AUTHOR PORTRAITURE in the HOURS of CATHERINE of CLEVES by CAROLINE MARTELON B.A

DEVOTED CHRISTIAN, DOMINANT DUCHESS, DIMINISHED HISTORICAL RECOGNITION: AUTHOR PORTRAITURE IN THE HOURS OF CATHERINE OF CLEVES by CAROLINE MARTELON B.A. University of Colorado Boulder 2019

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Fine Arts Department of Art & Art History 2019

This thesis entitled: Devoted Christian, Dominant Duchess, Diminished Historical Recognition: Author Portraiture in the Hours of Catherine of Cleves written by Caroline Martelon has been approved for the Department of Art and Art History

Date

Dr. Kirk Ambrose

Dr. Diane Conlin

Dr. Annette de Stecher

The final copy of this thesis has been examined by the signatories, and we find that both the content and the form meet acceptable presentation standards of scholarly work in the above mentioned discipline.

Martelon, Caroline (M. A. Department of Art History)

Devoted Christian, Dominant Duchess, Diminished Historical Recognition: Author Portraiture in the Hours of Catherine of Cleves

Thesis directed by Professor Kirk Ambrose

ABSTRACT

Owner portraits often appear in the illuminations or historiated initials of the popular late-medieval devotional, the book of hours. By the 13 th century, a text known as the book of hours had filled a much sought-after longing of the laity to mimic the practices of the clergy. Through the production of this new lay prayer book, the practice of monastic communities gathering at canonical hours to recite prayers could now be practiced individually by lay people. These prayer books were often commissioned for, and at times by, women. This paper will discuss one specific book of hours, commissioned by a 15 th century Duchess, Catherine of Cleves. The Hours of Catherine of Cleves, illuminated by the Master of Catherine of Cleves, a famously original artist recognized as the finest illuminator of the medieval northern Netherlands, is a masterpiece. The incredibly detailed miniatures display not only a unique and lavish display of biblical narrative, but the author portraits and full pages on which they appear offer a very personal look into the life and priorities of its owner and commissioner, Catherine of Cleves. This paper seeks to explore the leaves of the Hours of Catherine of Cleves where her portrait appears. I examine the purposeful prominence of feminine themes as well as emphasis on her personal heraldry and ancestors, rather than that of her husband.

These purposeful emphases support that Catherine was not only the commissioner, but also involved in artistic decisions surrounding key images included in her book of hours.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION...... 1 CHAPTER 1 Catherine of Cleves, the Pious ...... 20

CHAPTER 2: Catherine of Cleves, the Political Power ...... 43

CONCLUSION ...... 56 FIGURES ...... 58 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 84 APPENDIX ...... 88

List of Figures

1.1 Catherine of Cleves Praying to the Virgin and Child, ca.1440 1.2 Female donor venerating Madonna, Workshop of the Boucicaut Master, c.1409. 1.3 Hours of Isabella Stuart, Isabella before Virgin Mary and Child, c.1417-18 1.4 Eyck, Jan van, Madonna with Child Reading 1.6 Eyck, Jan van, Madonna with Child Reading (Ince Hall Madonna), 1433 1.7 Eyck, Jan van, 1390-1440, Madonna in her Chamber, 1435-36 1.8 Jan Van Eyck, Madonna with Canon Joris van der Paele (La Vierge au chanoine Van der Paele.), detail of the Virgin Mary and Christ, 1436 1.9 Catherine of Cleves Distributing Alms, The Hours of Catherine of Cleves, ca. 1440 1.10 Pentecost, The Hours of Catherine of Cleves, ca. 1440 1.11 Annunciation, Visitation (Hand Three), Christina Psalter, 13 th Century 1.12 Figure 1 Catherine of Cleves Praying to the Virgin and Child, The Hours of Catherine of Cleves, ca. 1440. 1.13 The Virgin Mary and the Crucified Christ Intercede for Catherine of Cleves, The Hours of Catherine of Cleves, ca. 1440. 1.14 Adoration of the Magi, The Hours of Catherine of Cleves, ca. 1440 1.15 Detail: The Virgin Mary and the Crucified Christ Intercede for Catherine of Cleves, The The Hours of Catherine of Cleves, ca. 1440 1.16 Detail: Catherine of Cleves Praying to the Virgin and Child, The Hours of Catherine of Cleves, ca. 1440. 1.17 St. Nicholas, The Hours of Catherine of Cleves, ca. 1440. 1.18 St. Leonard, The Hours of Catherine of Cleves, ca. 1440 1.19 Tristan de Escamilla, St. Louis, King of France, King of France distributing alms, 17 th century 2.1 Arnold of Egmond, Catherine of Cleves’ Husband, Praying to Christ, The Hours of Catherine of Cleves, ca. 1440 – 53 2.2 Catherine of Cleves Praying to the Virgin and Child and Annunciation to Joachim, The Hours of Catherine of Cleves, ca. 1440 2.3 Hours of Mary of Burgundy, Mary of Burgundy reading her book of hours, Vienna, ON, MS 1857 2.4 Adolf of Egmond, Duke of Guelders, a knight in the Order of the Golden Fleece, 1468 2.5 Catherine of Cleves Distributing Alms, The Hours of Catherine of Cleves, ca. 1440 2.6 DuBois Hours” for Sarum use, England, London, C. 1325-30 2.7 The Virgin Mary and the Crucified Christ Intercede for Catherine of Cleves, The Hours of Catherine of Cleves, ca. 1440.

INTRODUCTION

“No age is sufficiently understood until the contributions of women are made evident; this is particularly true of the Middle Ages.” 1

Medieval manuscripts hold a unique place in the discipline of art history, largely because of their concurrent association with both literature and fine art. Unlike later oil paintings that retain their place in history through celebration of their extravagant size, most medieval manuscripts were not large-scale. The bestselling book of the late middle ages and the

Renaissance was one of these small-scale manuscripts: The Book of Hours. To this day, the

Book of Hours is the most frequent type of medieval manuscript to be found in academic institutions, rare book libraries, and auction houses all over the world. 2 Despite their small scale, miniatures in manuscripts are not in any way limited in their imaginative range, their intellectual content, or in the craftsmanship required to execute such images. In some cases, owners of these manuscripts used them on a daily basis by concurrently reading and actively contemplating the accompanying miniatures in a very personal manner. In many cases of extravagantly wealthy patrons these manuscripts can be referenced as examples of the strong cultural significance of memory in medieval culture, as demonstrated through well-curated and lavishly decorated images that show how they hoped to be remembered. All patrons of these devotionals were deeply concerned with the topic of memory, whether that be in the eyes of God or the eyes of man. Although illuminated manuscripts continue to be celebrated for their lofty decorative detailing and uniquely personal purpose, often the process of production for

1 Susan Mosher Stuard, ed., Women in Medieval Society (Philadelphia, 1976), 11.

2 Roger S Wieck, and Pierpont Morgan Library, Painted Prayers: The Book of Hours in Medieval and Renaissance Art (New York, 1997), 9. 1 individual manuscripts is one that is neither well documented, nor laboriously dwelled upon in much of the existing scholarship. Often scholarship favors the traditional visual analysis of full- page miniatures, and includes rich discussion surrounding visual contrast and ink detailing, but occasionally this comes at the expense of a deeper discussion of the background or secular implicit messaging the illuminations might be referencing. Although it is possible to look at manuscript production from a fairly mechanical point of view, I would like to build upon this practice, as more recent scholarship has encouraged, in reference to the 15 th century manuscript, the Hours of Catherine of Cleves through the marriage of visual analysis and close looking with reference to the existing history.

In this thesis I argue that through the close analysis and comparison of owner portraiture in the Hours of Catherine of Cleves that it’s commissioner and patron, Catherine, had an active influence in the largely political themes of the miniatures that appear within the manuscript in order to curate how she was to be remembered. By offering a close analysis of the miniatures including Catherine’s portrait, supplemented by the miniatures I believe are designed to be considered in direct comparison to those portrait miniatures, I examine how the purposeful emphasis on strong feminine themes as well as conspicuous emphasis on her personal heraldry and ancestors, rather than those of her husband, directly relates to her personal life and her political loyalties. The extremely clear emphasis of her own heraldry and use of her portrait coupled with the noticeably infrequent inclusion of both the heraldry and image of her husband suggests a strained relationship; in addition, imagery supporting clarity and assurance of

Catherine’s own salvation in comparison to the extremely uncertain nature of her husband’s undoubtedly reveals marital and political contention that is framed and immortalized by this manuscript in a very intentional and personal way. The heraldic decisions as well as unfavorable

2 image (and otherwise exclusion) of her husband are two strong, controversial assertions being made through miniatures including Catherine’s portrait, and it is extremely unlikely that the artist, the Master of Catherine of Cleves, would have taken those liberties without approval or explicit direction; approval or direction that I suggest came directly from Catherine. By writing off devotional manuscripts as being formulaic books created for Christian utility, particularly the ones that include owner portraits, is both a gross simplification of their purpose and an overall ignorant disregard for how these devotionals were not only seen as possible vehicles for divinely inspired vision, but also how the mentions of their owners, through portraits or written records, fully historicized their owners within a piece of devotional literature intended to stand the test of time and serve as a family heirloom to commemorate and honor the patron whom appears in the illuminations. Alexa Sand labels the 13 th and 14 th centuries as an era where texts such as this

“proclaimed themselves as mirrors: mirrors of princes, mirrors of the world, mirrors of the

Church, and mirrors of the soul.” 3 This manuscript was a mirror of Catherine’s world; her spiritual world, possibly, but undoubtedly her political and personal world through the inclusion and specific exclusions of imagery from her manuscript, such as that of her husband. The Hours of Catherine of Cleves is an example of a book of hours that was not used daily, as evidenced by the impeccably good condition it is in, despite the age of the manuscript. This manuscript exists as evidence of the importance of memory in medieval culture, rather than as evidence of routinely observed, unwavering noble piety.

3 Alexa Sand, Vision, Devotion, Self-Representation in Medieval Art (New York, 2014), 4.

MEDIEVAL PORTRAITURE

The use of owner portraits in manuscripts is a longstanding tradition employed by the

Master of Catherine of Cleves for his titular work. Portraiture is often accepted as the representation of an identifiable, specific person and is generally identified by its ability to not only reproduce the exterior appearance of people, but also reflect ideas of individuality or singularity on a more emotional or otherwise internal level through art. Physiognomic likeness has become an accepted part of the visual language of Western portraiture, and this identifying characteristic now is demonstrated by a portrait’s ability to represent a specific subject.

However, although modern understanding has agreed that portrait and an identifiable likeness are synonymous, it must be acknowledged that a definition of portraiture without direct correlation to likeness predates this more contemporary understanding. For example, Stephen Perkinson cites a specific instance in Vatican history:

In 1290, four years before he became pope and adopted the name Boniface VIII, Cardinal Benedetto Caetani traveled to Reims to adjudicate a dispute between that city’s archbishop and cathedral canons. As part of the agreement ending the conflict, the cardinal decreed that the belligerent parties should create a silver statue representing him, to be placed on the altar in the cathedral. The documents describe this image as being ‘in the likeness of a cardinal deacon’; it was transformed from an image of a generic cardinal into a specific individual by the inscription of Caetani’s name. 4 Here the cardinal was represented through a mix of imagery and text, where the generic cardinal form is paired with his inscribed name. Perkinson follows this up with a similar understanding of “likeness” in medieval tomb structures where, again, generic sculptural figures are identified as the person they are made to honor through regalia and an inscription, rather than facial features. 5 Although the Hours of Catherine were created while she was alive, this example of the

4 Stephen Perkinson, “Likeness,” Studies in Iconography 33 (2012): 18. 5 Ibid. 4 tombs is very resonant to the examples of owner portraiture found in her manuscript because the intention behind the imagery included is strongly driven by her desire to be remembered after death. There is no way to tell how accurate Catherine’s portraits in the text are because no other known images of her exist, however all the images do not appear to be intentionally individualized and, other than appearing to have the clothes and hair of a noblewoman, her facial features do vary slightly from portrait to portrait. There is a significant emphasis placed on her clothing, heraldry and hairstyle, and they all exist in a book that holds Catherine’s name, following the medieval structure of identifying text, symbols of office and family lineage paired with a more simple figural image to come together to identify an important person. These known portraits of Catherine likely follow the tradition of likeness not being confined to a meaning of facial recognition, but rather by “combining generic figural types...with inscriptions and armorial imagery denoting the name and family descent of the person” 6 just as Perkinson describes the style utilized in tomb sculpture.

In the late Middle Ages these owner portraits, as seen in Catherine’s manuscript, became very popular additions to the marginalia of the most expensive commissions of devotional books, specifically discussed here, the Book of Hours. These portraits were often extremely small, stylized representations, and often lack considerable detail about the manuscript owner’s countenance. 7 Although they appear almost formulaic in appearance, these stylized owner portraits would be used in multidimensional understandings of “identification” practices, whether that be a personal reflection for the owner themselves, or for an extraneous viewer later

6Ibid. 7 Some portraits that have true portrait likeness do occur in the Middle Ages, however not frequently and not in the Hours of Catherine of Cleves. There is not a consistent likeness maintained between the three portraits considered in this thesis. 5 on in the manuscripts’ life. Richard Brilliant eloquently describes the more complex identification that can be offered by a portrait: “the immanent power of a portrait image stimulates cognition with such force that the psychodynamics of perception interfere with the comprehension of the image as something different from the image of the actual person.” 8 This

“power” is not exclusively attributed to portraits that portray a physiognomic likeness, but anything that is considered a portrait, including Catherine’s portraits. This suggests that at the moment a name can be affixed to an image, it is natural reaction to see that image as the person it is intended to represent. Modern understandings of portraiture would consider these owner portraits as a misnomer, given their deceptively plain features, however for the medieval manuscript owner, these small illuminations have large roles in the life of the manuscript.

From a religious perspective, these owner portraits are included to act as a possible channel of self-reflection to achieve a deeper understanding of the patron by looking at an image of themselves in perfect, perpetual prayer. Alexa Sand uses the term “reflexive” in reference to these images because, “like the reflexive form of French and other Romance languages, such pictures form a recursive loop between subject and object” allowing the viewer to participate in this viewing practice with the goal of “attaining a heightened awareness of her own visibility and her own vision.” 9 The owner portrait intended for self-reflection is distinct from other medieval portraits because, as Sand contends, these images “participated in the emerging interest in the variety of means by which a picture could establish itself as authoritatively conveying some essential truth about a specific person.” 10 Regardless of how artistically straightforward these

8 Richard Brilliant, Portraiture (Cambridge, 1991), 24. 9 Sand, Vision, Devotion, Self-Representation in Medieval Art, 4.

10 Ibid. 6 images appear, they could have been used for personal meditative practices, as Sand illustrates through the use of the term “reflexive,” driven by both increased self-awareness through the cyclical act of prayer and self-reflection, but also an awareness of some essential truth about the person exposed through the image when looked upon by a third-party.

