The Clues in the Jewels: a Case for Companion Portraits of Francesco I and Lucrezia De’ Medici1 Heather L

The Clues in the Jewels: A Case for Companion Portraits of Francesco I and Lucrezia de’ Medici1 Heather L. Sale Holian

n the North the unifying mar- Carolina Mu- riage.5 Lucrezia’s I seum of Art in portrait in Raleigh Raleigh resides the was probably paint- finest extant por- ed almost two years trait of Lucrezia de’ later, in early 1560, Medici, fifth child by Alessandro of Duke Cosimo I Allori and his and Duchess Eleo- shop,6 just before nora di Toledo (Fig. Lucrezia’s departure 1). Born in Florence, from Florence for on St. Valentine’s the d’Este court at Day 1544, Lucrezia Ferrara. As such, was joined in a crit- the panel most like- ical marriage of ly functioned as a state in July 1558 commemorative to the future Duke image of the depart- of Ferrara, Alfonso ing princess, bound II d’Este, son of for the ducal court Ercole II. The d’Este of her husband.7 were an old, noble Surprisingly this family who could important state por- trace their origins as trait was never rulers back to the exhibited before eleventh century.2 20058, and given its Ercole II took par- status, the work is ticular pride in his also notably under- family’s antiquity published. Indeed and was enraged by scholarship related the political maneu- to the painting is vers of the parvenu, confined to a short Cosimo I, to estab- paragraph in Karla lish Medici dynastic Langedijk’s seminal precedence in Italy.3 1987 catalogue of The union between Medici portraits, a Medici princess4 Figure 1. Portrait of Lucrezia de’ Medici, by Alessandro Allori and shop. 1560. and a very recently and Ercole’s son Oil on panel. 83.8 by 63.6 cm. North Carolina Museum of Art, Raleigh, Gift of published analysis was desired on both Mrs. George Kuhner. by portrait scholar, sides as a way to Gabrielle Langdon.9 heal the breach between the two ducal families and ensure In their respective studies, both scholars recognized the a political accord between the Ferraran and Florentine critical connection between the image of Lucrezia and courts. This mollifying function was expressed by Ercole another important Allori portrait, that of her brother, the himself in a letter to Cosimo written four months before heir apparent, Francesco I de’ Medici, who they correctly

452 SECAC Review Vol.XIV No. 5 meaning. With the benefit of this new visual information, a deeper understanding of the compelling connection between the two portraits is finally possible, and it is this link which the present essay seeks to elucidate. Lucrezia, who seems to have been sickly much of her life, died in April 1561 of consumption at the age of seventeen. Due to her premature death, few portraits of Lucrezia de’ Medici were painted and even fewer are still preserved.11 Most of the extant painted portraits of Lucrezia are smaller copies or abbreviated versions of the Raleigh panel, testifying to its position as an important state portrait. The eminent status of the North Carolina portrait is further proven by an engraving of Lucrezia from Adriaen Haelwegh’s 1675-76 portrait series of the Medici family for which the Raleigh work, or one of its copies, clearly served as the model.12 In her 1987 catalogue, Langedijk identified the North Carolina painting as the portrait prototype from which all subsequent replicas were produced.13 Although Langedijk did not provide a reason, first hand observation of the Raleigh work reveals that the panel is superior in artistic quality to all known copies. The panel’s fine execution indicates the work of a master painter with minimal workshop assistance, and therefore is most likely the original, as Langedijk noted.14 In the North Carolina work, Lucrezia is standing and is Figure 2. Portrait of Francesco I de’ Medici, Seated, Half Length, shown to slightly above the knee. This general format and in Red Costume, Holding a Portrait Medalion of a Lady, by length is most prevalent among the preserved images of Alessandro Allori (attributed to Angelo Bronzino). 1560. Oil on Medici women depicted by Agnolo Bronzino, Alessandro panel. 82 by 65 cm. Private American Collection. ©Christies Allori and others from the 1560s and 1570s, while after Images Ltd. 2006. this date the format lengthens slightly to a true three- Figure 3. Detail of miniature portrait of Lucrezia, from Portrait quarter length representa- of Francesco I de’Medici, by Alessandro Allori. 1560. Oil on tion.15 Lucrezia is present- panel. 82 by 65 cm. Private American Collection. ©Christies ed before a plain gray Images Ltd. 2006. background, and wears an elaborately slashed identified as holding a miniature copy of the Raleigh por- and finely embroidered trait (Figs. 2 and 3). Aside from Langedijk’s supposition black velvet dress.16 She is that the miniature was included to allude to the presti- lavishly bejeweled with a gious new link between the Medici and the d’Este, real- diamond, ruby, and pearl ized through Lucrezia’s lucrative union,10 neither scholar encrusted belt and head- discussed the formal nor the possible internal connections piece, teardrop pearl ear- between these important Medici state portraits. rings, and a short pearl The current study will suggest that the portraits of necklace. In her right Lucrezia and Francesco, both dated to 1560, were painted hand, Lucrezia conspicu- as companion portraits. A discussion of the personal rela- Figure 4. Detail of Lucrezia’s ously displays for the tionship between Francesco and Lucrezia will further propose pendant, from Portrait of viewer a large gold pen- that the two siblings were as close as a well-bred brother Lucrezia de’ Medici, by dant set with a square, and sister could be in sixteenth-century Italy, and that their Alessandro Allori and shop. 1560. table-cut diamond below Oil on panel. 83.8 by 63.6 cm. a square, table-cut ruby familial bond is visually encoded within Allori’s works. North Carolina Museum of Art, After years of languishing under layers of dirt and darken- Raleigh, Gift of Mrs. George Kuhner. (Fig. 4). The setting is fur- ing varnish, the recently cleaned portrait of Lucrezia is again ther embellished with visually legible. The panel’s restoration has notably increased another teardrop pearl hanging from the bottom of the the visibility of the princess’s jewelry, permitting a previously pendant. Her left hand rests gracefully upon a crystal orb, impossible iconographic study of the gems and their which in turn sits upon a marble tabletop.

SECAC Review Vol.XIV No. 5 453 Figure 5. Portrait of Bartolomeo Panciatichi, by Agnolo Bronzino, c. 1540. Oil on panel. 104 x 84 cm. Photo Credit: Scala/ Art Resource, NY. Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence, Italy.

Figure 6. Portrait of Lucrezia Panciatichi, by Agnolo Bronzino, c. 1540. Oil on panel. 102 x 85 cm. Photo Credit: Scala/ Art Resource, NY. (Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence, Italy.

