set, while on top of the crown of the head a large cluster of pearls appears with a red ornament that appears to be in the shape of a rose. The hair along the brow line has been intricately curled into a rmrltitude of petite ringlets. While the hairstyle appears much more ornate than previously seen, the technique that Sofonisba utilizes of highlighting small areas to emphasize individual strands remains the same. Her facial proportions retain the characteristic allotments: a third of the face equalling the forehead. As previously mentioned, the head is turned slightly to our right, and as in the other portraits, the face is shadowed on that side. Her eyebrows appear prominently arched The eyes are opened, so wide that the iris has a thin stripe of the white of the eye beneath it. The green hue of the iris is apparent in both eyes, with 93 94 reflected highlights in the upper right corner of each iris. Both the upper and lower lids are prominently depicted, with no indication of eyelashes. The eyesocket appears more dominant than in any previous depiction. The nose, typically predominant bears a very distinguished rounded tip, and sharply delineated nostrils. For once the head is turned forward enough that a glimpse of the second nostril can be deciphered. The hollow beneath the nose appears very pronounced as do the lips. The lips again are dimpled at the comers, as the lower lip casts a shadow upon the chin. The cleft indentation upon the chin is also pronormced. The coloration of the cheeks appears a light, peach tone that appears faintly on the chin and fur of the nose. The lips bears an intensified tone of the same hue. Sofonisba's garb consists of a Venetian style collar of intricate lace that comes high beneath the chin. The intricately patterned white lace stands out against the black background and bodice. The darkness of the background makes the bodice indistinguishable except for the areas bearing gold embroidery. The upper left portion of the backgrormd has large cracks. Noticeable, but much lighter and more intricate, cracking appears across the entire face. 95 Fig.13: Seflnmnjt, c.1620. Oil on canvas. 38 5/8 x 30 11/16" (98 x 78 cm). Niva, Denmark: Nivaagaards Art Museum Wt, c.1620. Oil on canvas. 38 5/8 x 30 11/ 16" (98 x 78 cm). Niva, Denmark: Nivaagaards Art Museum Provenance: Unknown. Exhibitions: Sefonisba Angnissola e 1e sue sorelle, Cremona, Vienna,l994 & 1995 respectively. Literature: F. Caroli,S Sofonisba Angnissola e 1e sue sorelle, 1987, p. 146-47, pl. 31; IS Perlingieri, Ween Angissola. ll1e Fitst Great Wo1nan fist 01 the Renaissance, 1992, p.199, pl.113; P. Buffs, ell, Bo fenisba Angnissola e le sue setelle, 1994, p. 306-07, pl. 54. This composition portrays the 3/4 seated figure facing to the right with the head turned frontally on the central vertical axis. As in Sofonisba's earlier self-portraits the figure gazes directly at the observer. Facially, the features bear a stronger resemblance to her earlier works, than doesthe Keller portrait (fig. 14), with its gentle sloping nose and soft, delicate upper lips. Characteristically, her hair is centrally parted, again covered with a veil as in the Keller work, with one ear showing. Additionally, the backgron is a solid color, but it lightens in hue glancing down the canvas. Sofonisba's black dress covered about the shoulders by a black shawl app ears a solid black mass in the upper torso; whereas, in the skirting accented undulating folds are apparent. The collar of the dress is a narrow V-shape with a solid dark cloth covering the lower portion. Uniquely, no chemise collar appears; however, white cufl‘s are displayed in a stylized ruming mimicking the collar in the Keller work, but more freely represented. Both, Perlingieri and Caroli discuss this work. Caroli does not