v g»... .. E J:- .to fiiflaflxwwsm. . P. , i. . . ¢ = i i .313qu x uh”: 1.45 4 4... 9mm v.22: 1‘31 . . 3. ...HM..}.. . .3 . .l.l I: F... 111:... t 2.- . a... .153”. .1...” P A: .Wfl A»? . .0“! ; .Lflau. Wfl‘fi’ifi .2003 This is to certify that the thesis entitled SOFONISBA ANGUISSOLA’S DOUBLE PORTRAIT presented by MEGHAN JANE KALASKY MUSOLFF has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for the MA. degree in History of Art Major Professor’s Signature 5; Date MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution _._.-‘-.-.—.—.-.—~.--- —--.-.-O-I-O-.-.-I-c—u- < LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. To AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE .MAY112005 1012“ “II --_ c VVL. 1 _ U/ L—k. 6/01 cJCIRCJDateDuopGS—als SOFONISBA ANGUISSOLA’S DOUBLE PORTRAIT By Meghan Jane Kalasky Musolff A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Art and Art History 2003 ABSTRACT SOFONISBA ANGUISSOLA’S DOUBLE PORTRAIT By Meghan Jane Kalasky Musolff Over the last several decades, Sofonisba Anguissola’s Double Portrait has become one of the best known works in the expanded canon of feminist art history. This thesis will examine evidence regarding provenance and attribution of the painting, which has been recently cleaned and restored. The chapters of the thesis offer three interpretations as to the function and meaning of the Double Portrait. The first interpretation is that the painting functioned as a lasting tribute to the friendship between Anguissola and her teacher, Bernardino Campi. The second interpretation recognizes Anguissola’s adherence to the tradition of St. Luke painting the Virgin as the artist’s subtle statement demonstrating her virtue. The third interpretation focuses on Anguissola’s struggle with two personas and her use of the allegory of prudence to produce a painting that illustrated the societal pressures on a noble female artist. The thesis concludes by demonstrating that these three interpretations work together to produce a painting in which Anguissola innovatively employed her knowledge of artistic tradition to figure her unique position in society. Copyright by MEGHAN JANE KALASKY MUSOLFF 2003 To Corey ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to extend my sincere thanks to Dr. Estelle Lingo whose encouragement and experience were essential elements to the completion of this thesis. Because of Dr. Lingo’s perseverance, I have reworked this thesis into a document of which I am very proud. Moreover, I would also like to thank Dr. Lingo and a second thesis committee member, Dr. Stuart Lingo, for their recommendations, which enabled me to travel to Italy for research. It is because of their efforts, along with funding from the Department of Art and Art History and the College of Arts and Letters, that l was able to see Sofonisba Anguissola's Double Portrait in person. I would like to thank my other committee member, Dr. Susan Bandes, for taking the time to participate in my committee. I am also grateful to Dr. Jan Simpson and Susan Morris. Without their support and conversations, this thesis would not be complete. I cannot think of a better place to be employed and encouraged that Michigan State University’s Visual Resource Library. I extend many, many thanks to my fellow art history graduate students (Nicole, Heather, Valerie, and Jennifer) whose listening and understanding of my thesis woes made it possible for me to finish. Finally, I would like to thank my family for always believing in me and for their constant encouragement. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter LIST OF FIGURES INTRODUCTION I THE INFLUENCE OF FRIENDSHIP PORTRAITURE ll ANGUISSOLA’S VIRTUE AND THE TRADITION OF ST. LUKE III ANGUISSOLA’S DIVIDED SELF: THE ALLEGORY OF PRUDENCE AND ITS RELATION TO THE DOUBLE PORTRAIT CONCLUSION FIGURES BIBLIOGRAPHY vi Page vii 16 33 48 49 87 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Figure 1. Sofonisba Anguissola. Bernardino Campi Painting Sofonisba Anguissola or The Double Portrait, c.1559. Oil on Canvas, 111x109.5 cm. Siena, Pinacoteca Nazionale. Figure 2. Sofonisba Anguissola. Bernardino Campi Painting Sofonisba Anguissola or The Double Portrait [before restoration], c.1559. Oil on Canvas, 111x109.5 cm. Siena, Pinacoteca Nazionale. Figure 3. Sofonisba Anguissola. Portrait of Amilcare, Minerva, and Asdrubale Anguissola, c. 1557-8. Oil on canvas, 157x122 cm. Nivaagaards Malerisamling, Niva, Denmark. Figure 4. Jacopo Tintoretto. Portrait of Procurator Antonio Cape/lo, c.1560/2. Gallerie dell’Accademia, Venice. Figure 5. Engraved Portrait of Domenico Tintoretto. Figure 6. Engraved Portrait of Marietta Tintoretto. Figure 7. Attributed to Marietta Robusti. Self- Portrait at the Keyboard, c. 1580. Florence, Galleria degli Uffizi. Figure 8. Sofonisba Anguissola. Self-Portrait, c.1561. Oil on Canvas, 28.5x24 cm. Milan, Pinacoteca di Brera. Figure 9. Sofonisba Anguissola. Self-Portrait, detail, c.1561. Oil on Canvas, 28.5x24 cm. Milan, Pinacoteca di Brera. vii Page 50 51 52 53 54 54 55 56 57 Figure Figure 10. Sofonisba Anguissola. Self-Portrait, c. 1552. Oil on Copper Miniature, 8.2x6.3 cm. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts. Figure 11. Sofonisba Anguissola. Self-Portrait with Easel, late 15505. Oil on Canvas, 66x57 cm. Lancut, Museum Zamek. Figure 12. Sofonisba Anguissola. Self-Portrait at the Keyboard, c. 1555-56. Oil on Canvas, 56.5x48 cm. Naples, Museo Nazionale di Capodimonte. Figure 13. Sofonisba Anguissola. Self-Portrait, Oil on Canvas, 44.8x34.2 cm. Milan, Museo - Poldi Pezzoli. Figure 14. Sofonisba Anguissola. Self-Portrait, 1552. Oil on Canvas, 88.5x69 cm. Florence, Gallerie degli Uffizi. Figure 15. Sofonisba Anguissola. Self-Portrait, 1554. Oil on Panel, 17x12 cm. Vienna, Kunsthistoriches Museum. Figure 16. Sofonisba Anguissola. The Chess Game, 1555. Oil on Canvas, 70x94 cm. Poznan, Museum Narodowe. Figure 17. Sofonisba Anguissola. Holy Family with Saints Anne and John, 1592. Oil on Canvas, 123x109 cm. Coral Gables, Florida, Lowe Art Museum, University of Miami. Figure 18. Anguissola Family (Elena Anguissola?). Portrait of Dominican Nun (Self- Portrait of Elena?), c.1558. Oil on Canvas, 24x18 cm. Rome, Borghese Gallery. viii Page 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 Figure Figure 19. Joseph Cavalli, engraving after sixteenth-century portrait of Bernardino Campi. From Giambattista Zaist, Notizie iston'che de pitton', sculton', ed architetti cremonese, 1774. Figure 20. Anonymous Cremonese. Medal of Bernardino Campi, c.1570. Brescia, Musei Civici. Figure 21. Engraved copy of Sofonisba Anguissola. Self-Portrait at Three-Quarter Length, 15603. Formerly Leuchtenberg Collection Figure 22. Sofonisba Anguissola (?). Two Children Who Laugh. Private Collection. Figure 23. Sofonisba Anguissola. Self-Portrait with Old Woman, 0. 1545. Chalk Sketch, 302x402 cm. Florence, Uffizi Gallery, Gabinetto dei Disegni. Figure 24. Sofonisba Anguissola. Pieta, 0.15503. Oil on Canvas, 50x40 cm. Milan, Pinacoteca di Brera. Figure 25. Bernardino Campi. Pieta. c. 15503. Milan, Pinacoteca di Brera. Figure 26. Bernardino Campi. St. Jerome. Cremona, San Sigismondo. Figure 27. Sofonisba Anguissola. Portrait of an Old Man, c. 1558-1565. Oil on Canvas, 88.9x73.6 cm. Lincolnshire, Stamford, Burghley House. Figure 28. Luca Cambiaso. Madonna with Child. Figure 29. Sofonisba Anguissola. Madonna with Child. Oil on Canvas, 77x63.5 cm. Budapest, Szepmuveszet Muzeum. Page 67 68 69 69 70 70 71 71 72 72 73 Figure Figure 30. Luca Cambiaso. Portrait of the Artist painting a Portrait of his Father, 1575-80. Whereabouts unknown. Figure 31. Jacopo Pontormo. Double Portrait, 1522. Venice, Fondazione Giorgio Cini. Figure 32. Raphael. Portrait of Andrea Navagero and Agostino Beazzano, 1516. Rome, Galleria Doria-Pamphili. Figure 33. Raphael. Self-Portrait with Fencing Master, c. 1519. Paris, Louvre. Figure 34. Sofonisba Anguissola. Portrait of Husband and IMfe, c.1570-71. Oil on Canvas, 72x65 cm. Rome, Galleria Doria Pamphili. Figure 35. Antonis Mor, Self-Portrait at the Easel, 1558. Florence, Gallerie degli Uffizi. Figure 36. Roger van der Weyden. Saint Luke Portraying the Virgin, c. 1435. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts. Figure 37. Giorgio Vasari (finished by Allori). St. Luke painting the Virgin, 0. 1567-73. Florence, SS. Annunziata, Cappella di 8. Luca. Figure 38. Sofonisba Anguissola (?). Self- Portrait at an Easel. Oil on Canvas, 66x59 cm. Mentena, Collection of Federico Zeri. Figure 39. Sofonisba Anguissola. Self-Portrait at the Easel, c. 1550-52. Oil on Panel, 18.5x23 cm. Private Collection of William Stirling. Figure 40. Catherine van Hemessen. Self- Portrait at the Easel, 1548. Basel, Offentliche Kunstsammlung. Figure 41. Frans Floris. St. Luke painting the #Virgin, 1556. Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten. Page 73 74 74 75 76 77 78 78 79 79 8O 80 Figure Figure 42. Sofonisba Anguissola. Portrait of 3 Dominican Monk, 1556. Oil on Canvas, 57x53 cm. Brescia, Pinacoteca Tosio Martinengo. Figure 43. Titian. Self-Portrait, early 15503. Berlin, Staatliche Museum, Gemaldegalerie. Figure 44. Jacopo Tintoretto. Copy after a Self- Portrait, c. 1546-48. London, Victoria and Albert Museum. Figure 45. Jacopo Tintoretto. Copy of a Self- Portrait, c. 1564-48. Philadelphia, Philadelphia Museum of Art. Figure 46. Jacopo Tintoretto. Self-Portrait, c. 1589. Paris, Louvre. Figure 47. Tarocchi Cards. Prudence, c. 1465. Figure 48. Giovanni Bellini (Workshop). Allegory of Prudence. Venice, Gallerie dell’ Accademia. Figure Figure 49. Titian. Allegory of Time Goverened by Prudence, c. 1565. London, National Gallery. xi Page 81 82 83 83 84 85 85 86 INTRODUCTION Over the past several decades, the Double Portrait (Figure 1) in the Pinacoteca Nazionale in Siena has entered the expanded canon of art history because of its attribution to the female painter Sofonisba Anguissola (1532/5- 1632).1 This attribution, and the identification of the sitters as Sofonisba and her teacher, Bernardino Campi, have gained widespread acceptance, together with an interpretation of the Double Portrait as Anguissola’s assertion of her artistic dominance over Campi. This thesis will examine the evidence for this interpretation and will offer a new reading of the portrait. But first, since the painting has recently been cleaned and restored, the visual evidence of the Double Portrait will be scrutinized and the attribution re-examined. The painting depicts a male artist at work on a canvas portraying a young, elegantly but discreetly dressed woman. The unusually large size of the Double Portrait within Anguissola’s portrait oeuvre has not been sufficiently emphasized. According to the most recent publication on the Double Portrait, the painting measures 111 x 109.5 cm.2 The size of the painting is important for two reasons. First, when compared to other attributed works in Anguissola’s oeuvre, this painting is considerably larger, especially compared to her self-portraits. The increase in the size of Anguissola’s self-portrait will become important as an indicator of an increase in the artist’s self-confidence as discussed in the third chapter. Second, because of the painting’s size, a common function (but not the 1 While the museum and most publications title the work Bernardino Campi Ffinting Sofonisba Anguissola, I will refer to the painting as the Double Portrait throughout this text. Gonzaga: La Celeste Galeria: Le Raccolte. exhibition catalogue, (Milan: Skira, 2002), p. 106. only function) of portraiture can be disregarded. During the sixteenth century, there is evidence of portraits that were produced as small keepsakes and mementos, which the owner would carry with him or her during travel. While this painting probably did function as a remembrance portrait of some kind, the immense size of the painting is evidence against its use as a portable keepsake and suggests that the canvas was displayed in a more permanent home. The large size of the Double Portrait is notable not only in the painting as a whole, but also in the figures themselves, which are slightly larger than life-size. The size gives the painting a sense of importance and monumentality, especially the female figure, as she towers above and gazes beyond the viewer. Despite the benefit of a recent cleaning, the Double Portrait remains in poor condition and heavily crackled. Because of the cleaning, relevant details have emerged from the darkness of the painting, allowing it to be more available to the viewer and for academic study.3 The most significant change to emerge in the cleaning is the vibrant red color of the woman’s dress.4 While in previous reproductions of the painting, the dress takes on a plain black appearance, the dress has now become the liveliest aspect of the painting. The elaborate gold decoration of the dress extends only to the female’s elbow, leading one to 3 When comparing a photograph of the painting before cleaning (Figure 2) to a photograph taken after the cleaning (Figure 1), certain discrepancies between the two versions of the painting are apparent. Before cleaning, two strings from each side of the sitter’s bodice were tied together in a small bow, while two strings with tassels fell softly down her chest, with one of the tassels falling near the male painter’s hand. As can be seen in the cleaned version, all evidence of these untied strings is gone. Evidently, the strings were thought to be a later addition to the painting, thus explaining their removal. 4 It is interesting to note the dramatic change between the dress color in the cleaned and uncleaned versions of the painting. While the red color of the dress is exposed through cleaning, other aspects of the painting remain unchanged. As a possible explanation, I suggest that perhaps the dress was painted over in black along with the addition of the now absent strings. Thus, like these strings, the black of the dress was removed because it was a later addition to the painting. assume that the male painter is in fact applying the gold decoration with his paintbrush and that the portrait of the female represented in the painting is unfinished. Underneath the beautiful dress, the female wears a white bodice, which can be seen in the small detail at her wrist and the projection of the bodice around her neck. The white undershirt that emerges from underneath her sleeve represents one of the few passages in the painting where the paint application becomes loose and the brushstrokes apparent. When compared to the collar of the bodice, which is rendered in exacting detail, the bodice near the sleeve is executed with bold, expressionistic brushstrokes with little detail. A possible explanation for the lack of precision could be that this part of the painting, too, was intended to appear as yet unfinished.5 The collar of the bodice is a delicate lacy fringe, which is then tied in a small bow at the base of the female’s neck. Without significant jewelry (only a small earring) or other adornment, the elaborate dress is the only apparent visual clue to the female’s wealth and status within her society. With a slightly elongated neck, the woman’s head is in both the center of the depicted canvas and the Double Portrait as a whole. She is posed with one hand. in front of her body, grasping a pair of gloves, while the other hand seems to be posed on her hip. The portrait is devoid of a setting, except for the indication of something behind the woman, possibly a balustrade. 