The outward appearance of piety would have been important to medieval Christians, and the pouring out of large sums of money for this hand-held, lavishly decorated vehicle to salvation would have made them appear both pious and fabulously wealthy. This demonstration of wealth would not have been an overlooked result of a commission this extravagant, but more likely it would have been a goal of the commission. Because of the high cost of these personalized, often lavishly illuminated commissions, they were often grouped with other items of luxury, such as jewelry, rather than as a functional book. From an account of a different noblewoman from the middle ages, she wrote in her diary about her keeping her books of hours locked away with her jewelry. 11 Because Catherine’s book of hours is so exquisitely and extensively illuminated, coupled with the extremely good condition it is presently in after so many years, it is likely they

Catherine also maintained this interpretation of the manuscript as being more of a luxury item than a practical item of utility; the book itself does not appear as worn as it would if used daily, as is the intended function of a book of hours, though rarely seen to be the case. Although this is how Catherine likely she used the book, it is not to say she did not intend for people to believe she used it daily as a religious tool. The goal for all Christians was divine inspired vision, and based on medieval visual culture, the wealthy were more able to attain this high level of piety

11 Sandra Penketh, “Women and Books of Hours,” in Women and the Book: Assessing the Visual Evidence (London, 1996), 271. 7 because of their ability to afford the tools, such as a personal devotional, used to acquire such religious standing.

In this extremely ecclesiastical period of visual culture, it was believed that images could lead to divine vision and were considered spiritually powerful. Aden Kumler argues that these images advanced vision’s power as a salvific force and claimed for themselves a role of

“religious truths.” 12 The modern viewer must understand that these are “portraits” in that the medieval owner, often a woman, would rely on the presence of their own image to deeply contemplate their own relationship to that personal image of their perpetually devoted, and in many ways perfect, self in the margins to stimulate their devotional attention in order to achieve this higher sense of religious contemplation and claim these religious truths Kumler references.

This is not to be confused with the need for images because of a lack of education or reading ability. Sandra Penketh dismisses the argument that the high visual content of many books of hours must mean that their readers were illiterate, because many lower budget books of hours have minimal illuminative material, if any at all. 13 By the end of the fourteenth century, women were increasingly educated and therefore literate. This rise in literacy was partly brought about by the domestic need for women to not only be able to teach their children and manage the household, but also to assist with a potential family business. 14 Women would not rely on the images for understanding, but rather would ideally be able to use the images in conjunction with

12 Aden Kumler, Translating Truth: Ambitious Images and Religious Knowledge in Late Medieval France and England (New Haven, 2011), 12. 13 See: Penketh, “Women and Books of Hours,” 270. 14 Children were taught from a very early age to meditatively decode what they are reading by not only focusing on the text but to critically think about things as a whole. Often, women would use their own book of hours to teach their children these visual skills. “The ‘domestication’ of ecclesiastical books by great ladies, together with ambitions of mothers of all social classes for their children, were the founders on which the growth of literacy in the fourteenth-and fifteenth-century Europe was constructed.” See M. T. Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record: England 1066-1307 2 (Oxford,1993), 252.

8 the text to form a deeper connection to God through prayer and very purposeful, guided contemplation. Because of the lack of wear on the book, Catherine likely did not use the book in this capacity, but rather to establish a pious remembrance of herself for after her death.

Owner portraits appear in manuscripts made for both individual women and men, but often they were made depicting a full immediate family in an illumination within their manuscript. These portraits, and these books as a whole, offer scholars a very personal look into the daily life and priorities of the owners themselves, how the owner would have interacted with these images and texts, and to what capacity the owner was likely involved in its production.

This thesis focuses on the owner portraiture of a late medieval duchess, Catherine of Cleves, in her highly celebrated manuscript The Hours of Catherine of Cleves that is currently maintained by the Morgan Library and Museum in New York City. 15 The Hours of Catherine of Cleves, illuminated in 1440 by the Master of Catherine of Cleves, a famously original artist recognized as the finest illuminator of the medieval northern Netherlands, is a masterpiece. 16 The incredibly detailed miniatures display not only a unique and lavish display of biblical narrative, but the author portraits and full pages on which they appear also offers a very personal look into the life

15 The Manuscript known as the Hours of Catherine of Cleves, c. 1440, is held in New York, in the Pierpoint Morgan Library, MS 917/945. 16 Throughout this paper I will refer to the manuscript by its formal title, The Hours of Catherine of Cleves, or as “Catherine’s manuscript” in some circumstances. The third-person, singular neuter pronoun, “it” will be used to identify the manuscript if context allows. Roger Wieks, ed., “Preface” in The Hours of Catherine of Cleves: Devotion, Demons and Daily Life in the Fifteenth Century (New York, 2009), 14. Although Roger S. Wiek points out in that both he and the Morgan Library collectively refer to this manuscript by the nickname, “Kitty,” and refer to it as a “she,” this paper will not utilize that nickname nor will it use female gender pronouns in any references to the manuscript. “’Kitty’ is what we call her. Within the walls of the Pierpoint Morgan Library, Kitty is the affectionate nickname for the Book of Hours of Catherine of Cleves. To curators and staff the manuscript is like a favored pet. Her name…suggests a beautiful and aloof cat who demands special attention and care.” Comparing this manuscript to an aloof cat is neither giving the manuscript, nor or artist the credit of how intentionally and meticulously this masterpiece was created, nor does it properly acknowledge the influence and intention from the owner and commissioner, Catherine, in the manuscript’s production. 9 and political allegiances of its owner and commissioner, Catherine of Cleves. It is not unusual for a wealthy, highborn individual to commission a book of hours for themselves.17 Catherine herself has been identified as the commissioner of the manuscript by the Morgan Library’s own

Roger Weik where he asserts that Catherine “asked for and received one of the richest books of hours ever created.” This thesis attempting to build off of Weik’s conclusion, to support that she not only commissioned the work but was directly involved in decisions concerning the contents of the manuscript during production.

CATHERINE OF CLEVES

Catherine of Cleves, fifteenth-century duchess of Guelders and Countess of Zutphen, has become famous for her well-known Book of Hours, and because of this she is known more by a modern audience as a devout and generous woman and a resilient patron of the arts – all characteristics displayed by miniatures containing her portrait in the manuscript. Compared to this docile, flattering reputation, she carries a starkly contrasting historical standing as an evil conniver who turned her son against his father and so unleashed a series of feuds that ended with the conquest of the duchy of Guelders by the duke of Burgundy. These two personalities are conspicuously contradictory; however, Bert Thissen suggests that while her presentation in her book of hours is undeniably more idyllic than realistic, the significantly more unflattering image that emerges from the history if Guelders is likely not entirely realistic either. 18 This less

17 Virgina Reinburg, “Prayer and the Book of Hours” in Time Sanctified: The Book of Hours in Medieval Art and Life (New York, 1988), 39. Reinburg asserts that “Queens, dukes, and noblemen ordered their manuscripts directly from well-known artists” and with Catherine being a duchess obviously invested in the arts, this does not seem out of the realm of possibility for the Hours of Catherine of Cleves to have been commissioned and used by its namesake. 18 Bert Thissen, ed., “Catherine of Cleves (1417-1476), Duchess of Guelders and Countess of Zutphen. A Biographical Sketch,” in The Hours of Catherine of Cleves: Devotion, Demons and Daily Life in the Fifteenth Century (New York, 2009), 101. In this biographical work on Catherine of Cleves, Thissen identifies his contribution as “for the most part based on published source material and secondary literature. It makes only a small contribution in the way of new archival findings, and in that sense is 10 favorable account of Catherine is a result of the existing accounts exclusively emerging from medieval Guelders, where an unfavorable opinion is warranted given her impact on the duchy of

Guelders, or more specifically the impact of her husband Arnold of Egmond, Duke of Guelders.

These chroniclers tend to focus on her husband, as the protagonist, thus leaving Catherine in a more minor and, given her contentious relationship with her husband, disparaging role. I was drawn to the story of Catherine largely because of this stark difference in how history remembers her, unfavorably and briefly, and how the arts celebrate her manuscript with copious exhibits and scholarship.

Although people in the last century have become fascinated with the Hours of Catherine of Cleves, as a noblewoman, Catherine’s biographical story did not and has not received the attention that of many historical women received during the beginning of the feminist movement in the 1960s and 1970s. Theresa Earenfight came across a similar conundrum when wanting to study a medieval queen, Maria of Castile. Earnefight deduced this was because the early feminist scholars were heavily influenced by Marxist studies and “focused on empirical studies of peasants and townspeople.” 19 To Earenfight’s point, in the intro to Judith Bennett’s book History

Matters, has minimal content devoted to women that came from conventionally privileged backgrounds. 20 Bennett’s book focuses heavily on women who overcame odds to achieve success, but where does this leave the women that were born into privilege? Over the course of

indeed no more than a biographical sketch” (101). The biographical information used in this paper will predominately come from Thissen’s chapter, given it is the only comprehensive biography that exists on Catherine of Cleves. 19 Theresa Earenfight, "Highly Visible, Often Obscured: The Difficulty of Seeing Queens and Noble Women," Medieval Feminist Forum: A Journal of Gender and Sexuality 44 (2008): 86-90.

20 Judith M. Bennett, History Matters: Patriarchy and the Challenge of Feminism (Philadelphia, 2007), 5.

11 her life, Catherine achieved both notable societal and political success; though these are not necessarily entirely self-manifested success, considering she was born into her high social status where achievements are objectively more easily realized. With this in mind, it is impossible to assert that there was no struggle on her part, as she did manage to navigate a staunch patriarchal political structure as a woman – however unfavorably. Does Catherine’s birth into privilege and power make her story less important to feminist history? This leaves Catherine too wealthy and privileged to have been given a stage by most early feminist historians, and also a woman whose influence and power was undermined and villainized by male historians of Guelders. This thesis offers a chance for Catherine to be actively discussed and analyzed in reference to her manuscript through her personalized miniatures and what they reveal about her own agency.

Catherine of Cleves was born in 1417 to Adolph, Duke of Cleves, and Mary of

Burgundy. Catherine was promised in marriage at age six to thirteen-year-old Arnold of

Egmond, who had just become the duke of Guelders and count of Zutphen. As was a common the practice for nobility of this time, their marriage was likely a political agreement orchestrated by their parents used to form an alliance between the territories of Guelders and Cleves. 21

Thissen affirms the statement that the marriage was for political benefit when he points out that the marriage agreement itself outlines that, “in the event of the early death of either of the

21 Gerard Nijsten, In the Shadow of Burgundy: The Court of Guelders in the Late Middle Ages 58 (New York, 2004), 256. Guelders and Cleves where neighboring territories with histories and other ties that although closely related, were often as hostile. Given their convoluted borders, disputes were more than expected to arise. In addition to the border competition, the closeness in geographic location also manifested other issues between the two principalities, such as competitiveness to expand their land or trade, or even the ability to form other, outside alliances. The histories of these two principalities were so closely related that it includes both of their rulers in the 12th century being brothers from Flanders that were relocated to the Rhineland by the German emperor. 12 partners, a younger sibling was to take his or her place.” 22 Their marital contract bears the seals of representatives of the council of nobles (ridderschap) and of the four main towns of each of the two territories. 23 Although this marriage likely was very important politically for both duchies, it was significantly less advantageous for Catherine. She was reportedly very distraught and displeased that her own natal house had greater prestige than her husband’s, and Catherine reportedly did not keep these feelings to herself. This matrimonial demotion troubled Catherine quite a bit, and on the subject of her husband’s ignobility she voiced her complaints quite ardently. 24 Historian Joosting records that the court historian, who clearly favored Arnold, notes:

Thus Duchess Catherine, Adolf’s mother, who appears to have been the previous instigator of all evil actions, very often reproached the duke for his low birth, saying he was unworthy of the noblemen in his presence for discussion or many other things such as common ball games or chess or any other kind of game which they used to play with him. 25 Catherine expressed these feelings not only in verbal and written communication, as it is likely both tremendously simplified and maligned in the above account, but also through her actions as duchess of Guelders that grew more and more independent during their marriage. This independence is reflected recurrently in the choice of illumination in her manuscript.

Arnold and Catherine’s children were all born in the first ten years of their marriage, sometime between 1430 and 1440. Of the six children, the third son Adolf was their only son to

22 Thissen, “Catherine of Cleves (1417-1476), Duchess of Guelders and Countess of Zutphen. A Biographical Sketch,” 102.

23 Ibid. 24 Thissen, “Catherine of Cleves (1417-1476), Duchess of Guelders and Countess of Zutphen. A Biographical Sketch,” 102. “The Historia Gelriae dating from the second half of the 15th century also reports that Catherine often expressed disdain for her husband’s humble origins [ignobilitas].” 25 J. G. C. Joosting, Devotionalia: Religious voorwerpen it het katholieke leven. (Eindhoven, 1985), 117. in John R Decker. "Aid, Protection, and Social Alliance: The Role of Jewelry in the Margins of the Hours of Catherine of Cleves." Renaissance Quarterly 71 (2018): 68.

13 reach adulthood and also the only child to become a major participant in the political scene of

Guelders that would follow. Catherine played a very active role in political scene as duchess.

There are records of her acting increasingly independent, in the late 1430s, early 1440s where she began to travel alone, both for political duties and for pleasure, such as traveling to see her family in Cleves. 26 One of these political agreements she handled without Arnold was between herself and the bishop of Utrecht and the provost of the Utrecht chapter of Saint Mary, where the treaty between Guelders and Cleves was renewed. 27 Historical records state that Catherine acted on her own initiative in these political settings after about a decade of marriage; up until the early

1430s she confined herself to the conventional role of wife and mother, however given Arnold’s whimsy and carelessness for his duchy, this subservient role did not last much past 1432.

Multiple sources cite the mutual antagonism between Catherine and Arnold began when

Arnold learned about correspondence between Catherine and her uncle, Duke Phillip of

Burgundy, concerning the Guelders affairs without the presence of her husband. Arnold was reportedly so infuriated over learning about the meeting that he did not speak to Catherine for at least eight weeks. 28 Historian W.J. Alberts suspects that during this meeting Catherine may have discussed with her brother the possibility of replacing Arnold with her son Adolph. 29 Following this event, Arnold was sent away by his advisors to collect his thoughts for three years on a

26 Thissen, “Catherine of Cleves (1417-1476), Duchess of Guelders and Countess of Zutphen. A Biographical Sketch,” 111. In August of 1443, Catherine visited her parents in Wesel, and following that year she visited the Burgundian court at Brussels. In May of 1448, her husband sent her to Nijmegen with a power of attorney to negotiate in the question of Driel. The role she held was quite obviously, from these and more records cited by Thissen, not a passive, domestic one, but rather one of a respected and trusted political partner. 27 For documents bearing Catherine’s seal, see: Sherrin Marshall, The Dutch Gentry, 1500-1650: Family, Faith, and Fortune (New York, 1987,) 63-64. 28 Ibid. 29 Andrea Pearson, Envisioning Gender in Burgundian Devotional Art, 1350-1530: Experience, Authority, Resistance (Vermont, 2005.) 62. 14 religious pilgrimage, during which Catherine managed his affairs with the assistance of a counsel of regents. Following his return, the tension between Arnold, Catherine, and Philip continued and grew increasingly worse. This political betrayal may have been the breaking point for their marriage, as political gain was the only benefit that was a fundamental product of the marriage.