consider it a self- portrait, noting a catalog reference datable to 1908 recognizing the date of the piece as circa 1585. Perilingieri notes that " [in 1927] Nicodemi attrrhuted this portrait to Van Dyck, but recent attribution by Karen Petersen has given it rightfully back to Anguissola. Van Dyck's hallmark were his elegant long, slender tapering hands - which often had a 96 97 boneless, translucent quality - not Anguissola's 'square - U’ - so evident in this self- portrait".27 The hands do have a translucent quality, but certainly bear resemblance to her own typically elongated, slender fingers, an attribute inherited fiom her instruction from Campi, from her other self-portraits. Upon comparing this work with those portraits of Sofonisba by Van Dyck (fig.30 & 31), extreme differences in the way she is portrayed are evident immediately. In stark contrast to this portrait which depicts the artist as aging but still agile, the portrait in the Sackville Collection (fig.32) represents her as greatly aged with sunken cheeks and eyes as well as quite frail The Turin portrait (fig.3 1), goes even further, depicting the artist lying in bed. The form of the body can not be detected beyond her face and her hands which hold a rosary loosely between them While neither of Van Dyck's portraits depict Sofonisba as greatly wrinkled as Giovanni Battista Trotti's portrait (fig. 14), they indicate just as effectively the frailty of the artist. Interestingly, Sofonisba maintains her preference for wearing black and white at this late stage in her life. ’7 ibid, 199. REJECTED PORTRAITS The following portraits incorporate those portraits variously attributed by scholars as either authentic self-portraits or not authentic, but which are here rejected as self- portraits of Sofonisba. This examination's denial of their authenticity relies upon stylistic and technical differences within the images and those stylistic, technical, and physiognomical characteristics consistent throughout Sofonisba's authentic self-portraits. Some of this study's refutations follow those of other scholars. For example, my ' .. .1 -z --to Giovanni Battista or. Trotti (called i1 Malosso), follows assertions of the Weaken: exhibition catalog. At the same time other opinions stated here are my own; for example, attribution of figure 14-- those concerning the Uflizi round portrait and the portrait in the Milanese private collection. 98 99 Fig.14: Giovanni Battista Trotti called 11 Malosso. W W , c. 1610. Oil on canvas. 94 x 75 em. Bern, Switzerland: Godfiied Keller Collection. Inscription: "alla mMagca Sig.a\ Catolica Barbova Angussol[a]" Giovanni Battista Trotti called i1 Malosso. W W , c.1610. Oil on canvas. 94 x 75 cm. Bern, Switzerland: Godfi'ied Keller Collection. Inscription: "alla m.Magca Sig.a\ Catolica Barbova Angussol[a]" Provenance: Unknown. Exhibitions: §efenisba Angnissola e le sue sotelle, Cremona, Vienna,l994 & 1995 respectively. Literature: I.S. Perlingieri, Sof 'sba 'ssola. e ' eat W ist o e aiss cc 1992, p.192, 194, pl. 1 10 ; P. Buffs, ed., Sofonisba mgnissola e 1e sue sorelle, 1994, p. 306, 328- 329, pl.65. Interestingly, the artist--Giovanni Battista Trotti--studied under Bemardino Campi as well Freedberg records his lifespan as 1555-1619 and notes that he was quickly caught up in the new currents of influence, now no longer Mannerist, that came to Cremona from Emilia By the middle of the last decade of the sixteenth century he was working effectively in the repertory of the Carraccesque reform.” As Sofonisba stayed ill contact with Campi and was perhaps his most renowned pupil, Trotti would undoubtedly have been familiar with her accomplishments. Their stylistic differences are quite apparent upon comparison of this portrait to Sofonisba's Niva portrait (fig. 13). This portrayal