The Court Artist in Seventeenth-Century Italy

By Elena Fumagalli and Raffaella Morselli

Up to now the theme of the artist in the service of Italian courts has been examined in various studies focused mostly on the High Renaissance, as though the phenomenon was relevant only to the XV and XVI centuries. It actually lasted much longer, spanning the whole longue durée of the lives of the courts of the ancient regime.
The present volume intends to fill this gap, presenting for the first time a comprehensive examination of the subject of the court artist from sixteenth to seventeenth century and the transformations of this role. “Court artist” is here defined as one who received a regular salary, and was therefore attached to the court by a more or less exclusive service relationship. The book is divided in six chapters: each of them examines the position of the court artist in the service of the most important ruling families in Italy (the Savoy in Turin, the Gonzaga in Mantua, the Este in Modena, the Della Rovere in Pesaro and Urbino, the Medici in Florence) and in papal Rome, a particular and unique center of power.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Viella Libreria Editrice
• Release date: May 8, 2015
• ISBN: 9788867284375

Elena Fumagalli

Elena Fumagalli insegna Storia dell’arte moderna presso l’Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia. È autrice di numerosi contributi sulla storia della pittura in Italia nel Seicento e su temi legati alla committenza e al collezionismo artistico.

Book preview

cover.jpg

Kent State University European Studies

1

Series Editors

Marcello Fantoni Fabrizio Ricciardelli

The Court Artist

in Seventeenth-Century Italy

edited by

Elena Fumagalli and Raffaella Morselli

viella

Copyright © 2014 - Viella s.r.l. - Kent State University

Tutti i diritti riservati

Prima edizione: settembre 2014

ISBN 978-88-6728-437-5 (epub)

Prima edizione digitale: aprile 2015

Kent State University European Studies is a peer-reviewed book series.

logo.jpg

Preface

Kent State University has been educating students in Florence for more than forty years. Since 2004, the program’s home has been the Palazzo dei Cerchi, a renovated thirteenth-century palace in the heart of the historic center. With thirty faculty serving 300 students each year, Kent State is one of the largest American programs in Italy. Its broad range of academic offerings include Architecture, Business, Communication, Fashion, Education, and Art History. Kent State’s prestigious location adds to its high academic profile in Florence and allows both the students and the institution to be immersed in the rich cultural environment.

In striving for academic excellence, teaching and fostering research must go hand in hand. Therefore, conferences, workshops, lectures by international scholars, and a yearly forum on different European cities have been intrinsic endeavors of Kent State University in Florence. At this point, initiating a publication series rooted in these initiatives is almost imperative as part of the overall university mission, and also to capture in tangible form the rich scholarly activity centered at Palazzo dei Cerchi.

Though Kent State Florence is based in Italy, this book series will aspire to encompass a broader European horizon. Europe is historically an integrated system, and since the establishment of the European Union, it represents an important political entity of the global world. In many ways Europe has much in common with the United States, but it also has its own multifaceted identity and its own complex cultural profile. Superficial similarities often hide deeper differences, and Americans and Europeans have much more to learn and understand about each other than we usually imagine.

Furthermore, Western Civilization is not an obsolete concept, but it needs to be redefined in the context of the twenty-first century. This is one goal of these publications, so it is appropriate to focus on both the past and the present as they jointly contribute to shape reality. Knowing who we are and how we became what we are allows a higher level of cultural awareness, enabling us to leverage on our identity to positively interact with the larger world.

In order to accomplish this we must remove the barriers between traditional scholarly methodologies and more current investigations; we need a multidisciplinary approach. We hope this series will contribute to that and will welcome a broader audience to join this virtual round table discussion about Europe and its relationship to North America.

This project is possible because of the engagement of the Kent State University Florence staff and faculty, and the commitment of Dr. Fabrizio Ricciardelli, director of the program. To all of them we owe gratitude. A special thank you goes to Viella publishing and to Ms. Cecilia Palombelli, who saw the value of this initiative and decided to become a vital part of its inception.