5 In Renaissance portraiture, it is common for the costumes of the sitters to have less attention paid to them than the sitter’s physical features. This could be another possible explanation for the lack of definition found in the sleeve detail and the lack of gold decoration found below the female’s elbow. The physical characteristics of the female sitter, her face and her left hand, differ in the amount of painterly attention paid to them and also in their relative clarity. Beginning with her hand, two fingers are extended in somewhat of a “V” shape, while the other fingers remain clenched to her palm. There is no definition in regards to the hand as a whole, and no details are given (for example, there is no delineation of the fingernails). Again, this lack of definition in the lower section of the portrait of the woman conveys the impression that the canvas is in progress.‘5 In contrast with the depiction of the hand, the female’s face is rendered in complete clarity, with attention given to certain facial features, especially the eyes and the mouth. There is a natural softness to the face as it fades into the darkness. The painting seems to focus on the female’s large and emphasized green eyes. Her lips and cheeks appear unnatural in their red and rosy appearance, perhaps suggesting the use of some sort of cosmetics to enhance her features. Whereas the hand is rendered freely, with exposed brushstrokes, the face lacks any evidence of the artist’s brush. She wears her hair, speckled with golden highlights, in a common Renaissance fashion: parted in the middle, pulled back, and wrapped with a braided section. 6 It is hard to say whether the artist of the Double Portrait intended for the portrait of the female figure to appear unfinished or if the painting as a whole was abandoned before it was completed. There is an interesting connection between the “unfinished" aspect of the Double Portrait and a second work by Anguissola. In Anguissola’s Porfiit of Amilcare. Minerva, and Asdrubale Anguissola (Figure 3), scholars have noted that the painting appears unfinished. The boy’s clothing and hands and the father’s hand are painted In a loose manner and lack definition. These details are close in appearance to unfinished details found in the Double Portrait, which leads us to assume that the painting, it in fact by Anguissola, was abandoned and not finished. The unfinished state of the painting leads me to believe that the painting was never given to a patron, but rather was kept by a close friend or relative of Anguissola. See page 31 for a discussion of the patron of the Double Portrait. By contrast, the male sitter appears unchanged after the cleaning. His face and hand appear out of the darkness with no evidence of the outline of his back. He is dressed in a black painter’s cloak, with a white undershirt appearing around his neck and at his wrists. Portrayed in momentary action, he turns towards the viewer as if the viewer has just interrupted his painting of the portrait in front of him. In his right hand, held above the painted female’s chest by a maulstick, he holds a thin paintbrush, revealed by the recent cleaning. Steadied by the maulstick, the man is in the process of applying the finishing touches to the woman’s gown, as made apparent by the slightest hint of gold on the paintbrush. As with the woman’s hand, the paint is again applied loosely to form the hand, with very little detail given — for example, again no sign of fingernails. Because of this painterly quality of the hand, it appears to vibrate with movement. The similarity in the painterliness of the hands works together with the matching gestures of both hands: her hand attempts to be a mirror image of his hand, even though this pose renders the act of holding gloves awkward. The painterly technique is carried over into the barely indicated white undergannent worn by the male. At the wrist and neck, the garment is painted with broad strokes of white paint, with little detail given. While this lack of definition was noticed in the sleeve of the woman, with the man’s sleeve these broad brushstrokes are executed with more confidence and assertion than the awkward, almost sloppy, ripple of paint that represents the female’s sleeve. As he turns to confront the viewer, the painter’s face is exposed, yet some of it remains in shadows. The light hits the side of his face, revealing a painted face that is similar in quality to the portrait of the female sitter. There is little evidence of any brushstrokes, except perhaps in the minute detail of the graying hairs at his temple. As with her portrait, there is the absence of a hard outline, but the unexposed side of his face dissolves into the darkness. There exist similarities between the treatments of the male and female In the painting, even though according to the narrative, one figure is “alive” while the other is a painted portrait. Both figures are shown in three-quarter length with a single hand and face exposed to the viewer. As mentioned before, the hands seem to be mirror replicas of each other. And with each figure the emphasis is on the face, while costume details are treated as secondary, as evident from their quick and loose application of paint. Despite the similarities between the two figures, there exists a definite difference between each individual’s implied importance. Whereas the male figure’s face is half covered in darkness, the painted portrait of the female appears frontally, centrally, and visually higher on the canvas than the male figure. The great lengths that are taken to separate the male from his female subject further underscore this disguised emphasis on the female portrait. For example, the maulstick creates a visual and physical barrier between the portrait and the painter, allowing the painter the smallest access possible to the female with his miniscule paintbrush. F urtherrnore, the edge of the portrait’s canvas separates the man’s face from the female’s portrait, again implying a separation between the two figures. These differences between the treatment of the female and the male will become important when we turn to discuss the function of the Double Portrait and the identification of the figures. The issues of provenance and attribution are closely associated in the history of the painting. The most accurate information regarding the attribution of the painting is found in the records of the painting’s only known, and current, location, the Pinacoteca Nazionale in Siena. The Double Portrait, inventoried as number 497, first appears in the museum’s catalog of 1852, in which it is attributed to an anonymous Venetian painter.7 In the succeeding museum catalogs (1864, 1872, 1885, 1903), the painting is attributed to the Venetian painter Jacopo Robusti. known as Tintoretto (1519-1594).8 Beginning with the 7 Flavio Caroli, Sofonisba Antmissolie le sue sorelle, (Milan: A. Modadori, 1987), p. 102. 8 lbid. For example, the catalog of 1903 identifies the painting as “Un pittore in atto di fare un ritratto di donna”, attributed to Jacopo Tintoretto. See Catalogo della Galleria del R. Lstiuto Provincigle di Belle Arti in Siena, (Siena: 1903), p. 158. Since it appears that the attribution to Tintoretto has never been explored, I would like to take a moment to consider Tintoretto's relationship to the painting. Unlike Anguiussola, Tintoretto left behind an abundance of portraits with which to compare the Double Portrait. When comparing the painting style in the Double Portrait to that found in portraits by Tintoretto, immediate differences in the application of paint can be established. In Tintoretto’s Portrait of Procurator Antonio Cfiapello (Figure 4), contemporary with the Double Portrait, in the Gallerie dell’ Accademia in Venice, there is an overwhelming looseness of brushstroke not found in the Double Portrait, except in small passages. In particular, the beard and the cuff of the Procurato’s gown are rendered with small, quick and exposed brushstrokes. Similarly, long brushstrokes of white are used to highlight the man’s gown. The dissolving outline of Capello’s figure in Tintoretto's portrait is outlined with a sharp black line against the background and absent is the fine detail present in our female’s dress. Generally, Tintoretto’s portraiture lacks the luminosity and presence found in the Double Portrait. [For more information on Tintoretto’s style and portraiture, see Tom Nichols, Tintoretto: Traditiognd Identity, (London, Reaktion Books, 1999)]. Besides the difference in painting style, the Double Portrait would be unusual for Tintoretto. There are few examples of two people appearing together in the portrait oeuvre of Tintoretto, nor did the artist execute many portraits of women. This fact makes the attribution to Tintoretto even more unlikely. The questions remains, if Tintoretto executed the painting, who then are the figures in the painting? An intriguing suggestion would be that the painting depicts Tintoretto’s son, Domenico (1560-1635), painting a portrait of his sister, Marietta (31554-31590), Tintoretto’s famous daughter. While this situation is plausible, a physical comparison between known portraits of Domenico (Figure 5), Marietta (Figure 6), and the figures in the painting does not seem to support this identification. [The included portraits of Domenico and Marietta are engravings that accompanied the family’s biography by Carlo Ridolfi, The Life of Tintorettojand of His Children Domenico and Magetg, translated and edited by Catherine and Robert Enggass, (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1984). For another possible example of a portrait depicting Marietta, see her self-portrait in the Uffizi Gallery in Florence (Figure 7)]. museum’s 1909 catalog, the authorship of the painting is taken away from Tintoretto and given to Sofonisba Anguissola.9 It is likely the museum’s attribution to Anguissola is based upon a description of the painting in a section dedicated to Sofonisba in Giovanni Morelli’s Italian Painters: Critical Studies of their Works. In his discussion of the artist, Morelli included a description of a painting in Siena, which he attributes to Anguissola. There are some half-dozen other portraits of herself [Anguissola] in existence. One, in the Academy at Siena, represents her as a girl of about eighteen or nineteen, and must therefore have been executed about 1558. Beside her stands a man with a pencil in his hand — probably her former master, Bernardino Campi, who was born about 1522, and looks about forty in this picture. The figures are life-size.10 How did Morelli come to attribute the painting to Anguissola and to identify the individuals in the painting as Anguissola and Bernardino Campi (1522-1591), her former teacher? It is my belief that his attribution is based upon the similarities between the physical characteristics of the female in the Double Portrait and other known self-portraits of Anguissola. If, for example, the female portrait is compared to the self-portrait of Anguissola in Milan’s Pinacoteca di Brera (Figure 8 and 9), the physical characteristics are incredibly similar: the small red lips, the rounded and dimpled chin, the large eyes, and the general shape of the ear.11 Further similarities can be seen between the hairstyle in both 9 lbid. See Catalogo della Galleria del R.lstituto Provinciaje di Belle Arti in Siena, (Siena: Tipografia aIl’ Insegna dell’ Ancora. 1909), p. 158. 1° Giovanni Morelli, Italian Painters; Critical Studies of their Works, 2"“ vol., translated by Constance Jocelyn Ffoulkes, (London: J. Murray, 1892-3), p. 197. 1‘ It must be noted that the portrait in the Brera has been previously identified as Sofonisba’s sister Minerva, but currently the museum identifies the portrait as a self-portrait by portraits as well as the costume of both females, especially the exposed white bodice with dangling white strings. The woman in the Double Portrait is physically similar to other self-portraits of Anguissola, namely the miniature Self- Portrait in Boston (Figure 10), the Self-Portrait with Easel in Lancut (Figure 11), and the Self-Portrait at the Keyboard in Naples (Figure 12). Including the Double Portrait, Morelli mentioned eleven other works by Anguissola and numerous others painted by her sisters, Lucia, Europa, and Anna Maria.12 Unfortunately, Morelli lists the location of many works instead of giving a physical description or title, making the matching of Morelli’s paintings to existing portraits difficult. While most of Morelli’s attributions to Anguissola hold today [the self-portraits in Milan (Figure 8 and 13), Florence (Figure 14), Vienna (Figure 15), the Chess Game (Figure 16), the Holy Family (Figure 17)], a few paintings have been given either to one of her sisters or followers. One such example is the Portrait of a Nun (Figure 18), now in the Borghese.13 Morelli’s description of Anguissola’s oeuvre is brief: “Most of her portraits pass under other names; they are all fresh and spirited in conception and solidly painted.”14 It would seem that Morelli attributed the Double Portrait to Anguissola based on these stylistic similarities alone. Early twentieth-century scholars, including Luigi Dami, Cesare Sofonisba. See Luisa Arrigoni, Emanuela Daffra, and Pietro C. Marani, The Brera Galleg: The OfficiaLGuide. (Milan: Soprintendenza perl Beni Artistici e Storici, 1998), p. 153. ‘2 Morelli, p. 197-199. ‘3 Sofonisba Anquissolar e le sue sorelle, exhibition catalogue, (Italy: Leonardo arte, c.1994), p. 294. The exhibition catalogue attributes the painting to one of the Anguissola sisters, possibly a self-portrait by Elena. ’4 Morelli, p. 199. Brandi, Piero Torriti, and Bernard Berenson, followed Morelli’s attribution to Anguissola.15 While there exist portraits that document the physical likeness of Anguissola, no painted portraits survive of Bernardino Campi. It seems that there are two sources through which Morelli could have identified Campi in the Double Portrait. The first possibility is an engraving, in reverse, of a sixteenth- century portrait of Campi by Joseph Cavalli (Figure 19), which was included in Giambattista Zaist’s Notizie istoriche de’ pitton', sculton', ed architetti cremonese, printed in 1774.16 It seems that Zaist took the image from a 1584 biography of Cremonese painters and sculptors by Alessandro Lamo.17 Since Lamo’s text is from 1584, it would seem then that the self-portrait by Campi, upon which the engraving is based, originated sometime before the publishing of the biography. A second likeness of Campi is found in a medal minted circa 1570 by an anonymous Cremonese citizen, now housed in the Musei Civici, Brescia (Figure 20).18 The medal depicts Campi’s portrait at about forty or fifty years on the ‘5 See Bernard Berenson, “Sofonisba Anguissola,” North Italian Painters of the Renaissance, (New York: GP. Putnam’s Sons, 1907), p. 163; Luigi Dami, La Galleria di Siena: Citta e Luoghi d’ltalia, No. 12, (Firenze: lstituto di Edizione Artistiche Fratelli Alinari, 1924), p. 52; Cesare Brandi, QReqig Pinacoteca di Siefi, (Roma: La Libreria dello Stato, 1933), p. 314; and Piero Torriti, La Pinacoteca Nazionale di SienflDipinti dM/jl XVIII Secolo. (Genova: Sagep Editrice, 1978), p. 497. As a small point of reference, it is interesting to note the change in the title of the Double Portrait as listed in the above catalogs. In the 1909 Pinacoteca Nazionale catalog, the title of the painting is listed as flinter Marking g Portrajt of a Woman. Berenson, Brandi, and Torriti list the title of the painting as Berna_rdino Campi Painting .1 Portgt of the Artist. while Dami gives the simple title of A Painter. ’6 Giovanni Battista Zaist, Notizie istoriche de’ pittori, scultori. ed architetti cremonesi. (Cremona, 1774). This suggestion was made by Mary D. Garrard. See Garrard, “Here’s Looking at Me: Sofonisba Anguissola and the Problem of the Woman Artist,” Renaissance Quarterly 47 (Autumn 1994): 567. Garrard discusses the fact that Anguissola did not have the opportunity to see Campi in order to paint the portrait, and thus used the engraving or a portrait on which the engraving was based. 