displays a 3/4-length representation a woman in her late seventies or eighties. Compositionally, she dominates the central axis of the canvas and is seated in a chair, partially seen, with a solid dark background. The facial depiction is quite detailed with intricate wrinkling on the forehead, between the eyebrows, and around the mouth. The eyes do not gaze directly at the viewer as in all of her previous self-portraits, but stare slightly below the gaze of the viewer. The lips are pulsed. The hair is centrally parted and covered by a thin, transparent veiling that hangs down the breast of the dress. The nose 2"Sydney J. Freedberg, W (New York: Pelican Books, [1971] rpt. 1990), p. 591 100 101 has a large protrusion and drops down lower than ill authentic self-portraits of Sofonisba. She wears a black dress that fades into the background in areas. It does not receive very specific detailing other than in the left sleeve and cuff where some shadowing can be found. The white collar and cufl‘s achieve an effect of delineation through emphatic contrast between light and dark The collar is the most elaborate seen in any of her self- portraits, with a continuous undulation of thick, dense ruflling. Her hands are very muscular with veins showing. The left holds a book which is divided by her forefinger. Perilingieri, who believes it to be a self-portrait of the artist, writes that this portrait was produced for King Philip III and "dates from the first decade of the seventeenth century. On the piece of paper she holds in her right hand... [is inscribed]: 'Alla Mag[esta]d Catolica besa la m [8110] Anguissola' (To his Catholic Majesty, I kiss your hand, Anguissola)".29 No discussion of this portrait appears in Caroli's publication. 2’ P. 194. 102 Oil on panel. 35 x 27.5 cm Milan: Private Collection. W. Oil on panel. 35 x 27.5 cm. Milan: Private Collection. Provenance: Unknown prior to the current placement Literature: P. Bufla, ed., Sofonisba Angnissola e le sue sorelle, 1994, p. 220-221, pl. 18, S. Ferino-Pagden & M. Kusche, o 'sba issola: aissa ce W0 a 1995, p.54. This composition appears mentioned for the first time in the recent Sefenielze Angussehelemsemlle catalog, where it is identified as a self-portrait of Sofonisba. However, due to physiognomical disparities between this and Sofonisba's authentic self- portraits, this study argues that it is not a self-portrait. As with other portraits rejected in this study, the primary features that difl'er fi'om those typical of Sofonisba's self-portraits are the jaw line and fullness of cheeks, among others. Once again, the jaw line of the portrayed figure appears very angular, uner her own full jaw line and fill] checks as apparent in any number of her authentic works. Another pertinent feature that differs in this composition is the eye placement; this painting depicts a woman looking off into the distance, completely detached from the viewer's gaze. Sofonisba's gaze has consistently, without deviation, turned to confront the viewer's glance directly. Correlations are possible between the costume worn by the figure and those depicted in works produced in Sofonisba's Spanish period including the Chantilly and Milan self-portraits. However, this woman bears an extensive amount of jewelry including nulltiple necklaces, intricate hair adornment, earrings, and rings that exceed anything portrayed in the Chantilly or Milan paintings. The work also ilhrstrates the figure in a standing 3/4 length pose, never utilized in Sofonisba's extant authentic portraits. While this type of stance can be compared to her portraits of the Spanish royal family, as addressed by the SeibnishaAnmfissolaelem 103 104 serene catalog, differences from her authentic self-portraits outnumber any similarities. The WWW: catalog mentions the work receiving restoration, yet the canvas condition appears more deteriorated, and bears more cracking, than any other work previously discussed. Fig.16: Attributed to Sofonisba Anguissola. WW, c.1570-71. Oil on canvas. 