The Portrait of Lucrezia, is an oil on panel and meas- the broader contexts of Allori’s career and Medici state ures 32 3/4 inches by 24 15/16 inches (83.2 x 63.1 cm) portraiture in general. The work, of which two larger without the frame. However, the top edge of the support copies and two smaller variants are preserved,19 is general- has been cut down perhaps as much as a quarter of an ly dated to 1560, 20 the same date accepted for the repre- inch, while the right and left sides of the panel have been sentation of his sister. The portrait of Francesco was sold planed. Only the bottom edge of the support retains the at Christie’s in 1978 as a Bronzino, but has since been original rounded lip of the ground and paint layers.17 The given, correctly, this author believes, to Allori.21 Like the Portrait of Francesco, today in a private American collec- Lucrezia, it is the finest of the extant versions, causing tion, is also executed in oil on panel, and measures scholars generally to accept the present work as the origi- approximately 32 1/4 inches by 26 inches (82.7 x 65 cm) nal version, and the others as copies, either by Allori, or without its frame, making it almost exactly the same size his shop.22 As such, the painting of Francesco marks the as the piece in Raleigh. If the Portrait of Lucrezia had its first official portrait of the prince executed by Allori, and missing quarter of an inch along the top edge and its now- therefore stands at the beginning of a productive relation- absent portions along the sides, the works, while remain- ship between the patron and the artist. ing nearly identical in terms of size, would match more In his representation, Francesco is depicted in a pose closely in terms of figural placement. Each figure would common among portraits painted by Bronzino of male fit closely, but comfortably within their frames with only a members of court. He is shown to the middle of his thigh slight clearance at the head, arms or hands, and therefore, and seated, in this case, at a desk with his hands resting corresponding as companion portraits often do, in terms upon one another, which in turn lie on top of a book with of placement and format.18 a green binding. In his right hand he holds the portrait The Portrait of Francesco I is an important work, not miniature of Lucrezia. Francesco sits before a plain, rose- only for its relation to the portrait of Lucrezia, but also in colored background and wears a striking red doublet,

454 SECAC Review Vol.XIV No. 5 Figure 7. Portrait of Eleonora di Toledo with her son, Giovanni, by Agnolo Bronzino. c.1545. Oil on panel. 115 x 96 cm. Photo Credit: Scala/ Art Resource, NY. Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence, Italy.

Figure 8. Detail of Eleonora’s belt, from Portrait of Eleonora di Toledo with her son, Giovanni, by Agnolo Bronzino. c.1545. Oil on panel. 115 x 96 cm. Photo Credit: Scala/ Art Resources, NY. Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence, Italy.

SECAC Review Vol.XIV No. 5 455 embellished with meticulously rendered gold embroidery, are both in the bottom third of the fictive space, and are over a white shirt, also elaborately decorated with hand- positioned approximately the same distance from one work. The neck of the slim-fitting doublet is fastened high another in each image. While not sharing identical hand with a series of round, gold buttons. Around his neck, he gestures, the right hands of each sitter are in roughly the wears a narrow black cord, the end of which is tucked same spatial region of the work, as are the left hands. into the front of his doublet, concealed from view. At his Similarities in the location of sitters’ hands within waist, and below his left arm, is the golden hilt of a sword Renaissance companion portraits was common, as demon- hanging in its red scabbard. Thus, Francesco is depicted as strated by Raphael’s 1503 portraits of Agnolo and the ideal Castiglionian courtier, who is educated and liter- Maddalena Doni, the official state portraits of Grand ate, but who is also competent in more militaristic pur- Duke Ferdinando I de’ Medici and Grand Duchess suits, as denoted by his sword.23 Further, he is dressed in Cristina of Lorraine painted by Scipione Pulzone in red, which was almost as appealing to Renaissance eyes as 1590,25 and Allori’s tondo portraits of Cosimo I and Castiglione’s black, since it suggested in its wearer quali- Eleonora di Toledo from c. 1570-71 in the Studiolo of ties of royalty, lordship and the ability to command.24 Francesco I in the Palazzo Vecchio.26 Since the head and Here the hue, together with the gold embroidery, appro- hands of a sitter are the most optically magnetic and priately assume a Medicean meaning, as they reference the arresting elements of a portrait, their placement usually colors of the family’s coat-of-arms in Francesco’s first functioned to establish critical visual correspondences state portrait by Allori. between the two portraits, linking the works into a single Both Francesco and Lucrezia are positioned with their cohesive compositional unit. In Allori’s images of bodies at an angle to the picture plane and their torsos Francesco and Lucrezia, however, the hands are not simi- turned almost exactly the larly placed. Francesco’s same degree to the left, are laid one on top of the while Lucrezia stands, and other in the lower left her brother sits. Despite quadrant of the panel, this obvious difference in while Lucrezia’s are sepa- pose, the basic placement rated and located just left of the two sitters’ forms is and right of the vertical quite similar within the axis of the composition. painted field. For example, In addition, Lucrezia’s two their shoulders are in the hands are located on dif- same location, as are their ferent spatial planes. Her heads, and the center of right hand appears to their torsos. Basic compo- touch her breast, while sitional variances and sim- her left hand extends ilarities of the type noted towards the viewer as it here were not uncommon rests on the crystal orb. In among Renaissance com- contrast, both of panion portraits, as Francesco’s hands are in demonstrated by slightly deeper fictive Bronzino’s depictions of space. It appears that Bartolomeo and Lucrezia Allori chose to ignore the Panciatichi of about 1540 traditional method of uni- (Figs. 5 and 6), where fying companion portraits Bartolomeo stands, and vis-à-vis the location of Lucrezia sits and both fig- sitters’ hands in his images ures are turned slightly to of Francesco and Lucrezia. the left. Continuing with Despite these differ- this comparison, however, ences in pose, arguably a significant difference the most striking element between Bronzino’s por- within both paintings is traits and those of Allori the fact the sitters each presents itself. In the hold small objects in their Figure 9. Portrait of Bianca Cappello, by Alessandro Allori. c.1582. Panciatichi portraits the Oil on copper. 37 x 27 cm. Photo Credit: Erich Lessing/ Art right hands, and it is these hands of the two sitters Resource, NY. Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence, Italy. objects which provide a