1 Garrard, p. 566. ‘8 l Campi e letura artisticicremonese del Cinduecento. exhibition catalog, (Milan: Electra, 1985), p. 354. 10 obverse and a personification of Fame atop four crocodiles on the reverse.” Maria Bugli, in a catalog entry on the medal, argued that the medal is the more t.20 However, this seems impossible as the medal likely source of the portrai dates to 1570, which is well after the completion of the Double Portrait. | suggest that the medal might be based on the likeness of Campi in the Double Portrait. Based on their physical appearances in the painting, Morelli reported the ages of Campi and Anguissola to be forty and eighteen or nineteen respectively at the time the painting was completed. Using the date given by Morelli as Campi’s birth date, he would date the painting to 1558.21 Since Morelli, there has been much scholarly debate over the date of completion of the Double Portrait, with dates ranging from 1550-1560. 22 The majority of scholars agree that the painting was completed before Anguissola departed for the Spanish court in 1559. Whatever the exact date of the painting’s execution, scholars agree that it was painted during the second half of the sixteenth century. This leaves a ‘9 George Francis Hill, Portrait Medglflf lt_a__li§n Artist of the Renaissance, (London: P.L. Warner, 1912), p. 68. 2° l Campi e la cultura anistwremonese del Cinquecento, exhibition catalog, (Milan: Electra, 1985), p. 354. 2‘ Morelli reports Campi’s birth date as 1522 and later reports Anguissola’s birth date as 1539. See Morelli, p. 198. For a discussion on the birth date of Anguissola, see p. 16. 22 The majority of the opinions regarding the date of the Double Portrait place the painting in the latter half of the 15503, including the Siena Museum; see Susan Marie-Mosko Kozal, “Sofonisba Anguissola’s Self-Portraiture,” (M.A. Thesis, Michigan State University, 1995), p. 68 and Garrard, p. 561. llya Sandra Perlingieri dates the portrait to c. 1550 based on acomparison with other securely dated self-portraits [See Perlingieri, Sofonisba Anguissola: The First Grea_t Wow Artist of the Renaissance, (New York: Rizzoli, 1992), p. 49]. For agreement with Perlingieri’s date see Frances Borzello, Seeing Ofiurselves: Women’s Self-Portrafi, (London: Thames and Hudson, 1998), p. 41. l have found one author who believes that the Double Portrait was painted after Anguissola’s departure for Spain; see Claire Hamlisch, “Toward an Understanding of Sofonisba Anguissola, (1532-1625), Cremonese Painter, (M.A. Thesis, University of Michigan, August 1973), pp. 52-53. Hamlisch dates the painting to 1561. This is an interesting theory as the portrait of Anguissola within the Double Portrait is similar to her Spanish portrait style. For example, an engraving from a now lost Anguissola portrait completed in Spain (Figure 21), is similar to the self-portrait in the Double Portrait in pose and formality. 11 considerable gap between when the painting was finished and its first documented location, namely the 1892 Siena museum inventory. Where was the painting for 350 years? A recently found inventory of the Gonzaga collection in Mantua might be the answer to this question. A Mantua connection would seem possible since the Double Portrait was donated to the Siena museum as part of the Spannocchi collection, a collection that seems to have originated in Mantua.23 The 1628 inventory of the collection describes a painting similar to the Double Portrait "un quadro dipintovi Sofonisba Angosciula et il ritratto di M. Fermo con ”24 While the inventory listing does seem to describe the Double Portrait, cornici. it gives a puzzling identification for the male painter. It has been assumed that “M. Fermo” stands for Fermo Ghisoni (c.1505-1575), who was a minor painter and copyist who worked under Giulio Romano (1499-1546) at the Gonzaga court. Unfortunately, no portrait of Ghisoni exists to compare to the portrait of the male painter in the Double Portrait. It would be hard to explain why Anguissola would choose to include Ghisoni in the painting, since there is little possibility that the two would have ever met. Thus, it has been usually explained that Ghisoni’s name became associated with the painting by a mistake by the person compiling the inventory.25 Continuing along the Mantuan connection, the above-discussed inventory dates from 1628, still leaving about 70 years from the painting’s completion to its inclusion in the Mantuan inventory. Perhaps the painting was commissioned by 23 Gonza a: La Celeste Galeria: Le Raccolte, p, 106. 2‘ Chiara Tellini Perina, “Documenti in editi riguardanti Sofonisba Anguissola,” Paragone 34,35 (July-September 1992): 95. 25 Gonza a: La Celeste Galeria: Le Raccolte, p. 106. 12 the Gonzaga court and originated there. However, this assumption does not find support in a 1563 inventory of the Gonzaga collection, which does not list the Double Portrait, but does include a different work by Anguissola, Two Children Who Laugh (Figure 22).26 The fame of the Double Portrait rose with the advent of feminist art history. Beginning in 1977 with Anguissola’s inclusion in the Woman Artists: 1550-1950 T exhibition, there has been an increase in the appearance of the painting in art historical literature, mainly in books devoted to Anguissola, portraiture, and female artists.27 This recognition reached a highpoint in the 19903, when the : painting appeared in numerous books and articles, including a monograph dedicated to Anguissola.28 In all these citations of the painting, the authorship of Anguissola and the identification of the figures as Anguissola and Campi are never seriously questioned?9 As will be discussed in chapter three, the 26 See Clifford Malcom Brown, “Paintings in the Collection of Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga: After Michelangelo’s Vittoria Colonna Drawings and by Bronzino, Giulio Romano, Fermo Ghisoni, Parmigianino, Sofonisba Anguissola, Titian, and Tintoretto," in Giulio Rom_a_no: Atti del Convedno lnternazionale di Studi su “(into Romfl e I’espa‘nsione Europe del Ringscimento." (Mantua: Accademia nazionale virgiliana, 1989), p. 215. 27 Ann Sutherland Harris and Linda Nochlin, Women Artists: 1550-1950. exhibition catalog, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1977). While the painting itself was not included in the exhibition, it is mentioned briefly in the catalog entry for Anguissola. See Harris and Nochlin, p. 107. 28 For examples in English, see Perlingieri, pp. 49-52; Garrard; Borzello, pp. 42-43; Whitney Chadwick, Women, Art and Society. (London: Thames and Hudson, 2002), p. 78; and Joanna Woods-Marsden, Renaissance Self-Portraiture: TE Visual Construction of ldentibr and the Socia_l Status of the Artist, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), pp. 208-210. Numerous other recent publications have also been published in other languages. See Caroli, p. 102; Orietta Pinessi, Sofonisba Anguissola; un “pittore” alla corte di Filippo ll, (Milan: Selena Edizioni, 1998), pp. 12-13; I Campi e la cultura artistlca cremonese del Cinquecento, exhibition catalog, (Milan: Electra, 1985), p. 176; and Sofonisba Anguissola primg donngpittrice: die MgLerin der Renaissance (urn 1535-1625) Cremona - Madrid - Genua - Palermo, exhibition catalogue, (Vienna: Kunsthistoriches Museum, 1995), p. 67. This is just a sample of references; see the bibliography for further publications. 9 The exception to this statement is Catherine King who suggests that Campi painted the Double Portrait. See Catherine King, “Looking a Sight: Sixteenth-Century Portraits of Women Artists,” Zeitschrift fur Kunstgeschichte 3 (1995): 391. King mentioned that the critic Willer does 13 identification of the figures as Anguissola and Campi is key to the feminist interpretation of the painting. llya Perlingieri apparently cemented Anguissola’s authorship of the Double Portrait when she noted the existence of Anguissola’s partial signature in the lower right-hand corner.30 Yet upon firsthand inspection, I did not find any evidence of a signature. Perhaps, like other details, this signature was deemed not authentic and removed during cleaning. Perlingieri also declared the Double Portrait an authentic work by Anguissola based on a stylistic convention of the pose of the artist’s hand. “Characteristic of her portraits is the manner in which she positioned and stylized the hands with the thumb and index finger shaped somewhat like a ‘square- U’. This positioning of the fingers became her trademark.”31 This “trademark”, as Perlingieri describes it, is exemplified in Anguissola’s sketch of Self-Portrait with Old Woman (Figure 23). While I do not think the “square — U” pose is found in the Double Portrait, Perlingieri’s attribution method is interesting.32 not believe the painting to be Anguissola’s, but gives no other information regarding Willer as a source. See King, p. 390. Garrard also mentions Robert Willer, a writer, attributing the painting to Campi, but, like King, does not give bibliographical information. See Garrard, p. 556. In the entry for the Double Portrait in the catalog for the exhibition Sofonisba Anguissola e le sue sorelle, the entry author, Rossana Sacchi, mentions an oral communication with Robert Miller in which Miller states he believes the painting to be by Campi. See Sofonisba AnguissolLe le 3% sorelle, p 216. ° Perlingieri, p. 52. 3‘ lbid., 45. 32 While this pose of the hand is found in numerous early works by Anguissola, the “trademark” disappears from later paintings. A number of reviewers of Perlingieri’s monograph question her use of this “Morellian feature” for Anguissola connoisseurship. See Maria Kusche, rev. of Sofonisba Anguissola: The First GregtWomaJ Artist of the Renaissance, by llya Sandra Perlingieri, Burlington Magazine (September 1993): 640; and Mary D. Garrard, “Renaissance Innovator,” rev. of Sofonislg Anguissola: The First Great Woma_n Artist of the Renaissance, by llya Sandra Perlingieri, Art in America 80 (September 1992): 35. 14 While I have come to agree that the Double Portrait is indeed painted by Anguissola, based on physical similarities between the female portrait and other Anguissola self-portraits, along with the similarity in style between the paintings, there are some interesting aspects to consider before accepting the painting into Anguissola’s oeuvre. As briefly mentioned before, the female portrait within the larger portrait is considerably larger than other self-portraits attributed to Anguissola, especially when compared to her self-portraits painted before her journey to Spain (the largest pre-Spain self-portrait measures 28.5 x 24 cm). This fact, while not excluding the painting from Anguissola’s oeuvre, perhaps suggests a later date of completion, which would be more in agreement with her larger Spanish portraits. Another peculiar aspect is the red color of Anguissola’s dress: in most self-portraits, Anguissola presents herself in somber, dark clothing, as, for example, in her self-portrait in Milan (Figure 8). While it is strange, there is evidence of bright clothing in Anguissola’s work, especially in the group-portrait of her family, The Chess Game (Figure 16). Other issues that need to be addressed before securely attributing the painting to Anguissola are the missing initial provenance information and the artistic precedents available to Anguissola in order for the artist to have produced such a complex visual image. In the following chapters we will try to identify possible artistic precedents and explore how Anguissola’s Double Portrait functioned. 15 THE INFLUENCE OF FRIENDSHIP PORTRAITURE If we accept the identification of the male figure in the Double Portrait as Bernardino Campi, his role in the painting and his relationship to Anguissola must be considered in order to understand why Anguissola included him in the - painting. To examine Campi’s relationship with Anguissola, a brief synopsis of Anguissola’s early artistic training will be given. From this information, we will try to reconstruct the relationship between Anguissola and Campi, and to understand why Anguissola chose to include her teacher in this unusual portrait. Sofonisba Anguissola was born in 1532 in the northern Italian town of Cremona?3 Her parents were Amilcare Anguissola, a noble Cremonese merchant, and his second wife, Bianca Punzone. Sofonisba was the first-born daughter of seven children, six daughters and one son.34 Unusually for his time, Amilcare was interested in fostering the intellectual and artistic development of his daughters. This interest is most often related to his reading of Baldassare Castiglione’s The Courtier, in which the education of women is promoted, but other motivations for Amilcare are sometimes cited.35 The Anguissola daughters 33 Most scholars agree upon a birth date of 1532. This birth date is based upon a funerary monument in Palermo, dedicated to Anguissola on the date of her 100"1 birthday by her second husband. See Perlingieri, p. 27. For support of this birth date see Sharlee Mullins Glenn, “Sofonisba Anguissola: History’s Forgotten Prodigy,” Women’s Studies 1822-3 (September 1990): 296; Garrard [1994], p. 561; and Hamlisch, p. 3. Maria Kusche prefers a latter date of 1535 to 1540. See Kusche, p. 640. Herbert Cook based his date of 1528 on the notebook entry of Van Dyck. See Herbert Cook, “More Portraits by Sofonisba Anguissola,” Burlinqton Magazine 26 (1915): 228. 