Marcello Fantoni

Associate Provost, Office of Global Education

Abbreviations

ASC Archivio Storico Capitolino

ASR Archivio di Stato di Roma

ASV Archivio Segreto Vaticano

ASFi Archivio di Stato di Firenze

DGPA: Depositeria generale parte antica

DU: Ducato di Urbino

GM: Guardaroba medicea

M: Manoscritti

MM: Miscellanea medicea

MP: Mediceo del Principato

ASMn Archivio di Stato di Mantova

AG: Archivio Gonzaga

MCA: Magistrato Camerale Antico

ASCMo Archivio Storico Comunale di Modena

ASMo Archivio di Stato di Modena

AM: Archivio Segreto Estense, Archivio per Materie

BS: Archivio Segreto Estense, Bolletta dei Salariati

CD: Archivio Segreto Estense, Camera Ducale

MV: Archivio Segreto Estense, Mandati in volume

OB: Archivio Segreto Estense, Ordine di Bolletta

P: Archivio Segreto Estense, Cancelleria, Raccolte e miscellanee, Particolari

R: Archivio Segreto Estense, Cancelleria, Raccolte e miscellanee, Regolari

ASPr Archivio di Stato di Parma

ASTo Archivio di Stato di Torino

BSGPS: Bilanci e Stati Generali di Piemonte e Savoia

PCF: Patenti, controllo, finanze

TSR: Tesoreria della Real Casa

BAV Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana

Vat. lat.: mss. Vaticani Latini

BOP Pesaro, Biblioteca Oliveriana

DBI Dizionario biografico degli italiani

(Roma: Istituto dell’Enciclopedia Italiana, 1960-)

art. articolo

b. busta

cl. classe

f. filza

fasc. fascicolo

fol. foglio

m. mazzo

ms. manuscript

n.d. undated

par. paragrafo

reg. registro

vol. volume

Elena Fumagalli and Raffaella Morselli

Introduction

A specific literature on the topic of the court artist in Italy in the seventeenth century has thus far been lacking. The studies in this volume are gathered together with the intention to fill this gap in the art historical and historical bibliography.

The historians’ delay in studying Italian court artists in the seventeenth century has been caused on one side by the lack of prosopographical analyses of the court rolls,¹ and on the other by their seeing the court above all as a Renaissance phenomenon. The focus on the Renaissance has long worked to the detriment of the historiography of certain cities, and has showed its effects also on art history.²

Looking at the topic from a broad chronological perspective, we notice that from the late sixteenth century the relation between the needs of the court and the artists employed there changed profoundly, starting with the very nature of the work they were asked to perform. This break, which took definitive shape over a long period of time, has only rarely been mentioned in the studies. A recent analysis of the bibliography on Italian artists working at the courts of the peninsula and at other centers of European artistic power between the late sixteenth and early eighteenth centuries has brought out how many studies use the term court artist indiscriminately, without really verifying if an artist was actually on the court payroll.³ A presence, a passage, a job carried out for a patron who lived within its precincts is usually considered a valid reason to use the definition court artist. No questions are asked about when and how the artist came to be there, what his relations with the patron were, if he had been hired on a fixed-term contract and for a particular job, if he had been employed for a specific project or if he had been given a salary for life, thus enjoying also benefits and a pension. And again, what ties he had with his patron; for example if he could work also autonomously at the same time, thus securing for himself another form of income, or if he was obligated to produce only for the court. Placed within this framework, many of the artists called courtiers in the literature would have to be described using a different term.

It is difficult to establish just when the relationship between ruler and artist began to change, opening the way for a variety of ways an artist could be employed at court; nonetheless it seems that this happened right at the turn of the seventeenth century. This is attested also by the direct testimony of some of the leading figures of the time. See, for example, Rubens’s letters from the summer of 1603, when he was on a mission to Valladolid in the service of the duke of Mantua, Vincenzo I Gonzaga: Rubens’ greatness had to be measured by the magnificence that the court allowed him to emanate. The painter, accustomed to the court environment and accomplished at writing according to the guiles necessary to his position in the duke’s inner circle, engaged in a debate with precisely the person who had power over his own salary in order to further his interests. The final result is that of an explicit retaliation in terms of compensation and an expansion of his professional activity, by this point no longer bound to the requests of one sole ruler. This can be gathered from the letters Rubens sent from Rome on 29 July and 2 December 1606 to the Gonzaga secretary Annibale Chieppio, in which the artist complains about the delay in the payment of his salary and the necessity to accept the commission for the altar for the church of Santa Maria in Vallicella so that he would have money to live on.⁴

At the same time in Mantua another painter, Frans Pourbus, kept by the duke with every form of decorum⁵ and hired with an annual salary as the painter of the golden key, was operating in accordance with the old Renaissance tradition (as described by Federico Zuccari, who had met him at that court dressed in his knightly robes). Vincenzo Gonzaga had full power over him, to the point that the painter at the beginning of 1607 – the same period when Rubens was pulling away from his role – wrote to the young Ferdinando Gonzaga, future cardinal and duke, who was putting pressure on him for a portrait: I am not my own boss, since I am obligated to the Most Serene Lord Duke, I cannot do with the promptness that I would very much like if I were free.⁶ And again, the duke’s own wife, Eleonora de’ Medici, in late summer of that same year was forced to beg her husband to send the painter to Paris for two or three months, as requested by her sister Maria de’ Medici.⁷ Pourbus had a univocal and privileged relationship with his duke, who could use him as he thought best.