456 SECAC Review Vol.XIV No. 5 further visual link between the two works and their sub- made for Piero di Cosimo il Vecchio de’ Medici.30 Over jects. In Francesco’s case there can be no question that the the next ten years, Piero elaborated upon the simple dia- item is a miniature of his sister, and that the model for the mond ring device and developed an extensive symbolic miniature was the Raleigh portrait. Less overt, and vocabulary for the Medici family as witnessed by the arguably more powerful in iconography is the jeweled many works of art he commissioned and marked with pendant held by Lucrezia. Indeed, the entire jewelry these emblems.31 The variants Piero used included the ensemble of the princess is intended to communicate a Medici stemma enclosed by the single diamond ring, three very specific message, as jewels appear to do in other pre- interlocking diamond rings alone, and a single diamond served Medici state portraits. ring with three feathers and the Medici motto SEMPER, A survey of extant Florentine portraits of women from meaning “always” or “forever.” Several of these Medicean the middle to late sixteenth century, painted by Bronzino, devices are present in Benozzo Gozzoli’s frescoes for the Allori or within their orbit suggests that the persistent Medici Chapel of the family’s Florentine palace, dated to combination of diamonds and rubies in jewelry was a around 1459 (Fig. 10). Here the trappings of Piero’s white Medici phenomenon. Of the four to five dozen published horse are emblazoned with the Medici coat-of-arms encir- portraits of this type, only Eleonora di Toledo and other cled with a diamond ring, the repeated word SEMPER, prominent women of the Medici family are clearly and interlocking point-cut diamond rings, and three feathers. consistently depicted with this specific gem combination. In addition, Piero’s identifiable mauve, green and white Two different Bronzino portraits of Lucrezia’s mother, one livery, worn by the servant immediately preceding his in the Tribuna of the Uffizi (Figs. 7 and 8), the other in horse, is further marked by the Medicean single diamond Pisa,27 and both preserved in several copies and variants, ring with a scroll bearing the family’s motto. depict her wearing two different gold jeweled belts, each The Medici adoption of the diamond as a dynastic set with a large rectangular ruby, and a large rectangular device is not surprising given the family’s well-known pro- diamond, just below.28 Further, the stones are prominently pagandistic tendencies, their aspirations, and the many displayed within the portraits in both instances, suggesting virtues ascribed to the stone during the Renaissance. For there may be a deeper meaning. In Lucrezia’s portrait, she example, it was believed the diamond could bring the also conspicuously exhibits a gold pendant set with a desirable qualities of fearlessness, invincibility, strength, square diamond, placed below a ruby, which is also square courage, valor and fortitude to its wearer.32 Naturally, the in shape. In addition, two documented examples of exqui- diamond additionally served as a symbol of the presence site gifts of jewelry, also set with diamonds, rubies, and of these same admirable attributes in an individual or pearls, were presented to Medici brides Giovanna of family. It was probably in this latter capacity that the dia- Austria and Virginia de’ Medici, by Cosimo I and Ferdin- mond ring, as a device, was first rendered attractive to the ando I respectively.29 It is, therefore, tempting to read all Medici, who were not the first to utilize the emblem. In five of these pieces as Medicean symbols. Further, the ear- fact, the diamond ring appears to have been used both by rings Lucrezia wears in the Raleigh portrait are clearly the the d’Este and the Sforza of Milan before being adopted same style, if not the same earrings worn by her mother, in the 1440s by Piero de’ Medici, perhaps in imitation of Eleonora, in her two portraits. The same earrings or ones these esteemed and established courtly centers.33 like them also appear later in another Allori portrait pre- Beginning with Piero, individual Medici adapted the served in the Uffizi, that of a third Medici, Francesco’s original single diamond ring device, utilized by all mem- second wife, Bianca Cappello (Fig. 9). I would argue, that bers of the family, in order to produce more personal sym- in each of these portraits, as well as in life, jewelry assumed bols unique to themselves and their descendants.34 Despite much the same identifying role on Medici women as the these adaptations, the use of the point-cut diamond ring family’s ubiquitous and proprietary coat-of-arms served was consistent throughout the many subsequent deriva- on the family’s architecture or monuments, that is, to tions. In its many variations, the point-cut diamond ring demarcate property of the Medici. Perhaps not coinciden- became and remained a traditional symbol of the Medici tally, the family crest consisting of red balls or palle on a line throughout its long history. This is testified by numer- plain gold field, is also paralleled in terms of color, by the ous examples in numismatic, painted, printed, and sculpt- Medicean jewelry. More specifically, the gemstones them- ed form, such as Camilla’s dress in Botticelli’s Uffizi panel, selves relate symbolically to the Florentine ruling dynasty. Camilla and the Centaur, dated after 1482, and Giuseppe The early rise of the Medici family and the institution Allegrini’s graphic series of the Medici family, of the diamond as a Medicean symbol are simultaneous. Chronologica Series Simulacrorum Regiae Familiae The first preserved example of the soon-to-be ubiquitous Mediceae, published in 1761.35 Indeed, at the ascension of Medici dynastic device of a single gold ring set with a Duke Cosimo I in 1537, a single point-cut diamond ring point-cut diamond, in the form of a pyramid, appears in a had become one of the most recognizable and popular Petrarchan manuscript, dating to the early 1440s and Medici symbols, as a variety of items from around this