72 x 65 cm. Rome: Galleria Doria Pamphili. Attributed to Sofonisba Anguissola. WW, c.1570-7l. Oil on canvas. 72 x 65 cm. Rome: Galleria Doria Pamphili. Provenance: Unknown prior to the current placement. Literature: G. Greer, [be Obstacle Race, 1979, p.184; F. Caroli, Sofonisba Anguissola e 1e ye sorelle, 1987, p.182-83, pl.A3; I.S. Perlingieri, So 0 'sba 'sso a: e ' t eat W0 an ' mm 1992, p. 142, 152-53, pl.9l. This depiction of a couple raises doubts as to who is portrayed as well as by whom the work was produced. Both Perlingieri and Caroli note that since 1902 the museum's catalog attributed the portrait to Sofonisba which had been named W in 1965 by Torselli. However in 1983 the museum "took the attribution from her and it became an anonymous Italian 16th century work".3° Perlingieri re-attributes it to her; Caroli separates it from her authentic works into only an attributed category. This thesis asserts only its attribution to Sofonisba, on the basis of seeing only black and white photographic reproductions of it. The W593“: catalog excludes it. Both authors discuss the works in varying degrees stylistically and compositionally. Perlingieri writes "the most noticeable feature of this portrait is the striking similarity of her face, which is older-~by ten years-version of Sofonisba's self- portrait at Althorp: the same face with slightly dimpled chin; same shape of the lefi ear; and tiny curls at her hairline-«all softly colored".31 This study disagrees with these listed similarities. Differences within the shaping of the eyes, ears, and jaw line appear quite 3° P. 152. 3‘ P. 152-53. 105 106 distinct from her other self-portraits. The eyebrows do not retain Sofonisba's characteristically arched shape, but rather are thin and flat with little curvation. Likewise, the prominence of the eyes appears reduced as they are not widely opened, but rather of more ordinary proportions. The ear shape difiers from Sofonisba's in the elongated earlobe and less pronounced undulation of an additional curve of flesh above the lobe. Finally, the jaw line appears very angular, making the face rather almond shaped; whereas, Sofonisba's jaw line has always been depicted as much fuller, making the face oval, ahnost round in shape. These differences indicate that this is probably not a self-portrait of Sofonisba. 107 Fig-17: WWI?) Oil on a null walnut panel. 4" (10.2cm) in diameter. Florence: Uffizi Gallery. mmmmmummmman Oil on a small walnut Panel 4" (10.2cm) in diameter. Florence: Uflizi Gallery. Provenance: Cited in the inventory of the "stanzino segreto della villa del Poggia Imperiale, as the property of Vittoria della Rovere".32 Literature: P.P. De Ribera, e Glorie orta ide' '0 et oiche Mgggg‘ gue Donne Illustri agtchie e modeme dotate di conditione, e scienze seggalate 1609,p. 313, S. Meloni Trkulja, 1976, p 38 M. Kusche, "La Antgua Galeria de Retratos del Prado. su impotancia para la obra de Ticiano, Moro, Sanchez Coello y Sofonisba Anguissola y su significado para Felipe 11 8“ fundador" W LXV 1992.n 257 P 9; P Bufiaed mm m, 1994, p.218-219, 220, 286, pl. 17, s. Ferino-Pagden & M. Kusche, WM Wm. 1995, p.44-45, 46, 54, pl. 10. The Walls: catalog discussed this portrait as an authentic self-portrait of Sofonisba, comparing it compositionally to the other miniatures of Boston and the Ashburnham medallion (figs.8 & 7). There are obvious similarities between the Ashburnham medallion and this medallion shaped image, but, in physiognomical attributes this image is quite difl‘emet from that work as well as from the Boston miniature It difl‘ers