Between these two ways of interpreting the artistic exigencies of the court and the role assumed by the artist, Federico Zuccari comes in with his Passaggio per l’Italia con la dimora di Parma del Sig. cavaliere Federico Zuccaro (1608). The painter felt strong in his role of court painter for the decoration of the Escorial of Felipe II, who paid him an annual salary of 2000 ducats a year from 1586 to 1588 and a pension, and was bolstered by his familiarity with the courts of France, England, and most of those in Italy. From 1603 Zuccari spent seven months in Milan, seven in Turin and seven in Mantua, for a total of almost two years, and during each of these stays he carried out commissions and collected jobs. Above all, as a knight of the Republic of Venice and a Spanish nobleman, he frequented the courts as a peer, referring to himself as one of the courtiers.⁸ He tells the story with a light touch, and also a bit presumptuously, in the book cited above, concerning the – rather unhappy – marriage of Francesco Gonzaga to Margherita of Savoy. A striking aspect of this entire narrative is that he never once mentions the position of painter, architect or sculptor at court.

As defined by the first edition of the Vocabolario degli Accademici della Crusca (1612), the court is the palace of the rulers, and the ruler’s household itself. Thus it is identified as a particular building, the royal palace, and at the same time is made up of a group of people,⁹ of which artists also are a part. For artists, working at court and working for the court are two different options. As Martin Warnke stressed in his classic study Hofkünstler: zur Vorgeschichte des modernen Künstlers, the admission of the artist into the fixed structure of court stipends inserted him personally into the service hierarchy.¹⁰ Following this model, the point of departure for our investigation was the records of the payrolls, salaried employees, and finances of each court. The information drawn from these was supplemented by that available in the literature. The picture that emerges is instrumental in giving a comparative view of the topic of the artist working at court: such an artist drew a salary from the ruler, enjoyed privileges granted by him, and was attached to him by an exclusive bond of service (only the ruler could grant permission to work for others).

The examination of the presence of artists on the court payrolls (Ruoli) and the employment records (Libri dei salariati) is revealing for several reasons: it bears witness to the continuity and the breaks in the passage from the sixteenth to the seventeenth centuries (the case of Florence is exemplary in this regard: while the number of artists on the payroll had done nothing but increase throughout the entire sixteenth century, after 1620 we note a sharp decline in their presence, caused first and foremost by the need to economize), and it brings out the importance of the various categories of artists for each court. Just as the artists did not always stay on the payroll for life, so too a monthly salary was not the prerogative only of those on it. The most meaningful example of this is the artists called to take part in one particular project – usually an operation of decoration – who received a fixed monthly salary for the entire time they were working on it. This is the case of the Grand Gallery in the Palazzo Reale in Turin or of the Este ducal palace at Sassuolo. But participation in a grand decorative project could also be compensated differently, for example by the payments in installments spread out over time received by the artists working at Palazzo Pitti for Ferdinando II (such as Angelo Michele Colonna, Agostino Mitelli, or Pietro da Cortona).¹¹

Salario (salary) is a word that may be considered a synonym for provisione (or provvisione), provision; it refers to a remuneration in cash, usually monthly. It should be noted that at the Este court, the salary was called bolletta (essere a bolletta, being on salary, meant receiving a fixed stipend). Besides the stipend, normally the court furnished a parte (share), which consisted of food and other prime necessities of life, such as firewood and candles. For the most part it was paid in kind, but also in cash. In certain contexts (for instance Rome and Turin), the word companatico appears (literally, something to go along with bread), indicating a monthly sum granted for purchasing what was not supplied directly. Housing, too, and access to a studio could also be at the court’s expense. Moreover, in the seventeenth century every work produced by an artist was normally paid for individually or compensated by a large gift.