Catherine entrusted her son Adolph to the care of her uncle, Phillip, and so Adolph spent his early years in the court of Burgundy. Catherine approved of this because it allowed her son would be surrounded by his own kin, her kin, with the multitude of familial ties in the court of

Burgundy that connected to Cleves. By 1456, Catherine began to make bold independent moves with the singular intent of furthering her own political ambitions, as her husband continued to make political moves that undermine everything their marriage was formed to create: an alliance between Cleves and Guelders. 30 At this point the married couple acts completely independent from each other, with Catherine’s loyalties fixed on that of her dynasty in Cleves, but still in title as duchess of Guelders.

A product of her marital struggle appears in an extremely biased accounts of a point of conflict between Catherine’s husband and son, Arnold and Adolph, where Catherine has been brought into the rhetoric and directly villainized. Around 1463, Guelders chroniclers and historians credit Catherine as the mastermind behind a coup led by Adolph that resulted in

Arnold’s imprisonment. 31 However, in his work on Guelders history, A. J. de Mooy writes that

Catherine, her son, Adolph, and all their cohorts played a part in incarcerating Arnold, but not for malicious or petty reasons but rather due to a lack of options because Arnold was destroying the

30 Thissen, “Catherine of Cleves (1417-1476), Duchess of Guelders and Countess of Zutphen. A Biographical Sketch,” 113. 31 Thissen, “Catherine of Cleves (1417-1476), Duchess of Guelders and Countess of Zutphen. A Biographical Sketch,” 117. Theissen references three Guelderian historians, Joosting, Pontanus, Slichtenhorst, who believed the Catherine was exclusively driven by malice. (See Joosting 1902, pp. 118- 120; Pontanus 1639, pp. 524 – 525; and Slichtenhorst 1654, pp. 255-256) 15 duchy with his carelessness. 32 The means of destruction being economic problems that had been a consistent problem since the beginning of Catherine and Arnold’s marriage, as accounted for in almost all accounts on the subject. Arnold’s inability to handle money was a consistent contentious area of both his reign as well as in his marriage with Catherine.

A Guelders priest of the Church of Saint Stephen, Willhem van Berchen, describes the extremely problematic nature of Arnold’s rule as duke saying, “Arnold of Egmond [was] an extremely weak duke, who maneuvered himself into political isolation, whose poor administration reduced seigneurial revenues from 60,000 to 5,000 florins a year, and who handed over the domain, which he did not really care for…”33 Curiously, many chroniclers and historians from Guelders that lived and wrote in the same years that Arnold was duke highly favored him in reports with him often being called pious and peaceful. Many people found issue with his style of leadership and while some read his inclination towards peace and piety as a strength, others saw that as distraction and indifference to his role. In contrast to this weak and passive leadership style her husband is often accused of, Catherine remained extremely involved in the affairs of Guelders often as a reaction of her husband’s physical absence or political lack of action. Both medieval and modern historians have analyzed the official documents surrounding his rule and come to the generous conclusion that Arnold simply lacked political intuition. Nineteenth century historian Isaac Anne Nijhoff accepts an extremely unfavorable view of Arnold revealing his analysis that,

Even though Arnold was noted for his fine character, his piety and erudition, history, supported by irrefutable witnesses, does exist, to denounce him as a weak ruler who,

32 A.J. De Mooy in Thissen, “Catherine of Cleves (1417-1476), Duchess of Guelders and Countess of Zutphen. A Biographical Sketch,” 118. 33 De Mooy in Thissen, “Catherine of Cleves (1417-1476), Duchess of Guelders and Countess of Zutphen. A Biographical Sketch,” 120. According the De Mooy on the same page the revenue was originally 80,000 florins. 16

refusing to honor reasonable demands, was unable to refuse those that were not reasonable; who provoked neighboring rulers to revenge, but was unable to withstand their assault; who preferred to lure his advisory into an ambush, rather than confront him openly on the battlefield; who [was] disastrous as a husband, father and ruler, ended by abandoning to the whims of a foreign power who once hailed him as lord. 34 The existence of various strong assertions against Arnold does not mean that the same historians who so ardently voiced their disdain for the duke’s actions thought Catherine was correct or decent in her navigation of the political sphere of Guelders. Among medieval sources, she appears to have been widely reviled for her hand in Guelder’s political scene, despite any good she did for them when acting in place of Arnold. Regardless of her general disfavor, her personal agency as a woman in the fifteenth century breaks the stereotype that is commonly affixed to medieval woman. Modern scholarship works to combat these largely inaccurate stereotypes of the illiterate, passive, simple, domestic maternal figure; due to this influx of research that surrounds women, these stereotypes are constantly being reshaped and they are given a new lens of individuality through which to analyze these women’s lives.

Catherine is often rendered as an evil consort and sometimes the accounts even go as far as to name her as the reason that anything politically unsuccessful or negative happened politically in Guelders at that time. De Mooy writes that “she is said to have bombarded her husband with recriminations, turned her son against him, and when she could no longer endure the noxious hatred that had coiled its way through her viscera… contrived to overthrow him and

34 Isaac Anne Nijoff in Thissen, “Catherine of Cleves (1417-1476), Duchess of Guelders and Countess of Zutphen. A Biographical Sketch,” 120. Van Veen added onto this claim by asserting it was Arnolds complete lack of political intuition that resulted in many disastrous events that happened as a result of uninformed decision making, all of which made his people extremely frustrated and vocal about it. W.J. Alberts disagrees with both Van Veen and Nijoff by claiming that Arnold was nothing but consistent because of his unwavering anti-Burgundian path.

17 replace him with [her son, Adolph].” 35 Although Catherine is essentially blamed for orchestrating Arnold’s political demise, she is given substantial agency. It does not appear that their issue was with Catherine’s gender, but rather with her very public allegiance to Cleves.

Many scholars, like De Mooy, do give Catherine credit for formulating significant political moves, however scheming and destructive the plan’s framing is rendered. Though many exist, accounts of Catherine involved in any political matters are often brief and depict her in a negative light. The only scholar who seems to have anything positive to write about Catherine is

Willem van Berchen, who says, “She…served in the interests of the domain, and, by paying a personal visit to Brussels, managed to prevent Arnold from pledging Guelders and Zutphen to

Phillip the Good.” 36 While this does appear to be praise for Catherine, it more noticeably is an insult against her husband whom she had to act against to support their domain, Guelders.

Modern scholarship overwhelmingly favors accounts of her husband, but it is from these accounts that details about Catherine and her involvement, however inconsistently or biasedly conveyed, come together to make what is known of her as an individual. These biographical details, however biased or brief, are absolutely integral to understanding Catherine’s manuscript, as they help explain the possible reasoning for so many of the included illuminations. Also, in these accounts can also be informed by her manuscript, as the illuminations speak directly to her biography helping to fill some biographical deficiencies or vague descriptions that become much clearer when her spiritual life is analyzed. The Hours of Catherine of Cleves reveals more about

Catherine than anything formally published about her life, because the manuscript is a

35 De Mooy in Thissen, “Catherine of Cleves (1417-1476), Duchess of Guelders and Countess of Zutphen. A Biographical Sketch,” 120. 36 Thissen, “Catherine of Cleves (1417-1476), Duchess of Guelders and Countess of Zutphen. A Biographical Sketch,” 120. 18 commission by Catherine that depicts her and things that must have been important to her given their prominence in the imagery, analysis of her manuscript informs her biography considerably.

Both in Guelder historical accounts and chronicles, and in scholarship on The Hours of Catherine of Cleves, Catherine’s role is often minimized to discussion of her as duchess and manuscript commissioner/owner, because of historical accounts focusing more strongly on her husband, and scholarship on her manuscript focuses on the role and genius of the artist, known as the Master of Cleves. This thesis works to illuminate upon this deficiency and place Catherine at the center of the discussion to reveal her role in the conception of her manuscript, and how it reveals much about her life and role as a noblewoman in the fifteenth century.

CHAPTER 1 Catherine of Cleves, the Pious

In the Hours of Catherine of Cleves, there are many elements that help shed light on the status of the owner and her political allegiances, as well as how she wished her personal devotional life to be remembered. This chapter will focus on the imagery in the miniatures with her portrait that she would have intended to possibly mold her own spiritual identity, and to set up how she wanted to be remembered as a pious woman favored by God to those who might see her image in the book during her life or after her death. The importance of visual interaction in medieval devotion exists with complexities and dangers of close looking; Sand described visual curiosity interaction as a “dangerous yet necessary trait” that can lead the devotee either into a deeper understanding of creation, or opposingly a probing eye could lead the person into mortal peril. The line between piety and impiety when concerning visual curiosity, as Sand puts it, is an extremely delicate one. Women in particular had a very set framework of how their devotion should be enacted, but in order to achieve their goal divinely inspired visions, a very personal, deep, and contemplative role with the word of God was paramount; a goal that “supersedes any

37 earthly aspiration and warrants the risk of mortal peril.” With the complexities and contradictions between personal reflection and an established female gaze, Catherine could have used her book of hours to help her navigate her own mind within the more regulated framework of this focused devotional. She would have also intended for this book to be passed down through her family as an heirloom, so it would have also served as a family treasure and reminder of how reverent she was, or strove to be, as a noble, Christian woman.

Catherine Praying to the Virgin and Child: MS M.917/945, fol. 1v

37 Sand , Vision, Devotion, Self-Representation in Medieval Art, 149. 20

Of the three owner portraits in the devotional, the first portrait of Catherine appears the first full-page miniature of the manuscript (fig. 1). This image opens the section of the manuscript that contains the Hours of the Virgin. Roger Weick refers to the Hours of the Virgin as “the heart of every book of hours” which contains eight separate Hours to be prayed throughout the course of a day; 38 These eight prayers were to be repeated on a daily basis from childhood to old age providing comfort to the reader through the routine. This first depiction of

Catherine that opens the Hours of the Virgin is undoubtedly the most opulent of not only

Catherine’s portraits but the entire manuscript, through the various artistic elements at work conveying Catherine’s personal and political complexity so beautifully throughout the page.

Although it is undeniably aesthetically stunning, it is also an extremely intentionally curated scene that offers a look into the rich history of Catherine, both how she saw herself and how she wanted to be remembered. This page is both the introductory miniature to this widely celebrated book of hours, and also a very in-depth introduction to Catherine, herself, from the year 1440.

There are a few accounts from the 15 th century that exist on the life of this noblewoman and this leaf can be used to both solidifies known biographic information and perhaps introduce more that can inform her personal wishes and intentions for her remembrance at this extremely poignant point in her life. As discussed, this was commissioned ten years into her unceasingly turbulent marriage to her husband, Arnold of Egmond , and imagery on this and other pages suggests their very public political battle against that was very much present even in the early years of her marriage.

38 Rog Wieck, and Pierpont Morgan Library, Painted Prayers: The Book of Hours in Medieval and Renaissance Art , 51.

This beginning leaf (fig. 1) is a seven and one-half inches long by five and one eighth inches wide sheet of vellum. In the center of the miniature is the crowned Virgin Mary standing on an inverted silver crescent moon. She is wearing a lavish red dress, gathered at the waist with a thin gold belt. She is mostly covered by a large mantle, royal blue on the outside and a crisp white with gold detailing on the inside. The mantle envelops the Virgin Mary’s legs entirely and much of her upper body. Her head tilts softly to the left, away from the Christ Child and towards

Catherine on her knees to the left of the leaf. Catherine, the Virgin Mary, and Christ’s skin are a similar milky white, although the Virgin Mary’s has a noticeably smoother texture with less rosy tones than Catherine’s. The Virgin Mary’s facial features are very small and dainty. Catherine is also pictured with small features, however she does have a noticeably rounded jaw and pointy chin, as compared to the Virgin Mary’s perfectly oval face. The Virgin Mary’s hair is the same dark auburn as Catherine’s styled hair and is conservatively tucked behind her ears and shoulders. The early Christians appear to be more interested in the divine essence of holy people, rather than their physical appearance; however, in the thirteenth century an interest in the actual

39 visage grew immensely. The new-found mania surrounding the image of the divine, primarily

Christ, but also the Virgin Mary, was molded into a kind of spiritual exercise for Christians

40 through the action of visual assimilation of a devotee’s image into that of the divine, or holy being, with the goal of divine reflection, transformation, and ultimately, vision.

On top of the Virgin Mary’s head is a large, intricate, golden crown outlined in black ink that spans the diameter of the round, golden halo seemingly floating behind her head. The Virgin

39 Sand, Vision, Devotion, Self-Representation in Medieval Art, 27-28. 40 The Virgin Mary is not considered divine by the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church holds the belief that prayers to her are not answered by her, but rather prayers to her are answered by God through her intersession. She is considered holy, not divine.

Mary is holding the infant Christ who is looking up towards her face. The Virgin Mary is holding an ink bottle into which he dips his pen. Across Christ’s lap lies an illegible scroll that ends at the

Virgin Mary Mary’s left hand, but the illumination does not show where the scroll begins.

Although Christ is where the writing comes from, the Virgin Mary makes the writing possible – providing support for Christ as well as holding the ink well. Perhaps she is also offering him peace of mind in what he is doing, as his face seems to be searching for approval in the face of the Virgin Mary, who has a calm, peaceful, passive facial expression. Christ’s head, like that of the Virgin Mary, is backed by a golden, circular halo; the halo is not a cruciform halo, despite being used in every other depiction of Christ in the miniatures throughout this manuscript. Christ is dressed in a blue garment, slightly dimmer in color than that of the Virgin Mary’s mantle, and he is wearing a scribe’s cap with some blonde curls escaping the front on his forehead. Both

41 Mary and the Christ Child are enveloped in a large, gold mandorla, detailed with small gold dots radiating from the Virgin Mary’s body, and thinly outlined in black. Kneeling at the Virgin

Mary’s right, there is a banderole floating just above her book that says, “O mater dei memento mei” translating to “Oh mother, remember me” (fig. 1.2) On the very first page of the manuscript the image of Catherine is anticipating her memory through this petition to the Virgin.

Immediately the issue of memory is foregrounded in this manuscript on the first full page

42 miniature that appears in the devotional.

Although Catherine was very individualistic woman, as shown through her bold political involvement, this image remains consistent with religious depictions of the Madonna and Child

41 A mandorla or aureole is much larger than a halo and envelops the whole body, perhaps signifying a greater degree of sanctity, as in representations of the Transfiguration, Ascension, or the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. 42 The calendar appears before this page; however, this is when the body of the manuscript begins. 23 of the time as it conforms to the conservative, traditional model seen throughout this period.