SECAC Review Vol.XIV No. 5 457 date, and throughout Cosimo’s reign, testify.36 ed as a demonstration of faithfulness or loyalty to her Under Duke Cosimo I, the diamond presumably own family, or to a specific Medici. It is not only signifi- enjoyed an even greater symbolic import due to its popu- cant that Lucrezia is laden with ruby and diamond jewel- lar association with the Sun, and its related contemporary ry, but she is also not wearing a wedding ring, and aside identification as the stone of light.37 Early in his reign from the color of her gown, which may relate to her Cosimo established a complex iconography for himself father-in-law’s death, there are no elements of the work, and his rule, which involved juxtaposing Apollo or Sol, as to this author’s knowledge, which can be interpreted as the Bringer of Light, with Cosimo, Bringer of a new relating to the d’Este family.47 Although there are portrait Golden Age.38 The concept of a new Golden Age under examples of Medici women without their wedding rings, Cosimo was based directly upon the coincidences between in these cases they are depicted with their children or with the early rule of the Roman emperor Augustus, and the the crown of the duchy, and therefore their marital union Florentine Duke.39 One of the key correspondences is clearly implied by other elements within the work.48 between the two men, which played a significant role in When these identifiers are missing, the subject is depicted the propaganda of Cosimo’s reign, was the shared ascen- wearing a wedding ring, as Eleonora is in Bronzino’s por- dancy of Capricorn in both of the ruler’s horoscopes. The trait of the Duchess in Prague, or Bianca Cappello in her gem associated with Capricorn by Renaissance lapidaries portrait preserved in Lucca.49 Without the presence of the was the ruby.40 In the sixteenth century, the most valuable wedding ring, or any other overt dynastic signifier within and precious stone was the ruby,41 which was considered the Raleigh portrait, the context of the d’Este alliance is the “lord of stones,”42 a fitting gemological symbol for absent, while Medicean symbols dominate.50 Predictably, Cosimo’s rule. Given the high recognition of gem symbol- the overt Medicean iconography of the work sheds some ism during the sixteenth century in Europe, and the pow- light upon the circumstances of the conspicuous pendant erful family symbolism already attached to the diamond, Lucrezia holds to her breast, while the clear relationship it seems very likely Cosimo consciously perpetuated the use between the North Carolina portrait and the Portrait of of the diamond and adopted the ruby as gemological Francesco, established by the miniature, provides another emblems for his rule. Much like the diamond ring device, invaluable clue. these became symbols of the ducal and then grand ducal Jewelry during the Renaissance period was presented as reign of the family, which would explain the conspicuous gifts for a variety of reasons and occasions. Jewelry could combination and representation of diamonds and rubies be given as an acknowledgement of a service rendered, as in portraits beginning with images of the Duchess a show of political allegiance, or to mark special events in Eleonora and continuing in later representations of Medici a person’s life. In each case it was loaded with broad women. Therefore, in the Raleigh portrait, the jewelry social significance and meaning, which was understood by ensemble of Lucrezia, if interpreted correctly, trumpets the all members of the European upper classes, including the Medicean lineage of the sitter.43 Lucrezia’s gesture of hold- Medici, who were masters of propaganda in every form, ing the ruby and diamond pendant to her breast adds fur- including jewelry.51 According to a recent study by jewelry ther layers to the portrait’s meaning, and suggests that a scholar Maria Sframeli, Cosimo I envisioned lavish jewel- more personal and intimate familial connection is at the ry worn by female members of his family as a means of core of the panel’s iconography. generally conveying his own authority.52 Langdon has observed that Lucrezia holds the pendant As noted above, documents attest to Medici men giving to her heart, and indeed Lucrezia’s gesture does place the their wives, daughters-in-law and sisters jewelry on the gem to the left rather than the center of her bodice,44 occasion of their betrothals or weddings. In December of where jewels of this sort were frequently worn at this date, 1565, at the Medici villa of Poggio a Caiano, Cosimo I either hanging from a necklace or attached to the dress.45 presented Giovanna of Austria with a necklace of pearls, In addition, the fingers of her right hand rest their tips diamonds, rubies and other gemstones as a wedding gift.53 directly over her heart, seemingly indicating that a link With the offering Cosimo not only welcomed her into the exists between the jewel and the seat of love. This gesture family, but also identified her as a Medici princess. Just could be interpreted, as Langdon does, as a symbol of over twenty years later, in 1586, Grand Duke Ferdinando “heartfelt faithfulness” to her husband, Alfonso d’Este.46 I ordered, as a wedding gift for his half-sister, Virginia de’ However, other portraits of unbetrothed Medici women Medici, a “large gold jewel with diamonds, rubies and also include this gesture, suggesting the action may not pearls, with small figures telling the story of Phaeton…”54 always be intended to convey a spousal or amorous mean- Was Lucrezia’s pendant also a wedding gift from a family ing. Bronzino’s 1551 Uffizi portrait of Lucrezia’s eleven- member? Given the documented Medicean tradition of year-old sister, Maria, is an excellent example of this second, giving jewelry to a bride at the time of her marriage, and Platonic type. Indeed, if we can accept that Lucrezia’s pen- the jewel’s consistency with other gems owned by Medici dant is a Medicean symbol, the gesture could be interpret- women, this conclusion seems likely. It is also possible the

458 SECAC Review Vol.XIV No. 5 Figure 10. Detail of Piero de’ Medici and his groom, from the Adoration of the Magi, by Benozzo Gozzoli. c. 1459. Fresco. Photo Credit: Erich Lessing/ Art Resource, NY. Palazzo Medici Riccardi, Florence, Italy.

SECAC Review Vol.XIV No. 5 459 gem was given on the occasion of another landmark event ships between Lucrezia and her siblings. Francesco, how- in the life of Lucrezia: her permanent departure from ever, is specifically mentioned in four accounts of his sis- Florence, where she had continued to reside after her ter’s life: sixteenth-century Florentine diarist Agostino 1558 marriage. Lapini’s Diario fiorentino,58 Guglielmo Saltini’s 1898 In either instance, the donor of Lucrezia’s gem must Tragedie medicee domestiche, a narrative of the Medici have been a Medici, based upon the iconography of the archival documents,59 Giulio Balis-Crema de’ Medici’s pendant. The numerous formal and iconographical links short, un-cited 1946 biography of the princess,60 and between the Portrait of Francesco and that of Lucrezia, Gaetano Pieraccini’s 1947 study of the family, La Stirpe the most obvious of which is the painted miniature, serve de’ Medici di Cafaggiolo.61 In each, Francesco is described to focus attention upon the internal connections between as accompanying Lucrezia to Ferrara, where according to these two works and their respective sitters. As such, a Saltini, he was always by her side.62 In addition, Saltini natural and dramatic narrowing of the field of potential and Balis-Crema de’ Medici, further describe Francesco as candidates for the giver of Lucrezia’s jewel emerges, with arriving in Ferrara in February or March of 1561 after Francesco as the most obvious and likely donor. Not only word of Lucrezia’s ultimately fatal illness was reported at do the portraits themselves point towards Francesco, but the Medici court.63 According to both accounts, Francesco even the scarce documents related to Lucrezia’s life hint was dispatched by Cosimo and Eleonora so that he could at him. In addition, the intimacy of the portraits with their send first hand reports of their daughter’s condition back unusual, but shared display of a single, related, precious to Florence. It is possible that Francesco volunteered for and personal item, seems to suggest Francesco was also this task, since it does seem odd that one of the other the patron of the painted works, further strengthening his Medici sons, who was not currently being groomed to identification as donor of the jewel. Here Francesco has rule the Florentine state, did not go instead. Although the entrusted Allori, who was to become Francesco’s primary d’Este rallied around Lucrezia in her last months,64 her court painter and state portraitist, with the subtle commu- generally unhappy situation at Ferrara in the home of her nication of an intimate “dialogue” of familial love, which perpetually absent and aloof husband and her chilly clearly exists between these two images and is entirely for- Protestant mother-in-law,65 would have made Francesco’s eign to other Medici state portraits. Further, of all the Medici, presence most welcome, and perhaps for personal reasons, it was Francesco, heir apparent, who would most benefit especially desired, even requested. Unfortunately, it is in the years to come from his sister’s union with Alfonso impossible to ascertain from reports of Lucrezia’s death d’Este. This very same union obliged her to leave Florence, on April 21, whether Francesco was still in Ferrara watch- and take up residence at a foreign court miles away.55 Whe- ing over his sister on that date, but it must be considered ther Francesco presented his younger sister with the jew- possible that he was still in attendance at the northern eled token for her wedding, or slightly later, as a parting court when she died. If so, he was the only member of gift, the pendant probably functioned, in either case, as a Lucrezia’s immediate family at her deathbed, and the memento of her family, and especially a beloved brother. most likely to have been present. As children, Francesco and Lucrezia shared some of the In light of these important shared and documented same early lessons in Latin, Spanish, and Tuscan, which events in the lives of Lucrezia and Francesco, the iconog- Eleonora oversaw with great care in the nursery.56 Aside raphy of the two portraits expands beyond simple familial from lessons, aristocratic male and female siblings of the affiliations and Medicean proprietory claims, or even, as Renaissance lived nearly separate lives, with interaction Langedilk suggested, lucrative dynastic alliances between usually limited to controlled and chaperoned group gath- the houses of Medici and d’Este.66 Although this content is erings or spontaneous meetings.57 Despite these restrictive present, and certainly intended, it is the more personal social customs, even brief reports of Lucrezia’s seventeen connection between brother and sister, suggested by the years place Francesco in her life at important moments. miniature, and alluded to by Lucrezia’s pendant, which is At these dates, Francesco is specifically named, and signif- ultimately most compelling, unusual, and obvious, now icantly no other siblings are recorded as being present. that the Raleigh panel has been cleaned. The size, format While acknowledging that to some extent his presence may and arrangement of the two portraits, which suggests their have been required by his role as heir to the ducal crown, original status as companion portraits, only serves to rein- it seems this explanation can only account in part for his force the internal ties between the works and their sitters. involvement in his youngest sister’s life. Frustratingly, the provenance of neither portrait reaches Unfortunately little is known about the life and charac- beyond the middle of the nineteenth century making it ter of Lucrezia. Much of the biographical information impossible to know the original context of either panel for concerning the princess is dominated by accounts of her certain.67 While the question of where these two works fatal illness and generally sickly constitution, with virtual- hung, and therefore, who their audience was, must for the ly no attention dedicated to describing family relation- present remain firmly in the realm of speculation, clues