But it was not only a salary that made an artist a court artist; there was also his easy familiarity with the ruler. The cases of Federico Barocci with Duke Francesco Maria II della Rovere and Gian Lorenzo Bernini with Pope Urban VIII are, in different ways, emblematic of this condition.¹²

Within a vast range of situations, comparison of the various courts enables us to trace the fortune or misfortune of individual categories of artists. The architect remains the principal figure, the one the ruler cannot do without, and on average is the best paid. He could have precise, limited tasks (see for instance the misuratori, measurers, and the fontanari, responsible for the fountains at the papal court) or hold more than one position at the same time. An emphasis on military architecture, which throughout the sixteenth century had strategic importance for the Italian courts, was on the wane in the seventeenth. On the contrary, hydraulic engineering was always at the forefront, since it was indispensable for protecting and maintaining the territory of each state. The sculptor played a rather secondary role, with notable exceptions: Gian Lorenzo Bernini is the most emblematic, but he is also unique, because it would be reductive to consider him only as a sculptor. Owing to the cost of materials and the long working times required, especially for big projects, it was always necessary to make supplementary agreements with sculptors, and often their earnings were deemed unsatisfactory, as the complaints by Giambologna and Pietro Tacca to the Florentine Grand Dukes bear witness.

For the painters at court, the panorama presented here embraces a rich variety. Alongside well-known names can be found numerous others who have remained practically unknown, fiduciary figures who held a diversity of positions, for example the conservators of the art holdings of their sovereign (such as those who worked for the houses of Savoy, Este, and Gonzaga). It seems that painters were the most critical about being on the payroll and the constraints this entailed, to the point that many declined the offer of a court position.

What was the benefit of being on salary at court? Not all the artists felt this to be an advantage, either because payment of the salary was not always punctual or guaranteed (sometimes months went by without receiving a penny) or because the possibility of working for other patrons was subject to permission from the sovereign. But the direct relationship with the ruler and the court mechanisms led some artists to aspire to become a part of this universe, which guaranteed in general a number of benefits and could even offer the opportunity to hand on the position to the next generation.

Even a leading figure of seventeenth-century Europe like Rubens, whose force of rupture with the past has already been considered, debated this aspect with himself. The uncertainty surrounding his situation is well expressed in a letter written by the painter from Antwerp to his friend Johannes Faber in Rome on 10 April 1609, in which he expressed his doubts about employment at court. The alternative was the possibility of plying his trade freely in a growing market, without any political ties. The Archduke and the Most Serene Infanta have had letters written urging me to remain in their service. Their offers are very generous, but I have little desire to become a courtier again. Antwerp and its citizens would satisfy me, if I could bid farewell to Rome.¹³ In essence, Rubens compares the system of the court and courtiers to the city and its inhabitants, choosing, as we know, the latter. And yet, the other possibility was quite attractive and would have ensured him honor and glory.

Investigation of the documents brings out the importance assigned by the courts to the high-profile artisans/sophisticated craftsmen such as illuminators, clockmakers, goldsmiths, silversmiths, jewelers, embroiderers, tapestry weavers, carvers of semiprecious stones, etc. They were hired with very high salaries, witnessing to the consideration in which they were held. Their importance emerges right in the court rolls (Ruoli), compared to other artists, and is manifest to a greater or lesser degree in the various cities studied, with different chronologies and types of relationships, taking on in Florence and Urbino the form of centers of production of artifacts destined to spread the image of the court abroad. In the case of Florence these figures were gathered together in studios, as is well-known. Initiated in Palazzo Vecchio and then moved by Francesco I to the Casino di San Marco, these ateliers later became the Galleria dei lavori installed at the Uffizi. This organization of labor was immediately borrowed (after a trip to Florence) by Francesco Maria II della Rovere with the creation of the ducal botteghini (little workshops) in Pesaro, active at least from 1580 to about 1620.¹⁴ The production of rare and precious objects was aimed first and foremost at creating gifts for diplomatic use and represented an important calling card for the Italian dynasties. The Este family, too, looked to the Florentine model when they attempted to set up, in the late seventeenth century, a production of semi-precious inlays, but their manufacture only lasted about ten years.

A comparison of the courts of Turin, Mantua, Modena, Urbino, Florence and Rome brings out points of contact and difference, their desire to follow tradition and the need to innovate roles, the advisability of initiating new exchanges and the expediency of saving resources, even while they yielded to the attraction of the magnificence necessary to uphold their honor and reputation. In a uniform span of time, covering the entire seventeenth century, we have had to consider many local variants: the difference in coinage and currencies; the problem of terminology in comparing sources; the financial and economic organization of the court (offices, magistracies); the roles, duties, assignments and obligations of court artists; the manner of payment of the salaries and the amount and manner of payment of salaries in the various courts (with the variants of the share in kind and other clauses in the contracts); and the production requested by the patron and his entourage, including restrictions. The complexity of these variables had an impact on the process and phases of the production of art by each artist who held an official position at court.

The question of terminology, in the context of the comparisons, revealed itself to be the most problematic aspect of this book. If it is true that the administration of the various states taken into consideration used words that are interchangeable, these do not always correspond to the same job, the same duration, and obviously, to payment of the same salary. We were tempted to prepare a glossary, but the material does not permit sharp definition.