Despite her more self-directed political efforts that in many cases went directly against the wishes of the patriarch of her family and the leader of the duchy, her husband, Arnold, she stays well within the set religious framework. As we will see, she not only stays safely within this basis but also attempts to mold herself within that framework as seamlessly as possible, with multiple references to various religious women, while the Master of Catherine of Cleves executed the images in such a highbrow, refined manner with the intent to astonish the viewer

43 with its unique variety. Her adherence to the traditional customs of visual culture of the

Madonna and Child suggest consistency with her time, though this contrasts severely with her public reputation for breaking implied gender norms with her political career. This evocation supports a memory of Catherine as representing stability and reliability, rather than the truth of her life that was filled with incessant precarious power struggles.

The Virgin Mary and Christ Child are framed by a beautiful architectural illumination that is likely Catherine’s own chapel, identified by John Plummer is a statue that may represent

44 the patron saint of the chapel at Cleves at the center and top of this structure, St. Nicholas. As this is an extremely small rendering of a saint in statue form, it is difficult to tell any specific features of the saint, however, St. Nicholas is known as a 4 th century bishop, which is consistent with the clothing of the figure. Here the earthly imagery in miniature breaks tradition, as it would be more appropriate for Catherine to be shown in the chapel at Guelders, because at this point of

43 James H Marrow, “Multitudo et Varietas: the Hours of Catherine of Cleves” in The Hours of Catherine of Cleves: Devotions, Demons and Daily Life in the Fifteenth Century (New York, 2010), 20. Marrow states that no two borders in the manuscript are alike.

44 John Plummer, and Catherine, of Cleves, Duchess, consort of Arnold, van Egmond, Duke of Gelderland. The Book of Hours of Catherine of Cleves . (New York,1964.) 32.

24 her life she is years into her marriage and has lived in Guelders for quite some time. However,

45 this statue is not the patron saint of Guelders, St. Adelaide, as the statue is indisputably a male saint in bishops clothing. It is peculiar that Catherine would not be shown with the chapel she would have prayed in daily in Guelders, rather that of her childhood in Cleves. It is common for

46 books of hours to be assigned a region of origin based on the saints portrayed in them, so it is irregular for a manuscript that we know to be made for use in Guelders by Catherine, to portray saints from another location, especially on the opening miniature. This could be read as a desire to harken back to her childhood, where she first formed a relationship with God, when she was innocent and had much less sin on her heart; or perhaps it is a reaction to her rejection of her husband and desire to be back in her home, Cleves.

The exclusion of the patron saint of Guelders is an artistic decision that is a faux-pas against the format for books of hours, and so if this is St. Nicholas, patron saint of the chapel in

Cleves, the Master of Catherine of Cleves would have had to consult Catherine before settling on the saint to include. Traditionally, a local saint is placed in a prominent spot in the manuscript, as seen in the Hours of Isabella Stuart where she is accompanied by the patron saint of her

47 husband, St. Francis, who stands beside her in the presence of the Virgin Mary and Christ

Child (fig. 1.6). Looking beyond this leaf and miniature in Catherine’s manuscript, St. Adelaide is not only excluded from this prominent leaf but she also does not appear anywhere else in the

45 Plummer. The Book of Hours of Catherine of Cleves . (New York, 1964), 24. Referred to briefly by Plummer, more information in the 10th century saint gathered from: M. F. McCarthy, Adelaide of Vilich, St. Vol. 1 2003.

46 Kathryn M. Rudy, Piety in Pieces: How Medieval Readers Customized Their Manuscripts (Cambridge, 2016.) 15.

47 Francis I, Duke of Brittany 25 manuscript. This would have been another manuscript production faux pas, given the geographic location of Catherine at this time St Adelaide should be included somewhere in the devotional.

Knowing the high level of quality work being produced by the Master of Catherine of Cleves and considering the extremely high price tag that would come with the manuscript, a mistake is extremely unlikely, if not impossible.

Artistically, there are comparisons to other religious paintings that further push the limits and go beyond the more obvious comparisons that pop out to the viewer initially. Many scholars, including James Marrow, have identified the artistic echoes that suggest the Master of Catherine of Cleves took inspiration from famous Flemish panel painters in Northern Europe of the time,

48 including Jan Van Eyck and Robert Campin. There appear to be references to van Eyck’s panel paintings of the Virgin Mary within this initial miniature. I believe they are incredibly purposeful references included to further Catherine’s objectives for how she wished to fashion her most perfect, religious self. Firstly, in van Eyck’s Madonna with Child Reading (fig. 1.7)

there are many similarities that can be found to Catherine’s initial owner portrait (fig. 1.1).

Given their geographic location and status it is likely that the Master of Cleves, and perhaps even

Catherine herself, had seen this oil painting in their lifetime as it was created in 1433, seven years before Catherine’s manuscript. Van Eyck’s panel painting is a traditionally straightforward composition with the subjects, the Virgin Mary and Christ Child, placed directly in the middle of the painting. They are in a room that is beautifully decorated with a back drop that assumes a throne covered in a beautifully embroidered gold and emerald tapestry outlined in the same red

48 Marrow, “Multitudo et Varietas: the Hours of Catherine of Cleves,” 30. In this chapter Marrow does not go into specific paintings, but rather talks more about the style in general and to celebrate the Master of Catherine of Cleves on the wide scope of his artistic ability to be able to reference so many great artists. This is an example of a text that praises the technical skill of the Master of Catherine of Cleves but neglects to mention Catherine in any capacity other than identifying her in the manuscript. 26 as is seen in Catherine’s mantle. An open window to the Virgin Mary’s right shines light upon her face and neck, as well as all of the body of the infant Christ that is not covered by a small white cloth or the book on his lap. Both have very pale skin with hints of pink, the Virgin Mary has dark brown or auburn hair, and Christ has red hair. Here the Virgin Mary is enveloped by an extremely large mantle that takes up the majority of the bottom of the composition, hindering the viewer from seeing what she might be sitting on. The mantle is spread out and comes in to rest on her shoulders, creating a triangular shape. The dress the Virgin Mary is wearing under the mantle is a deep royal blue, almost navy, belted with a red strap, and embellished with a gold necklace that matches the hair piece laying along her hairline. The Virgin Mary’s hair falls down her shoulders as she gazes downward, it is difficult to tell if she is looking at Christ or the book that they are holding together. The Virgin Mary appears to be reading the book as she holds a section of the book slightly open with her left pointer finger to return to later, as any parent might if their child began playing with their book and they wanted to hold their place. In both the painting and the miniature, the Virgin Mary has a serene facial expression with nearly closed eyes.

In the manuscript (fig 1.1), Catherine is adorned in the same colors that surround the

Virgin Mary in the van Eyck painting: a large triangle of red, small patches of white coming through, green cloth in a vertical movement (in this case, tippets extending from Catherine’s sleeves), and blue cloth under the red. Catherine also wears a large mantle made up of what seems like an immense amount of red cloth, and that cloth is again spread nicely around her, concealing what, if anything she is kneeling on, creating a very familiar triangular shape that comes together where it drapes over her narrow shoulders. Her blue sleeves sticking out from the sizable mantle, which is belted in the front with a golden belt, that matches the golden

27 necklace that lays across her shoulders, over the mantle. She is dressed similarly to the Virgin

Mary in the van Eyck, although her hair is different and the fur lining of her mantle is more extravagant than what is worn by the Virgin Mary in the van Eyck; although the Virgin Mary is shown in the same the animal pelt lining her identifiably blue mantle, later on in the manuscript.

She is also holding a book, although this is not an evidentiary claim to the influence of van Eyck because they would have different reasons to be holding a book in their respective works.

One objective for the Master of Catherine of Cleves to employ the visual reference of van

Eyck’s painting could have been purely for artistic grandeur, which in turn we can label a success, given the praise the Master of Catherine of Cleves has received for centuries over his impressive artistic range and skill. The other objective would be to connect Catherine to a

49 recognized and celebrated image of the Virgin Mary during this time (fig. 1.7, 1.8, and 1.9).

This could potentially have aided in Catherine’s reflections while in prayer, viewing her perpetually devoted self, frozen in time praying to and in the presence of the Virgin Mary.

Through praying these daily and seeing this image among others of the Virgin so frequently, as

Weick puts it, the Virgin Mary would have become a familiar friend; 50 through her image but also the reliability to give comfort and consistency to the perhaps otherwise irregularity of life.

Implicit and explicit messaging working together to encourage the devotee to strive for deeper level of attentive, peaceful contemplation.

49 Van Eyck did multiple paintings that had the Virgin Mary in the same large red mantle, so whether it was this ore one of the other paintings, people could attribute it to a number of images of the Virgin Mary. See Figure 1.7; Figure 1.8; Figure 1.9

50 Wieck, and Pierpont Morgan Library, Painted Prayers: The Book of Hours in Medieval and Renaissance Art , 51.

The Sixth Gift of the Holy Spirit: MS M.917/945 p. 65

The second image of Catherine in this manuscript is a half-page miniature illustrating the sixth gift of the holy spirit: piety. Identical to the first leaf, this full leaf is a seven and one-half inches long by five and one-eighth inches wide sheet of vellum. Catherine is shown in this very flattering scene giving alms to the poor, surrounded by extremely charged religious imagery, both within the half page miniature and in the surrounding border (fig. 1.10). The Morgan

Library describes the text this miniature as belonging to the “most unusual,” because of the unique manner by which it has followed the tradition of associating specific figures or themes with each day of the week, within the very regimented, personalized pages of the manuscript. In

Catherine’s devotional, the Hours and Masses are broken up by day as follows: Sunday, the

Trinity; Monday, the Dead; Tuesday, the Holy Spirit; Wednesday, All Saints; Thursday, the

51 Blessed Sacrament; Friday, the Compassion of God; and Saturday, the Virgin Mary. This illumination fits into the day devoted to the Holy Spirit, Tuesday, and is one of eight miniatures

52 that pictorially represent the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. The decision to include the image of

Catherine in the miniature to illustrate the gift of piety is very flattering and portrays her as pious to those who might view the manuscript before or after her death. Because of this artistic decision, the model for the act of piety in this manuscript is Catherine herself. Therefore, when she would read this, she would already see herself acting as a pious woman, and again perhaps practicing the reflexive contemplation to enact and invigorate her own pious lifestyle. King

Louis IX, who eventually was canonized as St. Louis, is seen in a very similar image (figure

1.19) to display his devotion to his people, but even more so his devotion to the word of God by

52 There are eight because the first miniature in this series depicts not a conceptual gift, but rather is an image of the event of Pentecost, leaving the following seven to represent the seven gifts. 29 enacting a gift of the Holy Spirit. Just as the image of St. Louis, Catherine employs this imagery as a way to be remembered for her good deeds and piety; again, engaging with the medieval preoccupation with memory.

Within the blue, gold, and white framed miniature is an image of Catherine giving alms to three beggars. Behind Catherine are the gates to her castle, which she chose to leave in order to serve the poor. She is dressed in the same gown and mantle in which she is depicted in the initial author portrait; the mantle and gown are a bright red with an animal pelt lining that is white with rather spread out black spots, and she wears the same white veil that partly covers the

53 temples, on each side of her head. Her sleeves are a different color, here they are gold, and rather than the blue in the initial miniature. Hovering closely over her head is a white dove, a representation of the Holy Spirit and yet another parallel to a separate image of the Virgin Mary in the Tuesday Hours of the Holy Spirit; This mirrors the image of the Virgin Mary in the miniature depicting Pentecost, where the Virgin Mary also has the white dove hovering over her head, while all the apostles have tongues of fire over theirs (fig. 1.11). In both depictions the only identifiable women, the Virgin Mary and Catherine, are the protagonist of the scene, the physically biggest form in the miniature, and they both have direct interaction with the third

54 member of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit (fig. 1.12). The Virgin Mary is also wearing a

53 "Glossary of Medieval Clothing Terms." The Morgan Library & Museum. April 23, 2018. Accessed March 15, 2019. https://www.themorgan.org/collection/Illuminating-Fashion/glossary. A woman’s two-hommed colf, made of goldsmithery or fine needlework, and worn over the temples, enclosing the hair. 54 It is common in both manuscript illumination and Christian visual culture as a whole to represent the Holy Spirit as a dover over the head of holy people, especially the Virgin Mary. Throughout the Hours of Catherine of Cleves, there are dozens of appearances of the Holy Spirit, almost exclusively perched over the heads of saints or the Virgin Mary, placing Catherine within this group of celebrated holy people. For another manuscript reference see: Figure 1.12, Here the Holy Spirit has descended upon the Virgin Mary in the scene of the Annunciation while the Angel Gabriel greeted her, calling her “blessed among women”. 30 white veil, though without the temples, and has a downward gaze to a book, assumed to be the word of God. Catherine mirrors this downward gaze, but instead of the reason being to read the word of God as she was in the first image and the Virgin Mary is in the image of Pentecost, it is to enact the word of God through bringing his words into action through acts of piety.

Catherine’s identification with the Virgin Mary achieves reflexivity, but it also forms a bond of communitas. 55

The words Catherine is enacting in the miniature itself are in banderole above the heads of the beggars quoting the Gospel of Luke, “date ele(em) osina(m); et (ecce) o(mn)ia mu(n)da

56 s(un)t vobis” translated to “give alms, and all things are clean unto you.” In an article on medieval female piety, Caroline Walker Bynum uses examples of medieval monastic women that summarize the relationship between words and action, as seen in this miniature where

Catherine is performing the action described by the hovering verse: “…The piety of monastic women from 1200 to 1500 involves the extravagance of language and behavior often attributed to it, but it is also characterized by inwardness, theological subtlety, and a paradoxical union of

57 community and service with contemplation and renunciation.” Although Catherine was not a nun, Walker’s words are still exceptionally relevant to Catherine’s situation as well, perhaps

55 Victor Turner and Edith Turner, Image and Pilgrimage in Christian Culture: Anthropological Perspectives (New York,1978), 13. Communitas is illustrated as “commonness of feeling.” In the Turners’ work, the term is used in reference to group ritual practices, however I believe this can be applied just as relevantly to private devotional practices, such as in book of hours contemplation. In this situation, the devotee, Catherine, is perhaps less identifying with the Virgin Mary and more communing with her, as a next level of connection. This would be a distinction felt personally by the devotee, and so as a third party I can only identify this as the likely goal of this process, but I cannot say this is what Catherine felt, because there is no indication she did or did not reach that level of deep connection and contemplation with this devotional. 56 Lk 11:41 KJV 57 Caroline Walker Bynum, "Patterns of Female Piety," in Crown and Veil: Female Monasticism from the Fifth to Fifteenth Centuries (New York, 2008), 174-175. 31 because of the obsession lay people had with imitating religious life in this extremely

58 ecclesiastical time in European history.