34 Elena was born c. 1535 and also pursued a painting career before entering a Mantuan convent c.1550—51. She is still recorded as living in 1584. Lucia lived from c.1536-38 to 1565. Minerva was born in 1539 and died young. Europa (1540-1572) was also a painter, as well as Anna Maria, who was born in 1545 and still alive in 1584. Asdrubale (1551-1623) was the only male heir of the family and was active in Cremonese politics. 35 Glenn, p. 296. Germaine Greer has suggested a less noble explanation, in that Amilcare had to provide numerous dowries and needed financial help. See Greer, The Obstacle 16 were taught Latin and trained in music, an accomplishment documented in Anguissola’s Self-Portrait at the Keyboard (Figure 12). To encourage the artistic development of his first two daughters, Sofonisba and Elena, Amilcare arranged for artistic study when the girls were adolescents. The pair began their artistic studies with Bernardino Campi around c.1546, and when Campi left Cremona in 1549, the girls continued their studieis in an apprenticeship with Bernardino Gatti (c. 1495-1576) until 1552.36 Because _.... __ _—_W of their gender, the Anguissola sisters’ apprenticeship was different from the typical apprenticeship arrangements. For example, the girls were not permanent “-1 "I members of the Campi household, as no written evidence of the transfer of authority to Campi or Gatti exists.37 Detailed information regarding Sofonisba and Elena’s stay with Campi is found in a sixteenth-century published source. Alessandro Lamo, a Cremonese contemporary of Anguissola, documented the stay of Sofonisba and Elena with the Campi family in his 1584 Discorso. In this year 1546, Bernardino Campi instructed the sisters Sofonisba and Elena Anguissola in the art of drawing...when both made good progress and wished to pursue the instruction in art more deeply, and the father wished to oblige this noble pursuit, he found accommodations for them at the house of Bernardino, with the intention that the nobility and worth of his two children should make the profession of the painter noble and Race: The Fortunes of Women Painters and Their Work, (New York: Farrar, Staus, Giroux, 1979), p. 182. 36 Vasari states that the Anguissola sisters studied under Giulio Campi instead of Bernardino. Subsequent writers have corrected Vasari on this point. Anguissola departed for the court of King Philip II in Spain in 1559, where court records described her as a “Iady-in-waiting.” In 1571, she was married to the brother of the Viceroy of Sicily, Fabrizio de Moncada. The Spanish court of Philip II, where Anguissola had resided since 1559, arranged the marriage. Aftere the death of her first husband, Anguissola married again in 1584 to a noble Genoese ship captain, Orazio Lomellini. The couple resided in her second husband’s city and Anguissola continued to paint. Anguissola is known for her longevity, as witnessed by Van Dyck during his travels in 1624. Shortly after the artist’s visit, Anguissola died in 1625 in Palermo, where her death is recorded in the church records of S. Croce. 37 Hamlisch, p. 9. These documents, “collocationem personalis” or “Iocatio personali”, were used to signify the movement of a minor out of his father’s home. 17 respected in this city. Bernardino, who introduced them to art with patience and a gentle manner, who critiqued without causing fear and praised without spoiling, grew so dear to them that they spent three years in his house, where they felt as happy surrounded by the kindness of Bernardino's wife, as they did about the excellent instruction in art they received.38 After Bernardino Campi left Cremona, he traveled to Milan and was well received by the Milanese court. Proof of his reception at the court can be found in statements made by lppolita Gonzaga, who praised Campi’s virtue.39 llya Perlingieri suggests that Anguissola executed the Double Portrait after Campi’s move to Milan and depicts Campi as a prestigious painter whose reputation was on the rise throughout northern Italy.40 With the inclusion of Campi in the Double Portrait, Anguissola linked her image to that of her now famous teacher and demonstrated her artistic lineage, although Anguissola’s connection to Campi was perceived as more than a pupil’s dependence on her teacher. As a letter to Campi from a fellow painter, Francesco Salviati, demonstrates, Campi is credited with Anguissola’s achievements as though the male artist was fully responsible for the creation of the remarkable woman painter. Salviati writes, “From the Works in front of me which are wonderfully painted by the beautiful Cremonese 38 Alessandro Lamo, Discorso...intorno a_lla scoltura e pittura_..a(1584), in Giovan Battista Zaist (1774), Notizie istoriche...di G.B. Za_i§_t (Cremona, 1976), 1:34-36; quoted in and translated by Kusche, “ Sofonisba Anguissola: Her Life and Work”, in Sofonisba Anguissola: A Renaissance Woman, exhibition catalogue, (Washington, DC: The National Museum of Women in the Arts, 1995), p. 33. While Lamo states that the Anguissola sisters were permanent members of the Campi household, I believe his version might be slightly fictionalized. I find it very unlikely that the sisters slept in the Campi household, since no records of the transfer of authority exist and the difference in rank between the Anguissola and Campi families would have made this arrangement problematic. 39 Perlingieri, p. 175. 4° lbid., 49. 18 lady painter, I do understand what a great ability you [Campi] must have?“1 The figure of Campi might thus have been intended to lend credibility to Anguissola as she pursued commissions. But I believe that Campi’s inclusion in the painting is more than an attempt by Anguissola to legitimize her artistic career. The Double Portrait functioned as a lasting tribute to the friendship between teacher and apprentice. Evidence of a friendly relationship between Campi and Anguissola is provided by a letter dated October 21, 1561 that Sofonisba wrote to her teacher from Spain, where she was serving as court painter to Phillip II and his queen. My very Magnificent Signore Bernardino, A few days ago, I had a letter from you which was very dear to let me know about your health and that of your wife, whom I love like a sister. I have written [other letters] to you but have never received any answer, except this one which was given to me by a gentleman of the Secchi family. About the portrait of the king that you requested, I cannot help you as I would like, because I do not have any portrait of His Majesty. At the present time, I am busy doing a portrait of her Serene Highness, the King's sister, for the Pope. Just a few days ago, I sent him [the Pope] the portrait of our Serene Highness the Queen. Therefore, my dearest teacher, Signore Bernardino, you see how busy I am painting. The Queen wants a great part of my time in order for me to paint her portrait, and she does not have enough patience for me to paint [others], so that she is not deprived of my working for her. Despite this problem, I would like to mention, as I have on other occasions, that I will not do any less than my ability in this portrait. And with this, I recommend myself to you and kiss your hand and that of your dearest wife, whom I love, and your mother, Signor?2 Barbara, your sister, Signore Francesca, and your Father Signor Pietro. Friendship between individuals was often demonstrated by the exchange of letters like the one written by Anguissola. The fourteenth-century poet Petrarch 41 - lbid., 70. ‘2 V. Lancetti, Biografica cremonese, (Milan, n.d.), p. 225; quoted in and translated by Perlingieri, p.126. 19 discussed this implied duty of friendship at length by encouraging his friends to write letters to him. In a personal letter to Giovanni Colonna, Petrarch writes, I ask you to remember not how far you may be from someone. ..but rather how far it is in your power through reflection to be present with the absent ones. Here, therefore, is one way in which you can continuall see, show yourself repeatedly by the frequent interchange of letters.4 As the letter quoted above is the only surviving letter between Anguissola and Campi, we will never know how frequently the two exchanged letters. But ‘ ".- E‘JVI‘I -.u—v Anguissola does indicate that Campi was not keeping up with her correspondence: “I have written [other letters] to you but have never received any answer, except one...” And yet, just as Campi was perhaps too occupied to correspond with Anguissola, she is too busy to accommodate her teacher’s request for a portrait of the king: “I cannot help you...l am busy...you see how busy I am painting.” While it might seem that the implicit lapses in correspondence between Campi and Anguissola would lead to a strain in their relationship, the language of Anguissola’s letter addresses Campi with admiration and respect: “My very magnificent Signore Bernardino...a letter from you which was very dear...my dearest teacher.” The letter also demonstrates that Anguissola feels she can confide in her master the hardships of being court painter and her self-doubt about performing to the standards of her patrons. This correspondence reveals a complicated friendship between Anguissola and Campi, which was common for Renaissance friendships. The ‘3 Francesco Petrarca, Rerum familiarum libri: ll, translated by Aldo S. Bernardo (Albany, 1975), 6.91; quoted in Jodi Cranston, The Poetics of Portraiture in the ltajan Renaissance, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), p. 64. 20 concept of friendship encompassed a broader range of interpersonal connections than our modern conception. A friend could be many things: a soul mate, a patron, a client, a kinsman, a lover. On the one hand, friendship was an intensely private devotion, even identification, with another person, with no thought of pain or self- interest involved. On the other hand, friendship was public, utilitarian, calculating - support sought from a patron or offered to a client.“ What is most often expressed in Renaissance literature about friendship is the I? constant striving for an “ideal” friendship. This idea of friendship included the opportunity for equal advancement between two friends and the equal sharing of ideas. But these “ideal” friendships were hardly the most common occurrence, as articulated by the character of Lionardo in Leon Battista Alberti’s, Della Famiglia: “We find that there is really nothing more difficult in the world than to distinguish true friends amid the obscurity of so many lies, the darkness of people’s motives, and the shadowy errors and vices that lie about us on all sides.”45 Guy Fitch Lytle argues that this emphasis on “ideal” friendships in writings was a way for the Renaissance writer to atone for the society within which he lived. “The Renaissance need to emphasize ‘ideal’ friendships was a way to compensate for the unstable, intensely self-interested and self-promoting social relationships of that time.”46 While in reality the friendship between Anguissola and Campi may not have been a perfect relationship, as witnessed “ Guy Fitch Lytle, “Friendship and Patronage in Renaissance Europe," in Patronage, ArLand Society in Renaissance Italy, ed. by F.W. Kent and Patricia Simons with J.C. Eade, (Oxford: Claredon Press, 1987), p. 47. ‘5 L.B. Alberti, The Fammr in Renaissance Florence, trans. by RM Watkins, (Columbia, SC, 19696), p. 228, quoted in Lytle, p. 57. ‘ Lytle, p. 56. 21 by the surviving letter, it is my belief that the Double Portrait strives to portray—not entirely successfully—an “ideal friendship.” Whereas the letter between Anguissola and Campi documents communication between the two, another testament to their friendship can be found in the similarities between their paintings. Anguissola and Campi have in common an artistic career, and it seems likely that the majority of their personal correspondence would center on artistic issues. Therefore, one would expect to find evidence of the dissemination of artistic ideas from one artist to the other in Anguissola and Campi’s works. Early in their relationship, a sharing and refining of ideas is witnessed when the pupil attempts to copy a work of the master. In Anguissola’s Pieta (Figure 24), we see an imitation of Campi’s work of the same subject (Figure 25). Anguissola has chosen to replicate Campi’s composition of the Virgin and Christ, but simplifies her image with the removal of other figures. Perlingieri offers visual proof of the assumption of continued contact between Anguissola and Campi through a comparison of Campi's St. Jerome, dated 1566 (Figure 26), and The Portrait of an Old Man, c.1558-65 (Figure 27), by Anguissola. In both paintings, the position of each figure’s hand on his book is similar and Perlingieri believes that the compositions are evidence of continued contact between the artists as Anguissola adopts the hand gesture of her teacher.47 Although the artistic link between Campi and Anguissola may seem subtle, her sharing of ideas and compositions is more obvious in a second ‘7 Perlingieri, p. 103. While the motif of a hand on a book is not unusual in either of these cases, the pose of the hand in the painting by Anguissola is remarkably similar to the hand in Campi’s portrayal of St. Jerome. 22 friendship Anguissola had with a male artist, Luca Cambiaso (1527—1585).48 There are striking similarities between the work of Anguissola and Cambiaso, who met while Anguissola resided in Genoa (1584-1616/20). For example, there is a Madonna and Child by Cambiaso (Figure 28) that replicates the composition of Anguissola’s Madonna and Child (Figure 29). Furthermore, Cambiaso paints a double portrait very similar in composition to that of Anguissola (Figure 30). These common occurrences in the works of Anguissola and Cambiaso demonstrate a close connection artistically between the two and may indicate a close friendship. Perhaps if more examples of Campi’s portraiture had survived, similar occurrences between the works of Campi and Anguissola could have been found. The format of the Double Portrait also encourages its reading as a tribute to the friendship between Anguissola and Campi, for its structuring logic is best understood within the tradition of friendship portraiture. An example of a friendship portrait is Jacopo Pontormo’s Double Portrait, c.1522 (Figure 31), which depicts two gentlemen evidently engaged in conversation, who now turn towards the viewer. The portrait emphasizes the faces of the men along with the hands of the figure on the left, who holds a paper. Cranston tells us that the passage written on the paper is from Cicero’s De amiciti and deals with the importance of friendship: In short, all other objects of desire are each, for the most part, adapted to a single end—riches, for spending; influence, for honor; public office, for reputation; pleasure, for sensual enjoyment; and health, for freedom from pain and full use of the bodily functions; but friendship embraces ‘8 Unlike the relationship between Anguissola and Campi, there is no written evidence of contact between Anguissola and Cambiaso. 