460 SECAC Review Vol.XIV No. 5 within the two works may point the way towards an required a physical separation across the length of the acceptable conclusion. Both in person, and from the study Studiolo, one can easily imagine that their shared right- of reproductions, the miniature held by Francesco is strik- ward-facing pose was not a concern as Allori determined ing in its semblance to the original work in Raleigh. the composition of the pair. He knew they would never Indeed, every detail of the North Carolina image, except hang side by side, making visual “communication” for one, is meticulously rendered within the tiny oval, between the two sitters via pose unimportant.69 Could gold frame Francesco displays for the viewer. The jeweled positions which prevent “companions” from facing each pendant of Lucrezia, is notably absent in the miniature, other suggest the two were not originally intended to hang despite the fact that smaller details, such as the displace- next to one another, but perhaps across from one another ment of the ties of her collar are painstakingly duplicated. in the same room? Or, in the case of Francesco and The omission, it seems, was not simply for ease of execu- Lucrezia, in separate buildings entirely? tion, but instead was conscious and purposeful. Further, It is possible, that despite being painted at the same although the two paintings follow the basic traditions of time, within the same workshop, and probably for the known Renaissance companion portraiture such as the same patron, that is Francesco, the two portraits were corresponding size of the panels and the basic similarities never intended to be hung together in one of the Medici of figural placement, significant differences also exist. In residences of Florence. Rather, the portraits may have addition to the widely varying placement of their hands, been conceived from the start to be separated, like their discussed above, the two sitters would never appear to subjects: One would journey to Ferrara, and the other face one another if hung side by side, for they both face would remain in Florence, and in the process a set of the same direction—left. The noticeable lack of composi- what I shall call “non-traditional companion” portraits tional correspondence between the hands of these two sit- was produced. If so, this could potentially explain the ters, coupled with their shared leftward orientation may anomalies of this set: the left ward orientation for both provide useful clues to the works’ original locations. sitters, the dramatically different positions of the hands The turn of Francesco and Lucrezia to the left prevents which is unusual in companion portraits, and finally, the the two “companions” from facing one another, as was omitted detail of the pendant from the miniature. For, more traditional in companion portraits. For example, although companion portraits are preserved with both sit- Raphael’s Doni portraits, Titian’s portraits of Duchess ters facing the same direction, like Allori’s Studiolo pair, Eleonora Gonzaga and Duke Francesco Maria della Rovere it is more rare. If the original intention was the separation from 1536-38, or outside of Italy, works like Lucas Cranach of the Lucrezia and Francesco panels, then, in fact, the the Elder’s portraits of Johannes Cuspinian and his first pose of one sitter facing the other’s back only underscores wife, Anna from around 1503.68 This situation raises the the physical separation of the two siblings. In addition, question, why did Allori utilize the pose, which prevented the planned separation of the panels may have artistically contact between these two sitters engaged in what has freed Allori from the more traditional pressures of compo- been described here as an intimate visual “dialogue” sitionally unifying the two works into a single unit between siblings? It is an unfortunate art historical truth through gesture. As a result, the positions of Francesco that even if the original city location is known for a por- and Lucrezia’s hands do not correspond. Lastly, if Fran- trait, often very little information is recorded about pre- cesco gave Lucrezia the gem-studded jewel, as proposed cisely which building, which room, and where within the above, then she would have possessed the physical object, room itself, most Renaissance portraits were destined to and perhaps did not need the personal memento repro- hang. This is particularly true of the works in question, duced in the miniature held by her brother. Her miniature for which only the city of origin is known. While the fol- portrait in his hand was a powerful gesture of intimacy in lowing comments can only be speculative, Allori’s tondo its own right, and would have made the detail of the pen- companion portraits of Cosimo I and Eleonora di Toledo dant superfluous, particularly when she owned, and pre- painted c. 1570-71 for Francesco’s Studiolo of the Palazzo sumably wore the original. This missing detail makes a Vecchio may help illuminate the situation. Ferraran destination for Francesco’s portrait attractive, as Allori’s works are still in situ , each in the center of a does the existence of a preserved second copy of Francesco’s lunette below the ceiling, at either end of the rectangular first official state portrait, complete with Lucrezia’s minia- room. When seen next to one another in reproductions, as ture. When the original portrait left Florence, it is not they could never have been seen in the Studiolo, it is obvi- hard to imagine the Medici desiring a copy of Francesco’s ous the two sitters share essentially the same open, stand- important portrait for their own palazzi. ing pose, the turn of the body in space, and the general Once in Ferrara, Francesco’s image, coupled with that placement of their hands. Despite these many similarities, of Lucrezia, not only commemorated the more intimate they would have been unable to face each other, if hung familial bond between brother and sister, but to d’Este side by side. Given their respective destinations, which eyes the portrait must have also served as a reminder of