In addition to the banderole that is drawn directly into the miniature, there is also an inscription at the top of the page, above the border decoration, that cites a different verse that reiterates a similar message. Gorissen identifies the red inscription as “Pietas ad o(mn)ia valet,” a

59 variation of the verse 1 Timothy 4:8, translated, “Piety is profitable unto all things.” Again, using words and images together to deepen the understanding of each individual element – the message is stronger when reflected upon as a whole. In this miniature, Catherine is exhibiting behavior attributed to a gift of the Holy Spirit, piety, but also appears to be well versed in the teachings from the Bible that directly relate to that gift. This is demonstrating an understanding of not only the word of God as instructed directly, but also a knowledge of where else in the

Bible this action is represented, as well as an understanding of how to mold her devotional behavior to mirror her devotional meditation on the same instructions. For Catherine, this process of cyclical concentration between word, the image, and herself would be heightened further on this leaf in particular, because of the ability for Catherine to see a version of herself participating directly in this continuously ruminating process. The inclusion of her reflexive image adds extra weight and importance to this gift of the Holy Spirit, and therefore cultivates the image of Catherine living and striving for a pious life and reputation.

58 Penketh, “Women and Books of Hours”, (1996.) 271. 59 Gorissen. Das Stundenbuch der Katharina von Kleve. (Berlin: G. Mann, 1973), 465. Referenced in Rob Dückers, ed., The Hours of Catherine of Cleves: Devotion, Demons and Daily Life in the Fifteenth Century, (New York, 2009), 294. 1 Tim 4:8 KJV – the direct translation is “for physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promises for both the present life and the life to come” however the translation from Gorissen is a direct variant of this message. 32

This is an extremely flattering image of Catherine: she is dressed in beautiful clothing while shown leaving the comforts of her castle with the intention to serve those less fortunate. To supplement this image and build off of this gift of the Holy Spirit, there is a scene at the bottom at that page and although it doesn’t depict Catherine directly, the woman in the image is likely intended to directly reference Catherine through her pious behavior of serving the poor as she is in the above miniature. In this bottom-border illustration, a woman with a white veil and a blue gown – the same blue we generally see the Virgin Mary adorned in – appears kneeling down to the window of a prison and hands a prisoner a loaf of bread through the bars. The prisoner is presented as Christ, identified by the cruciform halo. Visiting a prisoner in jail was accepted as a great deed of mercy, more specifically it was categorized as a Corporal Act of Mercy. This designation comes from a description of the event of the Last Judgement in the book of Matthew where the Corporal Acts of Mercy are described:

Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty, and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?’ Then he will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the 60 righteous into eternal life. This passage and designation of the act of mercy a much greater weight, because now not only is it an act of piety, charity, and generosity, but now the viewer is reminded that by serving the poor, Catherine is serving Christ himself.

The illustration at the bottom in particular is a reminder of how an open heart to all in order to serve God, even those that are in the darkest situations, such as prison or sickness. In

60 Matthew 25:41-45

33 the half miniature, the first peasant man is in tattered clothes, holding his hand out as a place for

Catherine to place money. The second is a sick, injured man who is standing using crutches, and holding up his left leg, also in tattered clothes. The third is holding out a bowl to signify hunger and is shown with an extremely emaciated face to signal malnutrition. Catherine is shown helping the three poor men, helping to fulfill their basic human needs from her own coin purse.

This image enacts the Biblical statement that one cannot receive eternal life without caring for those in need Catherine is caring for God, himself. Again, this is showing Catherine as a pious servant of God, not only for her own personal reflection with her devotional, but also in the eyes of others who will recognize her and see her as the pious woman she wants to be viewed as, even if that is more reverent than she would ever actually will be, considering these portrait images

61 are the most perfect goal associated with Catherine’s devotional practices and pious lifestyle.

The Virgin Mary as Intercessor and Catherine under the Cross: MS M. 917/945, p. 160

The final identified owner portrait of Catherine in this manuscript also in the Hours and

Masses for the Seven Days of the Week, and acts as the introductory page for the Saturday Mass of the Virgin Mary text (fig. 1.13). This is a full-page miniature with a beautifully geometric, polychromatic border. The composition is comprised of four figures, almost all identifiable:

Catherine of Cleves to the left of Christ in a mauve-rose dress gown, an unidentified bishop saint stands behind Catherine with a green mantle lined in bright red with his hand on her shoulder, the Virgin Mary in a blue mantle to Christ’s right, the crucified Christ on the cross in the center, and God the Father seemingly in a different realm in the corner over Christ’s right shoulder,

61 Sand, Vision, Devotion, Self-Representation in Medieval Art, 7. Sand explains that sometimes after the death of their intended person, these portraits came to function in a memorial capacity. For example, if the book owner died, the book could go on to be understood in a new light, a commemorative light, in addition to the intended devotional use. 34 where Christ’s gaze is reaching. This miniature represents the hope guiding Catherine’s intentions for appealing to the Virgin Mary, that she will intercede on Catherine’s behalf to her son, Christ. Placing Catherine within this extremely sacrosanct shared plane with the most prominent individuals in Christianity would be an extremely rich image that transcends

Catherine’s previous portraits and their miniatures with regards to her positioning in relation to the holy.

In the initial portrait, the Virgin Mary and Christ are shown as other-worldly, within a gold, floating mandorla that could not possibly exist in the physical world, and Catherine began to enter the frame but was predominantly on the outside looking in. In the initial miniature

Catherine is positioned in the earthly realm looking into the heavenly realm, introducing the idea of memory through her prayer to the Virgin Mary and Christ, “Oh mother, remember me” (fig.

1.2). In the image of Catherine distributing alms for the gift of the Holy Spirit, she is again on earth, but in a very saintly position doing God’s work. In this third image, she is fully participating in the same heavenly plane of existence as the Virgin Mary, Christ, God the Father, as well as another holy person who is offering her direct, physical support. I believe it was fully intentional for this image to come last in the line of her self-reflexive images, because it is the most engulfed in a heavenly realm, whereas in the previous images she was merely an onlooker

62 63 (fig. 1.1) or completely separate from divine figures (fig 1.10) and acting unaided in response to Biblical teachings. This final image also suggests her departure from the earthly realm to join

62 Figure 1.1 where she is an onlooker to the Virgin Mary and Christ Child appearing in a golden mandorla, where she was noticeably physically smaller and only slightly broke the border holding the divine figures with her gown and book. 63 Figure 1.10 where she is the protagonist in a scene narrating the actions that define the gift of the Holy Spirit, piety, by leaving the comforts of her privileged life for a moment to share her wealth through serving the poor, and therefore serving God, himself. 35 those in heaven, thus beginning the tradition of memory through the viewing of her manuscript in terms of remembrance. The order of the images shows a visual representation of the medieval understanding of devotion, that once one is committed to deeper practice of prayer and devotion they are rewarded by a more direct interaction and contemplation with divine and holy people.

Direct interaction is precisely what this miniature is showing: the direct contact between the devotee, Catherine, a holy person as a minder, 64 her intercessor, the Virgin Mary, a divine member of the Holy Trinity, Christ, and a second divine member of the Holy Trinity, God the

Father. The Master of Catherine of Cleves and Catherine are showing, through this miniature, how Catherine’s connection to the Virgin Mary through the practice of adoration, prayer, and practicing pious behavior result in a closer relationship with the divine. This leaf would act as a visual progress marker for Catherine, visualization of the result of all the prayer and contemplation.

To the left of the crucified Christ is Catherine, who appears in very different clothing than before. No longer in the extravagant red gown and mantle with the animal pelt lining, she is now in a more unobtrusive mauve-rose colored gown, with a white collar and white trim. She is wearing her hair in pointed templars, identical to the two previous two portraits. She is notably the same size as all the other figures in this image, shifting away from scale representing hierarchy as in the previous illuminations. This shift away from scale as a hierarchy is almost scandalous, because here a layperson, Catherine, is not only in the same realm as the Virgin

65 Mary and Christ, but is taking up the same amount of space as them on the page. This brings

64 I later argue this is a representation of either St. Nicholas, or more likely St. Leonard. 65 God the Father is not in the “same space” because he is physically smaller and only the upper part of his body is visible through a blue cloud surrounded by what appears to be orange angels, therefore he does not share the same physical space as the others. 36 her more in union with her intercessors and offers a clear visualization of what Plummer refers to

66 as, “the ladder of salvation” referring to the transmission of prayer and requests. Catherine is shown kneeling with her hands in prayer and a reverent downward gaze, across from the Virgin

Mary, whom she is praying to with the words, “Ora pro me sancta dei gentrix” translated, “Pray for me, o holy Mother of God.” This appeal to the Virgin Mary makes up the first rung of the ladder, with the culmination being at the top left corner of the leaf, with God the Father who answers the prayer of salvation for Catherine.

Catherine has a rosary wrapped around her arm that appears to be her own rosary (fig.

1.14), as also appears later in the manuscript, enlarged, to make up the border of the full-page miniature of the Adoration of the Magi (fig. 1.15). Rather than the Master of Catherine of Cleves just using a basic rosary design for both of these, he made a point to model these after

Catherine’s own, meaning the two must have come together to discuss iconography wanted in the manuscript. Because it is shown twice, and it looks similar in both, it was likely modeled after Catherine’s own rosary to add more detail in the image she would be ruminating over. If

Catherine would see a self-reflexive image of herself, holding the rosary that she would perhaps be physically holding when saying her daily prayers for Saturday. The rosary is identified is part of what makes this image identifiable as Catherine. Because her portraits are not entirely identifiable, particularly in this miniature, through facial features, this inclusion personal item brings greater awareness to the image, confirming for the later viewers that this is indeed

Catherine.

66 Gorissen, “Das Stundenbuch der Katharina von Kleve,” in, The Hours of Catherine of Cleves: Devotion, Demons and Daily Life in the Fifteenth Century, 348. Referring to the process of the Virgin Mary appealing to Christ, who then appeals to God the Father for the answering of prayers and petitions. 37

Furthering the connection of personal items to reinforce the identification of self, next to

67 Catherine is a small dog, perhaps her own though there is no evidence for this, and a small footstool and an opened book sitting on top of it. The book is employed similarly to the rosary, given that she appears to be praying from the book that is open on the footstool, which is likely her devotional. This provides a further cyclical, dizzying, meditative trajectory where the book

Catherine is reading from is also the book her idealized self is reading from, and so she is mirroring her idealized self; this idea follows Sand’s discussion of reflexive images as a picture that forms a recursive loop to encourage self-reflection and understanding, and so we could call this image reflexive. In viewing and connecting with her image in perpetual devotion in her manuscript, this would lead her mind “upward and beyond the physical, perceptible world into the timeless, changeless state of spiritual fulfillment that could only be imagined, and never

68 experienced fully in life.” Acknowledging that this level of spiritual fulfillment is not something that Catherine would have been able to attain in life, it would have still been important to Catherine, and any person striving to live a pious life, to get as close to that level of fulfillment, that level of perfection, to their illustrated selves in perpetual devotion that they contemplated daily, as they could.

69 Behind Catherine is an unidentified saint, presumably a bishop based on the crozier he carries. He is standing, wearing a green mantle with a bright red lining that is clasped together at his chest with a large medallion. He is identified as a saint because of the large golden halo behind his head, and a bishop because of the crozier he carries in his right, gloved hand. His

67 A dog is commonly used as a symbol of faithfulness: see Jan van Eyck’s Portrait of the Arnolfini in the National Gallery, London. 68 Sand, Vision, Devotion, Self-Representation in Medieval Art, 265.

69 Bishop’s staff with the curl at the top. 38 other gloved hand rests on the left shoulder of Catherine, with his gaze slightly downward, but not as severely as that of Catherine’s gaze that requires her neck to bend down to read the book in front of her. According to the hierarchy of gaze, this places him appropriately above

Catherine, but below the Virgin Mary. I believe this is likely either St. Nicholas or St. Leonard. It could be St. Nicholas because he is who is believed to be represented through statuary at the top of the architectural frame in the initial miniature that also features the Virgin Mary, Christ, and

Catherine because he is the patron saint of the chapel in Cleves, which is very important to

Catherine who identifies strongly with her upbringing (fig. 1.16). The problem with this correlation is that in the image of St. Nicholas in the Suffrages text (fig. 1.17), although the crozier is represented and identifies the saint as a bishop, their vestments are very different in both color and style, the identified St. Nicholas is wearing a miter and has facial hair. More likely is that the representation is of St. Leonard, as St. Nicholas misses all the known visual needs to solidify a connection, beyond being a male figure.

70 This could also be St. Leonard because he is the patron saint of women in labor, and because of both the visual connection to St. Leonard’s Suffrages leaf. Thissen assesses that

Catherine’s children were all born within the first ten years of her marriage, 71 and with this manuscript being dated 1440, that falls into the ninth year of her marriage, and a strong possibility that she was pregnant either when she received the finished manuscript, or when she was commissioning it and discussing elements she wanted represented with the Master of

70 "MS M.917/945, Pp. 160–161." The Morgan Library & Museum. May 30, 2017. Accessed April 17, 2019. https://www.themorgan.org/collection/hours-of-catherine-of-cleves/231. The Morgan Library website lists this saint as “A saint (Leonard?)” and does not go into further discussion about this. None of the earlier publications on the Hours suggest any possibilities as to which saint this image could be representing. 71 Thissen, “Catherine of Cleves (1417-1476), Duchess of Guelders and Countess of Zutphen. A Biographical Sketch,” 109. 39

Catherine of Cleves during its production, or potentially both. Her journey to motherhood had a

72 difficult son when she lost her first child to a miscarriage; for someone who came to identify so strongly as a mother figure this would have undoubtedly been a difficult tragedy to overcome.

Catherine would have likely prayed to St. Leonard for help with a safe birth for all of her children. Visually, the saint behind Catherine has a definite likeness to that of the leaf of St.

Leonard in the Suffrage text (fig. 1.18). They both have the bishop’s crozier, but not a miter, therefore can be identified as an abbot. They both have almost no hair on their head, and no facial hair. Both saints have a mantle that comes together with a large broach on their chest, although the mantles are different colors – green in the image with Catherine, blue in the suffrage. Although there are no visible fetters in the image with Catherine, as St. Leonard carries in the other image, the book placed in front of Catherine could belong to the saint, which would be consistent with the attribute of an abbot and consistent with the book St. Leonard is holding in his leaf, as they both have gold lined pages. It is more likely that the book is Catherine’s and not the abbots, however, he does appear to be guiding her in her prayer, so there is a possibility that the book is to perhaps help guide him rather than Catherine. Whomever the saint is, Catherine wanted them for a very specific reason that would have aided in her devotional reflection and connection with the image.

On Christ’s right is an image of the Virgin Mary. She is dressed in a blue mantle and blue gown, with a white veil around her head and neck, surmounted by a gold halo. She is looking up at a harsh angle because of the height of the cross, at the crucified Jesus Christ. She bears an exposed breast that is producing milk, as a visual reminder to Christ that she is his mother. She is

72 Thissen, “Catherine of Cleves (1417-1476), Duchess of Guelders and Countess of Zutphen. A Biographical Sketch,” 108. 40 reminding him of this because the Virgin Mary is entreating her son, and indirectly God the

Father, to grant Catherine salvation; evidently an age-old trick of a mother guilting her son. The speech scroll coming from the Virgin Mary reads her reminder to her son, “Propter ubera que te lactaverunt, sis sibi propicus” reminding him that she fed him with her milk. With Catherine’s reputation of having significant influence over her son, this is both humorous and also, perhaps, relatable for Catherine – if that reputation is based on truth. Being that Catherine and Arnold’s son would have a certain amount of political control, the idea that if the Virgin Mary has an influence over the Son of God for reminding him of being his mother, perhaps it was both a comfort and another way for Catherine to relate and see herself in the Virgin Mary as well.