23 innumerable ends; turn where you will it is ever at your side; no barrier shuts it out; it is never untimely and never in the way. Therefore, we do not use the proverbial “fire and water” on more occasions than we use friendship.49 With the inclusion of this text in his portraits of friends, Pontorrno commented upon the “omnipresence of friendship” and to the necessity of friendship in life.50 Two further examples of friendship portraits discussed by Cranston are by Raphael (1483-1520): Andrea Navagero and Agostino Beazzano of 1516 (Figure If 32), and Raphael and His Fencing Master of 1518 (Figure 33). In the portrait of E Navagero and Beazzano we see immediate similarities with Pontormo’s Double a Portrait. In each example, two gentlemen are posed together and gaze at the - viewer as if the two painted figures were engaged in conversation and have suddenly stopped as the viewer approaches. In both paintings, the emphasis is on the figures, with little background information given. The Renaissance friendship portraits were evidently inspired by poetic descriptions of keepsake portraits, which were in turn based upon ancient literary models.51 A lost double portrait by Mantegna depicted Janus Pannonius and Galeotto Marzio da Narni, and was described by Pannonius in a poem: As the hand of Apelles with its wonderous grace painted the Pellaean king [Alexander] with his faithful companion, so Galeotto breathes with Janus in one picture, a knot of unbroken friendship. What thanks then shall out Thalia sing to thee, Mantegna, for such a gift, what praises? Thou makest our faces to live for centuries, though the earth cover the bodies of both. Thou makest the one able to lie in the other’s bosom, whenever a wide ‘9 Cicero, De amiciti 6:22; quoted in and translated by Cranston, p. 67. 5° Cranston, p. 67. 5‘ John Shearman, “Portraits and Poets,” in Only Connect...:Art and the Spectator in Italian Renaissance, (Washington, D.C.:National Gallery of Art, 1998), p. 134. 24 world shall separate us. For in what do these faces differ from our true shapes? Surely these images want but a voice?52 Raphael’s sitters Navagero and Beazzano were humanists, as was Raphael himself. The painting was made shortly before Navagero departed from Rome to become a librarian for the Republic of Venice, and was hung in the home of Pietro Bembo, a third humanist friend of the two sitters.53 As all the individuals connected with this portrait were friends, the function of the Double Portrait is clear. “The painter, then, both makes and gives his portrait as a gesture of friendship to the depicted friends and to his friend the recipient.” 5‘ The second example by Raphael, Raphael and His Fencing Master (Figure 33), depicts Raphael standing behind his friend, while the friend gestures towards the viewer.55 The figure has been traditionally identified as a fencing master because of the sword that is in his hand, but the identity of the figure remains rather uncertain.56 While the identity of the second figure is contested, his status and relationship to Raphael is indicated by the figure’s clothing and gesture. Because of his seated position and elaborate dress, it is obvious that Raphael’s friend is of a higher class than Raphael. Even so, Raphael seems intimate with the man, as he lays his hand on the man’s shoulder. 52 Janus Pannonius, Poemata l (Utrecht, 1784), p. 276-279; quoted in and translated by Robert Lightbown, Mantegna. withIaColeete Ca_tgloque of the Paintings, Drawings, and Prints, (Berkeley University of California Press, 1986), Cat. No. 68, p. 459. 3 Cranston, p. 66. 5‘ lbid. 55 Joanna Woods-Marsden argues that instead of the viewer, Raphael’s friend points towards a mirror. See Woods-Marsden, p. 130. 56 The second figure in the painting has been identified as Giulio Romano, Polidoro da Caravaggio, Giovanni Francesco Penni, Pietro Aretino, and Giuliano de’ Medici. See Woods- Marsden, p. 128, and Cecil Gould, “Raphael’s Double Portrait in the Louvre: An Identification for the Second Figure”, Artibus et Historigg 10 (1984): 57-60. 25 Despite his lesser rank, our artist has positioned himself favorably in two respects: his head is the higher of the two, and one hand — clean, slim, and elegant, as that of no ordinary artisan - reposes on his companion’s shoulder, with all the authoritative significance attached to that gesture, while the (almost invisible) other is placed around his companion’s waist. Thus, these two men of different status are yet on such intimate terms that the superior accepts what could have been characterized as a patronizing gesture from the inferior.57 Thus, although the two painted figures are friends, they are not equals, as is the case in Anguissola’s Double Portrait, where we see the novice Anguissola and the master Campi depicted together. These three examples (Pontonno’s Double Portrait, Raphael’s Portrait of Navagero and Beazzano, and Raphael and His Fencing Master) have various characteristics in common: two sitters, a gaze toward the viewer, and an emphasis on gesture. These characteristics can be taken as the base iconography of friendship portraits and were derived from another type of intimate double portrait, the marriage portrait.58 Anguissola herself painted a marriage portrait depicting a couple gazing at the viewer, while the female figure displays a piece of fruit, perhaps relating her wish for fertility to the viewer (Figure 34).59 The resemblance between marriage portraits and friendship portraits is described by Cranston in relation to Raphael’s portrait of Andrea Navagero and Agostino Beazzano. Faced with developing a new type that would lack the ceremoniousness of a nuptial presentation and would celebrate a union of friendship both inside and outside the frame, Raphael positioned the bodies of Andrea and Agostino to face each other, interlocking the figures only at their 57 Woods-Marsden, p. 126-128. 58 Cranston, p. 67. 59 Some believe the painting to be a self-portrait of Anguissola and her first husband. See Perlingieri, p. 152-153. 26 hands, and directed their gazes to the viewer - in this case, the third friend.60 When we compare Anguissola’s painting with the given examples of friendship portraits, there are striking similarities. Most basic is the inclusion of two figures that gaze at the viewer. The figures of Anguissola and Campi are equally represented in the Double Portrait by a face, collar, and hand, which are also seen in Raphael’s portrait of Navagero and Beazzano. Furthermore, in the Double Portrait, emphasis is placed on the gesture of the hands with the stacking, mirrored poses and their central placement. A striking difference between the examples of friendship portraiture presented and the Double Portrait is the inclusion of both a male and female figure in one painting. As noted before, males and females were often painted together in portraits, but only in marriage portraits.61 During the Renaissance, few examples of male-female friendship can be found, and it was commonly perceived that women were not emotionally capable of friendship. Ian Maclean notes, “It is also common to find passages in Renaissance moralistic literature which throw doubt on woman’s capacity for true friendship.”62 How then was Anguissola to depict herself in a portrait with her friend Campi and not have the viewers interpret the portrait as a marriage portrait? Anguissola did away with any impropriety that could result from the depiction of an adolescent girl and a 6° Cranston, p. 67. 6‘ The Double Portrait is the only example I have been able to locate of a male and female, with no familial relationship, represented together. 62 Ian Maclean, The Renaissance Notion of Woman: A Study in the Fortunes of Scholasticism and Medical Science in European Intellectual Life. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), p. 59. Lytle discusses the need for more research on friendship among women and friendship between men and women. See Lytle, p. 52. 27 married man in the same portrait by depicting Campi painting a portrait of her. As discussed in the introduction, great lengths were taken to separate Anguissola and Campi, including the maulstick and the edge of the canvas. But when one looks closely, the feigned portrait situation is revealed as the bright red of Anguissola’s dress passes under the boundary of the canvas. There exists another visual clue as to the relationship between Anguissola and Campi, F“ demonstrated by Campi’s hand, which is placed above Anguissola’s heart, demonstrating the close relation between the two (or perhaps alluding to Campi’s -’; “creation” of Anguissola). With these subtle hints, was Anguissola commenting s on the absurdity of a world where a man and a woman could not appear in a portrait together, let alone be friends? Although I have chosen to concentrate on the friendship between Anguissola and Campi, and to identify the Double Portrait as an example of friendship portraiture, other interpretations of the work have hypothesized a strained relationship between Anguissola and Campi. This interpretation was first proposed by Mary D. Garrard in her 1994 article, ”Here's Looking at Me: Sofonisba Anguissola and the Problems of the Woman Artist".63 Garrard argued the relationship presented in the Double Portrait between Campi and Anguissola is one of animosity and revenge, and that Anguissola was making a general statement about the role of the female artist in sixteenth-century Italy. This view has come to be the most frequently repeated interpretation of the Double '53 See footnote 16. 28 Portrait.64 While I do not agree with Garrard’s interpretation of the painting, she does offer an important visual analysis, which makes a brief summary of her argument necessary. According to Garrard, "Bernardino is present only to define by contrast the thematically more important figure of Anguissola and to establish his own artistic worth as less than hers."65 Garrard goes on to comment on the relationship between Anguissola and Campi as presented in the Double Portrait. If the painting is a form of getting even, of reframing reality so as to ironize the construct of the woman artist as a masculine creation, its terms were surely justifiable, for in 1559 on the brink of her departure for Spain, Sofonisba's worth, measured in the status of her patrons, was greater than that of Bernardino Campi.66 Garrard evaluates the Double Portrait as a tool by which Anguissola can mount revenge against her teacher and the patriarchal society within which she functions. To read the image in this way is to view Sofonisba as a sixteenth- century feminist. What is Garrard’s evidence for this reading? When Garrard visually analyzes the Double Portrait, she notices that Anguissola competes with Campi for importance.67 Garrard locates this battle for importance in subtle visual devices. To exemplify Campi’s inferiority, Garrard discusses his reliance 6‘ For example, see John T. Paoletti and Gary M. Radke, Art in Renaissance Italy, (London: Lawrence King, 1997), p. 16. Paoletti and Radke write, “Sofonisba Anguissola’s painting of her teacher painting her portrait is a wry commentary on the very structures of artistic production...Anguissola’s gaze rivets the viewer, making the outsider complicit in destructing the teacher-pupil relationship and inscribing of male authority on the body of the female. Her social position, meriting a portrait, becomes the subject of the painting, conferring on Anguissola the authorial role in the painting, despite her teacher’s action." , 65 Garrard [1994], p. 565 ‘56 lbid., 617. 6’ lbid., 562. 29 on a maulstick, demonstrating his inferiority as a painter.68 Garrard believes that Anguissola’s inclusion of the maulstick is a comment on Campi’s inferiority. What she fails to mention is that Anguissola often included the maulstick in her own self-portraits, such as her Self-Portrait at an Easel (Figure 11). Also, the maulstick in the Double Portrait seems to be following a trend of the inclusion of the tools of the artist’s trade. Other portraits with maulsticks include Anthonis , Mor’s Self-Portrait, 1558 (Figure 35), a painting that Anguissola may have had access to during her time in Spain, and Vasari’s fresco depiction of St. Luke (Figure 37). Another visual device noted by Garrard is that Anguissola’s portrait is larger than Campi’s. Furthermore, Anguissola’s portrait is visually higher in the composition, so that if he were to turn to look at her, Campi would have to turn his eyes upward. Also, Anguissola’s face and hand (not Campi’s) are placed on the central axis of the painting. This physical evidence leads Garrard to pronounce that Campi, nOt Anguissola, is portrayed as diminished in artistic worth through the Double Portraitf"9 As further evidence of Anguissola's hidden agenda, Garrard notes the difference in painting style between the portrait of Campi and the portrait of Anguissola. Garrard sees this difference in portrayal as a comment by Anguissola on the painting ability of Campi. In support, Garrard quotes Fredrika Jacobs' description of the portrayals. "Anguissola's image of Campi is more ‘living’, less static than the image he has made of her."70 In this interpretation, the Double Portrait thus represents Anguissola's stylistic triumph over her less 6" lbid., 564. ‘59 lbid., 562. 7° lbid., 563. 30 talented teacher. Perlingieri builds upon the notion of these different portrayals. “This is the only known portrait of Campi and is far more sensitively done — in her own style — than Anguissola’s portrayal of herself, which appears much flatter, as if she were painting herself as Campi would have — trying to imitate his style.”71 Perlingieri’s observation implies a difference in painting style between the two figures, but in my view the depictions of Campi and Anguissola do not seem to be different in their style. Furthermore, the appearance of Anguissola’s image as flat would not seem to indicate a conscious change in style, but the recognition that her image was represented as a flat, painted surface within the Double Portrait. Neither Garrard nor any other author mentions any patron or intended viewer for the Double Portrait. While the patron of the majority of Anguissola’s early self-portraits was her father who used the portraits to promote his daughter at various Italian courts, I would like to offer a suggestion as to the patron of the Double Portrait to conclude this chapter. Often with friendship portraits, the patron of the painting is an intimate acquaintance of the two painted friends. A double portrait of Anguissola and Campi would be desired by an acquaintance of both of these individuals. Perhaps, then, this third friend was Sofonisba’s sister, Elena. Elena, along with Sofonisba, had a close relationship with Campi. By the time of the Double Portrait, Elena was already a nun in the convent of S. Vincenzo in Mantua, which she entered around c.1550. Could the Double Portrait by Sofonisba be a gift for her sister Elena, as Elena moved away from her family, her teacher, and her artistic profession? Furthermore, the connection 7‘ Perlingieri, p. 49. 