from those works also in the technical application of the paint , as do the Vancouver, London, and Zeri reproductions (figs. 19, 20, 21). Only the facial area receives any substantial amount of modelling or shading. The typical highlighting within the hair diminishes to a sparse amount along the brow line, with indistinguishable adomments in the braiding. The eyes are brown, unlike Sofonisba's typical blue-green irises. Again, the jaw line appears very angular, unlike the rounded type seen in her authentic works including the Boston and Ashburnham paintings. The background appears a matte green as in the Boston image, and the black dress with white chemise are 3’ P. 218. 108 109 reminiscent of Sofonisba's typical garb; however, again the paint application is extremely flat with only a thin line of highlight to break the monotonous black of the bodice. For these reasons, this study rejects this work as a self-portrait of Sofonisba. Furthermore, if the work should indeed have been produced while Sofonisba was in Spain, then I would doubt its authenticity as a work produced by Sofonisba at all, due to the discrepancy in the technical proficiency between this and the Milan or Chantilly portraits. 110 Fig.18: Wm”, c.1554-55. Chalk sketch (black chalk on white/ blue paper). 301 x 345 mm. Florence: Uflizi, Gabinetto dei Disegni, inv. n. 13936F. Mum also called W, Brahma: ' t ‘ - ' - ° : _ : : _. - ° _=., c.1554—55. Chalk sketch (black chalk on white/ bluef paper). 301 x 345 mm Florence. Uflizi, Gabinetto dei Disegni, mv. n. 13936F. Provenance: Noted by Baldinucci to have been in the collection of Leopoldo de' Medici in the Sixteenth century, as stated in a drawing inventory. From this collection, it was transferred to its current location. Literature: C. Pirovano,ed., Ca 'e acutu aa ' 'ca onese delC' u to, l985,p.301-302, pl. 2. 12. 2, F. Caroli, Sofonisba Anguissola e le sue sorelle, 1987, p. ”, pl; 1. S. Perilingieri, "Sofonisba Anguissola' 5 early sketches" W__o______man' 3 Art Journal (Fall-Winter, 1988-89), 11- 12, ibid, Sofonisba Anguissola. The First Great Woman Artist of the Renaissance, 1992, p.44, 45, pl. 17; P. Bufia, ed. ,Sofonisba Anguissola e le sue sorelle, 1994, p. 270-71; M. Garrard, "Here' 8 Looking at Me: Sofonisba Anguissola and the Problem of the Woman Artist" W Fall 1994, P-614. fig-31. S. Farina-P886611 & M. Kusche. MW 1995. p.20, 40. This drawing is the earliest extant portrait by Sofonisba involving more than one figure. It has been proposed that this portrait sketch is a study done while she was under the supervision of Bemardino Campi Most of her earliest works, of which this is one, involve family members, servants, or herselfin genre scenes. Sofonisba's utilization of family members as models conforms with contemporary restrictions on women from access to models from outside the family. Sofonisba's inclusion in the minor nobility of Cremona made the enforcement of such a restriction necessary. Some scholars, nevertheless, credit this emphasis on genre as an innovation, forming a foundation upon which the late Sixteenth century Northem-Italian genre tradition evolved from. The drawing represents a young girl, probably one of her sisters, in a 3/4 length pose gazing directly at the viewer while pointing to something of importance in the book held by the older woman. Perilingieri, who believes this to be a self-portrait, describes the young girl to be: in her early teens (or possibly at eleven or twelve) wearing a mid-sixteenth century costume with the 111 Medici dam 1 £13“ ofCos hail: sine: paned marke nude [noun remh “fih depk Luck 3] 112 typical corseted bodice and sleeves that re pufied and slashed at the shoulders and then fitted to the wrist with lace at the cufl'. The linen chemise is gathered at the neckline into a drawstring tie. The full skirt is shown gathered at the waist and the overskirt is pulled back and tied her bodice laces up the center front, and the sleeves and chemise are quite plain. The old woman's simple gown suggests that she was a servant in the Anguissola household. 