Next, the Christ, crucified but visibly alive despite the cut in his side that generally represents the signal of his death, responds to his mother’s request by painstakingly turning to

God the Father, taking time out of his death, which he was enduring to grant salvation to all mankind, to request that in the name of his wounds that Catherine be spared. This directly mirrors the moment of Christ’s crucifixion where one of the thieves on a cross him begged for mercy and was met with compassion from Christ. 73 As was granted to the thief, her request is granted, and she is given salvation when God the Father responds to Christ on the Cross assuring him that his prayer has been answered. In this miniature Catherine visually appears humble, through her dress and her body language, however this would be an incredibly powerful image for her because it shows both the power of prayer and piety, and it also shows the strength of one pious person, no matter their gender. This miniature in particular shows Catherine the importance of communicating with the Virgin Mary because she is an integral step in the petition for salvation. It is significantly more conducive to Catherine’s long-term goal of achieving piety

73 Luke 26:42-43 41 as a path to salvation, to appeal to the Virgin Mary, a mother, in the presence and with the support of St. Leonard, the saint of women in labor present, rather than going directly to Jesus; the Virgin Mary is nurturing, forgiving, and encourages her son to be the same when expressing an intercession on someone’s behalf.

CHAPTER 2: Catherine of Cleves, the Political Power

“Power, as Foucault would have it, would not be power without resistance. And with

74 resistance comes agency.” -Clark

When the politically charged elements of this manuscript are considered, it becomes a major act of resistance on behalf of Catherine against her husband who becomes her political enemy. In many cases this resistance was manifested through Catherine assigning control to herself, or being given control by others, at times when Arnold was away or otherwise distracted; this often was the case through unaccompanied political trips where she made un-consulted political decisions for Guelders, sometimes decisions that were at odds with that of her husband

75 and some with the intention of aiding her home, Cleves. Her inclination towards Cleves, over her home by marriage, Guelders, is apparent through the imagery chosen throughout the manuscript; this partiality to imagery from Cleves is likely because it is what Catherine related to and felt most comfortable visualizing, having called Guelders home for around ten years by

1440.

As she got older, Catherine became increasingly independent and powerful in her own right, this resulted in more deprecation for her actions and suspicion of her intentions – perhaps not ill-placed suspicion. This independence is displayed through many different ways in the three portrait images, as well as in images that parallel (or at times displaying stark and tenacious contrast) them through themes and messages exhibited. She went into the marriage in the late

74 Clark, Robert L. A., ed., “Constructing the Female Subject in Late Medieval Devotion” In Medieval Conduct (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 200.) 178. 75 Thissen, “Catherine of Cleves (1417-1476), Duchess of Guelders and Countess of Zutphen. A Biographical Sketch,” 111. One of these political agreements she handled without Arnold was between herself and the bishop of Utrecht and the provost of the Utrecht chapter of Saint Mary, where the treaty between Guelders and Cleves was renewed. 43

1420s or early 1430s, likely already unhappy and unimpressed with her new situation, as she received no dowry which likely reveals the weak bargaining position of her new husband,

76 Arnold. This would be the first in a long list of disappointments brought about by Arnold’s lack of action and overall political weakness. In the historical accounts Arnold is recorded by some Guelders chroniclers as acting very childish, rash, and lazy, and the one time his image is included in Catherine’s manuscript he is represented as such; the only identified portrait of him shows him groveling for his salvation at the moment of the last judgement (fig. 2.1). What is most noticeable is how infrequently he is mentioned or referenced, especially given that since

77 marriage is a holy sacrament and therefore would have been considered “one flesh” under God, the snub is unmistakable when looking through the manuscript. This slight seems contradictory to Catherine’s alleged goal of growing in her spirituality through the devotional, but it is a very personal decision that must reflect her personal and political allegiances and asserts how she wants to be remembered, and how she wanted people to remember him.

Asserting Dominance with Heraldry: MS M.917/945, fol. 1v-2r

These first two leaves are the most explicitly politically charged of the three owner portraits in the manuscript (fig. 2.2). The political allegiances that are displayed prominently on this opening two leaves is a primary reason why Catherine must have been included in the dialogue surrounding the planning and production of this manuscript. As a married woman, there

76 Berchen and DeMooy 1950, p. 75. The amount of money historically given for a dowry, particularly in her family, was considerable. For example, her mother received sixty-thousand gold ecus by her father, John the Fearless, for her marriage to Adolph of Cleves. 77 Genesis 2:24 – “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” - it is interesting that Catherine is trying to grow in her piety, but she is ignoring a major factor in her relationship with God, the covenant she entered in with her husband that from a Christian point-of-view is considered sacred. Perhaps she is unconcerned with this section of her spirituality because her marriage was for political reasons and her husband is also dismissive. 44 is an obvious lack of representation of her husband which technically translates to a prominent heraldry misrepresentation of herself as a married woman. She opens her manuscript with a major act of defiance, by placing her own crest of Cleves over her and her husband split coat of arms, rather than the crest of her husband. No artist would take the liberties to include such a heraldic faux pas considering the heraldic system was heavily regulated, especially on a commission for a married noblewoman, unless directed. These, among many other elaborate, connotative details to uncover, introduces how this initial miniature has an overwhelming abundance references to personal and political allegiances and objectives throughout, in a stunningly illuminated composition.

Medieval heraldry was used to distinguish individuals and families, but who instituted the use of coats of arms was the twelfth century armies who wanted to be able to identify knights

78 hidden by their armor. A “coat of arms” or “arms” are a combinations of designs and symbols that signified these groups; they often included images of animals, crowns, a motto, and

79 patterning. The system of heraldry was only used by rulers and the nobility, and the whole

80 system was heavily regulated to make sure no one duplicated another family’s emblem, as this

78 Erik J. Inglis, Faces of Power & Piety (California, 2008), 60.

79 Kristina Lanier, "Heraldry: Medieval Team Uniforms and More: ALL Edition." The Christian Science Monitor (1998): 9. In this short article, Lanier compares coats of arms to modern day sports uniforms – used as a way to differentiate “teams.”

80 While Lanier and Gorissen both make this claim, in Pastoureau, Michel. Les Armoiries . Vol. fasc. 20. (Turnhout: Brepols, 1976.) p. 29-30. There is a more causal, unregulated format about these crests of noblewoman. And also in C, Pama, Riestaps Handboek der Heraldeik (Leiden, 1987), 222. They say that for a long time the protocol for crests was completely arbitrary and that from the 14th century onwards a crest could be used to “give a coat of arms a personal touch.” So, the understanding that they were regulated at this time in the 15th century is currently a disputed issue. My argument is more centered on 45

81 prevented people from claiming false ancestry. The introductory miniature with the first owner portrait of Catherine and the accompanying leaf together display nine coats of arms placed

82 around the border. It is collectively accepted by scholars that eight of the arms, one in each corner of their respective leaves, belongs to all of Catherine’s great-grandfathers. This is very consistent with the pride that Catherine and her family, particularly her mother, has for their lineage. The inclusion of all of these arms also would be useful for future generations that might look at this manuscript because when used as a family heirloom as a reference of family

83 history. On a personal level, the presence of these shields, and the ninth shield that will be discussed later, emphasize Catherine’s own identification, her historic identity, and her

84 individuality. Since a coat of arms is a privilege granted only by rulers to members of the

85 nobility, this is a display of an incredibly prestigious lineage that Catherine derives from, with her claiming genetic ties to eight separate noble families. Whomever is looking at this manuscript would see her devotion to the Virgin and Christ, however more striking would be her impressive ancestry. Unfortunately, a significant amount of the wealth was signed away when she married Arnold, but the bloodlines are interminable. With these coats of arms placed evenly

the political decision behind Catherine’s crest, there are such significant deviations there must be more behind it than just being driven by a desire for a “personal touch.”

81 Ibid. 82 MS M.917/945, ff. 1v–2r 83 Wieck, Time Sanctified: The Book of Hours in Medieval Art and Life (New York, 1988), 40. Wiek used an example of another book of hours belonging to the Benigne family where their manuscript was passed down like a family heirloom and family diaries are panned into the margins. This is just one of many ways people used these devotionals as a historical record.

84 Penketh, “Women and Books of Hours,” 266.

85 Inglis, Faces of Power & Piety , 60. 46 around the manuscript at the corners, all tilted inward to frame the miniatures, they represent a sign of stability for not only the scenes but for Catherine herself. It is a show of success and prestige, suggesting that Catherine comes from and will perpetuate this genetic attraction to success in all her feats. She is appearing very confident and assured, while looking up from her book to the face of the Virgin Mary, praying for her intercession while concurrently signifying people reading the text also remember her in this way.

The mantle that Catherine is wearing in the proper left side of this miniature is reminiscent of the material her clothing would be made out of in her childhood in Cleves.

Thissen references ledgers of a furrier in connection with orders from the court of Cleves between 1422 and 1424, from which we learn that as a child Catherine would have worn fur- lined clothing bought at the annual market in Bergen-op-Zoom. 86 With Bergen-op-Zoom, being a municipality and city in the Netherlands, it is likely that because of the geographical proximity, this would have also be a norm for Guelders. While this is true, there are other images of mantles that are not fur-lined, and so this appears to be an intentional decision to make the opening image that of her wearing fur, when it is known she wore fur-lined clothing in Cleves, perhaps also a reference back to her birthplace, but unquestionably a sign of her wealth.

At the top of the red architectural border framing the Virgin Mary and Christ Child is a small rounded niche for a statue of a saint. John Plummer asserts that the statue is a representation of St. Nicholas, the patron saint of the chapel in Cleves. 87 This would be

86 Thissen, “Catherine of Cleves (1417-1476), Duchess of Guelders and Countess of Zutphen. A Biographical Sketch,” 107. 87 Rob Duckers, “The Hours of Catherine of Cleves as an Object: a Codicological Approach,” in The Hours of Catherine of Cleves: Devotions, Demons and Daily Life in the Fifteenth Century (New York, 2010), 224-226

47 consistent with the rest of the imagery on both leaves because the majority iconography that is utilized is heavily and explicitly referencing Cleves, namely the heraldic imagery and her clothing. By using the patron saint of the chapel at Cleves, that assumes the chapel in the miniature is that chapel, rather than the one Catherine would use in her daily life in Guelders.

This decision is extremely unusual, because the miniatures in a book of hours, especially for a woman, should be extremely reminiscent of her life, and Cleves, at this point in her life, was no longer her home nor her regular place of worship. With this not being anything reminiscent of her immediate surroundings, or even her most recent memories with this being about ten years after her relocation to Guelders, it seems to translate that she put her political allegiances above her religious needs. If she truly wanted to become comfortable with Guelders and establish it as her home and the home of her children, she would use the image of the Guelders chapel in her illumination, or at least have the patron saint of Guelders represented somewhere on the page. It is extremely unusual, give that books of hours were made for and can be identified by the geographical location they were intended to be used in, but this completely goes against that convention. The Master of Catherine of Cleves would not do this without specific direction, because, as discussed earlier, this directly goes so against the custom for books of hours, and also because the use is self-reflection, the location confusion would, hypothetically, hinder the connection with the image itself. In an example from the Hours of Mary of Burgundy, who was also 15 th century duchess, she is seen having a visualization of the prayer she is reading where she places herself within her own chapel, the chapel she would have prayed in daily in

Burgundy, kneeling in the presence of the Virgin Mary and Christ Child (fig. 2.3). Catherine must have asked specifically for the miniature to depict Cleves, rather than Guelders, because

48 she is making a point to others that although she married into the Guelders duchy, she identifies firstly with the court of Cleves.

Lastly, in the bottom center of the leaf depicting Catherine is a coat of arms, divided in the center so to symbolize both Cleves and Guelders, and the union of Catherine and Arnold.

However, there is a significant, and I argue purposeful, heraldic mistake involving the crest that

88 surmounts the coat of arms: it is the Crest of Cleves, a red ox head, rather than the crest of

Guelders (fig. 2.4). This is a heraldic inaccuracy because traditionally, the husbands crest should surmount the coat of arms that signifies their union, for many reasons, including that they are uniting under his duchy. This is a heraldic decision that the artist, the Master of Cleves, would not have done without permission or direct request. The decision to overlook her husband appears to be a visual act of defiance against both the structure that required her to marry Arnold, but also more directly, Arnold himself. This visual representation illustrates that Catherine identified as the spouse who was actively enacting political moves, and this is supported by documented events; by this point in their marriage Catherine was stepping up into a political role to serve the best interests of their domain, more so than Arnold himself attempted. 89

Upon first glance, this miniature (figure 1.1) is a beautiful, extremely skillfully done example of an image of a wife and mother in perpetual prayer to the Virgin Mary holding the

Christ Child, for a medieval woman to use as a devotional guide. While this is an accurate description, there is so much more information loaded into these two pages about Catherine and

88 Thissen, “Catherine of Cleves (1417-1476), Duchess of Guelders and Countess of Zutphen. A Biographical Sketch,” 121. 89 For example, Catherine is credited with stopping Arnold from pledging Guelders and Zutphen to Philip the Good, which served in the best interests of the domain, despite this also likely being the lynch pin for his active anger towards Catherine. Joosting in Thissen, “Catherine of Cleves (1417-1476), Duchess of Guelders and Countess of Zutphen. A Biographical Sketch,” 117. 49 her life decisions, how she defines her own identity, and her influence in Guelders. In these two miniatures, the use of heraldry strongly asserts not only Catherine’s pride and acknowledgement of where she came from, but also pride and acknowledgement for what she has done through taking control of her life and alliances, and not yielding to her husband but rather fully exhibiting her actions as hers, despite the rules broken or traditions disregarded.

Instilling the Fear of God, the Seventh Gift of the Holy Spirit as compared to Catherine:

MS M. 917/945, p. 65 vs p. 68, p. 160

When comparing the miniatures for the sixth (fig. 2.5) and seventh (fig. 2.2) gifts of the

Holy Spirit, it is not possible to overlook the stark contrast in the way Catherine is portrayed versus her husband, Arnold. There is palpable resentment in the use a portrait of Arnold for this

Last Judgement set scene that explains the need and importance of the gift of fear of God. The

Master of Catherine of Cleves would likely not make this artistic decision on his own, as it is somewhat insulting to the duke, and if Catherine and Arnold had been on good terms she would have likely been alarmed that the only scene including her husband scene portrays him so vulnerably and overall appears as a noteworthy insult to him. However, given the turbulent state of their marriage, Catherine likely prompted the inclusion of Arnold in this critical miniature, so close to her own extremely flattering portrait to make a point about his behavior. This supports the accounts of steady marital problems they are reported to have suffered, and also supports

Catherine’s hand being visible in the planning of this manuscript.