SECAC Review Vol.XIV No. 5 461 the lucrative link, which now existed between the two 1.This article was made possible through the endless help of David dynasties, and the benefits their family could expect from Steel, Curator of European Art at the North Carolina Museum of Art and the great generosity of the owners of Alessandro Allori’s Portrait of the union. The portrait must have been particularly grati- Francesco I. I am also pleased to be able to acknowledge here the sup- fying to the northern court, since the Medici depicted hold- port of Anne L. Schroder, chair of the session of the 2003 Southeastern ing the miniature of Lucrezia, Duchess of Ferrara, was not College Art Conference, where the initial findings of this study were first simply one of the Medici sons, but Francesco the future presented, and the unflagging enthusiasm for this project of colleagues Barbara Campbell and Porter Aichele, whose astute observations Duke of Florence, and dedicated brother of Lucrezia. improved the final version of this essay. If Francesco’s image was sent north, the Portrait of 2. Mary Hollingsworth, Patronage in Sixteenth Century Italy Lucrezia certainly remained in Florence with her brother. (London: John Murray Publishers, Ltd., 1996), 229. Here the pure and overt Medicean iconography of the 3. Hollingsworth, 231. See Gabrielle Langdon, Medici Women: Portraits of Power, Love, and Betrayal from the Court of Duke Cosimo work, clearly proclaimed by Lucrezia’s jewelry, was ap- I (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006), 139-142, for a discussion propriate and palatable to the strong, pro-Medici audi- of the politics and importance of the Medici-d’Este union. ence, which did not exist at the d’Este court. Further, as 4. Maria de’ Medici, Cosimo and Eleonora’s eldest daughter, was ini- Langdon suggests, the work was probably commissioned tially promised in marriage to Alfonso II, but her early death in 1557 70 forced the substitution of her younger sister. in 1560 to commemorate Lucrezia’s Florentine departure, 5.Regarding the forthcoming marriage Ercole writes that the union is and therefore undoubtedly hung in one of the Medici critical, “…not only for the increased importance of our houses, but also palaces as a constant reminder of the absent princess, as for some benefits to the public good, and at least for the calming of poor well as the bond between Francesco and Lucrezia, as testi- Italy.” Langdon (2006), 140, citing Guglielmo E. Saltini, Tragedie medicee domestiche, 1557-87 (Florence: G. Barbèra, Editore, 1898), fied by the painted pendant. 345-347. Although these final speculations must remain incon- 6. The Portrait of Lucrezia was recently attributed by the North clusive until documents or continued research provide a Carolina Museum of Art to Alessandro Allori and his shop, replacing a more definitive answer, the new and important deductions previous attribution to the workshop of Allori’s master, Medici court painter, Agnolo Bronzino. The general style and high quality of the made possible by the recent cleaning and restoration of recently cleaned and restored work bears out the rationale of an Allori the Portrait of Lucrezia in Raleigh must not be overshad- attribution, while small details related to the representation of the eyes owed by what is yet uncertain about the work or its com- and the dimples of the hands, for example, seem to suggest a collabora- panion. The cleaning has served both to reinforce and tive piece between Allori and an assistant. Langdon stated in her recent study that the work is “almost certainly by Allori,” while Karla deepen the already established connection between Langedijk attributed the work to Bronzino. Langdon (2006), 138, 142; Lucrezia’s image in North Carolina and that of her broth- Karla Langedijk, The Portraits of the Medici, Fifteenth-Eighteenth er, Francesco, in a private American collection. The Centuries, vol. 2 (Florence: Studio per edizione scelte, 1981, 1987), 2: removal of dirt and darkening varnish has permitted the 1201. 7. Gabrielle Langdon, “Decorum in Portraits of Medici Women at observation that the princess is elaborately bejeweled in the Court of Cosimo I, 1537-1574” (Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, Medici-specific gemstones, while she holds in her hand a 1992), 344. large pendant bearing the same Medicean diamond and 8. The Portrait of Lucrezia was hung, for the first time, in the public ruby combination. The Medici tradition of giving jewelry galleries of the North Carolina Museum of Art in 2005. Museum records for the piece note that the portrait has no previous documented of this nature to young female family members, and par- exhibition record. ticularly brides, supports the conclusion that Lucrezia’s 9. Langedijk, 1: 121, catalogue entry, 2:1201; Langdon (2006), 137- pendant was a gift of this kind. Her close connection with 145, which is based upon Langdon’s indispensable Ph.D. dissertation. her eldest brother, throughout her life, and including per- For her earlier discussion of the portrait of Lucrezia, see 341-346. 10. Langedijk, 1: 121-122. sonal contact with him during the final weeks, if not days, 11. For a catalogue of preserved portraits of Lucrezia de’ Medici, see of her fatal illness in distant Ferrara, points to a brotherly Langedijk, 2: 1198-1207. gift. The status of these portraits as companions, suggest- 12. Haelwegh’s series of thirty-three engraved Medici portraits was ed by multiple formal and physical similarities, reinforces based upon “the most representative” portrait of each individual, or the finest image available, in terms of quality. Langedijk, 1:213, see 2:1202, this conclusion. In addition, the important internal links fig, 76.5a for an image of Haelwegh’s engraving of Lucrezia. which further bind the two panels and their sitters togeth- 13. Langedijk, 2: 1201-1202. er, such as the painted miniature of Lucrezia held by 14. However, based upon what is known about the working method Francesco, supply the final and arguably the most com- of Bronzino’s master, Jacopo Pontormo, Bronzino himself, and Allori, a now-lost bust-length prototype must be admitted as a possibility. For pelling evidence for the pendant’s origin and layered example, Pontormo’s execution of a smaller portrait of Alessandro de’ meaning. Through a masterful use of symbolism and ges- Medici in preparation for the larger Portrait of Alessandro de’ Medici of ture, Allori and his shop captured in paint the intimate 1534-35, preserved today in the Philadelphia Museum of Art, is record- relationship between brother and sister, and enabled them, ed by Vasari in his life of Pontormo. The smaller model has been con- vincingly identified as the head of Alessandro located in the Art Institute even at the distance of Florence from Ferrara, to remain of Chicago. See Christopher Lloyd, Italian Paintings before 1600 in the permanently together. Art Institute of Chicago: A Catalogue of the Collection, ed. Martha Wolff (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 197-201. Both University of North Carolina, Greensboro Bronzino and Allori continued the technique of painting smaller panels