31 with Elena might explain how the painting came to Mantua. If not for Elena, perhaps the portrait was for the Anguissola family. As mentioned previously, there is a general consensus that the Double Portrait was painted before Anguissola departed for Spain. Perhaps this Double Portrait, like Raphael’s Andrea Navagero and Agostino Beazzano, functioned as a remembrance of Sofonisba as the first daughter moved away from her family, her city, and her artistic beginnings. 32 ANGUISSOLA’S VIRTUE AND THE TRADITION OF ST. LUKE If the Double Portrait may be understood in relation to the tradition of friendship portraiture, is Anguissola presenting herself to the viewer-whether a family member or not—as an equal companion to Campi? When we revisit the points made by Garrard and compare this friendship portrait to the other examples, the answer may be no. As Garrard discussed, Anguissola’s placement in the Double Portrait is higher and more central that Campi. Her face is presented frontally to the viewer, while Campi’s face is almost in profile and partially obscured by shadows. These visual aspects are in contradiction with the discussed examples of friendship portraiture in which both faces are easily distinguishable and given equal attention. Through this different presentation, was Anguissola (as suggested by Garrard) making a feminist statement against her male teacher? I will argue that instead of subtly displaying her revenge against Campi, Anguissola’s composition is based upon the traditional imagery of St. Luke painting the Virgin. Images of St. Luke painting the Virgin, such as that by Roger van der Weyden (1399-1464), depict the saint sketching his vision of the Virgin within an intimate interior setting (Figure 36). There is no physical contact between the Virgin and the saint, which stresses the difference between the human saint and the divine Virgin. An Italian example of this tradition is Giorgio Vasari’s St. Luke Painting the Virgin (Figure 37), where the same general scene is found with the addition of spectators and St. Luke’s attribute of the ox. In van der Weyden and 33 Vasari’s depictions, the saint’s face is a self-portrait, and this use of self- portraiture became the norm for depictions of St. Luke painting the Virgin.72 Anguissola’s Double Portrait may allude subtly to this tradition of St. Luke as a painter. If we isolate the figure of St. Luke and his canvas from Vasari’s fresco, similarities between Vasari’s depiction and Anguissola’s Double Portrait can be seen. In both examples, the female on the canvas is centrally placed and visually higher on the canvas than the male painter. Moreover, as in the Double Portrait, there is a distinct physical separation between St. Luke and his canvas, as the maulstick creates a barrier between the portrait and the painting. Furthermore, the edge of the portrait’s canvas separates the saint from his painting. While Vasari’s painted Virgin looks down at her portraitist with humility, in the Double Portrait, Campi’s female looks out past him to the viewer. In both cases, prominence is given to the female’s face, rather than the male painter’s face, which are both shown almost in profile. Thus, it would seem that the visual observations Garrard uses as evidence for Anguissola’s artistic revenge against Campi could be explained by Anguissola’s incorporation of the St. Luke tradition. Anguissola’s knowledge of the St. Luke tradition is more apparent in another painting by the artist, her Self-Portrait at an Easel, which depicts the painter at work on an image of the Virgin and Child (Figure 11).73 Although 72 Because of St. Luke’s reputation as both an intellectual and an artisan, the saint was often chosen as the patron saint of artistic academies. 73 This painting exists today in three versions. For this thesis, I have chosen to use the version in Lancut, but other versions exist in the private collection of William Stirling and in Mentena in the collection of Federico Zeri (this version is thought to be a copy by one of the Anguissola sisters). The two versions I have chosen not to include differ only in the amount of easel that is shown and the coloration of the female artist’s clothing. In the Mentena version (Figure 38), the artist is shown in green and brown garments, while the Stirling version (Figure 39) depicts the artist with blue and red garments. The use of blue and red garments in the 34 necessarily not an overt self-portrayal in the guise of the saint, the allusion seems implicit: Anguissola cannot have intended her image to be read in these terms; she was the wrong gender, for one thing, and minus the ox, for another, but she nevertheless can be said to have made reference to the painter—saint, who was after all as much the patron saint of the pictrix as that of the pictor.74 The painting is an example of a second type of St. Luke imagery, as illustrated by an image by Frans Floris (1519-1570) (Figure 41). While similar in composition to the example by Vasari, this second type of imagery lacks the figure (or vision) of the Virgin. In Anguissola’s painting, we see the artist seated at her canvas and in the process of completing a depiction of the Madonna and Child. Instead of concentrating her view on the figure of the Virgin as seen in the images of Vasari and of van der Weyden, Anguissola looks at the viewer for her divine inspiration. In this situation, it is as if the viewer of Anguissola’s painting is in the same position as the Virgin. This fact may have been only noticed by the viewer after extensive viewing and may have surprised the viewer, as the revelation must have made the viewer contemplate his or her relationship to the Virgin. As the Virgin represented modesty, chastity, and humility, the connection between the Virgin and female viewers (perhaps Sofonisba or any of the Anguissola Stirling version is interesting in the connection of these colors with the Virgin. Perhaps with restoration, similar colors of blue and red could be found in the Lancut version. It is also interesting to note the similarities between Anguissola’s painting and that by an earlier female artist, Catherine van Hemessen. In Hemessen’s painting, Self-Portrait at the Easel (Figure 40), the same composition as Anguissola’s is found: a female artist sits at her easel with paintbrush in hand while in the process of completing a painting. The similarity between the two is so great ,that many have wondered if her female predecessor did not influence Anguissola. But since both artists worked in different areas of Europe, it seems unlikely. See Woods-Marsden, p. 204. 7‘ Woods-Marsden, p. 206. 35 daughters) would be most strong, since females were supposed to embody the Virgin’s virtues. While it is implied that the viewer is in the place of the Virgin in Anguissola’s Self-Portrait at an Easel, Anguissola represented herself as the Virgin Mary in the Double Portrait. As a female and a female artist, Anguissola’s connection to the Virgin and the virtues associated with the Virgin Mary would Ta have to be demonstrated because of Anguissola’s choice to enter a male 2.3..- A-IL'. r-u— s.- dominated occupation.75 Anguissola stresses her virtue through her inclusion of the word “VIRGO” in inscriptions on five of her works.“ Since Anguissola did not 1—un'h I marry until 1571, it is assumed that Anguissola was a virgin at the completion of the five works inscribed with “VIRGO”, but it is not necessarily her virginity that she is stressing.77 As Katherine A. Mclver suggested in an article devoted to Lavinia Fontana (a female artist who also included the word “VIRGO” in her inscriptions), the inclusion of the term “VIRGO" does not necessarily refer to the marital status of Anguissola. “The use of the word “Virgo” in the inscription can refer to the sitter’s virginity, her impeccable morals, or, as the term sometimes implied in the 16th century, her independence and her self-possession.”78 Even if 75 The issue of Anguissola working and living in a male-dominated society will be further explored in the next chapter. 76 Anguissola’s Self-Portrait at the Easel (Figure 11) is inscribed “SOFONISBA ANGUISCIOLA VIRGO CREMONESIS SE IPSAM PINXIT”; her Self-Portrait at the Keyboard (Figure 12) is inscribed “SOPHONISBA ANGUISSOLA VIRGO SEIPSUM PINXIT JUSSU AMI[LCARIS] PATRIS 1561”; the Chess Game (Figure 16) is inscribed “SOPHONISBA ANGUSSOLA VIRGO AMILCARIS FILIA EX VERA EFFIGIE TRES SUAS SORORES ET ANCILAM PINXIT MDLV"; the Portrait of a Dominican Monk (Figure 42) is inscribed “SOPHONISBA ANGUISSOLA VIRGO CORAM / AMILCARE PATRE[M] PINXIT”; and the miniature Self-Portrait (Figure 10) in Boston is inscribed “SOPHONISBA ANGUSSOLA VIR[GO] IPSIUS MANU EX [S]PECULO DlPlCTAM CREMONAE”. As noted above, Anguissola was first married in 1571. See footnote 36. 78 Katherine A. Mclver, “Lavinia Fontana’s Self-Portrait Making Music”, Womfi Art Journal 19 (Spring/Summer 1998): 6. See also Garrard [1994], p. 582. 36 the inclusion of “VIRGO” was not intended as a direct link to the Virgin Mary, the aspects described by Mclver still are virtues ascribed to the Virgin and thus a reason for Anguissola to represent herself as Mary.79 In Anguissola’s miniature Self-Portrait in Boston (Figure 10), the inscription not only refers to Anguissola’s virginity, but also to her use of a mirror: “painted from a mirror with her own hand by the Cremonse virgin Sofonsiba P Anguissola.” The mirror was commonly associated with the Virgin Mary in that it symbolized her virginity. As Heinrich Schwarz explains, She [Virgin Mary] is a mirror on account of the mirror’s composition of glass and lead. Glass stands for her virginity. Because: as the sun penetrates glass without violating it so became Mary a mother without losing her virginity. Lead stands for her ductility and the ashen color of the mirror is a symbol of her humility.80 I? There is also a tradition of the Virgin Mary herself represented by a mirror. Quoting from E.C. Richardson’s 1935 biography of the thirteenth-century theologian, Jacopo de Voragine, Schwartz again explains, She is also called a mirror because of her representation of things, ‘for as all things are reflected from a mirror, so in the blessed Virgin, as in the mirror of God, ought all to see their impurities and spots, and purify and correct them, for the proud, beholding her humility, see their blemishes, the avaricious see theirs in her poverty, the lovers of pleasures theirs in her virginity’.81 As Anguissola’s inscription emphasizes, for the young female artist, the making and meaning of self-portraiture were allusively intertwined, for it was incumbent upon the woman artist to demonstrate both her skill and her virtue. 79 It could be argued that in addition to modeling her virtues on the Virgin Mary, Anguissola might have been influenced by Boccaccio’s vestal virgin Maria, who was also an artist. See Woods-Mardsen, p. 203. :‘1’ Heinrich Schwartz, “The Mirror in Art”, The Art Quarterlv 15 (1952): 98. Ibid. 37 Sofonisba’s and her father’s careful management of her portrait production attests to the delicacy of the woman artist’s position in early modern society. The majority of Anguissola’s oeuvre is portraiture of women, including herself, her sisters, and Spanish royalty. When Anguissola did paint male figures, especially early in her career, the men were either related to her (father or brother) or, as in the case of the Portrait of the Dominican Monk (Figure 42), Amilcare Anguissola was present for the sitting. By keeping such a close watch over what Anguissola was painting, her father was protecting her reputation in society. As Germaine Greer explains, When Amilcare Anguissola allowed his daughter [Sofonisba] to paint portraits for the public eye, it was precisely because portrait painting did not imply any unbecoming breadth or experience. Her approach was modest, respectful to the point of ceremony and as such it was popular in a way that more imprudent observation would not have been.82 Thus, because she was a woman, it was essential that Anguissola’s virtue always be demonstrated to society. “Whatever cultural activity a lady might engage in, her chastity remained the prime concern of her male relatives in the ”33 When she was young, her father was there to ensure her early modern period. virtue was not harmed. But later in her artistic career, Anguissola may have chosen to represent her chastity and virtue by alluding to the tradition of St. Luke painting the Virgin in her innovative Double Portrait. 82 Greer, p. 251. ‘33 Woods-Marsden, p. 203. 38 ANGUISSOLA’S DIVIDED SELF: THE ALLEGORY OF PRUDENCE AND ITS RELATION TO THE DOUBLE PORTRAIT To the careful observer, the Double Portrait displays numerous visual and narrative oppositions. For example, light vs. dark, high vs. low, active vs. passive, male vs. female, teacher vs. pupil, living vs. painted, and noble vs. artisan. Unfortunately, in Anguissola’s life as a practicing artist, she had to struggle with numerous oppositions herself. To begin this chapter, we will examine the two dichotomies that affected Anguissola’s life the most: noble vs. artisan and male vs. female. As demonstrated in the previous chapter, as a noblewoman Anguissola was expected to embody virtue; in the Double Portrait Anguissola demonstrated her virtue through allusion to the Virgin Mary. And although her artistic education may have begun with her father’s embrace of new ideals for noblewomen, her pursuit of a career as an artist placed her beyond the norms of her society. Not only was painting a craft, but the individuals who practiced the craft were artisans, not from the noble class like Anguissola. Anguissola sought to be both the practicing artisan and the ideal noblewoman. Similarly, as a female artist Anguissola had to navigate through a world where she was the exception to the rule. She had no role models or examples to follow and had to learn to survive in the male art market. That is to say she had no examples to follow save that of her male counterparts. It seems that imitation of male actions was an accepted explanation to explain the occurrence of female 39 artists. In Paolo Pino’s Dialogue, two characters discuss the rise of the female artist. One character complains, “It does not please me to hear women equaled to the excellence of men in [painting]; and it seems to me that the art is debased by this, and the female species [is] drawn outside what is proper to it, for nothing stirs women save the distaff and the spindle...”84 ln opposition to this first character, a second character responds, . .These women who partook of the masculine...deserve to be appreciated as women who, seeing their own imperfection, attempted to imitate the nobler being, man.”85 It seems that Anguissola did imitate male role models and male painters to a degree. For example, she often dressed in somber colors to imitate the clothing prescribed by Castiglione to the courtier. And like young male painters, she enjoyed an artistic apprenticeship, albeit a shortened, informal one. But there existed aspects of an artistic career that Anguissola, as a woman, did not venture. For example, she does not attempt any sort of independent religious or history painting until late in her career, and it would seem that she never entered the realm of public commissions.86 As Joanna Woods-Marsden explains, Anguissola’s position within society was a precarious one. The mere existence of a female artist threatened the myth that artistic creativity was an exclusively masculine province. To survive in a - patriarchal culture, a practicing woman artist or poet had to minimize her achievement so as not to excite male jealousy. The achieving woman needed to present the self in such a way as to win respect for her attainments without eschewing ‘appropriate’ female demeanor... By 8‘ M. Pardo, “Paolo Pino’s ‘Dialogo di Pittura’: A Translation with Commentary, (PhD. dissertatgson, University of Pittsburgh), 1984, p. 322; quoted in Woods-Marsden, 189. lbid. '36 Anguissola does paint a small Pieta (c.1550) before she departs for Spain in 1559. As this painting seems to have been a result of a painting exercise between Anguissola and Campi, I do not consider it an independent religious painting. 