In an article on medieval restructuring of the gender system, Jo Ann McNamara begins with the strong statement that, “Experience indicates that the masculine gender is fragile and tentative with weaker biological underpinnings than the feminine,” evidenced by the how

50 masculinity requires social support to maintain fictitious claims to superiority. 90 Especially when contrasted to the miniature two pages earlier of Catherine, as I believe it was intended to be, this miniature of Arnold breaks down any false claim to superiority from which Arnold might derive his identity and sense of entitlement. Society, as defined by some Guelders chroniclers,

91 often support his claim to superiority through the degrading of Catherine’s reputation.

However, Catherine has not only voiced but she has also evidenced her superiority to Arnold through her family lineage, verbal and political action throughout her life, and supported in her devotional. This superiority is certainly established through this illumination where Arnold appears weak and desperate in the presence of Jesus Christ and the devil at the event of the Last

Judgement, as contrasted to a confident pious Catherine illuminated just two pages prior.

In this half-page miniature, Arnold is to the bottom left of the Christ of the Last judgement (fig 2.1). Arnold is on his knees with his head thrown back to force eye contact with the elevated Christ. Starting near Arnold’s mouth is a banderole that is separating him from a dove with a cruciform halo, a representation of the Holy Spirit, suspended above his head. The banderole is identified in the catalogue Psalm 119, verse 20, which reads, “My flesh trembleth for fear of thee; and I am afraid of thy judgements.” 92 This exclamation from Arnold at the

90 Arthur Brittan, Masculinity and Power (Oxford, 1989), 46. Also referenced in Jo Ann McNamara, “The Herrenfrage: The Restructuring of the Gender System, 1050-1150.” In Medieval Masculinities: Regarding Men in the Middle Ages (Minneapolis, 1994), 3.

91 Thissen, “Catherine of Cleves (1417-1476), Duchess of Guelders and Countess of Zutphen. A Biographical Sketch,” 117. Theissen references three Guelderian historians, Joosting, Pontanus, Slichtenhorst, who believed the Catherine was exclusively driven by malice. 92 Psalm 119:120 – the Morgan Library catalogue translates this as, “Make my flesh tremble from fear of the Lord” however, that is not the translated line in any version I have found, and so I chose to utilize the translation of Psalm 119:120 from the source I have been using for every other Biblical passage reference in this thesis, the King James Version. 51 event of the Last Judgement is seemingly an acknowledgement of guilt for the sins of his lifetime; an acknowledgement, not necessarily an admission of guilt or regret, and a petition for forgiveness does not follow this exclamation. It is not a complimentary image in any setting to see a man of in a powerful role, such as Arnold’s title of Duke, admitting fear, wrongdoing., or any general wrong-doing. Nowhere in the manuscript do we see Catherine in such an unfavorable light, admitting guilt or sin, she is the most perfect version of herself in this manuscript and, although she would identify as God fearing, fear of judgement would not be a way that she would herself to be remembered. It would be very bold for the Master of Catherine of Cleves to have placed his duke, the husband of his duchess who commissioned this manuscript, in such a vulnerable position.

On Christ’s left appears the devil, countering that, “There is no fear of the Lord.” 93 This appears to be the devil’s attempt at convincing Christ to send him to hell, claiming that Arnold has no fear of the Lord and so Christ should not be fooled by his plea – this also would suggest

Arnold is lying to Christ himself by the devil suggesting his statement of fear was fabricated to deceive Christ into granting him salvation. Christ replies neutrally, not seeming to make a decision on the salvation of Arnold, stating, “Fear God and follow his commandments, this is true for all men” (fig 2.1)

Catherine and Arnold are never depicted together in this manuscript, although Arnold does follow closely after Catherine for this, his one, depiction in her book, likely was planned for a comparison to be drawn between their two illuminations. It would not have been unusual for

Catherine’s husband or even children to be depicted in this manuscript on a page with her in a favorable light, however this is not what Catherine chose to do with her manuscript. When

93 Psalm 35:2 KJV 52 compared to the DuBois Hours, commissioned for but not by Hawisia DuBois, the depiction of

Catherine’s husband definitely appears as rude joke; Hawisia’s portrait and the portraits of her immediate family members are formally placed at the very beginning of the manuscript in the same page as the Virgin Mary and Christ Child (fig. 2.6), before the Calendar, and in addition, their portraits and the family’s arms are included throughout the rest of her manuscript.

Acknowledging that the DuBois Hours was meant as a book of hours only for the matriarch,

Hawisia DuBois, this makes Catherine’s manuscript seem quite devoid of familial depictions, particularly images of her husband and herself. I believe it is very telling of their turbulent marriage that Catherine chose to exclude Arnold from her manuscript, with the exception of this one rather vulnerable and weak depiction where he is quite literally begging for his life, a stark contrast to Catherine calm and pious distribution alms to the poor just a couple pages earlier.

The miniature of Arnold vulnerably appealing to Christ at the Last Judgement, but then getting heckled by the devil, contrasts greatly to Catherine’s portrait where she is calmly and piously distributing alms to the poor outside their home. Aristotle held the false belief that men

94 were both intellectually and morally superior to women, a belief that supports the false claim of superiority based on and supported by gender, discussed earlier by McNamara. This miniature of Arnold enacting fear of God contrasted with the illumination of Catherine enacting piety displays Catherine as overwhelmingly superior to Arnold. Similarly, if one compares the miniature of Arnold enacting fear of God to the miniature of Catherine praying to the Crucified

Christ (fig. 2.7) Catherine appears both morally superior, for practicing regular prayer and devotion rather than living a life of sin and begging for salvation at the moment of the Last

94 Vern L. Bullough, “On Being a Male in the Middle Ages,” In Medieval Masculinities: Regarding Men in the Middle Ages (Minneapolis, 1994), 3. 53

Judgement as Arnold appears to be, but also intellectual superiority for appealing first and often, before her death or before the last judgement, directly to the Virgin Mary for intercession for her salvation, rather than going directly to Christ; This would be the intellectually superior action as compared to Arnold’s decision to appeal directly to Christ because Christ would be more

95 compassionate towards an intercession if it came from his mother, the Virgin Mary. Because

Arnold didn’t choose to repent before the last judgement, nor did her appeal to the Virgin Mary prior, shows his lack of preparedness and forethought which could possibly lead to his ultimate damnation.

One could read this intelligence as general intelligence, but also as preparedness in relation to possible issues that may arise; a strength of a political head is to be able to anticipate processes to produce the best outcomes. In the miniature of Arnold, he has not prepared for

Judgement day, and appears weak, concerned, and alone. He is outwardly begging to Christ to save his soul, and Christ seems extremely unphased by his plea. This is a stark contrast to the miniature of the Virgin Mary humbly praying to the Crucified Christ, where she is accompanied by a saint, likely strategically chosen based on patronage. She is participating in the ladder of salvation by praying to the Virgin Mary for intercession to Christ, who them brings, despite being in the middle of dying on the cross, her request for salvation to God the Father, whom grants Catherine her salvation – depicting Catherine’s piety, but also her deliberate, well thought out process. The Christ of the Last Judgement in Arnold’s miniature did not look at all emotionally affected by the very concerned terrified plea from Arnold concerning his judgement.

95 June Mecham, “Cooperative Piety among Monastic and Secular Women in Late Medieval Germany,” in Church History and Religious Culture 88 (2008): 584.

Contrastingly, the Crucified Christ in Catherine’s miniature, dying on the cross painstakingly asked for intercession from God the Father on behalf of Catherine. Her path to salvation is a well-planned path of attaining what she wants; in this case, salvation. This strategic mindset could be applied to political situations as well, highlighting how her religious strengths translate to her role as duchess and political figure. Illustrated in these and other miniature in this manuscript, and therefore undoubtedly in the mind of Catherine, she is positioned as far superior, both morally and intellectually, to Arnold.

It would be highly unlikely, if not impossible, for the Master of Catherine of Cleves to have taken the artistic license to make Arnold look both powerless and subservient to his wife,

Catherine, having not received explicit direction or meeting her to understand their marital dynamic. Scholars have stated that this manuscript must have been commissioned by Catherine’s husband, Duke Arnold, however this would not make sense for a myriad of reasons. Not the least of these reasons being that he is not only underrepresented, but where he is represented, he is absolutely dominated by a either portrait or otherwise iconographic representation of his wife,

Catherine.

CONCLUSION

“Although modern scholars have described this period of woman’s history as ‘the silences of the Middle Ages,’ women’s piety, like women’s art, seems not silenced and eclipsed but

96 resonant and visible as it had never been before” – this statement could not be more resonant to Catherine’s manuscript and how she utilized the platform of her manuscript to express her personal life, her political loyalties, and her desires for her religious life, all to establish herself on her terms. Catherine used her manuscript strategically as a way to mold her lifestyle into an externally pious and suggest an inwardly devotional religious practice through the employment of reflexive images and an active practice of contemplation. These images would have also served as memoriam for Catherine after the book was passed onto another family member or someone else, after her death. For this reason, how she is portrayed, always favorably, ever piously, in this manuscript would be how she wanted to be remembered – she would want to be remembered as the most religiously idyllic version of herself.

Given the prioritization of her own heraldry both in lineage and in her personal coat of arms,

Catherine actively ignored the tradition of the woman surrendering her own family crest for that of her husbands. The first miniature of the manuscript, acting as an introduction, Catherine surmounts her coat of arms with her own crest, the crest of Cleves, rather than that of her husband and Guelders, establishing superiority over her husband and loyalty to Cleves. In addition to his heraldic snub, with the only portrait of Arnold in the entire manuscript being that of his groveling at the feet of Christ on Judgement Day, Arnold’s image is further diminished as a weak sinner. Given their tumultuous marriage, from start to end, there is no doubt that

96 Kumler, Translating Truth: Ambitious Images and Religious Knowledge in Late Medieval France and England , 12. 56

Catherine would have been the one to request such a disparaging image of Arnold in her own manuscript. The Master of Catherine of Cleves would have never included these weak, inferior depictions of a politically powerful nobleman without the approval or request coming from the commissioner, Catherine herself.

Noblewomen from the Middle Ages are largely an elusive group because they have long been obscured by misogynist medieval historians, and the tenacity has just begun to be exercised towards this group Theresa Earenfight dubs the “privileged oppressed,” to make their stories and

97 the results of their largely self-granted agency more visible. Catherine of Cleves was an extremely self-confident, powerful, politically active duchess who has been recognized a patron of the arts because her beautifully illuminated book of hours became world-famous. Further analysis of her manuscript, the Hours of Catherine of Cleves, has brought to light so much about her life and character that would have likely otherwise gone unknown. Analysis of this manuscript also sheds light on the possibilities of other medieval noblewomen who have not yet been studied that aspired to, and perhaps attained, similar personal agency despite their underrepresentation in history books. This thesis has explored the author portraiture of the Hours of Catherine of Cleves and how it is a reflection of Catherine’s life and loyalties through close looking and comparative analysis. I encourage future scholarship to continue the exploration of manuscripts as personal reflections of their owners in order to humanize and give proper credit to the lives and the stories of those women and men.

97 Earenfight. "Highly Visible, Often Obscured: The Difficulty of Seeing Queens and Noble Women," 87. 57

FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Catherine of Cleves Praying to the Virgin and Child The Master of Catherine of Cleves MS M.917/945 The Hours of Catherine of Cleves Utrecht, the Netherlands, ca. 1440. 2 v. (164, 194 leaves) (1 column, 20 lines), bound: vellum, ill. ; 192 x 130 mm

Figure 1.2: The Master of Catherine of Cleves Detail of MS M.917/945 The Hours of Catherine of Cleves Utrecht, the Netherlands, ca. 1440. 2 v. (164, 194 leaves) (1 column, 20 lines), bound : vellum, ill. ; 192 x 130 mm

Figure 1.3: Workshop of the Boucicaut Master Book of Hours: ms. lat. 1161, fol. 290: Female donor venerating Madonna c.1409 Bibliothèque Nationale de France

Figure 1.4: Book of Hours: ms. L.A. 148, fol. 19v: Patron before the Madonna c.1400 Museu Calouste Gulbenkian

Figure 1.5: Book of Hours. Use of Paris. whole page Detail from Folio #: fol. 196r Manuscript 15th century, beginning and 15th century, second half Parchment French 198 x 143 mm

Figure 1.6: Hours of Isabella Stuart, Duchess of Brittany: ms. 62: fol. 20: Isabella before Virgin Mary and Child: det.: Isabella c.1417-18 Fitzwilliam Museum

Figure 1.7: Eyck, Jan van, 1390-1440 Madonna with Child Reading (Ince Hall Madonna) 1433 oil on wood National Gallery Of Victoria, Melbourne, Australia

Figure 1.8: Eyck, Jan van, Madonna in her Chamber 1435-36 oil on wood 65.5x49.5cm

Figure 1.9: Jan Van Eyck Madonna with Canon Joris van der Paele (La Vierge au chanoine Van der Paele.) detail of the Virgin Mary and Christ 1436 oil on panel 122.1 cm x 157.8 cm Musea Brugge-Groeninge Museum

Figure 1.10: Catherine of Cleves Distributing Alms The Master of Catherine of Cleves, The Hours of Catherine of Cleves The Netherlands, Utrecht ca. 1440 7 1/2 x 5 1/8 inches (192 x 130 mm) MS M.917/945, pp. 64–65

Figure 1.11: Pentecost Judgment of Solomon The Netherlands, Utrecht ca. 1440 7 1/2 x 5 1/8 inches (192 x 130 mm) Purchased on the Belle da Costa Greene Fund with the assistance of the Fellows, 1963 MS M.917/945, pp. 52

Figure 1.12: f 10V, Annunciation, Visitation (Hand Three) Christina Psalter 13 th Century Copenhagen, Royal Library GSK 1606

Figure 1.13: The Virgin Mary and the Crucified Christ Intercede for Catherine of Cleves The Netherlands, Utrecht ca. 1440 7 1/2 x 5 1/8 inches (192 x 130 mm) Purchased on the Belle da Costa Greene Fund with the assistance of the Fellows, 1963 MS M.917/945, pp. 160 70

Figure 1.14: Adoration of the Magi The Netherlands, Utrecht ca. 1440 7 1/2 x 5 1/8 inches (192 x 130 mm) Purchased on the Belle da Costa Greene Fund with the assistance of the Fellows, 1963 MS M.917/945, pp. 237

Figure 1.15: Detail: The Virgin Mary and the Crucified Christ Intercede for Catherine of Cleves The Netherlands, Utrecht ca. 1440 7 1/2 x 5 1/8 inches (192 x 130 mm) Purchased on the Belle da Costa Greene Fund with the assistance of the Fellows, 1963 MS M.917/945, pp. 160

Figure 1.16: The Master of Catherine of Cleves Detail of MS M.917/945 The Hours of Catherine of Cleves Utrecht, the Netherlands, ca. 1440. 2 v. (164, 194 leaves) (1 column, 20 lines), bound: vellum, ill. ; 192 x 130 mm

Figure 1.17: St. Nicholas The Netherlands, Utrecht ca. 1440 7 1/2 x 5 1/8 inches (192 x 130 mm) Purchased on the Belle da Costa Greene Fund with the assistance of the Fellows, 1963 MS M.917/945, pp. 280–281

Figure 1.18: St. Leonard The Netherlands, Utrecht ca. 1440 7 1/2 x 5 1/8 inches (192 x 130 mm) Purchased on the Belle da Costa Greene Fund with the assistance of the Fellows, 1963 MS M.917/945, pp. 288–289

Figure 1:19 Louis Tristan de Escamilla, 1586-1624 St. Louis, King of France distributing alms Oil on Canvas 96 ½ x 72” Musée du Louvre

Figure 2.1: Arnold of Egmond, Catherine of Cleves’ Husband, Praying to Christ The Netherlands, Utrecht ca. 1440 7 1/2 x 5 1/8 inches (192 x 130 mm) Purchased on the Belle da Costa Greene Fund with the assistance of the Fellows, 1963 MS M.917/945, pp. 68–69

Figure 2.2: Catherine of Cleves Praying to the Virgin and Child Annunciation to Joachim The Netherlands, Utrecht ca. 1440 7 1/2 x 5 1/8 inches (192 x 130 mm) MS M.917/945, ff. 1v–2r

Figure 2.3: Hours of Mary of Burgundy Mary of Burgundy reading her book of hours Vienna, ON, MS 1857 fol. 14v

Figure 2.4: Adolf of Egmond, Duke of Guelders, a knight in the Order of the Golden Fleece, 1468 The Hague, Royal Library Hs. 76 E 10, fol 67v.