33 As previously mentioned, Baldinucci includes this work in his citation of the Medici drawing collection inventory from the time of Leopoldo de' Medici as one of a set of three drawings that includes her Uflizi Selfilflgrtrait (fig.3) and the WW aflmmfish (fig.22) of c. 1554, both of which are known to have come into the possession of Cosimo I de' Medici at about that time (see above, p. 8-9). The possibility of its being an actual self-portrait diminishes upon comparison of facial attributes with those in the authentic self-portraits. The head of the yormg girl has some characteristics that recur in those images, such as a 3/4 facial pose and the centrally parted hair with a braid wrapping about the crown of the head, but the face here difi‘ers markedly in other features from the authentic examples. This young girl has no cleft markation in her chin and the more petite nose stands in stark contrast to Sofonisba's prominent elongated nose. The eyes are less wide and less wide-open; they are more of an almond shape, in comparison to Sofonisba‘s large, round eyes. The eyes narrow as a result of her smile, as well None of Sofonisba's self-portraits depict her with such a pronounced smile, and with teeth showing. They render only a hint of a smile. Upon consideration of the smiling depiction of this young girl, Sofonisba's Chem (fig. 23) comes to mind in which Lucia, Minerva, and Europa are depicted all smiling in distinctly various states. A fiirther ’3 P. 44. 113 comparison in age and physiognomy of the young girl depicted here and Lucia in the Chessjiame indicates the possibility that this portrait drawing represents Lucia rather than Sofonisba. COPIES OF SELF-PORTRAITS BY FOLLOWERS 0F SOFONISBA ANGUISSOLA The images discussed beloware rejected as authentic self-portraits. They appear to be, rather, copies of self-portraits by followers of Sofonisba Anguissola. Stylistic and technical qualities provide the foundation for such assertions. Of the three works discussed two of them are considered by other scholars to be reproductions. The Vancouver portrait had not entered into any scholarly publication until its inclusion here. Fig-19‘ F0110“? 0‘ Anguissola, possibly a sister- SafeaislzaAnguimlamminiam Oil on unknown material, probably card or parchment. Vancouver: Vancouver Museum 114 Follower of Anguissola, possibly a sister. MW. Oil on unknown material, probably card or parchment. Vancouver: Vancouver Museum Provenance: Unknown. Literature: None known. The Boston Museum of Art holds in its file on their self-portrait a photograph of this image, which is attributed to Sofonisba. No documentation is known for the work and the provenance prior to Vancouver‘s access of the piece is also unknown. The work appears to be a reproduction of the Boston composition, converted to a square format. Little can be said of this work outside of the fact that the application of the paint appears far looser and less accomplished than in Sofonisba's Boston original. This kind of application occurs in the similar composition at the Victoria Albert Museum, also believed to be by a follower of Sofonisba, possibly a sister. 115 116 Fig.20: Follower of Anguissola, possibly a sister. Oil on copper. 9.8 x 9.6 cm London: Victoria and Albert Museum, cat. 103. Follower of Anguissola, possibly a sister. WWW. Oil on copper. 9.8 x 9.6 cm. London: Victoria and Albert Museum, cat. 103. Provenance: Unknown prior to the current placement Literature: Redgrave, 1874, p.9; P. Bufl‘a, ed, “ ‘ ' L ‘ ' ' ele sue sorelle. 