40 retaining her [Anguissola’s] status as a dilettante and restricting her work to private commissions, she succeeded in winning a room of her own, as it were, without transgressing the traditional decorum of chastity, virtue, and modesty needed for a lady of rank in society.87 Anguissola thus struggled to situate herself in relation to two of the key oppositions that structured her world: male vs. female and noble vs. artisan. It could almost be said that she had two personas, the noble lady and the male artisan. I believe evidence of Anguissola’s struggle to embody these personas is found in her self-portraits, for it is in self-portraits that Anguissola was distinctly aware of her self-presentation to an audience. How would Anguissola present herself to the viewer: as an imitator of men or a noblewoman? If we examine Anguissola’s early self-portraits, it is clear that in dress and demeanor, she is identifying herself more as a male artist than as a noblewoman. For example, in her miniature Self-Portrait in Boston (the last self- portrait before the Double Portrait) (Figure 10), Anguissola depicts herself in the somber, dark clothes typical of male artisans, yet her self-portrait lacks confidence as she meekly presents herself to the viewer behind a mirror or shield. Her self-presentation in the Double Portrait is drastically different. If we isolate the self-portrait in the Double Portrait, we notice Anguissola’s shift from presenting herself in a male persona to now displaying herself as the noblewoman she was. Anguissola paints herself as a figure regally dressed, clutching a pair of gloves (an attribute of noblemen and noblewomen), and exuding self-confidence, as her self-portrait dominates the Double Portrait. In the “self-portrait, Anguissola relinquishes her adherence to male imitation and depicts ‘37 Woods-Marsden, p. 192. 41 herself as a noblewoman. Absent in the self-portrait are any indicators of her artisan life - no brushes and no palette. This suggests Anguissola’s status within society but also her fame; it implies that she was so well known that reference to her trade was not needed. Anguissola was the first female artist to produce such a self-portrait, a type previously reserved for male painters. In Katherine T. Brown’s book, The Painter's Reflection: Self-Portraiture in Renaissance Venice, 1458-1625, the author differentiates between certain types of self-portraiture.88 One of her sub-types is what the author describes as “the artist as protagonist.” In this type of self-portraiture, developed around 1450, the artist depicts himself alone, without any reference to religious, mythological, or allegorical narratives. These protagonist portraits emerged in opposition to another type of artist self-portrait in which the artist portrays himself or herself with instruments of the trade, namely a canvas, paintbrushes, and palette. An example of this kind of portrait is Anguissola’s Self-Portrait with an Easel (Figure 11), discussed in the previous chapter. Whereas the focus of these portraits is on the craft of painting and the attempt to elevate painting over other crafts, the protagonist portrait isolates the artist, focusing on the artist as an intellectual. But the self-image in this category is not hidden or disguised; the artist shows himself or herself alone, as reflected in a mirror, on a monumental scale. A distinct curiosity about the self, combined with an increased self- confidence and esteem, compelled Renaissance artists to probe the depths of their own psyches to create images that showed evidence of burgeoning creativity and intellect.89 88Katherine T. Brown, The Painter’s Reflection: Self-Portraiture in Renaissance Venice, 1458-1625, (Florence, Leo S. Olschki Editore, 2000). 8" lbid., p. 85. 42 As an example of this type Brown cites Titan’s Self-Portrait in Berlin (Figure 43).90 This large portrait, 96x75 cm, depicts an aged Titian seated at a table, avoiding the eyes of the viewer as he glances out of the painting. There are a number of aspects of the portrait that convey Titan’s self-importance. His elaborate clothing, adorned with a gold chain of honor, signifies Titian’s achievements in the painting. Similar to Titian, Anguissola presents herself in a monumental fashion and displays assurance. But in Titian’s self-portrait, the male artist attempts to conceal the artisan and display his intellectual and noble side to the viewer. Instead of focusing on her intellect, Anguissola, as a woman, chose in the self-portrait in the Double Portrait to emphasize her nobility and conceal her occupation. It is this noble persona that Anguissola chooses as her new form of self-presentation as seen in her later self-portraits, for example, her lost self-portrait (Figure 21). Would Anguissola have been aware of this dichotomy or felt she had two personas? I believe that her interest in self-presentation, as evidenced by her self-portraits, proves that she was conscious of the social constraints placed on her. It is my belief that the dilemma of her two personas is addressed in the Double Portrait through Anguissola’s adaptation of the allegory of prudence. Cultural conceptions of the virtue of prudence were under transformation in the early modern period. As Katherine T. Brown describes, “The idea of prudence shifted from theological parameters during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries 9° lbid., 86. Besides Titian, Brown lists several examples of Tintoretto’s portraiture as examples of protagonist portraiture, including two copies of early self-portraits (Figure 44 and 45) and the final self-portrait painted by Tintoretto before his death (Figure 46). 43 toward the will of the individual during the sixteenth-century.”91 This change in the understanding of the virtue is a shift from its original meaning to a more complicated interpretation that addressed the divided self: Indeed, the growing importance of the ideals of prudence and sincerity — as well as the tensions between them — made it increasingly possible in the Renaissance and in the early modern period generally to view a particular person as a complex individual, who was self-conscious about the degree to which the inner self, now viewed as largely cut off from God, directed the outer, public self in its daily interactions with one’s fellow citizens, subjects, or courtiers.92 To understand how Anguissola may have incorporated this new conception of prudence into the Double Portrait we will examine a few pictorial examples of the allegory of prudence. In his article on the use of mirrors and the mirror’s association with the virtue of Prudence, Schwartz states, Prudence, one of the cardinal virtues, is personified by a figure whose head is formed by two faces, the face of a bearded man looking backward representing retrospection and experience, and the face of a young woman, looking into a mirror representing self-knowledge as the other basic presupposition of prudence.” When describing the Double Portrait, it is usually stated that Anguissola paints a portrait of Campi, who in turn, paints a portrait of Anguissola. Assuming Anguissola used a mirror in the production of the painting, a scenario similar to Schwartz’s description is found. In order to construct the Double Portrait, Anguissola had to use a mirror to capture herself in the act of painting. But 91 - lbld. 92 John Martin, “Inventing Sincerity, Refashioning Prudence: The Discovery of the Individual in Renaissance Europe,” The American Historical Review. (December 1997) 102: 1340. 93 Schwartz, p. 104. instead of painting her face on the figure that is painting, she painted the face of Campi-a bearded man. In this way, Anguissola figures her two personalities or faces: the self she sees in the mirror, and her image as a bearded man who paints on the canvas. As described by Schwartz, the bearded face represents “retrospection and experience.” To Anguissola, the bearded face of Campi was in the past, and yet she owed her future career to him. When she finished with the figure of Campi, Anguissola moved onto her own self-portrait with the aid of the mirror. Again Schwartz’s description is apt, as he describes the female looking into the mirror, which represents “self-knowledge.” Thus, as the bearded face of Campi is reminiscent of the past and experience, the self-portrait of Anguissola demonstrates her artistic ability and the beginning of her independent career. Schwartz’s description is based on an engraved image from a set of playing cards or tarocchi. This image of 1465 (Figure 47) depicts a single female figure with a face half-male and half-female. The female side gazes into a mirror that she holds in her hand. Even though this image and the rest of the images included in the playing card deck did not function primarily as works of art, there is evidence that artists used the tarocchi. As Hind states, “the existence of several series in practically contemporary binding does show that even if used as a game the engravings were also preserved as pattern- or picture-books, or epitomes of knowledge represented in pictorial forms.”94 The figure of Prudence evolves from the tarocco version to painted examples, such as Giovanni Bellini’s 9‘ Arthur M. Hind, Early Italian Enqravinq: A Critical Catalogue with Complete Reproduction of All the Print; Descri_b_ag, Part I, (New York: M. Knoedler and Company, 1938), p. 222. 45 miniature painting of the virtue in Venice (Figure 48). Here, Prudence is painted as a nude figure that possesses a rather large convex mirror. What is reflected in the mirror is contested, but I believe that the reflection is that of a bearded man.95 The presence of a bearded man (a portrait of the patron, or more likely, a self-portrait of the artist) continues the duality of male and female in the tradition of Prudence iconography. While the figure of Prudence appears most often in allegorical constructions, it was also used in conjunction with self-portraiture. The prime example is Titian’s Allegory of Time Govemed by Prudence, c. 1565 (Figure 49). In this strange portrait, we see the allegory of prudence depicted using three portraits. The portraits can be identified, from left to right, as a self-portrait of Titian, his son Orazio Vecellio, and Titan’s nephew, Marco Vecellio. Underneath each portrait is a corresponding animal: a wolf, a lion, and a dog. The corresponding portraits and animals represent numerous ideas associated with a three-headed portrayal of Prudence, namely past, present, and future, and memory, intelligence, and foresight.96 As with all portrayals of prudence, the mirror is present, cleverly implied by the self-portrait of Titian.97 A different painting by Anguissola, the miniature Self-Portrait in Boston (Figure 10), has been linked to the allegory of prudence. In this painting, the artist is portrayed behind what scholars identify as either a mirror or a shield with 95 Jan Bialostocki believes the reflection to be that of a demon. See Bialostocki, “Man and Mirror in Painting: Reality and Transience,” In Studies in Late Medieval and Renaissance Painting in Honor of Millard Meiss, ed. Irving Lavin and John Plummer, (New York: New York University Press, 1977), p. 67. Brown, p. 174. 9’ lbid. 46 an inscription. This shield/mirror can be related to that held by Prudence in Bellini’s interpretation. Thus, as Catherine King concludes, “It is plausible that the othenrvise socially quite dangerous advertisement of the availability of a noblewoman who painted, could be rendered decorous by shielding her with the attribute of Prudence.”98 In Anguissola’s Double Portrait, we can see two representations of the female artist: her representation in the self-portrait and the representation of herself in the guise of Campi. In her self-portrait, Anguissola depicts herself as a poised, virtuous lady of the noble class. As personified by the figure of Campi, Anguissola portrays her artistic side with the drab artistic clothing and tools of the trade—a trade that was perceived as more masculine than feminine. Could the painting subtly be hinting at the wish of Anguissola to be a man? Certainly, if Anguissola were a man her artistic career would have had a better chance of success, as she would have received more training and support. But yet, as a male artisan, Anguissola would not have enjoyed the advantages of being a member of the noble class. Either way, it would seem that two life paths divided Anguissola. I believe this division profoundly structured the Double Portrait. 9" King, pp. 389-90. 47 CONCLUSION In the last three chapters, I have outlined three aspects of the Double Portrait. The first recognizes the painting as a lasting tribute to the friendship between Anguissola and Campi. The second interpretation recognizes Anguissola’s adherence to the tradition of St. Luke painting the Virgin as the artist’s subtle statement demonstrating her virtue. The third interpretation focuses on Anguissola’s struggle with two personas and her use of the allegory of prudence to produce a painting that addressed the societal pressures on a noble female artist. All three interpretations work together in Anguissola’s Double Portrait to figure Anguissola’s unique position within her society and to claim her position within artistic tradition. In my opinion, the most common interpretation of the Double Portrait as a revenge tactic against Campi underestimates Anguissola’s assurance and subtlety as an artist. Anguissola was clearly aware of the traditions of artistic self-representation and incorporated three of these traditions into a painting whose innovations I hope to have illumined. 