Libeling Painting: Exploring the Gap between Text and Image in the Critical Discourse on George Villiers, the First Duke of Buckingham THESIS Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Ivana May Rosenblatt Graduate Program in History of Art The Ohio State University 2009 Master's Examination Committee: Barbara Haeger, Advisor Christian Kleinbub Copyright by Ivana May Rosenblatt 2009 Abstract This paper investigates the imagery of George Villiers, the first Duke of Buckingham, by reinserting it into the visual and material culture of the Stuart court and by considering the role that medium and style played in its interpretation. Recent scholarship on Buckingham‘s imagery has highlighted the oppositional figures in both Rubens‘ and Honthorst‘s allegorical paintings of the Duke, and, picking up on the existence of ―Felton Commended,‖ a libel which references these allegories in relation to illusion, argued dually that Buckingham‘s imagery is generally defensive, a result of his unstable position as royal favorite, and that these paintings consciously presented images of the Duke which explicitly and topically responded to verse libels criticizing him. However, in so doing, this scholarship ignores the gap between written libels and pictorial images and creates a direct dialogue between two media that did not speak directly to each other. In this thesis I strive to rectify these errors by examining a range of pictorial images of Buckingham, considering the different audiences of painting and verse libel and addressing the seventeenth-century understanding of the medium of painting, which defended painterly illusionism and positioned painting as a ritualized language. I argue that the only existing satirical print depicting Buckingham, The Kingly Cocke, utilized a traditional composition and objective engraved line that prevented it from visually lampooning Buckingham and distanced it from the satirical intensity of written libels. ii Similarly, printed and painted portraits, which were produced by Buckingham‘s own patronage and proclaimed his social position, gentility and wealth through his cultivated dress, manicured appearance and controlled bearing, were not defensive and had no connection to libels. Even when Buckingham‘s imagery contained oppositional figures, as can be seen in Rubens‘ and Honthorst‘s overt allegories, those images did not respond to libelous criticism. Rather, like works produced for monarchs and other royal favorites, these paintings employed the conventional theme of Virtue triumphing over Envy and Discord, to activate the ritual language of painting and elevate their images above the quotidian. This allowed them to successfully function as glorifying images of the Duke‘s position and authority. Additionally, I argue that in order to understand how these paintings operated, they need to be re-embedded into the visual and material culture of the court, where their audience and display would have supported their elevated imagery. In this vein, we can understand the pictorial illusionism of these allegories as a positive part of their power and not as pejoratively deceitful. Not only was illusionism defended by the seventeenth- century discourse on painting, as well as the Neo-Platonic understanding of court masques, which positioned masques as illusions designed to embody higher truths, but it became a means of visually proclaiming the continental aspirations of the Stuart court. With this discourse in hand, I argue that ―Felton Commended‖ paradoxically reveals the power of the images it critiques and that it demonstrates the extent to which painting came to stand for the entire performative culture of the court. iii Acknowledgments This work could not have been completed without the support of Barbara Haeger, to whom I am indebted for her enthusiasm and interest in both the development and research of this thesis. In my many conversations with Barbara she not only shared her own knowledge and suggestions but assisted me in finding ways of expressing the scope of my ideas. Additionally, her tireless assistance in the writing and editing of this work was crucial to its organization and lucidity. It is also important to thank Christian Kleinbub, both for introducing me to Gaudio‘s scholarship on printed materials, opening the door to a unique way of looking at the medium which became an integral part of this work, and for his constant encouragement. Finally, no list of acknowledgements would be complete without giving thanks to my colleagues and fellow graduate students in the History of Art department at Ohio State, who have supported the cultivation of this work, and the trials that go with any scholarly endeavor, with positive camaraderie. iv Vita 2002................................................................Oakwood High School 2002-2006 ......................................................Chancellor Scholar, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign 2006................................................................James R. and Dorothy E. Shipley Award for Outstanding Artistic Achievement 2006................................................................B.F.A. Painting, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 2006................................................................B.F.A. History of Art, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 2009................................................................Runner-Up for the Stanley J. Kahrl Prize, CMRS, Ohio State University 2007 to Present ...............................................Graduate Teaching Associate, Department of History of Art, Ohio State University Fields of Study Major Field: History of Art v Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................. iv Vita ...................................................................................................................................... v List of Figures .................................................................................................................. viii Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 George Villiers, the Duke of Buckingham—Royal Favourite............................................ 5 News and the Culture of Complaint.................................................................................. 12 Buckingham‘s Responses to Criticism ............................................................................. 17 The Theme of Envy in Buckingham‘s Pictorial Representations ..................................... 25 Printed Representations of Buckingham ........................................................................... 38 Buckingham‘s Collecting and Commissioning of Painting .............................................. 47 Painting, Allegory and Illusion – The Power of Painting ................................................. 54 Criticism, Painting and Libels: Issues of Medium ............................................................ 60 Rubens‘ and Honthorst‘s Paintings ................................................................................... 64 A Rereading of ―Felton Commended‖ .............................................................................. 73 vi Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 75 Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 78 Figures............................................................................................................................... 86 Appendix A: ―Felton Commended‖.................................................................................. 98 vii List of Figures Figure 1: Photographic reproduction, Peter Paul Rubens, Equestrian Portrait of Buckingham, ca. 1627. Formerly Osterley Park, destroyed in 1949..................................86 Figure 2: Photographic reproduction, Peter Paul Rubens, The Glorification of the Duke of Buckingham, ca. 1627. Formerly Osterley Park, destroyed in 1949 ....................87 Figure 3: Peter Paul Rubens, Portrait of Buckingham, ca. 1625. Galleria Palatina (Palazzo Pitti), Florence, Italy ...........................................................................................88 Figure 4: Peter Paul Rubens, Mercury conducting Psyche to Olympus, ca. 1625 .............88 Figure 5: Peter Paul Rubens, Oil Sketch, ca. 1625. Whereabouts unknown, photographic reproduction .................................................................................................89 Figure 6: Peter Paul Rubens, Modello, ca. 1625. National Gallery, London .....................89 Figure 7: Gerrit van Honthorst, Apollo and Diana, 1628. Hampton Court, Royal Collection ...........................................................................................................................90 Figure 8: Peter Paul Rubens, Modello, ca. 1625. Kimbell Art Museum ...........................90 Figure 9: Juan Bautista Maino, Recapture of Bahia, 1635. Museo del Prado ...................91 Figure 10: Nicholas Poussin, Time Rescuing Truth, ca. 1640. Musée du Louvre .............91