462 SECAC Review Vol.XIV No. 5 from which larger copies could then be made, although their prototypes grandfather, are each frequently connected by modern scholars with the generally lack the preparatory nature Lloyd identified in the Chicago Medici family’s initial use of the diamond ring device. However, as Alessandro. For example, see Bronzino’s Berlin Portrait of Eleonora di Francis Ames-Lewis noted in 1979, the preserved material record does Toledo usually dated c. 1560 of which no less than twelve copies were not strongly support such an attribution, as neither man seemed to ever made, many larger than the Berlin Eleonora, identified by Langedijk as use the symbol. In 1981, Brenda Preyer stated “there is no reliable con- the original. Langedijk, 2:693-694. For an Allori example, see his bust- temporary literary or documentary information to explain the origin of length Bianca Cappello portrait on copper, preserved in the Uffizi, from the use of the diamond ring as an emblem by…the Medici…” The mod- the 1580s (fig. 9). According to Langedijk this portrait was the model ern credit given Cosimo il Vecchio and di Bicci probably stems in part for a small number of larger copies. Langedijk, 1:126. from the 1685 manuscript of Medici librarian and letterati, Alessandro 15. For other Medici examples from the 1560s and 1570s, see the Segni, who was commissioned by Grand Duke Cosimo III to amass a Allori tondo Portrait of Eleonora di Toledo, located in the Studiolo of collection of Medici imprese. Here, Segni connected Giovanni di Bicci Francesco I of the Palazzo Vecchio, dated c. 1572 and especially Allori’s with the single diamond ring device. Segni’s manuscript provided a valu- Portrait of Isabella de’ Medici located in the Galleria Palatina of the Pitti able corpus of family symbols and mottoes, which were referenced by Palace, dated to c. 1560. For images of these works see, Roberta Orsi later seventeenth and eighteenth century artists creating printed and Landini and Bruna Niccoli, Moda a Firenze 1540-1580: Lo stile di numismatic cycles of Medici portraits. As such, Segni’s record was visu- Eleonora di Toledo e la sua influenza (Florence: Edizioni Polistampa, ally disseminated, and became deeply embedded within the history of 2005), figs. 4, 93. See also Allori’s slightly later Portrait Isabella de’ Medicean devices. Paolo Giovio’s 1555 treatise on imprese, Medici Orsini with a Dog, from the early 1560s, preserved in a private Ragionamento di M. Paolo Giovio sopra I motti e disegni d’ arme e d’ English collection, and finally, a 1572 portrait of Eleonora (‘Dianora’) di amore che comunemente chiamano imprese, was also an important Don Garzia di Toledo di Pietro de’ Medici, perhaps after an original by source for later writers including Segni. However, Ames-Lewis has con- Francesco Brina, located in a private Florentine collection. For reproduc- vincingly demonstrated that Giovio’s work must be read with great cau- tions, see Langdon (2006), Plate 12, fig. 58. tion. While a valuable primary source, Giovio’s work contains errors, 16. The dark hue of Lucrezia’s dress is probably due to the 1559 and his attribution of the device bearing three interlocked, point-cut dia- death of her father-in-law, Ercole II d’Este, for as contemporary mond rings, to Cosimo il Vecchio cannot be supported with any visual Florentine diarist, Agostino Lapini records, Lucrezia was still observing evidence from Cosimo’s lifetime. It is with Piero di Cosimo il Vecchio, the mourning custom when she dressed “tutta a bruno” for her depar- and his son, Lorenzo the Magnificent, that the use of diamond ring ture from Florence for Ferrara in February 1560. Agostino Lapini, devices, both as personal and family symbols, is a visually documented Diario fiorentino, Florence: G. D. Sansoni, 1900), 126. For a recent dis- occurrence. Francis Ames-Lewis, “Early Medicean Devices,” Journal of cussion of the tailor, Mastro Agostino, who is credited with dressing the the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 42 (1979): 122-143, specifically, Duchess Eleonora as well as her daughters, including Lucrezia as she is 127, n.22 and 141. Brenda Preyer, “Ruccellai Palace,” in Florentine seen in the Raleigh work, see Landini and Niccoli, 171-174. Patrician and His Palace (London: Warburg Insitute, 1981), 198. For 17. The date when the right and left sides of the panel were reduced Segni’s manuscripts as they relate to the history of Medici imprese see is unfortunately unknown. All observations regarding the physical condi- Ames-Lewis, 123, 126,131, n.59, and Langedijk, 3: 1558-1572. tion of the panel were made by former North Carolina Museum of Art 31. See Ames-Lewis for a discussion of these works and illustrations. Conservator, David Findley, during his 2000 observation of the portrait. 32. In addition, the stone was also believed to protect against poi- David Findley, “North Carolina Museum of Art Conservation sons. Kunz, 69-70; Maria Sframeli, “I diamanti dei Medici,” in Laboratory Examination Report,” May 11, 2000, 1. Diamanti: arte, storia, scienza (Rome: De Luca Editori d’Arte, 2002), 111. 18. For example, see Raphael’s portraits of the Doni, dated around 33. Ames-Lewis, 130 n.36, 141. For further discussion of the dia- 1505, and Agnolo Bronzino’s portraits of the Panciatichi, from about mond ring’s use as a device on the Italian peninsula in the fifteenth cen- 1540 (figs. 5, 6). tury see, Preyer, 198-201. 19. See Langedijk, 2: 855-858, for variants of Francesco’s portrait. 34. Piero’s personal device, which contained an eagle grasping a sin- 20. Simona Lecchini Giovannoni, Alessandro Allori, (Turin: Umberto gle point-cut diamond ring in its talon and accompanied by the word Allemani and Co., 1991), 303; Langedijk, 2: 855; Langdon (2006), 138. SEMPER, demonstrates the continued desire to also personalize the now- 21. Others favoring the Allori attribution include: Giovannoni, 303; traditional Medicean symbol. The earliest preserved example of Piero’s Langdon (2006), 138, Lorne Campbell, Renaissance Portraits, (New personal device, is located in the Cappella del Crocifisso at San Miniato Haven: Yale University Press, 1990), 219; more tentative in the attribu- al Monte and dates to 1448. Ames-Lewis, 135, 140. For an image of tion to Allori was Langedijk, 2: 855. Piero’s device, see Diana Scarisbrick, Rings: Symbols of Wealth, Power 22. It should be noted, however, that the treatment of the chair’s and Affection (New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1993), 60; Langedijk, armrest and the sword are incongruous with the rest of the finely Vol. 2, figs. 98.14 rev., 98.6a. wrought metallic and fabric surfaces in the portrait. Such a mixing of 35. See Langedijk, for reproductions of this series of prints, where the styles, reinforces the idea of Allori painting portraits with the aid of a three interlocked rings of the Medici appear in the upper right and left trusted assistant, as already noted in the Portrait of Lucrezia. See n. 6 above. corners of the fictive frame of each engraving. 23. See Books One and Two of Baldassare Castiglione’s Il 36. For examples, see Langedijk, 1: 79, n.2, 1: 84, n.16, 1: 459, and Cortegiano. figs. 27, 105. 24. George Frederick Kunz, The Curious Lore of Precious Stones 37. Kunz, 29, 235. (New York: Dover Publications, 1971), 30. 38. Janet Cox-Rearick, Dynasty and Destiny in Medici Art: 25. For reproductions see, Langedijk, fig. 37.34 (Ferdinando); Pontormo, Leo X, and the two Cosimos (Princeton: Princeton University Diamanti: arte, storia, scienza (Rome: De Luca Editori d’Arte, 2002), Press, 1984), 251-252. fig. 10 (Cristina). 39. Langedijk, 1: 80. See also Cox-Rearick, 269-283, 295-299. 26. For reproductions see, Langedijk, fig. 27.182 (Cosimo I); Landini 40. Kunz, 347. and Niccoli, fig. 4 (Eleonora). 41. In Benvenuto Cellini’s sixteenth century treatise on goldsmithing 27. For a reproduction see, Landini and Niccoli, fig. 18. and sculpture he identifies only four “precious stones”: the ruby, sap- 28. For an alternate interpretation of the jewels and their meaning, phire, emerald and diamond. Of the four, Cellini records the ruby as the see Langdon (2006), 84-85. most expensive, “a ruby for instance of (the size of) five grains of wheat 29. Yvonne Hackenbroch, Renaissance Jewelry (London: Philip and of as fine a fire as you could wish, would be worth 800 golden scudi Wilson Publishers, Ltd., 1979), 29, 35. and an emerald of the same size and beauty would run to about 400, 30. Both Cosimo il Vecchio and Giovanni di Bicci, Piero’s father and similarly a diamond would be worth 100 and no more, while a sapphire