48 FIGURES 49 Figure 1. Sofonisba Anguissola. Bernardino Campi Painting Sofonisba Anguissola or The Double Portrait, c.1559. Oil on Canvas, 111x109.5 cm. Siena, Pinacoteca Nazionale. 50 Figure 2. Sofonisba Anguissola. Bernardino Campi Painting Sofonisba Anguissola or The Double Portrait [before restoration], c.1559. Oil on Canvas, 111x109.5 cm. Siena, Pinacoteca Nazionale. 51 Figure 3. Sofonisba Anguissola. Portrait of Amilcare, Minerva, and Asdrubale Anguissola, c. 1557-8. Oil on canvas, 157x122 cm. Nivaagaards Malerisamling, Niva, Denmark. 52 Figure 4. Jacopo Tintoretto. Portrait of Procurator Antonio Cape/Io, c.1560/2. Gallerie dell’Accademia, Venice. 53 Figure 6. Engraved Portrait of Marietta Tintoretto. 54 Figure 7. Attributed to Marietta Robusti. Self-Portrait at the Keyboard, c. 1580. Florence, Galleria degli Uffizi. 55 Figure 8. Sofonisba Anguissola. Self-Portrait, c.1561. Oil on Canvas, 28.5x24 cm. Milan, Pinacoteca di Brera. 56 Figure 9. Sofonisba Anguissola. Self-Portrait, detail, c.1561. Oil on Canvas, 28.5x24 cm. Milan, Pinacoteca di Brera. 57 Figure 10. Sofonisba Anguissola. Self-Portrait, c. 1552. Oil on Copper Miniature, 8.2x6.3 cm. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts. 58 Figure 11. Sofonisba Anguissola. Self-Portrait with Easel, late 15505. Oil on Canvas, 66x57 cm. Lancut, Museum Zamek. 59 Figure 12. Sofonisba Anguissola. Self-Portrait at the Keyboard, c. 1561. Oil on Canvas, 56.5x48 cm. Naples, Museo Nazionale di Capodimonte. 60 Figure 13. Sofonisba Anguissola. Self-Portrait, Oil on Canvas, 44.8x34.2 cm. Milan, Museo Poldi Pezzoli. 61 Figure 14. Sofonisba Anguissola. Self-Portrait, 1552. Oil on Canvas, 88.5x69 cm. Florence, Gallerie degli Uffizi. 62 Figure 15. Sofonisba Anguissola. Self-Portrait, 1554. Oil on Panel, 17x12 cm. Vienna, Kunsthistoriches Museum. 63 Figure 16. Sofonisba Anguissola. The Chess Game, 1555. Oil on Canvas, 70x94 cm. Poznan, Museum Narodowe. 64 Figure 17. Sofonisba Anguissola. Holy Family with Saints Anne and John, 1592. Oil on Canvas, 123x109 cm. Coral Gables, Florida, Lowe Art Museum, University of Miami. 65 Figure 18. Anguissola Family (Elena Anguissola?) Portrait of Dominican Nun (Self- Portrait of Elena?) c. 1558. Oil on Canvas, 24x18 cm. Rome, Borghese Gallery. 66 Figure 19. Joseph Cavalli, engraving after sixteenth-century portrait of Bernardino Campi. From Giambattista Zaist, Notizie istoriche de pitton', sculton', ed architetti cremonese, 1774. .. .g . i- . i- 3.‘ . Figure 20. Anonymous Cremonese. Medal of Bernardino Campi, c.1570 Brescia, Musei Civici. 67 Figure 21. Engraved copy of Sofonisba Anguissola. Self-Portrait at Three- Quarter Length, 1560s. Formerly Leuchtenberg Collection. 68 Figure 22. Sofonisba Anguissola (?). Two Children Who Laugh. Private Collection. Figure 23. Sofonisba Anguissola. Self-Portrait with Old Woman, c. 1545. Chalk Sketch, 302x402 cm. Florence, Uffizi Gallery, Gabinetto dei Disegni. 69 Figure 24. Sofonisba Anguissola. Pieta, c.1550s. Oil on Canvas, 50x40 cm. Milan, Pinacoteca di Brera. Figure 25. Bernardino Campi. Pieta. c. 15503. Milan, Pinacoteca di Brera. 7O Figure 26. Bernardino Campi. St. Jerome. Cremona, San Sigismondo. Figure 27. Sofonisba Anguissola. Portrait of an Old Man, 0. 1558-1565. Oil on Canvas, 88.9x73.6 cm. Lincolnshire, Stamford, Burghley House. 71 Figure 28. Luca Cambiaso. Madonna with Child. Figure 29. Sofonisba Anguissola. Madonna with Child. Oil on Canvas, 77x63.5 cm. Budapest, Szepmuveszet Muzeum. 72 Figure 30. Luca Cambiaso. Portrait of the Artist painting a Portrait of his Father, 1575-80. Whereabouts unknown. 73 Figure 31. Jacopo Pontormo. Double Portrait, 1522. Venice, Fondazione Giorgio Cini. Figure 32. Raphael. Portrait of Andrea Navagero and Agostino Beazzano, 1516. Rome, Galleria Doria-Pamphili. 74 Figure 33. Raphael. Self-Portrait with Fencing Master, c. 1519. Paris, Louvre. 75 Figure 34. Sofonisba Anguissola. Portrait of Husband and Wife, c.1570-71. Oil on Canvas, 72x65 cm. Rome, Galleria Doria Pamphili. 76 Figure 35. Antonis Mor. Self-Portrait at the Easel, 1558. Florence, Gallerie degli Uffizi. ’7 I Figure 36. Roger van der Weyden. Saint Luke Portraying the Virgin, c. 1435. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts. Figure 37. Giorgio Vasari (finished by Allori). St. Luke painting the Virgin. c. 1567-73. Fresco. Florence, SS. Annunziata, Cappella di S. Luca. 78 Figure 38. Sofonisba Anguissola (?). Self-Portrait at an Easel. Oil on Canvas, 66x59 cm. Mentena, Collection of Federico Zeri. Figure 39. Sofonisba Anguissola. Self-Portrait at the Easel, c. 1550-52. Oil on Panel, 18.5x23 cm. Private Collection of William Stirling. 79 Figure 40. Catherine van Hemessen. Self-Portrait at the Easel. 1548. Basel, Offentliche Kunstsammlung. Figure 41. Frans Floris. St. Luke painting the Virgin. 1556. Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten. 80 Figure 42. Sofonisba Anguissola. Portrait of a Dominican Monk. 1556. Oil on Canvas, 57x53 cm. Brescia, Pinacoteca Tosio Martinengo. 81 Figure 43. Titian. Self-Portrait. Early 15503. Oil on Canvas. Berlin, Staatliche Museum, Gemaldegalerie. 82 Figure 44. Jacopo Tintoretto. Copy after a Self-Portrait, c. 1546-48. London, Victorial and Albert Museum. Figure 45. Jacopo Tintoretto. Copy of a Self-Portrait, c. 1546-48. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum of Art. 83 Figure 46. Jacopo Tintoretto. Self-Portrait. c. 1589. Oil on Canvas, 62.5x52 cm. Paris, Louvre. 84 n:xx,;);_,gx‘1 ..AAWJ.1 I Ir 1 x .-ml N , I : id ; 4 5 J l . - .j-_ I 5 f ’ ~ N a ..- rt . _ ' _... _,__ , ’4; a, i _ r .A a 1‘ Fr c.1519 ./ . Figure 48. Giovanni Bellini (Workshop). Vanitas-Prudentia. Venice, Gallerie dell'Accademia. 85 Figure 49. Titian. Allegory of Time Governed by Prudence, c. 1565. London, National Gallery. 86 BIBLIOGRAPHY Arrigoni, Luisa; Daffra, Emanuela; and Marani, Pietro C. The Brera Gallery: The Official Guide. Milan: Soprintendenza perl Berni Artistici e Strorici, 1998. Berenson, Bernhard. “Sofonisba Anguissola.” In North Italian Painters of the Renaissaace, pp.162-163. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1907. Bialostocki, Jan. “Man and Mirror in Painting: Reality and Transience.” In St_udies in Late Medieval and Renaissance Paintiagin Honor of Millarg Meiss, ed. Irving Lavin and John Plummer, pp. 61-72. New York: New York University Press, 1977. Borzello, Frances. Seeing Ourselves: Women’s Self-Portraits. London: Thames and Hudson,1998. Brandi, Cesare. La Regia Pinacoteca di Siena. Roma: La Libreria deIIo Stato, 1933. Brown, Clifford Malcom. “Paintings in the Collection of Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga: After Michelangelo’s Vittoria Colonna Drawings and by Bronzino, Giulio Romano, Fermo Ghisoni, Parmigianino, Sofonisba Anguissola, Titian, and Tintoretto.” In _G_i_t_llio Romano: Atti del Convegno lnternazionale di Studi su fllio Romano e l’esmsione Europe del Rinascimento, pp. 203-226. Mantua: Accademia nazionale virgiliana, 1989. Brown, Katherine T. The Painter’s Reflection: Self-Portraitgre in Renaiisance Venice 1458-162; Florence: Leo S. Olschki Editore, 2000. Campbell, Lorne. Renaissance Portraits: Egropean Portrait-Painting in the 14‘". 15th and 16th Centuries. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990. I Camai e la cultura artistica cremonese del Cinquecento. Exhibition Catalog. Milan: Electra, 1985. Caroli, Flavio. Sofonisba Anguissola e le sue sorelle. Milan: A. Mondadori,1987. Catalogo della Galleria del R. lstituto Provinciale di Belle Arti in Siena. Siena: 1903. Qatalmo della Gileria del R.lstituto Provinciale di Belle Arti in Siena. Siena: Tipografia all’ Insegna dell’ Ancora, 1909. Chadwick, Whitney. Women. an and Societv. London: Thames and Hudson, 1990. 87 Cook, Herbert. “More Portraits by Sofonisba Anguissola.” Burlimn Magazine 26 (1915): 228-236. Cranston, Jodi. The Poetics of Portraitgre in the Italian Renaissance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Dami, Luigi. La Galleriafli Siena: Citta e Luoghi d’ltalia. No. 12. Firenze: lstituto di Edizione Artistiche Fratelli Alinari, 1924. Ferino—Pagden, Sylvia and Maria Kusche. Sofonisba Angaissola: a Renaissance Woman. Exhibition Catalog. Washington, DC: National Museum of Women in the Arts, 1995. Garrard, Mary D. “Here’s Looking at Me: Sofonisba Anguissola and the Problem of the Woman Artist.” Renaissance (LlLarterly 47 (Autumn 1994): 556-622. ---. “Renaissance Innovator.” Rev. of Sofonisba Angaissola: The First Great Woman Artist of the Renaissance, by llya Sandra Perlingieri. Art in America 80 (September 1992): 33-35. Glenn, Sharlee Mullins. “Sofonisba Anguissola: History’s Forgotten Prodigy.” Women’s Studiis 1822-3 (September 1990): 295-308. Goldscheider, Ludwig. Five Hundred Self-Portraits: From Ant_igge Times to the Pressent Day. Translated by J. Byam Shaw. Vienna: Phaidon Press, 1937. Gonzaga: La Celeste Galeria: Le Raccolte. Exhibition Catalogue. Milan: Skira, 2002. Gould, Cecil. “Raphael’s Double Portrait in the Louvre: An Identification for the Second Figure.” Artibus et Historiaa 10 (1984): 57-60. Greer, Germaine. The Obstacle Race: The Fortgnes of Women Painters fig Their Work. New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 1979. Hamlisch, Claire. “Toward an Understanding of Sofonisba Anguissola, (1532- 1625), Cremonese Painter.” M.A. Thesis, University of Michigan, August 1973. Harris, Anne Sutherland and Linda Nochlin, ed. Women Artists: 1550-1950. Alfred A. Knopf: New York, 1977. Hill, George Francis. Portrait Medals of Italian Agists of the Renaissance. London: P.L. Warner, 1912. 88 Hind, Arthur M. Early Italian Engraving: A Criticai Catalogue with Gimme Reproduction of All t_he Prints Qescrib_eg. Part I. New York: M. Knoedler and Company, 1938. Hughes, Diane Owen. “Representing the Family: Portraits and Purposes in Early Modern Italy.” ao_urnal of Interdisciplinam Histogr 17 (Summer 1986): 7- 38. Jacobs, Fredrika J. “Woman’s Capacity to Create: The Unusual Case of Sofonisba Anguissola.” Renaissance Quarterly 47 (Spring 1994): 74-101. Kelly-Gadol, Joan. “Did Woman Have a Renaissance?” In BecomirLLVisible: F Women In European Histogr, ed. by Renate Bridenthal, Claudia Koonz, Susan Stuard. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1987. 176-201. King, Catherine. “Looking a Sight: Sixteenth-Century Portraits of Woman “Artists.” Zeitschrift ftJr Kunstgeschicte 3 (1995): 381-406. Kozal, Susan Marie-Mosko. “Sofonisba Anguissola’s Self-Portraiture.” M.A. Thesis, Michigan State University, 1995. Kusche, Maria. Rev. of §pfoniaba Angpissola: The First Great Woman Artist of the Renaissance, by llya Sandra Perlingieri. Barliagton Magazine (September 1993): 640. ---. “Sofonisba Anguissola: Her Life and Work.” In Sofonisba Angpissola: A Renaissance Womap. Exhibition Catalogue. DC: The National Museum of Women in the Arts, 1995. Lightbrown, Ronald. Mantaqna: With a Complete Catalogue of tlae Paintings, Drawings, and Prints. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1986. Cat. Nos. 64 & 68. Lytle, Guy Fitch. “Friendship and Patronage in Renaissance Europe.” In Patronage, Art. And Socienr in Renaissance Italy, pp. 47-62. Edited by F.W. Kent and Patricia Simons with J.C. Eade. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987. Maclean, Ian. The Renaissance Notion of Women: A Stglv in the Fortgnes of Scholasticism ana Medical Science in European Intellectual Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980. Mclver, Katherine A. “Lavinia Fontana’s Self-Portrait Making Music.” Woman’s Art Journal 19 (Spring/Summer 1998): 3-8. Martin, John. “Inventing Sincerity, Refashioning Prudence: The Discovery of the 89 Individual in Renaissance Europe.” The American Historical Review 102 (December 1997): 1309-1342. Morelli, Giovanni. Italian Painters; Critical Stufidies of their Works. 2nd vol. Translated by Constance Jocelyn Ffoulkes. London: J. Murray, 1892-3. Nichols, Tom. Tintoretto: A Tradition am; an laentitv. London: Reaktion, 1999. Painters by Painters. Exhibition Catalogue. Florence: Uffizi Gallery, and New York: National Academy of Design, 1988. Paoletti, John T. and Gary M. Radke. Art in Renaissance Italy. London: Lawrence King, 1997. Perina, Chiara Tellini. “Documenti in editi riguardanti Sofonisba Anguissola.” Paragone 34,35 (July-September 1992): 95-100. Perlingieri, llya Sandra. “Lady in Waiting: Rediscovering the Forgotten Brilliance of an Illustrious Renaissance Painter.” Art and Antigues (April 1998): 66- 71, 116-119. ---. “Sofonisba Anguissola’s Early Sketches.” Woman’s Art Jcalmal 9 (Fall 1988/Winter 1989): 10-14. ---. Sofonispa Angpissola: The First Great Woman Artist of the Renaissance. New York: Rizzoli, 1992. Pinessi, Orietta. Safonsita Angpissola: un “pittora” alla corte gi Film ll. Milan: Selene Edizioni,1998. Pope-Hennessy, John. The PoLrait in the Renaissance. The A.W. Mellon Lectures in the Fine Arts, vol. 12. New York: Bollingen Foundation, 1966. Ridolfi, Carlo. The Life of Tintoretto andaf His Children Domenico and Marietta. Translated by Catherine Enggass and Robert Enggass. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1984. Schaefer, Jean Owen. “A Note on the lconography of a Medal of Lavinia Fontana.” Mnal of the Warbu_rg and Coarthalg InstiaLta 47 (1984): 232- 234. ---. “Saint Luke as Painter: From Saint to Artisan to Artist. ln Artistes, Artisans et Prodaction Artistigue au Moyen Age, ed. By Xavier Barral I Altet, p. 413- 427. Paris: Picard, 1986. Schwarz, Heinrich. “The Mirror in Art.” Art Quarterly 15 (1952): 97-118. 90 Shearman, John. “Portraits and Poets.” In Only Connect...:Art and the Spectator in Italian Renaissance, pp. 108-148. DC: National Gallery of Art, 1998. Sofonispa Aagpissola, Iaprimagonnapittrice: die Malerin ger Renaissance (l_J___ 1535-1625) Cremona-Mac_lri_d-Genua-Palermo. Exhibition Catalog. Vienna: Kunsthistoriches Museum, 1995. Sofonisaa Anguissola e Ie sue sorelle. Exhibition Catalogue. [Italy]: Leonardo arte,1994. Torriti, Piero. La Pinacoteca Naaionale di Siena: l Dipinti gal XV al XVIII Secolo. Genova: Sagep Editrice, 1978. Tufts, Eleanor M. “Sofonisba Anguissola, Renaissance Woman.” Art News 71 (October 1972): 50-53. Vertova, Luisa. “Lavinia versus Sofonisba.” Apollo 140 (January 1995): 43-46. Woods-Marsden, Joanna. Renaissance aeIf-Portraiflre: The Vispal Construction of Identity aname Social Statps of the Artist. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998. 91 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII lllll’llIlllilllililllllllllllllllilllllllll’ll 3 12 0871 93 02493