Figure 2.5: Catherine of Cleves Distributing Alms The Master of Catherine of Cleves, The Hours of Catherine of Cleves The Netherlands, Utrecht ca. 1440 7 1/2 x 5 1/8 inches (192 x 130 mm) MS M.917/945, pp. 64–65

Figure 2.6: “DuBois Hours” for Sarum use. England, London? C. 1325-30 for Sawisia DuBois

Figure 2.7: The Virgin Mary and the Crucified Christ Intercede for Catherine of Cleves The Netherlands, Utrecht ca. 1440 7 1/2 x 5 1/8 inches (192 x 130 mm) Purchased on the Belle da Costa Greene Fund with the assistance of the Fellows, 1963 MS M.917/945, pp. 160 83

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bennett, Judith M., History Matters: Patriarchy and the Challenge of Feminism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007.

Brilliant, Richard. Portraiture . Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1991.

Brittan, Arthur. Masculinity and Power . Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell, 1989.

Bullough, Vern L. “On Being a Male in the Middle Ages,” In Medieval Masculinities: Regarding Men in the Middle Ages. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1994.

Calkins, Robert G. "Distribution of Labor: The Illuminators of the Hours of Catherine of Cleves and their Workshop." Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 69, no. 5. 1979.

Clanchy, M. T. From Memory to Written Record: England 1066-1307 , 2 nd edition, Oxford: Blackwell, 1993.

Clark, Robert L. A. “Constructing the Female Subject in Late Medieval Devotion.” In Medieval Conduct, edited by Kathleen Ashley and Robert L. A. Clark, 160–82. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2001.

Clark, Anne L. 1999. “Holy Woman or Unworthy Vessel? The Representations of Elisabeth of Schönau” In Gendered Voices , (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania, 1999) 34-51.

Crombie, Alistair Cameron, Science, Art, and Nature in Medieval and Modern Thought. London: Hambledon Press, 1996.

Decker, John R. "Aid, Protection, and Social Alliance: The Role of Jewelry in the Margins of the Hours of Catherine of Cleves." Renaissance Quarterly 71, no. 1, 2018.

Doyle, Maeve. “Late Medieval and Renaissance Illuminated Manuscripts - Books of Hours 1300 1530,” 2013. http://www.chd.dk/.

Duckers, Rob, “The Hours of Catherine of Cleves as an Object: a Codicological Approach,” in The Hours of Catherine of Cleves: Devotions, Demons and Daily Life in the Fifteenth Century, 74-99. New York: Abrams, 2010. New York: Abrams, 2010.

Earenfight, Theresa. "Highly Visible, often Obscured: The Difficulty of Seeing Queens and Noble Women." Medieval Feminist Forum 44, no. 1. 2008.

Erler, Mary Carpenter. Women, Reading, and Piety in Late Medieval England. Vol. 46. New York; Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Gorissen, F. Das Stundenbuch der Katharina von Kleve . Berlin: G. Mann, 1973.

Inglis, Erik, J. Faces of Power & Piety . Los Angeles, Calif: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2008.

Joosting, J. G. C. in John R Decker. "Aid, Protection, and Social Alliance: The Role of Jewelry in the Margins of the Hours of Catherine of Cleves." Renaissance Quarterly 71 (2018): 68.

Joyner, Danielle. Painting the Hortus Deliciarum: Medieval Women, Wisdom, and Time. University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2016.

Korteweg, Anne S, "The Master of Catherine of Cleves: Unique Genius or Teamwork." in Catherine of Cleves: Devotion, Demons and Daily Life in the Fifteenth Century, NY: Abrams, 2009.

Kumler, Aden. Translating Truth: Ambitious Images and Religious Knowledge in Late Medieval France and England . New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011.

Lanier, Kristina. "Heraldry: Medieval Team Uniforms and More: ALL Edition." The Christian Science Monitor, 1998.

Manion, Margaret M. and Bernard James Muir. The Art of the Book: Its Place in Medieval Worship. Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1998.

Marrow, James H. “Multitudo et Varietas: the Hours of Catherine of Cleves” in The Hours of Catherine of Cleves: Devotions, Demons and Daily Life in the Fifteenth Century. New York: Abrams, 2010.

------"Dutch Manuscript Illumination before the Master of Catherine of Cleves." Netherlands Yearbook for History of Art / Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 19 (1968): 51-113.

Marshall, Sherrin. The Dutch Gentry, 1500-1650: Family, Faith, and Fortune. 11. New York: Greenwood Press, 1987.

McNamara, Jo Ann. “The Herrenfrage: The Restructuring of the Gender System, 1050-1150.” in Medieval Masculinities: Regarding Men in the Middle Ages. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1994.

Mecham, June. “Cooperative Piety among Monastic and Secular Women in Late Medieval Germany.” Church History and Religious Culture 88, no 4 (2008): 581-611.

Mooney, Catherine M. Gendered Voices: Medieval Saints and their Interpreters . Philadelphia: University Pennsylvania Press, 1999.

The Morgan Library & Museum. "Glossary of Medieval Clothing Terms." April 23, 2018. Accessed March 15, 2019. https://www.themorgan.org/collection/Illuminating- Fashion/glossary.

Naughton, Joan, “A Minimally Intrusive Presence: Portraits in Illustrations for Prayers to the Virgin,” in Medieval Texts and Images: Studies of Manuscripts from the Middle Ages, ed. Margaret M. Manion and Bernard James Muir. Chur: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1991.

Nijsten, Gerard. In the Shadow of Burgundy: The Court of Guelders in the Late Middle Ages. 58. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Pastoureau, Michel. Les Armoiries. Vol. fasc. 20. Turnhout: Brepols, 1976.

Pearson, Andrea, Envisioning Gender in Burgundian Devotional Art, 1350-1530: Experience, Authority, Resistance. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2005.

Penketh, Sandra. “Women and Books of Hours,” in Women and the Book: Assessing the Visual Evidence . London: British Library, 1996.

Perkinson, Stephen. "Likeness,” Studies in Iconography 33, (2012): 15-28.

Plummer, John, and Catherine, of Cleves, Duchess, consort of Arnold, van Egmond, Duke of Gelderland. The Book of Hours of Catherine of Cleves . New York: Pierpont Morgan Library, 1964.

Reinburg, Virginia. “Prayer and the Book of Hours” in Time Sanctified: The Book of Hours in Medieval Art and Life. New York: George Braziller, Inc. in association with the Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, 1988.

Rudy, Kathryn M. Piety in Pieces: How Medieval Readers Customized Their Manuscripts. Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers, 2016.

Sand, Alexa Kristen. Vision, Devotion, and Self-Representation in Late Medieval Art. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Smith, Lesley M., Jane H. M. Taylor, and British Library. Women and the Book: Assessing the Visual Evidence. London: British Library, 1996.

Stuard, Susan Mosher, ed. Women in Medieval Society. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1976.

Thissen, Bert, ed., “Catherine of Cleves (1417-1476), Duchess of Guelders and Countess of Zutphen. A Biographical Sketch,” in The Hours of Catherine of Cleves: Devotion, Demons and Daily Life in the Fifteenth Century , 100-125. New York: Abrams, 2009.

Turner, Victor and Edith Turner, Image and Pilgrimage in Christian Culture: Anthropological Perspectives . New York: Columbia University Press, 1978.

Van der Velden, Hugo. The Donor’s Image: Gerard Loyet and the Votive Portraits of Charles the Bold. Burgundica 2. Turnhout: Brepols, 2000.

Walker Bynum, Caroline. "Patterns of Female Piety" in Crown and Veil: Female Monasticism from the Fifth to Fifteenth Centuries , 174-75. New York City, NY: Columbia University Press, 2008.

——— and the American Council of Learned Societies, Holy Feast and Holy Fast: The Religious Significance of Food to Medieval Women. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987.

Wieck, Roger S. and Pierpont Morgan Library. Painted Prayers: The Book of Hours in Medieval and Renaissance Art . 1st ed. New York: George Braziller in association with the Pierpont Morgan Library, 1997.

———Time Sanctified: The Book of Hours in Medieval Art and Life. First ed. New York: George Braziller, Inc. in association with the Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, 1988.

APPENDIX

THE MASTER OF CATHERINE OF CLEVES

The artist of Catherine’s manuscript is known as “Master of Catherine of Cleves.” 98

Nothing biographical is known about the artist, however since the rediscovery of half of the manuscript in the 1960s and the considerable research that has been done on the full manuscript that followed, he has become a benchmark for not only Northern Netherlandish manuscript illumination, but for Netherlandish art as a whole.99 Dutch manuscript illumination is now often identified by either preceding or following the Master of Cleves, and compared accordingly. A substantial amount of scholarship has been published on The Hours of Catherine of Cleves since the 1960s, driven by an enormous interest and attention brought to the manuscript following the

Morgan Library’s acquisition of the full manuscript. The interest in the Master of Catherine of

Cleves in the late 20 th century skyrocketed, as many scholars took an interest in the work of this accomplished illuminator, unfortunately almost all of these scholars completely fail to mention anything about the namesake of the manuscript, and whom I am arguing is also the commissioner and the content consultant – Catherine herself. Even presently, in an age where women from the past are more and more frequently given the public support that they were denied in their lifetime, she is left out of major rhetoric involving the manuscript. One example of this is a key text on the manuscript by John Plummer, who at the time of acquisition of the

98 It is also generally accepted that this artist was a man, although no evidence for that has been brought forward, it is not an assumption that has been challenged. Following scholarship that has previously been put forth, I will use the pronoun “he” when referring to the Master of Cleves. 99 See: James Marrow. “Dutche Manuscript Illumination before the Master of Catherine of Cleves.” Netherlands Yearbook for History of Art 19 (1968) 51. In the introduction to this article, Marrow states “It is not until the first half of the fifteenth century that there is sufficient surviving material to speak of a ‘North Netherlandish tradition’, and then only in book illumination. The surviving manuscripts attest to a quick and concentrated development; from its modest beginnings in the group of manuscripts of Dirc van Delft’s Tafel van den Kersten Ghelove of about 1405, Dutch book illumination reaches its peak within only thirty years with the Master of Catherine of Cleves” (51). 88 manuscript was Curator of Medieval Manuscripts at the Pierpont Morgan Library, focuses most of his analysis on the history of other scholars work on this manuscript, what has been proven and disproven, and his own findings. Plummer’s work offers very important ideas about artistic decisions made in the manuscript; however, Catherine is rarely brought up and when she is it is only in reference to her being the intended owner of the manuscript. Although Plummer and other scholars are completely justified in praising the Master of Catherine of Cleves for his creativity and careful consideration in the illumination of the manuscript, they fail to tackle the idea that Catherine was at all involved, or to infer what she might have wanted the manuscript to convey; given that this was a key tool used to further her own spiritual life and connection with the divine that she would want to make her feel empowered and contented, it would be shocking for a woman who is known for action and involvement to not choose to be involved in the production of something she would have consulted for use daily.

One debated detail of the production of the manuscript is the answer to how many artists worked on the art that fills hundreds of pages. Plummer asserted that the entire manuscript was done by the Master of Cleves, with no outside help, despite Gorissen’s earlier statement that the

Master of Catherine of Cleves was supported by a large workshop where every leaf of the manuscript was “passed from hand to hand in a sophisticated process of the division of labor”. 100

Gorissen’s statement admittedly more closely reflects the more traditional way manuscript production is known to have been carried out around this time period according to scholarship that has been carried out on this topic in the last 40 years. 101 In the late 1970s, scholar Robert

100 Anne S Korteweg. "The Master of Catherine of Cleves: Unique Genius or Teamwork," in Catherine of Cleves: Devotion, Demons and Daily Life in the Fifteenth Century, (New York, 2009), 45.

101 Korteweg. "The Master of Catherine of Cleves: Unique Genius or Teamwork," 47. Here Kortweg references an older piece of literature that the Master of Catherine of Cleves carried out his work in a shared space with many other illuminators in Guelders. 89

Calkins conducted extensive research on what Leon M.J. Delaissé called the “archeology” of the book. During this research Caulkins uncovered that Gorissen and other earlier scholars were mistaken, and that there were no large workshops with several assistants, and that this false assumption was product of “19 th century Romanticism and a mistaken parallel with the monastic scriptoria.” 102 Calkins acknowledges that other works that are attributed partially or entirely to the Master of Catherine of Cleves are often collaborations but cites the Hours of Catherine of

Cleves as one work where he did illuminate all the major pages and about half the text. 103 With only one artist, it would be more likely that Catherine was able to communicate her demands, as commissioner, directly to the artist himself, rather than a whole team being assembled; this makes it a much less mechanical production process and much more personal, and unique production overall, which the manuscript clearly reflects through the extremely original and eccentric illuminations included.

102 Korteweg, "The Master of Catherine of Cleves: Unique Genius or Teamwork," 49. Korteweg explains that the scriptorium is a separate writing room that existed in monasteries. This follows the same organizational structure that follows the need for separate sleeping and dining aread, however there are now claims that this organizational structure is employed similarily in medieval towns – and likewise it cannot be assumed there were separate meeting rooms for scriptoria. These assertions are based on research by J. Klein, Mary and Richard rouse, C. Paul Christianson, and others. 103 Robert G. Calkins, "Distribution of Labor: The Illuminators of the Hours of Catherine of Cleves and their Workshop," in Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 69 (1979) 54. 90