In the case studies of architects and engineers, not all the sources differentiate clearly the various specializations and jobs. In some contexts, too, new positions emerge in the course of the seventeenth century. In Modena, under Francesco I, we find the office of soprintendente generale delle fabbriche ducali (general superintendent of the ducal building projects; the first was Gaspare Vigarani), whose tasks ranged from producing architectural plans to ephemeral decorations to technical reports on the Este territories. In Mantua, starting in the sixteenth century, the position existed of prefetto delle fabbriche (prefect of the building projects), a job held in the seventeenth century by Daniel van den Dijck (from 1658 to 1663) and by Frans Geffels (from 1663 to 1694). Both of them were painters, therefore men who, more than being experts in the field of architecture, had to coordinate the work of various craftsmen in the sphere of the decoration of the ducal residences. After the middle of the seventeenth century, the office of prefetto dei teatri (prefect of the theaters) was added, demonstrating an increasingly precise distinction of roles.

As to sculpture, it would be interesting to know if there was a precise difference between scultore and statuario, and if so, what it was, since the two terms are often used indiscriminately for the same artist, as revealed above all by the case of Florence, where with Giambologna the modern figure of the court sculptor was born.¹⁵

The painter was the professional figure most necessary to the court for promoting its image (as in the case of portraitists), but also for decorating rooms and buildings. Above and beyond the generic term of pittore, in some contexts we find particular titles; only further research into the various contexts can enable us to understand if and to what extent they correspond to a difference in the job descriptions.

In Modena, under Alfonso IV d’Este, Francesco Stringa appears in the court account records from 1661 with the title of aiutante di camera (valet-de-chambre) and pittore di Sua Altezza (His Highness’s painter); a similar position was held around that same time in Mantua by Frans Geffels. The entrance of artists into their ruler’s chamber deserves a study all its own, since in the Italian courts it seems to have evolved differently than in other parts of Europe.

The situation of the painters seems to be more structured and hierarchical in the Piedmontese court, which shows similarities with the model of France. They were part of the corps of aiutanti di camera and are cited in the documents as pittore ordinario, primo pittore and primo pittore di Gabinetto, or pittore regolare. At the end of the century, in 1696, Daniel Seiter was bound to the court with a contract that stipulated he work exclusively for the House of Savoy; nevertheless Vittorio Amedeo II allowed him to work six months for him and six months on outside commissions.

In some instances the role of painter is connected, at times as a separate job, with that of curator of the paintings and ducal galleries. This was the case as early as 1615 for Pompeo Secondiano at the Savoy court; in Modena, during the reign of Francesco I d’Este, the job was assigned for the first time from 1638 to 1649 to Gabriele Balestrieri. These were trusted men, often quite close to the ruler, with whom they enjoyed a privileged relationship.

The variety of situations that emerges from the research conducted in conjunction with this book provides the foundation for future studies.

Even though they present numerous differences – due also to the diversity of historical sources and documentary material available – the essays contained here bear witness to a great variety and liveliness at the major Italian courts. They show the presence of architects, sculptors, painters, and various categories of master craftsmen throughout the seventeenth century and highlight the changes in their position in the transition from the preceding century.

Patrizia Cavazzini investigated the case of the papal court, spotlighting continuities and changes from the sixteenth to the seventeenth centuries. Raffaella Morselli devoted her attention to the special case of Pesaro and Urbino, the land of the della Rovere family, which was dominated at the turn of the century by Federico Barocci, an anomalous figure of court painter. Elena Fumagalli reviewed the relations of the first Medici Grand Dukes with artists, connecting their experience with that of the next century, marked by a sharp change. Roberta Piccinelli and Barbara Ghelfi used their knowledge of the Gonzaga and Este families respectively to delineate a picture of the courts of Mantua and Modena. Annamaria Bava and Clara Goria have reconstructed the relation of artists with the Piedmontese court of the House of Savoy, the closest, in terms of structure and terminology, to the model of France. Moreover the available material and archival research are still in need of in-depth study and organization.

Due to the time that necessarily elapses between the research and writing of the essays and their appearance in print, the bibliography is up to date as of end of 2013. Other interesting work has been done in the meantime, but unhappily we have not been able to take it into consideration here.

We have chosen not to examine the role of artists in the parts of Italy under Spanish dominion, the courts of Naples and Milan. The courts of Naples and Milan obviously merit scholarly treatment, but because of the variety of traditions at their base and their direct tie with the court of the Catholic kings – which would have required a particular discussion in their