1994, p.196. The Wrens catalog includs this image in the discussion of the Boston miniature. Little documentation exists for the work and the provenance prior to London's access of the piece is unknown. The work appears to be a reproduction of the Boston composition, converted to a square format. Unlike the Vancouver image, within the square format a circle appears around the figure. Here the figure looks less like Sofonisba and even more akin to the younger images of Minerva and 1 17 Europa. Compositionally, everything else remains the same outside of the chemise tie in Sofonisba's composition being replaced here by a strand of pearls. As with the Vancouver portrait, little else can be said of this work outside of the fact that the technical application of the paint appears far looser and less accomplishd than in Sofonisba's Boston original. Fig.2]: Follower of Anguissola, possibly a sister. W. Oil on canvas. 66 x 59 cm Mentena: collection of Federico Zeri Inscription (written in all capital letters): MUSAS APELLEM A QVAVI SOPHONISBA PVELEE/ COLORIBVS FUNGENS CARMINIBVSQUE MEIS". Follower of Anguissola, possibly a sister. WM. Oil on canvas. 66 x 59 cm. Mentena: collection of Federico Zeri Inscription (written in all capital letters): MU SAS APELLEM A QVAVI SOPHONISBA PVELEE/ COLORIBVS FUNGENS CARMINIBVSQUE MEIS". Provenance: Unknown prior to the current placement. Literature: B.Berenson, Italian Pam ters of me Emaisggce: Central ltalim and North Italian Schools, 3 vols, 1968, vol. I, p.14; F. Caroli, Sofonisba Anguissola e 1e sue sorelle, 1987, p.107, pl.9.; P. Bufl‘a, ed., 80 onisba 'ssola e sue sorelle, 1994, p.200-01, p1.8, S. Ferino-Pagden & M Kusche, Sofonisba Anguissola: A Renaissang Woman, 1995, p.22. This composition depicts an apparent replication of Sofonisba's Lancut composition. The canvas size differs by only two centimeters in width. Berenson and Caroli attributed the painting to Sofonisba herself; on the basis of the signature. Only the recent WM: catalog denotes the work as by one of the sisters of Sofonisba, citing Anna Maria or Europa as the possible painters.34 Here, as in the Vancouver and London reproductions, a definitive deriviation in style from Sofonisba is apparent. The paint application appears much less proficient with little variation in tonality resulting in a very comparatively flat appearance. 3‘ P. 200. 118 Supplementary Images 7 l - ' . v r‘ ' ’ ."~ Fig.22: WWW, c.1554, Chalk sketch (black chalk on white/blue paper), 301 x 345mm Florence: Ufl‘izi. Fig.23: Chessfiame, 1555. Poznan: Muzeum Nardowva 119 Fig.25: Catarina van Hemmessen. Selfillomm, 1548, oil on panel Basel: Offentliche Kimstammlung. Fig.27: Titian. Wm, c.1534-36, oil on canvas. Vienna: Kimsthistoriches Museum 122 Fig.28: Parmigianino. MW c.1535. Florence: UfliZL Fig.29: Parmigianino. Antes, 1535-37. Naples: Pinacoteca del Museo Nazionale. Fig.30: Lucia Anguissola. mm, oil on canvas. Milan: Castello Sforzesco, inv. no. 562. Fig.3l: Anthony Van Dyck. WW, 1624. Turin: Galleria Sabauda. 124 Fig.32: Anthony Van Dyck. BMW, 1624. Knole, Kent: Lord Sackville Collection. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY , g , Adams, Phoebe-Lou. Rev. of ' ° _ ’ ' Renaissance, by llya Sandra Perilingieri AtlanticMLthly(Sept 1992),121-22. Alberti, Leon Battista. whiting, trans. Cecil Grayson. New York: Penguin Books, re.) 1972 & 1991. Baskins, Cristelle. Rev. of o_u Renaissance by Ilya Sandra erlingieii Sixteenihflmtiulorunal XXIV /_ _ ’ 2 (1993), 447-448 -. New York: GB Putnam's Berensen, Bernard. 5 o, ._ Sons, 1907. Buffa, Paolo, ed. WWW. Milan: Leonardo Arte, 1994. Broude, Norma and Mary Garrard, eds. W. New York: HarperCollins, 1992. Campbell,Lome. tau: :. - ' '. ' 1W5. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990. Caroli, Flavio. WWW. Milan: Amoldo Mondadori Editore S.p.A, 1987. Chadwick, Whitney. W. London: Thames and Hudson, 1990. Cheney. Liana Rev of SeismsbeAamnsselaelesreserelle by Flavio Caroli Smeenih MUN/40993), 941 942. ------- Rev of > 1 11, Ilya Sandra Perlingieri. 1W XXIV/ 4 (1993), 942-947. Cook, Herbert. ”More Portraits by Sofonisba Anguissola." W 26 (1915), 228-36. Cropper, Elizabeth. "On Beautifiil Women: Parmigianino, Petrarchismo and the Vernacular Style." Anfinllejjn 58 (1976): 374-94. Emison,P.. Rev. of_tufigl __._' ' . - Renaissance, by Ilya Sandra Perlingieri. Choice 30: 3 (Nov, 1992), 456. 1.) \gj‘"; ’l/ 125 126 Fine,ElsaHonig.11m1:.1_n ‘j" ’11 1f111__1.n’.m r :_11 11,,1111'1111 1' W. Montclair: Allanheld and Schram, 1978. Ferino-Pagden, Sylvia and Maria Kusche. _ ‘ .. ‘ - ._ _ : Washington, D. C.: The National Muscum of Women in the Arts, 1995. Firenzuola, Agnolo. WW, trans. and ed. Konrad Eisenbichler and Jacqueline Murray. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1992. Freedberg, Sydney 1. WWW. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1950. ----- . Eanmn' ' g In Italy; 1550-1600. New York: Pelican Books, 1971, rpt.1990. Garrard, Mary. "Here's Looking at Me: Sofonisba Anguissola and the Problem of the Woman Artist." WW (Fall, 1994), 556-622. 1.31 ----- "Renaissance Innovator" Rev of WW 9. ArtisteftheRmaissance, by Ilya Sandra Perlingieri Wm 80 (Sept, 2‘ 1992), 33- 35. Glenn,SharleeMullins. 1" D: : 111,1.“ 1111..1q 331‘11‘ 71°11a1311fia Unpublished, M. A. Thesis: Brigham Young University, 1989. ----- . "Sofonisba Anguissola: History's Forgotten Prodigy.” Wes 18:2-3 / (Sept, 1990), 295-308. New York: Farrar Straus Gitoux, 1979. . Hamlisch. Claire. mmmmmmsommammnsimn Cremonesefiainter. Unpublished, M.A Thesis: University of Michigan, August, 1973. Harris, Ann Sutherland and Linda Nochlin. W259. Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 1976. Jacobs, Fredrika. "Women's Capacity to Create: The Unusual Case of Sophonisba Anguissola." W11! 47 (1994), 74-101. Kelso, Ruth. MW Urbano: University of Illinois Press, 1956 and 1978. 127 King, Margaret and Albert Rabil. eds. mm. Binghampton: Center . for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies, 1983. “ C Kusche, Maria. Rev. of - 1 11'1 Renaissance by Ilya Sandra Perlingieri RurnngionMagame(Sept 1993) 640 Labalme, Patricia H.. - - : _ __ New York. New York University Press, 1980. Maclcan, Ian. IheRenaissaneeNetienefflemn Cambridge: . 1980- . cl . . «.7 Maselli, Marigrace. Rev. of _ 1 11' 1 ‘ ' . ‘ _ (3 Renaissance, by Ilya Sandra Perlingieri Madonna] 117: 11 (June 15, ’1/ 1992), 74. Murray, Jacqueline. "Agiolo Firenzuola on Female Sexuality and Women‘ s Equality." Seneenthfiennuxloumal 20: 2 (1991) 199-213 Perlingieri, Ilya Sandra. "Lady in Waiting: Rediscovering the forgotten brilliance of an illustrious Renaissance painter. " Amdfintiqugs (April 1988), 66-71. -----. "Sofonisba Anguissola's early sketches." WW 19(Fa11/Winter, 1988-89), 10-14. ----- . 111.1-.:I4 .1: I1"‘11_'1 1111:1aii‘11 1714-11151 .New York: Rizzoli, 1992. Pope-Hennessy, John. Wee. New York: Bolligen Foundation, 1966. Pirovano, Carlo, ed. Electra, 1985. Rogers, Mary. "The Deconim of Women's Beauty: Trissino, Firenzuola, Luigini and the Representation of Women in Sixteenth-Century Painting. " WW 2 (1988), 47-87 Schutte, Anne Jacobson. "Irene di Spilimbergo: The Image of a Creative Woman in Late Renaissance Italy." W 44:1 (Spring 1991), 42-61 Simon, Robert B.. "The Identity of Sophonisba Anguissola's Young Man. " W thelflaltetsAnfiallem 44 (1986), 117-22. Snyder, James. _ -' - 1.1' .111. 135019 1575. New York: Abrams, 1985. Tolnay, Charles de. "Sofonisba Anguissola and Her Relations with Michelangelo." WW4 (1941), 115-19. Vertova, Luisa. "Exhibition Reviews: Lavinia versus Sofonisba." Apollo (January, 1995), 43-46.