SECAC Review Vol.XIV No. 5 463 would fetch about ten.” Eight hundred golden scudi is the equivalent to 54. Hackenbroch, 35, citing I.B. Supino, L’arte di Benvenuto Cellini approximately $28,000 in today’s currency. Benvenuto Cellini, The (Florence: Fratelli Alinari, 1901) 42-43. Treatises of Benvenuto Cellini on Goldsmithing and Sculpture (London: 55. According to correspondence to Alfonso II, from Francesco E. Arnold, 1898), 22, 23. Susena, the prince’s representative at the Medici court, Lucrezia was 42. Kunz, 102. eager to leave Florence after two years of marriage, and “be free of her 43. For another interpretation of Lucrezia’s jewelry, see Langdon mother’s control, since she feels her incarceration to be too long and (2006), 142-143. harsh.” Other Susena letters demonstrate similar sentiments of the 44. Interestingly, the smaller copy of the North Carolina work paint- princess, but say nothing with regards to other members of her family. ed on tin and located in the Galleria Palatina of the Pitti Palace shows Langdon (2006), 143-144. the pendant held at the center of the bodice. During replication the copy- 56. Guglielmo Enrico Saltini, “Due principesse medicee del secolo ist appears to have “corrected” his model, perhaps in keeping with the XVI,” Rassegna nazionale 121, no. 23 (September-October 1901): 553-571. more traditional placement of such a jewel at this date. This change 57. Langdon (1992), 306-307. altered the emotional content found in the Raleigh original. For a color 58. Lapini,126. reproduction of the Pitti copy, see Landini and Niccoli, 172. 59. Saltini (1898), 95. 45. This particular gem has an eyelet, suggesting it was probably 60. Giulio Balis-Crema de’ Medici, “Lucrezia de’ Medici, Duchess of designed to be hung around the neck, primarily, if not exclusively, like Ferrara,” Rivista araldica 44 (1946): 39-42. that of Giovanna of Austria depicted in Allori’s 1565-70 portrait of the 61. Pieraccini’s cited work depends upon both Saltini and original Florentine Grand Duchess preserved in the Uffizi. However, there are Medici documents for the account of Lucrezia’s life and character. examples of pendants of this type attached to the wearer’s clothing, as Gaetano Pieraccini, La stirpe de’ Medici di Cafaggiolo 2nd ed. (Florence: seen in Quinten Massys’s portrait of Elizabeth I from 1583 and located Vallecchi Editorie, 1947) 2:93-103. in Siena, where a large pendant with an eyelet is affixed to Elizabeth’s 62. “…il principe don Francesco de’ Medici, che era sempre presso la dress. For color reproductions, see Maria Sframeli, I gioielli dei Medici sorella…” Saltini (1898), 95. dal vero e in ritratto (Livorno: Sillabe, 2003), figs. 24 and 51. For a dis- 63. Saltini (1898), 101; Balis-Crema de’ Medici, 42. cussion of how pendants were worn by Medici women of the sixteenth 64. Langdon (2006), 144. century, see Constanza Contu, “Gusto e moda alla Corte medicea,” in 65. Langdon (2006), 141 n.28. Sframeli (2003), 49. For other images of pendants worn at the center of 66. Langedijk, 1: 121-122. the bodice at this date, see Allori’s portraits of Isabella in the Galleria 67. The provenance for Francesco: Collection of Lord Northwick Palatina and the Studiolo portrait of Eleonora. For image references see until 1859, Collection of Van Cuyck, Paris; sold at an anonymous sale in n.15. 1869 and 1879; Sir William Farrer from 1893/4 to 1912; Marie Sterner 46. Langdon (2006), 143. Gallery, New York 1931; Collection of Michel van Gelder, Brussels until 47. See n.16. 1978 when it was sold to private American collectors, in whose collec- 48. For example see Bronzino’s Tribuna Portrait of Eleonora di tion it remains. The provenance for Lucrezia: Collection of Viscount Toledo and her son, Giovanni, (fig. 5) and Scipione Pulzone’ s Uffizi Wimborne until 1923, Collection of Camillo Castiglioni, Vienna until Portrait of Cristina di Lorena, of 1559, in Sframeli (2003), fig. 50. 1930; Drey, Munich; Collection of Mrs. Marianne Khuner, Beverly Hills; 49. For color reproductions, see Sframeli (2003), figs. 8, 25. gift to the North Carolina Museum of Art, 1984. 50. Included in the Medici symbolism of Lucrezia’s portrait is the 68. For color reproductions of the Cranach works see, Campbell, crystal ball she holds in her left hand. The connection between the orb 122-123. and Lucrezia’s imprese, and the palle of the Medici stemma, have recently 69. Allori does, however, turn Cosimo’s head so that the couple been noted by Langdon. Langdon (2006), 141, 143. appear to engage one another across the space of the Studiolo. 51. Langdon (2006), 84-86. 70. Langdon (1992), 344. 52. Sframeli (2002), 120. 53. Hackenbroch, 29. Heather Holian is Assistant Professor of Art History in the Department of Art at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro.

464 SECAC Review Vol.XIV No. 5 COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: The Clues in the Jewels: A Case for Companion Portraits of Francesco I SOURCE: Southeastern College Art Conference Review 14 no5 2005 PAGE(S): 452-64

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher: http://www.secollegeart.org/